According to the topline data from a recent poll, 89% of the Virginian poll respondents support “Renewable energy projects, such as solar and wind power” … 69% strongly. The press release from the (self-proclaimed, astroturf) Consumer Energy Alliance (“a front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon”) somehow failed to mention this figure, something truly reflecting “consumer energy” preferences and desires, but instead focused on highlighting lesser and weaker support for projects like Keystone XL and Virginia pipelines. As to the Atlantic Coast pipeline, the CEA asserts that “Fifty-four percent support the project in Virginia.” (Note that a poll last fall found overwhelming opposition among Virginians to this pipeline.) In another inexplicable piece of absent information, CEA didn’t highlight that just 20% of those are ‘strongly support’ (a drop of 5 points since their previous “poll”).
While CEA’s breathless press release has some misleading elements, leverages (skews?) the polling to (in essence) threaten politicians (in essence, in likely misreading of the material from this somewhat skew poll: politicians watch out: voters will punish you for not supporting polluting energy projects (without, of course, the polling discussing pollution and having wording supporting the polluting energy projects (somewhat)), and is uncertain as to its overall validity, lots of interesting items throughout:
Yet another poll showing voters of all types STRONGLY support renewable energy projects.
Neither candidate for Governor in the Democratic Primary shows over 50% name recognition.
Dominion’s involvement doesn’t seem to change support for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Support for coal-fired electricity has significantly fallen since a 2015 poll, with a significant increase in opposition to coal-fired electricity (including a 9 percent jump in ‘strongly oppose’).
In terms of true skewing of the situation, the poll has multiple elements that I — as someone focused on energy issues — wished were true but simply don’t pass ‘the sniff test’. Here is the starkest example:
At least 80 percent of voters in each state say [energy] issues are very or somewhat important in their voting decisions.
Really? Really? Does anyone think that “energy”, in a governor’s election in Virginia, will influence the voting choices of 80 percent of the voters in any meaningful way?
Looking ahead, how important are energy issues in terms of how you will vote in the Gubernatorialelectionthis year? Are they very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not important at all in determining how you will vote?
The reported response: 31% “very important” and 52% “somewhat important”. Color me skeptical (to the extreme) Assuming absolute good will from an astroturf group seeking numbers to enable pressuring politicians, perhaps that “very important” and “somewhat important” response rate is an artifice of asking the question after a series of questions on — surprise, surprise — energy issues. Not even necessary to call this push polling to see the questionable nature of that result.
In short, while there might be some ‘interesting’ material to take from this poll results, make sure to take those results/that ‘interesting’ material with a grain of salt (and the press release with many grains of salt).
So I'm signing this directive to build a better future for our children, create good paying jobs for families & keep Va #1 on climate issues pic.twitter.com/rROvSmBSjM
While that tweet generated some ridiculing from clean energy activists, McAuliffe’s tweeting assertion raising the question: What does it mean to be “#1 on climate issues”?
Which States Lead on Renewable Energy Policy and Progress
How might we measure this? Here are some potential items:
Carbon Emissions per capita?
Energy use per capita?
Energy Efficiency? (home? business? car?)
‘Climate-aware policies’?
Industrial pollution?
“Leading the charge on renewable energy”?
Or …
Thus, a quick search for ‘what measurements’ might exist to help illuminate the question of who is “#1 on climate issues”. Essentially, across the board, Virginia is middle-of-the-pack (or toward the bottom) in results, , and policies to address climate change.
Table 1: Various Measures of States related to “Climate Issues”
Azraq refugee camp’s solar farm, Adeeb al Bassar, Jordan.
The 2-megawatt solar photovoltaic (PV) plant will allow UNHCR to provide affordable and sustainable electricity to 20,000 Syrian refugees living in almost 5,000 shelters in Azraq camp, covering the energy needs of the two villages connected to the national grid. Each family can now connect a fridge, a TV, a fan, have light inside the shelter and charge their phones,
Prior to this installation, the Azraq camp had infrequent, unreliable, and often simply inadequate electricity from the (over)stressed Jordanian grid. This 2 mw solar far turns this equation around and could well mean a net exporting of electricity to the grid.
Paid for with an Ikea grant, the solar farm eliminates the UNHCR’s electricity costs and thus frees up resources for meeting other humanitarian needs.
And, as (okay, sadly, if …) the refugee camp is dismantled when it is no longer required, these solar panels can continue clean electrons into the Jordanian grid.
Lost, somewhat, in the celebration of this milestone (first 100% clean electricity refugee camp) is the real power of this and ability to act in the future:
Refugee camps are typically ‘off-grid’ or in high-stressed environments with very high cost and high-pollution electricity (such as from diesel generators). Solar pv — which is dropping rapidly in price and increasingly cost competitive in straight out competition with fossil-fuel sources — can deliver electrons for a fraction of the cost of a diesel generator.
Like with the U.S. military in deployed operations, the straight dollar cost isn’t the only concern: one has to get oil to those diesel generators. Installing solar panels, by definition, reduces the amount of transportation required to support a refugee camp. And, in places with uncertain (or non-existent) security situations (think Somalia, Darfur, inside Syria, …), reducing that transportation doesn’t only save money but saves lives.
Solar pv is a natural with distributed grids — including those, like refugee camps, which can rapidly emerge and expand.
Now, one needs to be careful in calling this ‘green’, as it a truly ‘green’ refugee camp would be highly resource (energy and water) efficient, provide clean (including for example, low-VOC) housing that can be transitioned into long-term housing, have agricultural activities (from container gardening to developing permaculture in areas around the camp) to employ & feed the refugees, etc, etc …
The Azraq deployment is a good step forward and should be lauded as such. However, solar pv should be standard kit, not press release material, for the UNHCR.
Comments Off on The Power of Refugee Camps going Clean EnergyTags:solar · UN
May 19th, 2017 · Comments Off on When it comes to boxed vs bottled water, choose the tap …
Internet advertising … any who goes into those internet tubes encounters (far too much of) it. Most of the time, it just slips past us though there are those items that jump to the attention. Yes, I — like 100s of millions of others — have bought things due to such advertising. (Wow, advertising works … ) But, that advertising is far from always welcome and, at times, is just counter-productive.
Here is a short post on just one of those ‘counter-productive’ moments. A banner ad on a site promoting how ‘Boxed Water is Better’ caught my attention.
Upfront
Simple truth
Go with tap water.
Filter if you wish/must, but GO TAP!
That ad sent me to Boxed Water is Better with the promises for planting trees in exchange for online purchases and social media discussions/references. (Wonder whether this post will get two trees planted.) WOW! Isn’t that great, rather than those plastic bottles you can have ‘natural’ containers for your water. Wonder the web and isn’t hard to find stenographic-like posts touting the benefits of ‘boxed water’.
Let’s be more accurate in the description:
Boxed water is not nearly as bad as glass-bottled water and, in many (perhaps even most) circumstances, won’t be as bad as plastic-bottled water.
In extremely few circumstances (exceptions are horrid situations like Flint … with exceptions even to that) is real analysis likely to find that ‘boxed water is better than (decently filtered) tap water.
However, “Boxed Water is Not Nearly As Bad” isn’t that powerful an advertising slogan, able to carve into the >$100B/year bottled water market.
Richard Clarke served the United States in multiple roles, gaining his greatest fame due to his harsh criticism of the Bush White House for ignoring/down-playing his urgent calls for attention to Al Qaeda in the months leading to the 9/11 attacks. Clarke has served the nation in other ways, including a series of thoughtful, illuminating and (extremely well-written) books on terrorism, intelligence, cyber-warfare and, the latest to be released in a few weeks, on learning how to bring to the fore Warnings from experts before catastrophe hits.
Millions of lives lost to catastrophes – natural and man-made – could have been saved by the advance warnings of experts. Can we find those prescient people before the next catastrophe strikes? …
In Greek mythology Cassandra foresaw calamities, but was cursed by the gods to be ignored. Modern-day Cassandras clearly predicted the disasters of Katrina, Fukushima, the Great Recession, the rise of ISIS, and many others. Like her, they were ignored. There are others right now warning of impending disasters, but how do we know which warnings are true?
This is the story of the future of national security, threatening technologies, the US economy, and possibly the fate of civilization.
Certainly, there are many Cassandras when it comes to climate change’s realities and threats. Cassandras routinely ignored by the American mass media (to a greater rather than lesser extent) and ridiculed by Trump and his GOP supporting cast.
This Energy BOOKSHELF moment, however, is not about the power of Clarke’s recounting of the realities of what he faced (and learned from) government service nor the insights in his non-fiction analytical works but another aspect of his work: his fiction. Clarke is, again, an eloquent writer who knows how to communicate. He has turned his attention, at times, to fictional works which, occasionally, I’ve taken the time to read. At the library, the other day, I bumped into Pinnacle Event and grabbed it for a week-end ‘escapism’ read. Little did I know, when leaving the library, that I was carrying what might be the most powerful and insightful CliFi (Climate Fiction) book that I have read to date.
NOTE:
SPOILER ALERT: after the fold details that reveal key plot elements.
Pinnacle Event is an excellent ‘thriller’ … reading ‘after the fold’ will lessen the book’s dramatic impact.
A watched pot never boils is a truism that speaks to a reality: Humans have a difficult mentally registering slow change (how do you register your child’s growth day to day) even as the change impacts our lives in tangible manner (buying clothing to replace that they grew out of).
Sea-level rise is one of the most predictable of climate change impacts. We know the seas are rising and we know that there will be more sea-level rise. Yet too many seem oblivious to the obvious. Around the world, too many in the private sector, government, and the public are failing to plan for sea-level rise’s foreseeable consequences. We need to leverage communication tools, of all sorts, to change this equation: to motivate action to mitigate climate change (to slow/reduce the future sea-level rise in the decades/centuries to come) while sparking investment to adapt to the inevitable rise in the years and decades ahead. And, art has a role to play — from the subtle to the in-your-face signal. This Venice sculpture is just that sort of messaging:
According to Halcyon Gallery, “The hands symbolise tools that can both destroy the world, but also have the capacity to save it. At once, the sculpture has both a noble air as well as an alarming one – the gesture being both gallant in appearing to hold up the building whilst also creating a sense of fear in highlighting the fragility of the building surrounded by water and the ebbing tide.”
Venice is a floating art city that has inspired cultures for centuries, but to continue to do so it needs the support of our generation and future ones, because it is threatened by climate change and time decay,’
For Virginians aware of the Commonwealth’s tremendous risks from climate change and (potentially even more) tremendous opportunities for prosperity through climate action, the past few days had some real buzz. Governor Terry McAuliffe was going to make a climate-related announcement at Alexandria ReNew?. That event has come and past.
Okay, I’ve read … and reread … and reread Executive Directive 11 and return to Wendy’s question: Where’s the beef?
A year ago, well into his third year, Governor McAuliffe issued Executive Order 57 which, well, kicked the can down the pike on climate change directing a year-long study to figure out what Viriginia should do to address climate change. The study count rises even as sea level increases. Yes, worthwhile to have study but substantive action is urgently required. At the end of that year process, what did McAuliffe order: some more study and (potential) regulation development. Here is the substantive directive material:
1. Develop a proposed regulation for the State Air Pollution Control Board’s consideration to abate, control, or limit carbon dioxide emissions from electric power facilities that:
a. Includes provisions to ensure that Virginia’s regulation is “trading-ready” to allow for the use of market-based mechanisms and the trading of carbon dioxide allowances through a multi-state trading program; and
b. Establishes abatement mechanisms providing for a corresponding level of stringency to limits on carbon dioxide emissions imposed in other states with such limits.
2. By no later than December 31, 2017, present the proposed regulation to the State Air Pollution Control Board for consideration for approval for public comment in accordance with the Board’s authority pursuant to Virginia Code § 10.1-1308.
Okay, yes, it is worthwhile for Virginia government officials to develop draft regulations that would enable Virginia to participate in carbon trading that can be put forward for public comment.
Hmmm … read that previous sentence … are you asking “where’s the beef”, too? This legitimately merited ‘buzz’ and a special signing announcement?
No, this isn’t Governor McAuliffe announcing
A deal with Dominion Virginia Power for constructing a 500 megawatt offshore wind farm along with the infrastructure in the Tidewater area to support the construction and operations of projects not just off Virginia but along the Atlantic coast — that would create economic activity, jobs, reduce electricity costs, improve energy resiliency, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
A green schools program that would boost Virginia educational achievement, improve the health of Virginians, create jobs, save money, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
The leveraging of the Volkswagen settlement money for sparking a transition to plug-hybrid electric and electric school and transportation buses throughout the Commonwealth that would dramatically reduce health-risks to students, improve educational performance, save money, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
Something … well … something tangible.
So I'm signing this directive to build a better future for our children, create good paying jobs for families & keep Va #1 on climate issues pic.twitter.com/rROvSmBSjM
With all due respect, Governor McAuliffe, Virginia is far from “#1 on climate issues” and, although I hoped your announcement this morning would move the ball forward in a tangible manner toward #1, Executive Order 11 won’t do much to move it in that direction.
Sometimes the jaw dropping moments break through the floor. For U.S. national security professionals (and, well, anyone associated with intelligence in the United States or any allies), Donald Trump’s blustering blabbering of extremely sensitive material to the Russians is causing lots of jaws to break lots of flooring. (Perhaps a good time to be in the floor repair business??) But, while he is really good at it, it is isn’t only Trump who causes jaws to drop.
Shared with me this morning was a paper ‘published’ by Omics Online (for a perspective re Omics and here) by its newly created (Dec 2016 first issue) “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” ‘journal’. This paper, “The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative,” led to multiple jaw breaking floor events in just a few moments. (Anyone know a good floor repair team?) With this item in a (claimed to be) ‘peer-reviewed’ journal, we have an excellent example of the proliferation of nonsense and the very sad reality of the need for thoughtful people to take the time and energy to refute that nonsense. To provide a perspective, someone just sent me this note:
Truth is at a disadvantage
Ok, I just looked at the paper. It is a joke right?
And, the ‘refutation’ challenge doesn’t only eat up time and energy … but creates the chasing the lie challenge. (Churchill’s adage, “a lie gets halfway around the world before the the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”) The lie remains there, to be counted in ‘peer-reviewed’ material, to be used/abused by unknowing knaves and deceivers alike, with the truth missed by the knave and knowlingly ignored by the deceiver.
The ‘duck and cover’ is rather popular, as the citizenry is enraged. Whether Trump’s corruption, the despicable approach to refugees and immigrants, Trump Care, #TrumpRussia, and/or … issue after issue is motivating ever more Americans toward outrage at the GOP’s outrageous malfeasance as exemplified by Donald Trump. Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey is likely to lower further Trump and the GOP’s approval rating and make town halls even more toxic for Republican politicians.
The following video provides a snapshot of how climate change discussions are playing out in Republican townhalls across the country, with a very eloquent articulation of the issue at hand by the videographer, Peter Sinclair, as its conclusion.
Comments Off on Townhalls getting hot for @GOP PoliticiansTags:Energy
May 10th, 2017 · Comments Off on Three @GOP Senators put taxpayers, citizens, common sense, nation before Party: #Methane vote
Amid these very tense and troubled times — with the Arctic potentially passing a climate tipping point and U.S. Democracy at (hopefully not past) a tipping point — it is valuable to recognize and even celebrate hopeful signs.
Today, in something that surprised many, three GOP Senators (Collins, McCain, and Graham) voted with Senate Democrats to turn back a Republican Party priority to rip off the taxpayers and worsen our pollution situation.
Effort to overturn Obama’s methane rule fails in senate
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans were dealt a blow Wednesday in their bid to overturn a controversial Obama-era regulation limiting the amount of methane that can be vented and flared from oil and g…
fuelfix.com
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a rather dastardly piece of law which has been rarely used prior to the Trump-ista Kakistocracy*. The CRA, in essence, is that Congress can reject an Administration regulation … and, in doing so, makes it essentially impossible for future regulation to be imposed in that arena. The Republicans have been going hog wild with the CRA, primarily on Obama Administration environmental-related regulations, in ways that will worsen our ability to tackle energy, environmental, health, fiscal, and climate challenges.
The Methane rule that this vote relates to, in short, tackles the reality that oil and natural gas exploiters have been allowing significant releases of methane in their projects on Federal land.
On federal and tribal lands alone, oil and gas companies waste more than $330 million of natural gas annually that could heat homes, power vehicles or generate electricity.
As Methane is, in the near (20-year time frame), about 80 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming, that leakage is pretty bad from a climate change perspective. It also is a bad deal for the taxpayer: the rules around the leasing didn’t count that leakage for royalty purposes. By addressing that gap, the Obama methane rule created a serious financial and legal incentive for those operating on Federal lands to reduce their methane leakage and flaring. This will lead to increased payments into the Federal treasury and reduced climate impacts from these projects. All in all, a reasonably good deal for American citizens.
Of course, what oil company wants to pay more in royalty payments? And, of course, that put killing the Obama methane rule on the top of the agenda for Pruitt, Zienke, and other GOP eminences.
But after some key defections from Republicans ranks, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., [and Susan Collins, R-ME] the vote was 51-49 to block the repeal from moving ahead.
In these troubled times, we should recognize and celebrate good news items … and, well, make the effort to recognize and thank GOP politicians when they do act in the public interest.
VP came to Capitol in hopes of casting tie-breaking vote on methane rule, but it failed 49-51 in huge win for our health & climate! #Resistpic.twitter.com/uZtnsn1MVM
