Get Energy Smart! NOW!

In the June 2012 National Defense magazine, Lawrence Farrell, Jr, the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA)’s national director asked the question: “New American Oil Boom: Will it Slow DoD’s Renewable Energy Momentum?” Farrell’s OPED laid out a reasoned case as to why it remains in the U.S. national interest — and in the Defense Department’s interest — to continue pursuing energy efficiency and renewable energy, even with shale natural gas and shale oil production increases.

Not surprisingly, Farrell’s OPED engendered responses both online and in the magazine. This all became apparent to me when picking up a copy of the August 2012 National Defense at the NDIA display table at the 2012 GreenGov conference. A few days later, I opened the issue and the following words jumped out:

The administration and Defense are all hung up on human-caused global warming ….

erroneous assumptions built into United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models. The resulting flawed projections of global temperature, which are now challenged by a wide body of scientific authorities, do not reflect the actual global temperature history nor its steady value since 1998.

The sooner we reject the global warming theory and get on with the “boom,” the sooner Defense can develop strategic plans based on greater independence from foreign sources.

Yup, rather standard denier tripe as part of material handed out at a ‘green’ conference run, in part, by the Association of Climate Change Officers (ACCO).

Sigh …

These words came in a letter signed by Admiral Thomas Hayward, US Navy (retired), who served as the Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Ed Briggs, USN (retired), and Captain Deke Forbes, USN (Ret.). Note that term, in the letter, “authorities”. In the letters section of a military magazine, a retired four-star officer (who headed one of the nation’s military services) is a pretty serious authority who carries serious weight as an authority — a question to ask is whether this “authority” applies to the issue at hand.

To make something clear, Hayward’s letter is — in no small part — an attack on the military’s biofuels program. While I disagree with ADM Hayward, et al, about the question as to whether there is a military role in the development of alternative fuels to advance national security interests, this is an arena for legitimate policy debate, discussion, and dispute. However, this debate, discussion, and dispute should be based on facts and participants should engage truthfully in issues of such fundamental national security.

When it comes to that mandate, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence. The three authors statements when it comes to climate change / global warming are (at best) misleading and disingenuous if not outright falsehoods.

1. “now challenged by a wide body of scientific authorities“: What is meant by “scientific authorities”? Seeing those words, most people might think of groups and institutions like the National Academies of Science (US), the Royal Academies of Science (UK, NZ, Australia, Swedish, Irish, etc), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Metereological Society (AMS), American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), etc … If we look to the world’s scientific institutions, they are united in backing climate science: that the globe is warming, that humanity is a driving factor, that this could have significant implications, and that we should work to reduce humanity’s impact. Perhaps the three authors believe that the world’s scientists and the scientific community are in a secret cabal to deceive people and are absolutely unethical in their science and scientific work. This is a serious charge, even if simply implied, and — as above — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. “sooner we reject the global warming theory”. Sigh (again).  There isn’t a thing called “Global Warming Theory“.   Rather, there is  group of scientific findings and principles that have been well understood for decades, in some cases, centuries, that are implemented all the time by engineers, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and others that have to do with energy, gases, and planetary systems.  It has been known for over a century that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would warm it.  In recent decades as the warming has happened, as predicted, we’ve learn exactly what many of the effects of that warming are and we have most recently found out that some of the effects are much worse than we thought. Questioning the science of climate change by singling out a “Global Warming Theory” is like questioning our ability to build a safe and effective Nuclear Navy by singling out one of those crazy “Nuclear Decay” theories  that people who think aliens walk among us use to get around the theory of relativity and allow rapid space travel.
3. “steady value since 1998.” is a well-worn canard to confuse. No one serious about climate science says (a) that there is no natural variation in weather patterns nor (b) that humanity is the only thing that matters. 1998 was hot because of the significant 1997/98 El Nino. However, as to no warming since, the 2000s were hotter globally than the 1990s, the 1990s hotter than the 1980s, the 1980s hotter than the 1970s. (By the way, the authors’ perspective is made clear here — there are few ‘skeptics’ out there any more who continue to assert that the planet isn’t warming.) When one speaks to climate, one speaks to trends and longer periods.  One does not peg everything on a specific year as these three authors did.  That “inconvenient fact” is nonexistent if one starts at 1997 or 1999 rather than 1998.  And, well, if one uses (more appropriately) 30-year trend lines, that global warming pattern is quite clear.  The following graphic gives an understanding of the games being played by picking “1998” rather than looking for long-term impacts. (The below doesn’t include 2011 and 2012’s record breaking temperatures.)
4. 

Perhaps the authors, all three retired U.S. Navy officers, should spend some time listening to and talking with Rear Admiral David Titley, U.S. Navy, the Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. Prior to this post, Titley was the Oceanographer of the Navy and head of Task Force Climate . RADM Titley once was a “hard-core skeptic” until he examined the evidence and, as a scientist, was open to the evidence convincing of the reality of global warming and of humanity’s role in driving global warming.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence. While the letters’ three authors have, by their title and the careers / experiences those titles exude, established authority when it comes to issues of military operations, capabilities, and other defense programs, one must wonder whether their ranks confer them the same “authority” when it comes to scientific issues.  Considering how the assertions in their letter fly in the face of the world’s top scientific associations, National Defense‘s editors should have required the authors to provide substantive evidence to support their accusations and claims before National Defense published these misleading — if not more accurately described as false — words.

Sadly, attacks on climate science are significantly driven by political agendas. In no small part, that agenda is very closely connected to the opening of the letter: taking climate science seriously requires taking a serious look at our energy use patterns and opportunities for paths forward different than those of the past. And, those threatened by those shifts — such as fossil fuel companies — fund significant efforts to confuse the public about the realities of climate science. ADM Hayward and his coauthors provide, it seems, a good example of the success of those disinformation efforts.

PS:

• In addition, when it comes to ADM Hayward/et al’s letter, let us be clear: Larry Farrell did not mention climate change. He spoke to other significant issues – such as the global nature of the oil market, vulnerability of those markets, and the Achilles Heel that fossil fuel dependency places on U.S. military forces.
• RADM Titley’s TED talk follows. He said that this should be called a “reformed smoker’s brief” — of one who had moved from “hard-core skeptic” to someone convinced that climate change is one of the most serious challenges of the 21st century.

While I plan to return to this, for a more substantive discussion when I have time, I spent several hours at the Green Festival, DC, yesterday and found this worthwhile.

At the DC Convention Center, today is the second/last day and I would recommend this to others.

Among (many) interesting, surprising, enjoyable items:

• Electric / otherwise bikes:  There are a number of interesting electric bikes companies and concepts there. How about, for example, a ‘cargo’/food service electric bike that has a solar panel on top of its cargo space.  Think about this … a trickle recharging of the electric assist for the bike even as your are pedaling.  And, an electric assist bike that has the ability to pull something like 700 lbs of cargo.  Hmmm … how about moving a couch with that electric assist bike?
• Fair trade cloth frisbees:  As a (sigh, former) fanatic ultimate frisbee player, frisbees can catch my eye.  The only purchase at the Green Festival: a fair trade cotton frisbee weaved in Guatemala.  Foldable for taking along with the kids to a park to throw around with friends and I won’t wince when it hits the pavement (the edges won’t get scratched).
• A hand-held device to measure the contaminants in clothing products.  Found that the ACCO ‘giveaway’ business card holder made from recycled products was well within the safe lead limits and that the lead that registered likely came mainly from the printed on logo and not the product itself.
• Ford: Ford is a major sponsor of the Green Festival, with handling the waste (recycling, compost, and (minimal) landfill).  They are there gunning for Toyota and, well, as a Toyota (Prius) owner, they do a pretty convincing case.  The floor display is strong, highlighting how they are using bio-based products increasingly in their cars (seats and otherwise), with a salsa to taste made solely from ingredients used for the car.  Yumm … Test drove two cars and, well, my kids (who, for their age, are pretty knowledgeable efficient car consumers) were enthusiastic about both of them.

I need to run to do some family things … but recommend, highly, going to Green Festival, DC, today if you are in the DC area.

Gene Vashing speaks for “Coal, Oil, Gas America” about how environmentalists seek to destroy the job creation opportunities due to significant fossil fuel use.

Now you see we’re just COGs in this great machine we call America …Coal, Oil, Gas … Why, that’s just nature.

Let’s join Gene and fight to end “COGBashing”.PS: And, by supporting COG, like Romney-Ryan, fight to increase America’s and Americans’ energy prices and energy costs.

The Romney-Ryan energy plan has been appropriately castigated for embracing and enshrining fossil fuels while disdaining and dismissing renewable energy systems (and, well, totally ignoring energy efficiency).  (One could say that the Romney-Ryan campaign is rejecting energy from heaven and embracing (with passion) energy from hell.) With mindless ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ cheering, enraptured sonnets for Keystone XL, and falsehood-driven claims of a ‘War on Coal’, too many seem to be missing fundamental realities about the Romney energy plan: it will raise costs for Americans.

Let’s put aside that executing the myopic embrace of fossil fuels would greatly exacerbate health impacts from pollution, climate change, and other “externalities’ (fossil) foolishly kept out of the contractual price(s) of our energy system. Even without counting these devastatingly serious costs, the Romney-Ryan plan would likely raise America’s and Americans’ energy costs. Why?

• In capitalism, basic supply/demand curves rule in a clean market space.  Energy efficiency comes in at lower price than energy production in our buildings and in our transportation. Through abandoning any pretense of targeting demand destruction and solely focusing on supply, the Romney-Ryan plan emphasizes the more expensive side of the equation and would put the nation on a spiral of ever-increasing energy costs/prices.
• When it comes to oil, tomorrow’s oil sources are more expensive than yesterday’s.  Shale oil, tar sands, deep offshore oil, drilling in the Arctic are not only more polluting but also more expensive.  Jed Clampett like discoveries of ‘bubbling crude‘ are a thing of the past.
• And …

Let’s take a short moment to consider electricity prices.

• While it seems a Republican mantra that clean energy sources like wind and solar are expensive, this whine turns out to be based on a stove-piped focus on the direct unit prices rather than the system impacts. It turns that the introduction of renewable energy systems are driving down overall electricity prices through shaving down the number of peak electricity hours.
• The Romney-Ryan pained claims of a “War on Coal” fundamentally misrepresents the situation. Coal demand in the U.S. electricity system isn’t collapsing due to government policy but from a simple reality:  coal cannot compete, on a cost basis, with natural gas nor with energy efficiency.  And, new coal plants are not cost-competitive against wind systems nor natural gas electricity.  Simply put, the market is working to drive coal out of America’s electricity supply.

Consider that point for a moment. The Romney-Ryan plan embraces coal — an energy product that the market is rejecting, even without pricing into the equation coal’s significant health impacts and global warming implications.  With its “War on Coal” rhetoric and falsehoods, the Romney-Ryan campaign (and RWSM) seeks to confuse Americans about the reasons for coal’s unprecedented collapse.

the nation’s electric utilities used 18 percent less coal in the first half of 2012 than they did in 2011, and 27 percent less than they did during the peak year, 2008.

As of earlier this year, coal usage in the electricity industry has fallen to 1986 levels. In fact, coal is now down to roughly one-third of America’s electricity generation and heading lower.  And, this is being driven by market economics — that market which is (after, perhaps, reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans) seemingly at the core of Mitt Romney’s political agenda.  Coal is falling off the table as a fuel of choice for the electricity industry because, simply, it can’t compete and is more expensive than other options.

By rejecting energy efficiency, by rejecting clean-energy options (that would remove the risks of fluctuating and rising energy prices), by promoting coal as central to America’s future energy system, the Romney-Ryan energy ‘plan’ would raise America’s and Americans’ energy prices.

…

And, oh by the way, moving beyond energy “prices”, let us be clear:  execution of the Romney-Ryan energy agenda would increase, horribly, the costs of America’s and Americans energy use through worsened health, productivity, environmental, and climate change impacts.

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (ret’d) opens The Burden‘s trailer with these words:

Oil, natural gas, coal have been very good for the United States …

Key to his words: “have been”.

Rich natural resources have been key to America’s emergence, over the centuries, into a global powerhouse. Combined with (regulated) capitalism enabling best practices (mainly) to come to top, freedom of speech within a democratic society, and an open embrace of people from around the world, America’s rich fossil fuel resources were critical for U.S. development: from the coal powering Civil War railroads and steamships, to America’s oil fueling the Allies in World War II, to the natural gas fueling chemical industry advances, fossil fuels had a serious role in making America great.

However, fossil fuels have turned from a great enabler into a serious Achilles’ Heel. The risks are economic, environmental, and — on a very fundamental level — national security in nature.  In a process that has taken decades to mature (with significant movement forward, by the way, during the Bush Administration), the U.S. military is (all the military services are) becoming ever more aware of the risks from dependency on fossil fuel energy sources and the opportunities that emerge from embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE).

These benefits range from very tactical (increased range for vehicles, ships, and aircraft), to operational (reduced requirements for fuel convoys and fuel escorts freeing up forces and creating operational flexibility), to strategic (reduced oil dependency could change the national security relationship with the Middle East).  And, the benefits will come from reduced casualties, increased capabilities, reduced financial costs, and other valuable impacts.

Watch the trailer.

These are voices worth listening to. And, well, if the entire film lives up to the quality of the trailer, this is a film that truly merits watching.

Hat tip to Operation Free and their discussion of the California Energy Security Coordination Act of 2012:

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Energy Security Coordination Act (S.B. 1409) into law today, which will direct the governor of research and planning to coordinate energy policies with the U.S. Department of Defense in order to resolve conflicts that might arise in the military’s research, development, and deployment of clean energy in California. The bill, which passed unanimously in the Senate and with only two ‘no’ votes in the Assembly, was sponsored by Operation Free, parent organization of the Truman National Security Project.

Related: Coherent discussion of Energy Smart military practices and thinking are a key path to fostering a more informed and, well, even bipartisan energy discussion. See here.

Talk about a catchy conference title:

Recycling lands on FBI’s most-wanted list

While it might not go as far as Don’t Mess With Texas, this does allow one one to imagine a crumpled aluminum can on a Post Office poster alongside a mass murderer.

This was the title for the first presentation in the GreenGov panel discussion on “Managing Waste & Recycling Programs”. With presentations from the FBI, Department of the Army, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, this session provided windows on the opportunities, challenges, and results of recycling efforts across multiple federal agencies.

After the fold, notes from the session along with some thoughts:

[Read more →]

Arev Yom Kippur … The eve of the Day of Atonement. After the period of reflection and engagement with others between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, this is a moment to turn to internal considerations and the relationship between the individual and G-d.

As part of the prayers for the Day of Atonement, the Vidui, the Al Cheyt or recital of sins, is perhaps the most important. (Modern Judaism being what it is, there are a myriad of translations and modern variations on the Vidui/Al Chet.) A key word: Ashamnu … “we have sinned” is a recognition of individual and communal failures. The Al Cheyt is a recognition and statement about sins by ourselves (and our community) against others, against oneself, against G-d through action … and inaction.

It is clear: one can do wrong through action and words … and one can do wrong through inaction and silence.

And, there is a silence that bears heavily on the heart at this time: the silence in our political leadership and among too many of us on the damage we are doing to the planetary system, the risks of climate change, and the urgent necessity for meaningful change to change our path toward something that enables sustainable prosperity for humanity.

From a Yom Kippur sermon leading into a Viddui recitation,

This is Yom Kippur. This is a night for confession. So let us be honest. If ever there was a time for candor, this is it. We humans are not good with limits. We are pushing the planet and its animal resources to the limit. We want what we want when we want it. We pretty much take, hunt, fish, and consume until someone or something stops us or until there is no more to be taken.

Do you remember the Viddui we will be reciting in a few minutes? It’s the Confession prayer that lists our sins alphabetically.

a…b…c…

We abuse. We besmirch. We consume. We destroy. We excuse ourselves. We forget the consequences of our actions. We are greedy.

I could continue through the alphabet, and I should go on because, as the saying goes, although religion ought to comfort the afflicted, religion also needs to afflict the comfortable. And we truly do need to be uncomfortable tonight. Remember an alternate name for Yom Kippur is Yom Ha-Din…the Day of Judgment. This night is meant to be a time for severity.

“a time of severity”. We are living in a time of consequences, a time where humanity’s future (and our own, unless you are on your deathbed, futures) require confronting Inconvenient Truth, and acting in this regard.

The individual matters and we need, for Yom Kippur, to judge ourselves with “severity” — to push our own comfortable ways as to whether we ‘sin’ and damage and harm unknowingly or knowingly.

We, however, live within a society. And, while each of us has a voice and role in that society, there are leaders. And, we expect leaders to show leadership. Truthfully, there is no such thing as that perfect person (take a look and reflect on the Al Cheyt) nor is there such a thing as a perfect leader. But, we should recognize our own faults and seek to change our patterns. And, we should look to our leaders’ faults and seek to help them change for the better.

Most of all, we cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now.

Who said this? Senator Barack Obama in 2007.

Where, however, is President Barack Obama and Presidential-candidate Barack Obama in 2012?

There is no question that President Barack Obama is better on environmental and climate issues than a tea-party ruled Mitt Romney conceivably could be. However, this is an incredibly low bar of judgment.

Even though climate change is an arena of incredibly stark differentiation between the parties (and candidates); even though President Obama’s one-liner about climate change was one of the best received lines during his DNC speech; even though “the future of our planet is at stake”, the silence about climate change from Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden is simply deafening.

We sin … we do wrong through action and words. We sin, we do wrong through inaction and silence.

It is past time to end the climate silence.

Last week, at the Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC)’s annual “summit, Exelon had a major presence. This shouldn’t surprise anyone as with Exelon’s acquisition of Constellation Energy, Exelon became a major player in the Maryland economy and Marylanders’ energy use become a significant portion of the Exelon business portfolio.

With Exelon sponsorship came various visible roles, including a luncheon speech by Bill von Hoene, Exelon’s Chief Strategy Officer.

In his talk, Hoene laid out how Exelon has the “cleanest” and least expensive electricity generating fleet of any major electricity producer selling into the market (due, primarily, to Exelon’s nuclear power comprising 55% of its electricity generation). He spoke about how Exelon is committed to Exelon 2020 (its sustainability program), talked about Exelon’s renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in Maryland, and stated that Exelon is committed to “actively shape the national conversation about clean energy”.

With that in mind, it wasn’t surprising that he took on the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) recent expulsion of Exelon from the organization as Exelon has taken a stance against the Production Tax Credit (PTC) being renewed. Hoene laid out his case for how conditions have changed since the PTC was created — with states having renewable portfolio standards, wind technology having advanced, and other changed factors. While perhaps not agreeing with these as strong enough to justify ending the PTC, the points were interesting. Interesting, however, turned to jaw dropping with this sentence.

Let us be clear, the end of the PTC will not impact the development of wind energy.

“Let us be clear”: this statement does not stand up to even the barest of scrutiny.

Rather than a detailed analysis, with 100s of citations to back up the discussion, the graphic below provides the simplest way to understand this:

In other words, every single time the PTC has ended, wind projects have nose-dived with disruption to wind industry supply chains and other impacts.

Simply put, “let’s be clear”, the Exelon executive team might find it in its business interests to oppose the Production Tax Credit. In explaining (and defending) that decision, however, Exelon doesn’t do anyone any good by statements that fly in the face of common sense.

Over the next several days, what might be the most important Federal government conference on energy and climate issues this year (with the sad GAO last-minute cancellation of GovEnergy) will occur in Washington, DC. The GreenGov conference, co-sponsored by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Association of Climate Change Officers (ACCO), provides ten conference tracks for understanding the challenges and opportunities across the Federal government in developing climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and programs, along with a range of other environmental and clean-energy related discussions.

As the sponsors describe GreenGov:

The 2012 GreenGov Symposium aims to bring together leaders from government, the private sector, non-profits and academia to identify opportunities to create jobs, grow clean energy industries, and curb pollution by incorporating sustainable practices into the Federal Government’s operations.

President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 in October 2009, directing Federal agencies to meet aggressive energy, water, and waste reduction targets, reduce their greenhouse gas pollution, and leverage Federal purchasing power to curb waste, save taxpayer dollars, and support the growth of a 21st century clean energy economy.

During this educational event, participants will share sustainability challenges and best practices, and discuss cutting-edge approaches to achieving the Federal performance goals set by President Obama. Topics covered will include clean energy, energy and water efficiency, fleet management, getting to zero waste, green buildings, and greening the supply chain.

In the hyper-partisan political atmosphere and (too often) dishonest political attacks disjointed from truthful discourse, “green” has become a four-letter word for too many Americans and thus the conference’s very name prevents many from any honest engagement with GreenGov’s substance. GreenGov provides a rich window on the professionalism, competence, and passion across the Federal government as these civil servants seek to help address climate change (and other environmental) challenges while seizing opportunities to save taxpayers money and create jobs.

While it is unlikely that you could chose to join GreenGov if you weren’t already planning to show up Monday morning, CEQ/ACCO have added a webstream (webstream schedule) for the plenary sessions and some of the panel discussions.

[Read more →]

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL. One pleasure of attending energy-related conferences is the chance to wander the trade show and talk to (and learn from) a range of innovators and experts from a diversity of firms. Today, spending hours in the Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC)’s annual “summit”‘s trade show provided multiple interesting conversations and learning opportunities whether discussions with a Siemens employee about how Siemens works with school systems that have Energy Performance Service Contracts (EPSCs) to develop educational curricula associated with school building performance or discussions with EnergyPoints staff about their path toward providing businesses a single-resource (energy, water, waste) measure to support investment to support improved sustainability and returns on investment. Both of these — and other trade show floor conversations — were Energy COOL meriting further investigation.

The MCEC event represented a first in my conference experience. Sitting at the luncheon awards event, a typical ‘let us tell how wonderful our community’ video began … and, in a few minutes, the moderate inattention while sipping coffee turned to note taking. Highlighted company after company tweaked my interest in Energy COOL ways.

• Fiberight removes biomass from the trash stream and processes it into biofuels.This extends landfill life, provides a non-food path toward meeting biofuel mandates, and their process also can generate electricity. While better to ‘reduce’ rather than trash, Fiberight offers a path toward recycling/reuse of materials that otherwise would fill up landfills to create a methane challenge for decades to come.
• Hy-tek Bio captures exhaust from burning fossil fuels uses this as food for algae growing in tubes. Their system has multiple innovations that look to create viable paths toward cost-effective CCR rather than the overhyped CCS (carbon capture and reutilization vs carbon capture and sequestration).
• Savenia Labs fills in where Energy Star dares not go by providing an independent lab assessment of non-Energy Star rated commercial devices and providing an easily understood rating system for consumers.
• FlexEl makes flexible batteries that can be incorporated into, for example, clothing. As described in the video, these are non-toxic batteries which provide a path for reducing the injuries for U.S. soldiers who can be contaminated by shattered batteries which exacerbate the risks and seriousness of battlefield injuries.

It is rare (perhaps even unique) where a conference luncheon video makes me want to learn more about every highlighted company … kudos to MCEC (and Maryland’s focus on developing energy efficiency and renewable energy) for packaging so many eye-catching Energy COOL firms in this video.