Destruction of Demand: How to Shrink Our Energy Footprint

- by Richard Heinberg, November 4, 2014, Post Carbon Institute

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"362","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 237px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]The human economy is currently too big to be sustainable. We know this because Global Footprint Network, which methodically tracks the relevant data, informs us that humanity is now using 1.5 Earths’ worth of resources.

We can temporarily use resources faster than Earth regenerates them only by borrowing from the future productivity of the planet, leaving less for our descendants. But we cannot do this for long. One way or another, the economy (and here we are talking mostly about the economies of industrial nations) must shrink until it subsists on what Earth can provide long-term.

Saying “one way or another” implies that this process can occur either advertently or inadvertently: that is, if we do not shrink the economy deliberately, it will contract of its own accord after reaching non-negotiable limits. As I explained in my book The End of Growth, there are reasons to think that such limits are already starting to bite. Indeed, most industrial economies are either slowing or finding it difficult to grow at rates customary during the second half of the last century. Modern economies have been constructed to require growth, so that shrinkage causes defaults and layoffs; mere lack of growth is perceived as a serious problem requiring immediate application of economic stimulus. If nothing is done deliberately to reverse growth or pre-adapt to inevitable economic stagnation and contraction, the likely result will be an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries, with innumerable human and non-human casualties. This may in fact be the most likely path forward.

Is it possible, at least in principle, to manage the process of economic contraction so as to avert chaotic collapse? Such a course of action would face daunting obstacles. Business, labor, and government all want more growth in order to expand tax revenues, create more jobs, and provide returns on investments. There is no significant constituency within society advocating a deliberate, policy-led process of degrowth, while there are powerful interests seeking to maintain growth and to deny evidence that expansion is no longer feasible.

Nevertheless, managed contraction would almost certainly yield better outcomes than chaotic collapse—for everyone, elites included. If there is a theoretical pathway to a significantly smaller economy that does not pass through the harrowing wasteland of conflict, decay, and dissolution, we should try to identify it. The following modest ten-point plan is an attempt to do so.

Air Pollution: Clean Up Our Skies

- by Julia Schmale, November 19, 2014, Nature

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"361","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"223","style":"width: 226px; height: 223px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"226"}}]]In December, the world's attention will fall on climate-change negotiations at the 20th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Lima, Peru. The emphasis will be on reducing emissions of long-term atmospheric drivers such as carbon dioxide, the effects of which will be felt for centuries. At the same time, the mitigation of short-lived climate-forcing pollutants (SLCPs) such as methane, black carbon and ozone — which are active for days or decades — must be addressed (see 'Compounds of concern').

SLCPs cause poor air quality and are responsible for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Particulate matter in the atmosphere is the leading environmental cause of ill health, and air pollution is causing about 7 million premature deaths annually. Interactions between warming, air pollution and the urban heat-island effect (which causes cities to be markedly warmer than their surrounding rural areas) will raise health burdens for cities worldwide by mid-century. Air pollution also damages ecosystems and agriculture.

Current air-quality legislation falls short. Existing measures would prevent just 2 million premature deaths by 2040. We estimate that around 40 million more such deaths would be avoided if concentrations of methane, black carbon and other air pollutants were halved worldwide by 2030.

Keep Corporate Polluters at Bay, Please Donate Today!

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"360","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 222px; height: 318px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"335"}}]]Energy Justice Network is one of the few national nonprofits in the U.S. organizing with grassroots communities to say NO! to all forms of dirty energy, from fracked gas, to coal plants, to biomass and waste incineration, to nuclear power.

Over 2014, we have raised $89,700 from individual donors, only $10,300 away from our goal of $100,000! Will you contribute $15-$150 for 2015 so we can keep helping communities like yours chase corporate polluters out of town?

We know there are a lot of organizations out there clamoring for your financial support, but here's what's different about Energy Justice Network:

1)   Grassroots- We offer our organizing expertise to communities fighting dirty energy proposals, empowering their advocacy, not taking it over. We provide the know-how gleaned from decades of experience pushing back against predatory polluters, so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel in your advocacy.

2)   Bang For Your Buck- Our lean and mean staff of sixmeans the vast majority of your tax-deductible donation directly funds grassroots community support work, instead of wasteful organizational overhead. Your money funds the organizing, networking, and informational resources needed to protect communities like yours from corporate polluters. 

3)   Taking the Hard Line- We believe that any energy source requiring a smokestack or cooling tower does more harm than good to the community that hosts it. We work to develop national solidarity to support only genuinely clean energy projects that don’t pollute the air or depend on finite and unsustainable resources.

Since 1999, Energy Justice Network has been there for you to provide community organizing support, networking, research, trainings, legal and technical support, policy analysis, and so much more! Will you help ensure we can build on this support in 2015 by donating today?

You can scour the nation and not find as focused, effective, and efficient organization as Energy Justice Network to support with your tax-deductible donation. We hope we can count on your help this year by making a $15-$150 donation for 2015!

In Solidarity,

Mike, Traci, Aaron, Alex, Josh, and Samantha

Covanta Settles for $536,211 in Lawsuit Over Biomass Ash Testing

-December 11, 2014, Bakersfield Californian

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"347","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 244px; height: 118px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]District attorneys from eight California counties announced Thursday the settlement of a civil environmental enforcement action against three subsidiaries of a New Jersey-based company.

The settlement covers Covanta Energy LLC's Kern County biomass energy facility in Delano, along with other company facilities in Mendota and Oroville.

Kern County will receive about $75,000 as its reimbursement for costs and penalties out of Covanta's total fine of $536,211.

Biomass energy plants burn forest, agricultural and urban wood fuels in order to generate electricity. They produce ash waste streams that are either sent to landfills or have other uses in road building or agriculture.

The civil enforcement action was filed in Sacramento County and asserted that biomass ash sampling and analysis at the three Covanta facilities was not sufficiently rigorous.

The facilities will be bound under the terms of a permanent injunction prohibiting any future violations of law and requiring adherence to the new sampling and testing program for their biomass ash.

In addition to Kern and Sacramento counties, other counties participating in the action were Butte, Fresno, Glenn, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne.

Biomass Incinerator a Threat to Children

- by Norma Kreilein, MD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

[The biomass facility proposed for Jasper, Indiana referred to in this letter was canceled this year thanks to the hard work of Dr. Kreilein and Healthy Dubois County –Ed.]

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"339","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"282","style":"width: 255px; height: 169px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"426"}}]]I am writing as a concerned pediatrician in Southern Indiana. We live in the heart of the power plant belt of the Midwest. For many years I have suspected that our local pollution is greatly responsible for our high rage of inflammatory processes, malignancies, and increasing rates of autism.

I have been trying to fight the addition of a biomass plant to our city. The city has long been an industrial base with many wood factories, so there has apparently been a high VOC load. In addition, we live near many power plants. There was a coal fired municipal power plant within the city limits and very near a residential neighborhod since 1968. The city has said that the plant has been shuttled for approximately the past 3 years because it isn't "profitable."

They have been planning a biomass refit for the past 3 years, although the plan became more public only less than a year ago.

Strong opposition was voiced from the time it was publicly mentioned, but the city has pushed the plant through, anyway. Much manipulation of emission data has occurred (averaging emissions out over the whole county to make them appear insignificant), but ironically one of the more interesting arguments is that the plant, though polluting and within 1/2 mile of a residential neighborhood, should nonetheless be built because the plant will decrease our dependence on coal fired plants.

Essentially the argument is to build more so we are not as dependent on the ones we can't seem to shut down. Many of the arguments against coal-fired plants are used by manipulative entities to justify continuing to poison the population. In our particular city, the greed for development appears to take precedence over the consideration of air quality.

Until the EPA begins to mandate states to use more accurate exposure models (better than averaging concentrated pollution over a county), states like Indiana and cities like Jasper will continue to actually increase pollution.

Biomass combustion is being sold to communities around the country by high pressure, ambiguous, unscrupulous carpetbaggers who promise "jobs" and "green energy" but are vacuuming precious federal funds to produce expensive energy that will never solve our dependence on foreign oil nor make our air any cleaner. Worse yet, they use existing knowledge about coal-fired plants and aggressive manipulative mathemathics to convince communities that the particulate/dioxin emissions will be nonexistent or "minimal."

The ultimate problem is that the same monitors and regulators that fail to close down coal plants will do no better with biomass. We will just spend more and think we feel better about it. 

December issue of Energy Justice Now | Celebrating 16 Victories for Clean Air in 2014!

Never fear, the December issue of Energy Justice Now — the national forum for the Dirty Energy Resistance — is here!

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"334","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 310px; height: 310px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]Inside this issue: Celebrating 16 Victories for Clean Air in 2014!

- 16 Victories for Clean Air

From Shock to Victory: The Planet’s “Immune System” at Work

Incinerator in Frederick, MD Canceled After Decade-Long Fight

...and more!

Please share the December 2014 issue of Energy Justice Now with your friends, colleagues, neighbors, media, and elected officials! 

Subscribe to monthly email issues of Energy Justice Now!

 

 

From Shock to Victory: The Planet’s “Immune System” at Work

- by Jan Baty, Newark Residents Against the Power Plant

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"335","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 318px; height: 480px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]As I saw Alex Lotorto (campus and community organizer for Energy Justice Network) step out of his car, unloading materials for the meeting he was to lead at my house, I had a flash back to how I had discovered the Energy Justice Network. In Newark Delaware, residents had taken on the enormous task of stopping a project the University of Delaware was considering, a data center power plant, proposed by The Data Centers, LLC (TDC), to be built in the heart of this college town and the university, at a former Chrysler plant site. The plans for the power plant had now grown to 279 megawatts —at least two times larger than any other on-site power generation facility at data centers in the US.

News of this proposal had been kept tightly under wraps for over a year by City of Newark staff, TDC, the State of DE and the University of DE until June 2013, when the CEO of TDC approached the local Sierra Club chapter seeking an endorsement for this project as being “green.” The alarm was raised by the directors, Stephanie Herron and Amy Rowe.

An official resident’s group was formed, Newark Residents Against the Power Plant (NRAPP), which by now had hundreds of members and dozens of working groups and neighborhood groups across Newark. Much effort was going into persuading city council to withdraw their support of this proposal. City council meetings were filled with passionate statements by citizens, including revelations of results from FOIA requests, and uncovered information about TDC’s plans. There was a continuous stream of letters to the editor of the Wilmington News Journal.  Knowing how long it often takes for governments to respond, some of us were eager to pour our energy into educating university faculty, and students about this —since most knew nothing about it!  We realized that if given enough pressure the University could certainly stop this project.

We formed a group of residents, faculty, and students, which became a resource for motivating the university community. Faculty (mostly in environmental studies) began reaching out to colleagues—students were quick to connect with environmental and other student organizations. 

I remembered an environmental lawyer I had met in Washington, DC. Perhaps he would know of a regional organization that could help us learn about how to make a difference on campus, that was also documenting evidence about the dangers of ‘natural’gas. We had a brief conversation. “Here’s Ralph Nader’s phone number. Call him.”I did. After leaving a message about our needs, I received a short message back. I could hear a humming sound of other people talking in the background, and a man’s voice in a hoarse whisper said “Energy justice.net …Mike Ewall”, and gave me his phone number. Feeling somewhat like a character in a detective novel, I phoned Mike.  What a relief to connect with this organization and to find out what a resource they are.  A later conversation with Alex revealed that he was traveling to DC and could stop on the way to give us a presentation.  Support was showing up.

Alex is a person of considerable warmth, intelligence, humor, courage and dedication. I cannot imagine surviving with what he takes in stride day after day. His presentation was organized around how to take an increasing complexity of information and possibilities and organize that into a more usable context. One chart, “The Midwest Academy Strategy Chart”, had five headings: GOALS, RESOURCES, PEOPLE, TARGETS, and TACTICS. 

As we organized our conversations around these, we began to realize how much we were already doing, and how to strengthen the contacts we were making. For all of us, this meeting gave us courage. There was a larger supportive world out there.

A series of actions and events evolved. 

•    We set up a Google group for sharing information, and a local Episcopal church offered us meeting space near campus for our increasing number of meetings with students.

•    We started planning a Teach-In on campus for the spring semester, which would present spokespeople from the residents, the TDC, and environmental faculty from the university.  This eventually happened and was a great success. 

•    A few people designed a White Board video presentation, (with hand drawings and a voice - over explaining the dangers of this project), that went viral.  

•    A number of concerned faculty wrote dynamic letters explaining their opposition to the project for the student newspaper. 

•    We were interested also in educating students to the Indigenous perspective. An opportunity opened up when a visiting outside environmental group traveling from campus to campus to raise level of awareness regarding environmental concerns, gave us space for a presentation at a free student dinner. We were able to invite two presenters, Dennis Coker, the Lenape Indian Chief and Amy Rowe, one of the founding members of NRAPP. Amy’s message was about the excitement of becoming an activist with heart. Dennis spoke of the importance in native tradition, of “Everything done for the community…A simple life…respect for self extending to respect for others and the planet.”

•    Out of that gathering came students’suggestion to have a rally on the main campus green (this was the first time since the 80’s when something like this had been done) where they cut out silvery grey strips of fabric donated to us —representing smoke—and waved them around as they danced in a circle, chanting enthusiastically.  Even some professors chimed in.

As NRAPP began taking a more active role on campus in addition to all of their speaking out at city council meetings, continual FOIA requests, and pointing out inaccuracies in the TDC’s continually changing proposals, they organized letter writing to the board of trustees, and alumni.  To create a strong presence at Decision Days on campus (when perspective students and parents would be visiting), the need for striking banners became clear. I went around to local hotels, asking for old sheets and then found people to make dramatic banners we could hold, one of them saying “Which Future Do We Deserve?”with smokestacks carefully painted on one side and flowers on the other.

And one more event that I found particularly moving—for the last board of trustees meeting before the summer break, students were asked to make and hold ‘Selfies’containing their picture, what they were studying and that they were in opposition to the power plant. What a feeling it was to come into the foyer from the parking garage to find a circle of young people standing quietly--their presence and statements saying it all. Certainly even a board of trustees would be moved by that!!

By May, as the momentum of concern within the town and the university continued to grow, the faculty senate voted 43-0 against the power plant, saying that the plant would be inconsistent with the university’s core values and signed commitments to environmental sustainability. Then from a July 11 News Journal article came the welcome announcement that the University of DE had terminated its lease with TDC after a year long debate over green energy and economic development in Delaware. “After more than a year fighting the project, opponents celebrated, gathering outside Old College Hall on Main St., hoisting signs thanking UD for its decision.” NRAPP co-founder Amy Rowe was quoted as saying “I think the University has learned that the University and the community are partners.”

Many yearn for community—people helping each other with shared concerns for the planet, which is our home. Sometimes this community emerges due to a shared threat, and then the ongoing challenge is to keep growing community to build the “art of the possible.” The acronym NRAAP has now changed to Newark Residents Alliance Project. The ‘immune system’ of the planet seems to be working. Organizations and resources such as The Energy Justice Network are at its core. Thank you for all you do.

Census Bureau Releases Biomass Incinerator Data

- by Erin Voegele, December 3, 2014, Biomass Magazine  

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"327","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 300px; height: 178px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: US Census Bureau"}}]]The U.S. Census Bureau recently released new economic census statistics on renewable energy, reporting that revenues for electric power generation industries that use renewable energy resources increased 49 percent from 2007 to 2012, reaching $9.8 billion. In 2007, revenue was only $6.6 billion. Biomass is among the four newly delineated industries addressed by the Census Bureau.

According to information released by the Census Bureau, the 2007 Economic Census included wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar electric power under the broad “other electric power generation” industry, under NAICS code 221119. By the 2012 Economic Census, those industries had been broken out separately, with the “other electric power generation” industry limited to only tidal electric power generation and other electric power generation facilities not elsewhere classified.

Bioenergy Pipelines?

- August 14, 2014, Waste Management World

[The latest bad idea coming out of the polluting bioenergy industry.]

 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"301","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"395","style":"width: 333px; height: 274px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]A scientist at the University of Alberta, Canada is research to determine whether it’s effective to use pipelines to transport agricultural waste used in biofuels.

According to the university, Mahdi Vaezi, a PhD student in the Faculty of Engineering, is looking at agricultural wastes such as straw and corn stover which are used as feedstock for bio-based energy facilities.

Vaezi’s lab is claimed to be the only one in the world conducting this kind of research on biomass slurries.

The university explained that biomass material derived from food and non-food organisms has traditionally been transported by truck, at great expense. However, when done at a large scale, transporting biomass materials by slurry pipeline could help make the cost of biorefineries competitive.

October/November issue of Energy Justice Now | Where the Climate March Tripped Up

Take a deep breath and prepare yourself for the October / November issue of Energy Justice Now, a forum for the dirty energy resistance.

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"299","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 480px; height: 480px; float: left; margin: 3px 10px;","width":"480"}}]]Inside this issue:

- Fossil Fuel Divestment: How to Evolve the Campaign

-  Are Carbon Taxes Another False Solution?

-  Biomass Energy: Another Kind of Climate Change Denial

...and more!

Please share the October / November 2014 issue of Energy Justice Now with your friends, colleagues, neighbors, media, and elected officials! 

Subscribe to monthly email issues of Energy Justice Now!