June 1st, 2012 · Comments Off on Taking time for a survey …
There are so many studies out there, so many surveys … most of the time, I don’t take them but here is one that is worth the time. Researchers at the University of Western Australia want people who visit sites like this to take a quick survey (about 10 min.). The survey focuses on interconnections between science knowledge and policy beliefs … anything more will, perhaps, give away too much. This anonymous survey will support academic research likely to make it into the peer-reviewed literature. Enjoy.
Comments Off on Taking time for a survey …Tags:research · science
June 1st, 2012 · Comments Off on Master Meters: Who pays? And, why pay?
Guest Blogger J. Siegel has been doing a series of pieces on this blog (list below … latest here) on her work within her own master-metered condominium and, beyond that, on working to develop a community of master-metered communities to share lessons and seek leverage for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to help them foster a cleaner energy future for themselves and their neighbors.
Two of the greatest conundrums, when it comes to Energy Smart practices, are
Who pays?
Why pay?
Why it comes to mastered-metered communities, every single person (owner, tenant, or otherwise) pays for the energy use in a communal process where everyone pays the same (whether by unit, by square foot, or otherwise) and has this ‘payment’ buried from visibility (whether by inclusion within the rent or within a monthly condo fee). Thus, “who pays” is clear (“everyone”) even as it often isn’t clear to specific tenant owners or renters that they pay or how. Actually, J Siegel has a story of an economist friend who, when challenged to be more energy efficient in his condo, responded: “why, I don’t pay for energy. That then turns us to the other question …
We then turn to a ‘why pay’ conundrum.
Let’s say you live in a 200 unit building, why should an individual owner spend more on energy efficiency lighting, dishwashers, showers, windows, toilets, or otherwise. After all, even if the ‘real’ payback were measured in weeks, sharing that investment with 200 friends and neighbors transfers the payback into hundreds (or thousands) of weeks. And, well, who spends a $ as an investment to get back $0.001 per year? Thus, there is a serious inherent obstacle to energy efficient behaviors and investments by individuals located within mastered meter communities (whether residential, commercial, or industrial). If you’re not “paying”, directly, the bill, and sharing, equally, in any savings, the rational economic person asks ‘why do this’? This drives something: mastered metered communities (like the vast majority of multi-unit buildings that are 20+ years old) and businesses (like the large number of office buildings that don’t have meters for every tenant) have a serious incentive to invest significantly in energy efficiency. Sadly, too many of them do not know how seriously fast they could achieve savings and that those savings could add up quickly. Investing in 1000 CFLs, for example, to simply give out to residents could save a typical condo association $10,00o+ per year. Hmmm … how many condo owners think that they have $10,000 to throw away … year after year after year.
In the larger societal sense, as to ‘who pays’, there is that basic little question of ‘who pays’ for those pesky little externalities like poisoned water, increased cancer rates, destroyed eco-systems, and that oh-by-the-way little problem of Global Warming. Just the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) easily mounts, with a decent calculation, nearly to $100 per ton (or roughly 5 cents for every kilowatt hour produced by coal) without considering the mercury poisoning, coal ash pond pollution, etc … However, while a very real cost on society, how does an individual (or individual condo building or business) calculate benefits to themselves from their efforts to reduce carbon pollution? Goodwill only goes so far.
And, energy efficiency and renewable energy investments don’t ‘only’ reduce pollution, they provide other very real and tangible benefits on a larger scale. Investing in energy efficiency, on a large scale, is far cheaper than building new capacity. Renewable Energy systems protect against fuel price fluctuations and also offer the chance to foster distributed energy systems that, combined with energy efficiency, would offer greater resiliency in the face of natural or man-made disruption to the electricity grid.
When we think about ‘why pay’, when a government has a program to foster energy efficiency, it can easily be seen and portrayed as some sort of ‘unwarranted subsidy’ open for political attack by those intent on remaining within a stove-piped vision of the world. Why should, for example, a homeowner who is doing their own energy-efficiency investments (because of the payback via reduced bills) suffer with the government helping a condo association do the same thing? This, however, is an extremely stove-piped perspective which loses sight of a simple fact: we all (oops, except for those intent on earning as much as possible through selling as much energy as possible) gain through an ever more energy efficient and cleaner energy economy.
We need to think return on investment rather than cost. The benefits, for those not living in these communities, from fostering Energy Smart practices and capital investments in master-metered communities far outweigh the required investments that the larger society will have to make. Fostering energy efficiency is simply one of the best investments that we can make.
In 2008, Governor Martin O’Malley signed the EmPower Maryland Act in 2008. The EmPower Maryland program partners Maryland’s Public Service Commission (PSC) and utility companies in an effort to lower utility usage. The target is a 15% reduction, from a 2007 baseline, by 2014. EmPower Maryland’s goal is to reduce per capital energy consumption and per capita peak demand by 2014, based on 2007 baseline data. Strategies include commercial and residential energy saving programs that include grants, loans and rebates for retrofits, code compliance, efficient appliances, renewable energy projects and other energy saving activities.
Where do I come in? Leveraging these programs to improve energy efficiency and improve energy understanding in my high-rise multi-metered community in North Bethesda, Maryland. And, leveraging these substantive achievements to assist other multi-metered communities achieve similar benefits.
May 22nd, 2012 · Comments Off on On refusing to be rounded out of existence
This guest post comes from James Wells who eloquently and passionately is outlining the detrimental implications of short-term thinking embrace of coal exports.
The phrase, arriving in the middle of a deeply technical presentation, stood out for everything it said in just one sentence.
“They’re just going to be rounded out of existence, because they are a small percent of the population.”
Dr. Frank James was providing information about adverse health effects from big carbon operations, in this case a coal export terminal in Alaska, and was answering a question about impacts on native American populations near such a terminal. The problem is that the native Americans are relatively small in number in the area of the terminal, so their specific health issues might not be considered to be “significant” in the eyes of regulators or policymakers. This is a huge issue in the eyes of Dr. James.
So wait!
Did I understand that correctly?!?!?!?
Beyond Human Scale
Yes, that’s right. When considering a proposed mega carbon project such as any of the six coal export schemes targeting the northwest, a concern will only be evaluated if it is “significant” in the eyes of the agency, measured in terms like a large number of people severely affected.Have we, as people, shrank so much? Or have the mega-projects just grown so grotesquely large that human-scale concerns no longer show up on the scales of the deciders?
The ever-growing scale of big carbon projects has been presented as the new normal. A necessity. Just business as usual. Who could be against “continuing” to meet the energy needs of the world?
Except it’s not “continuing”. The inherent desperation of the wave of huge new carbon projects is captured in the aptly titled “The Race for What’s Left” by Michael Klare (new in Spring 2012). Let’s be completely clear – the game has changed. Big carbon exploitation is going to the ends of the Earth to squeeze and scrape energy and other resources out of the ground, at ever-increasing cost. That’s cost as measured in many different ways.
April 27th, 2012 · Comments Off on Did ACEEE diss the power of feedback?
Understanding how feedback impacts people and institutions (whether in sports, school, militaryoperations, or …) in learning and change (hopefully, improvement) is a complex and fascinatingworld. Data collection and feedback systems, as a tool for providing building/system operators the ability to make more informed decisions about energy use, are a critical pathway toward more effective (generally, more efficient) energy use. There is a reason that the U.S. Navy invested significant portions of its energy-related stimulus funding in smart meters and that the Department of Defense’s Operational Energy program has put data collection as a critical front-piece of activities: if you don’t know where you are, how can you make intelligent decisions about how to getto where you want to go?
Okay, a savings is there — across “large-scale studies” but it doesn’t seem to be all that much. In2010, the average U.S. household used just short of 11.5 megawatt hours / year (11,496kWh/year). Projecting such a 3.8% savings would result in 437 kilowatt hours of reducedelectricity demand or about $45/year at average electricity costs. Something but, well, short of $4 /month for the average household isn’t an indication of major impact.
The report concluded that “the cost of providing real-time feedback remains high”. Looking at the table as to the most common cost, per household, to the utility of being around $500, the “moderate savings” started to seem even worse: a 10 year payback for utility costs wouldmean a 10+ year payback of costs, on a straight line basis, without even discussing utility profits nor savings to the household.
As a real ‘feedback enthusiast,’ my first glance at this report created a rather dismal mood.
A second look, however, suggests that perhaps the ‘dismal’ thoughts are misplaced. The devil, ofcourse, is typically found in the detail:
The 3.8% savings figure excludes an outlier study which showed nearly 20 percent savings. That “large-scale study”, in fact, is an examination of a 20+ year experience in Northern Ireland which not only has more than five times the longevity of the second-longest study in the report but also had about five times as many people as all the rest of the studies combined. In a simplistic, but illuminating way to consider the situation, the ACEEE meta-study excluded from its conclusion a study with more than 25 times the people months of experience of all the other studies combined. If a more accurate reflection of end results, this would suggest annuals savings more in the $200+/year or about $18/month range, which is far more interesting to most households than $40/year.
The $500 figure actually misrepresents actual program costs. With the exception of the Northern Ireland experience, all of these were experimental programs. The “costs” are simply dividing the total program costs (equipment, labor, administration, analysis, …) by the number of involved people. Clearly, ‘experiments’ almost always cost more per involved person than real-world business activities. The Northern Ireland program, which involved over 45,000 people (the second largest involved 5,550), had average costs of $99-$113 rather than $500 because it was an actual deployment of technologies and business processes rather than a research experiment.
Okay, if we take these figures: perhaps $400/year in savings and $100 for program costs, the payback is measured in a few months rather than ten years (and that, of course, isn’t counting the value of reduced peak demand). This gives plenty of space for sharing electricity savings value streams between the provider and consumer in a win-win space which also provides for a more efficient and less polluting household energy use.
To be clear, I have a lot of respect for the ACEEE and their research teams. The report, Results from Recent Real-Time Feedback Studies, has a lot of interesting and valuable material within it. The issues raised above about potential savings and costs to achieve those savings are illuminated simply by reading through the report. However, it is too easy for someone to walk away from the report thinking that feedback systems have very marginal impact at a high cost due to the exclusion of the Northern Ireland experience from ‘average savings’ and the use of test program costs as a surrogate for actual program costs. Thus, the title of this post: it does seem odd that the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy would skew report results to understate the impacts of technology to foster energy-efficient behavior.
I have to say that I strongly agree with a key ACEEE report conclusion:
More and different kinds of research are required to better understand the actions and investments that households may be making in response to real-time feedback.
More knowledge and information about energy use are not enough to solve our energy challenges but they are key to fostering an Energy Smart society.
NOTE: I will be returning to do more analysis of this and other studies re feedback devices (such as this, this, or this). As an example of another study, this 2011 RAND report (pdf) comments that
studies have shown that providing different types of electricity usage feedback can reduce usage by around 20 percent and can help shift up to 40 percent of peak demand to off-peak hours.
That is quite a different conclusion than what is seen in the ACEEE study (which doesn’t include the RAND work in its bibliography). E.g., I am intrigued by the differences between the studies and plan to learn more — and share that learning here.
Shell Oil is on its way right now to a location less than 15 miles from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. “Shell has proposed drilling up to four shallow water exploration wells in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea this summer, beginning on July 1,” Subsea World Newsreported last month.
If there is a spot on Earth as sacred or as critical to the future of our wild birds as the Gulf of Mexico, it is probably the unspoiled Arctic. Here, hundreds of bird species arrive every spring from all four North American flyways — the superhighways in the sky that birds use to travel up and down the Americas. Here, they mate, lay eggs and raise their young. Here also, many of America’s remaining polar bears make their winter dens along the coasts.
The BP-spill in 2010 has caused unprecedented mutations and deformities in ocean life in Gulf of Mexico. Today, I’ll look at how our government and Big Oil are setting the stage in the Arctic for the sequel to Deepwater Horizon disaster. The script is already written and the leading actors are already on their way to the set.
There are a number of true wedge issues — items that clearly differentiate between the parties. These include 99%/1% & equity, belief in the value of government, women’s right to make choices about their bodies, … One of the starkest: attitudes toward science and most notably to climate science.
Putting aside any and all other issues, deregulation can offer several real advantages: disruptive options can enter markets; and, consumers can have choices. Of course, while anyone comparing U.S. cellphone rates to European prices has legitimate reason to wonder about this uncertain benefit, at times real opportunities for positive change can emerge.
This summer, consumers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey will have the option to power their homes with Ethical Electric-ity: an emergent firm that will provide electrons solely through investments in local wind and solar projects.
we put your power bill to work supporting 100% renewable energy from local clean sources. That means wind farms or solar farms within a few hours drive of your home. When we give you this Guarantee of Origin, you know that when you pay your power bill you’re supporting the new and clean forms of energy that we need to stop global warming, protect public health and create good jobs.
Ethical Electric is created by progressive activist Tom Matzzie (you might remember him from his MoveOn days). Several years ago, Tom went through the process of improving his home’s energy efficiency and then putting solar on the roof. He found that experience difficult to the extent that non-fiscal barriers would prevent many from taking the leap.
he found that the process of going solar, “while hugely awesome,” required patience, risk tolerance, and financial flexibility. It was hard—too hard for most people.
“My instincts as an organizer kicked in, and I thought, ‘this won’t scale as fast as we need,’”
Tom looked into buying clean electricity via a provider and found that confusing with uncertain results (just how clean is that electricity, really …?). Tom wishes to make buying clean electricity
as easy as downloading an app or buying a book on Amazon
Also, the focus is on creating new clean energy sources — not finding new profitability for things built under the Roosevelt Administration:
“If you enroll with one of those other companies, you’ll support a hydroelectric dam built 70 years ago or a wind farm built 15 years ago. That’s not new renewable energy.”
And, you won’t just be buying solar/wind electrons via Ethical Electricity, but also contributing to economic activity in your area, the fostering of clean energy infrastructure (installers, inspectors, etc…), and moving your electricity bill from a traditional firm potentially funding ALEC or the US Chamber of Commerce to a progressive firm that will be donating a portion of its revenues “to the causes you care about” with the donations driven by customer votes. And, Mattzie targets doing so with prices competitive to those offered by traditional suppliers.
What ultimately distinguishes Matzzie’s company from another clean energy provider is its commitment to progressive values—the ethics of electricity. “Clean is too generic. Green is too generic,” Matzzie says. He wants to show customers that “yes, we’re 100% clean energy, but we represent the total ecosystem of their values and are somebody they can feel comfortable doing business with.”
And that’s where Matzzie’s experience as an online organizer can help: He knows “how to get people to do things online for a good reason,” as he puts it. “Just like we saw people moving their money, we’re going to be asking people to move their power bill to a company that supports 100% clean energy.”
Right now, Ethical Electric is collecting names for interested customers with plans to open up in a few months. While starting with PA and NJ, it will expand into the 14 deregulated electricity markets across the country. If you’re in one of those, you can count the days until you have the opportunity to light your home with ethical electricity.
It’s time to “Move Your Power” to a progressive energy company.
NOTE: The graphic below, from the UK’s EcoSwitch, provides the sort of clean grading system comparing options that enable the average person to make informed decisions without investing significant resources in a learning process. (The site, of course, allows searching based on local post codes and not solely the national comparison below.)
it’s easy to see that often green electricity prices are often as cheap as standard tariffs, and are sometimes lower. To that end, switching to green electricity and gas and 100% renewable green energy tariffs, with its ethical and environmental benefits, becomes an option too good to turn down.
April 24th, 2012 · Comments Off on Mitt Romney embraces “Fock the Earth Day”
Mitt Romney celebrated “Fock the Earth Day” with a major speech about the importance of regulations on fossil fuel production … that is, the importance of eviscerating them so as to please his fossil foolish contributors.
“Holding off on drilling in the Gulf, holding off on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, holding off on drilling in Alaska, trying to impose the federal government into ‘fracking’ regulations with regards to natural gas. Then, of course, all the regulations related to coal, making it harder to mine it, making it harder to use it.”
Yes, the evil Obama Administration — in Mitt’s campaign vitriol — actually wanted to create a breathing space in offshore drilling in the face of that pesky minor little Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico. And, according to Mitt’s skewed representation, the Obama Administration has some form of skewed thinking that the Federal Government might have the capacity to create more economically and process effective oversight of the complicated natural gas fracking processes than would be the case with having 10s of states with differing rule sets and inspection regimes. And, well, how dare the Administration consider things like miner safety and pollution of surrounding areas when it comes to mining or have the arrogance to consider American citizens’ health and safety in following Supreme Court guidance for putting in standards for mercury and other emissions from coal facilities.
Mittens — and the rest of the fossil foolish propaganda machine — will not engage with some simple realities:
Oil and natural gas production has soared during the Obama Administration;
There are far more drilling rigs in operation today than ever during the Bush (either GHWB or GWB) Administrations;
U.S. oil imports are down, along with increased U.S. production, under President Obama; and, in fact,
The Obama Administration has opened up significant tracts of land for oil, natural gas, and coal exploitation.
With no public events on 22 April 2012, Earth Day, Romey’s 23 April F— the Earth Day event occurred at the research facilities of one of the nation’s largest coal producers, Consol Energy,
Consol Energy is a billion-dollar natural gas and coal company based in Pennsylvania notorious for polluting American waterways, streams, and drinking water with toxic runoff from its plants. In 2011 alone, the company paid more than $200 million dollars in fines and settlements due to hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act.
Consol’s money doesn’t only go to fines, it also goes to seeking to buy political influence. Consol Energy (via its PAC and its executives’ paychecks) has funneled significant resources into Romney’s campaign and its ‘unassociated’ super PAC. Is it any surprise, then, that
Romney gave a speech praising dirty coal power. At the same time, he attacked the landmark safeguards put into place to protect our air, our water, and the health of our families from the toxic pollution created by Consol’s own plants.
In other words, this week, instead of celebrating the planet, Romney pushed for policies that would poison it.
All in all, Romney’s 23 April 2012 was very much in the spirit of ‘F– the Earth Day’.
One of the critiques of “Earth Day” is that it is absurd to put aside one day for a patina of caring about humanity’s impact on the planetary system’s ability to support human civilization. When it comes to “Fock the Earth Day,” there won’t be anything to worry about if Mitt Romney is elected as the 21st century’s Republican Party’s objective is make every day a “Fock the Earth” event.
My blog posts are rarely about sartorial splendor but it seems sadly appropriate to share with you what I am wearing today: the t-shirt to the right. If you have difficulty reading or seeing it:
the graphic is of a heating planet with melting ice caps, the Keeling Curve behind the globe, a smiley face on the globe, and
the title: “The White House Effect”.
Almost old enough to merit the term “vintage“, this Union of Concerned Scientists shirt dates from Earth Day, 1990 … and, well, could well too sadly appropriate for Earth Day 2012. The decision on today’s clothing came late Friday while reading President Barack Obama’s Presidential Proclamation — Earth Day 2012 (provided after the fold). The statement seeks to create a balance between praising efforts to date while calling for actions for tomorrow with a not light dose of praise for the Administration’s efforts. Treading such a delicate line can lead to a fall too far to one side or another.
Doom and gloom about tomorrow can undermine understanding and appreciation for what has been and can be achieved while weakening support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and undermining energy for action. (‘Why bother since the world is heading toward disaster no matter what we do?’)
Solely looking toward today’s challenges as if nothing has been achieved since the first Earth Day 42 years ago can be disrespectful to those who have fought so hard to achieve real impact and, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and undermine energy for action. (‘Why bother, since we can’t have an impact in the face of polluter interests and a dysfunctional political systems?’)
Emphasizing improvements from the past situation while glossing over the seriousness of the situation we face, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and undermine energy for action. (‘Why bother being up in arms since we’re doing so much better and that progress is just going to continue no matter what I do?’)
Embellishing achievements and suggesting that marginal programs have great positive impact while ignoring other steps that are worsening the situation, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and can undermine energy for action. (‘Why bother focusing on these issues, rather than other critical policy actions, because the Administration already has things well in hand?)
For understanding as to my choice of clothing, today, let us just take two examples and one minor omission from the Proclamation for illuminating the issues.
State of the Environment
Today, our air and water are cleaner, pollution has been greatly reduced, and Americans everywhere are living in a healthier environment.
Let us be clear. It has been awhile since Americans have seen a river burning, Acid Rain is reduced, lead poisoning is down, … We have seen real progress in many arenas. We have seen real progress even as there are very serious challenges and, in many ways, a worsening of the situation.
When it comes to pollution, for example, anyone want to suggest that CO2 pollution has been reduced from what it was 42 years ago? And, well, there are a myriad of other pollutants whose impact on Americans is far worse than when the first Earth Day occurred 42 years ago or when I first put on the shirt (front to the right about “The Green House Effect”) 22 years (and just about 22 pounds) ago.
“Philip Shabecoff was the chief environmental correspondent for The New York Times for fourteen of the thirty-two years he worked there as a reporter. Poisoned for Profit, based on more than five years of investigative research and reporting, reveals the cumulative scientific evidence connecting the massive increase in environmental poisons to the epidemic of disability, disease, and dysfunction among our nation´s children.”
And how’s that Gulf Oil Spill cleanup going two years on?
Oh, yeah, should we mention that The Proclamation doesn’t discuss the measures the Obama Administration has taken to spark increased oil production, the areas (onshore and offshore) opened for exploration, the assistance to increased coal exports, …
Greening America’s School
As my second example, consider this paragraph
As we work to leave our children a safe, sustainable future, we must also equip them with the tools they need to take on tomorrow’s environmental challenges. Supporting environmental literacy and a strong foundation in science, technology, engineering, and math for every student will help ensure our youth have the skills and knowledge to advance our clean energy economy. Last year, we launched the Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools recognition award to encourage more schools to pursue sustainability, foster health and wellness, and integrate environmental literacy into the curriculum. In the days ahead, we look forward to awarding the first Green Ribbons and recognizing the accomplishments of green schools across our country.
Wow! The Obama Administration set up — in its third year — a “recognition award” when it comes to “Green Ribbon Schools”. To be clear, this is not a bad thing. Green School investments are the only means that I am aware of that offer a reliable (and traceable) school-focused path toward improving educational performance, improving economic performance, improving health while reducing environmental impacts and reducing educational costs. Green Schools merit focus and investment. If the Green Ribbon recognition program helps achieve that, great … However, the “Race to the Top” has been the signature Obama Administration effort when it comes to advancing (if it does so, put that debate aside) K-12 education. Greening schools has been notable absent from that and were certainly a late comer to the Secretary of Education’s attention. As Secretary Duncan put it in a green schools speech less than two months ago.
I would be the first to admit that historically our department has paid too little attention to the green school movement and promoting environmental stewardship.
Yes, late is better than never … And, a ‘recognition program’ is better than nothing. And … This is a recognition program which does provide greater visibility to green school but it is far from a major initiative driving a major, nation-wide investment in and focus on the myriad of value streams that schools, students, and society can derive from greening schools. What does dedicating more than 10 percent of a Presidential Proclamation to a “recognition program” suggest to you?
That ‘oh by the way’ issue
Consider, again, the shirt that I am wearing.
The 2012 Presidential Proclamation for Earth Day does not have the word “climate” (and, therefore, zero mention of “climate change” or “global warming”).
While there is legitimate highlighting of the improved fuel economy standards, including that they will “cut greenhouse gas emissions” (actually, more accurately, lead to reduced emissions compared to what would be the case without them), there is nothing there about why ‘cutting greenhouse gas emissions’ would be something that anyone should be concerned about on Earth (or any other or, well, more accurately, every other) Day.
Looking to the future of our planet, American leadership will continue to be pivotal as we confront the environmental challenges that threaten the health of both our country and the globe.
Today, our world faces the major global environmental challenge of a changing climate. Our entire planet must address this problem because no nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. The United States can be a leader in reducing the dangerous pollution that causes global warming and can propel these advances by investing in the clean energy technologies, markets, and practices that will empower us to win the future.
While our changing climate requires international leadership, global action on clean energy and climate change must be joined with local action.
Leveraging these programs to improve energy efficiency and improve energy understanding in 
sartorial splendor but it seems sadly appropriate to share with you what I am wearing today: the t-shirt to the right. If you have difficulty reading or seeing it:
It has been awhile since Americans have seen a river burning, Acid Rain is reduced, lead poisoning is down, … We have seen real progress in many arenas. We have seen real progress even as there are very serious challenges and, in many ways, a worsening of the situation.