Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The world has changed. The only two faces, the only names of people of substance that seem to compete with Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald or a Pokemon figure for instant awareness among children are Black: Barack Obama and Martin Luther King. The world does change. And, it can change for the better.

I have a dream …

Thus, my young children know who MLK is without even needing prompting from their parents. He is, even for my 4-year old, a hero, a name of excitement and power.

Thus, they paid attention when I took them to hear the man who I told them might be, hopefully will be the Martin Luther King of the 21st Century: Van Jones.

[Read more →]

“It’s amazing the power a nickle has …” That is, as long as you are applying those 5 cents in the right way.

Late today, I was among a horde (and that is an accurate term) of people doing their pre-work week shopping at the local Giant Food grocery store.  In the middle of my check out, a manager came in to take over so the woman working the register could take a break.  I joked a bit with him about his having to look up food codes and otherwise chatted. As he finished up, I noticed something. Along with easily 90 percent of my visits to that store, the manager hadn’t given me the 5 cents credit for each of the reuseable bags that I’d brought with me.  And, the bagger had started putting some things into plastic bags even through there was plenty of space left in my reuseable bags.  While I asked for these things to be put into my bags, I let out some built up tension to let the manager that he had failed to give me that credit. And, that this oversight occurred all too often from his staff as well.  To be honest, the ‘battle’ each time for 5, 10, or 15 cents just isn’t worth it and therefore Giant keeps perhaps $5-10 year that should, instead, be resting in my household budget.  And, I have to think that my experience is shared by other Giant reuseable bag clients not receiving their 5 cent credits.  While I am heartened that more and more people are bringing their own bags, I doubt that this is 1 in 10 shoppers … and I doubt that a diligent effort to assure the 5 cents per bag credit would radically change this number.

Yet, that nickel — those five cents — can go a far way, even farther than we might expect.

The District of Columbia has just finished its first year with 5 cent per plastic or paper bag fee (not credit) as a path to reduce pollution in the Anacostia River and provide a revenue stream for cleanup activities. 

Five days a week, two skimmer boats known as TrashCats move along the Anacostia River, their front pincer-like gates opening wide to swallow small islands of floating garbage. The TrashCats collect approximately 400 tons of debris from the river each year, of which plastic bags, along with Styrofoam, food wrappers, bottles and cans, make up a significant portion.

 Washington’s political leaders reported, rather happily, that the revenue stream from this fee was significantly lower than expected. Originally projected to bring in about $3.5 million (representing some 70 million bags), DC now expects the actual revenue to total about $2.7 million (or fees on 55 million bags).  Notably, this is a reduction from the roughly 270 million bags used in 2009 … e.g., DC is in the range of an 80 percent reduction in the demand for plastic bags.

“In a town where we talk about trillions of dollars all the time it’s amazing the power a nickel has,” said Christophe A.G. Tulou, the director of the District Department of the Environment, which is charged with spending the bag money to benefit the Anacostia River.

The power of that 5-cent fee hit pretty fast.  In January 2010, the revenue stream was a bit more than $150,000 for some 3.3 million bags. The previous month: 22 million bags. 

Giant Food’s elusive nickel has little impact.  And, well, should we talk about how many times shoppers ask for their toothpaste purchase to be double-bagged?

DC’s five-cent fee has a serious impact, an 80 percent reduction in the customer demand for bags at the store.  And, well, have to believe that there aren’t too many people looking to have an aspirin purchase double-bagged.

It is quite clear: a fee works far better than a credit in motivating people to bring canvas bags to the supermarket.

Truthfully, that 5 cent fee isn’t fully adequate.  In 2002, Ireland put a 15 Euro cent fee on plastic bags. 

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog. 

While no longer an oddity at the local Giant, people carrying reusable bags are definitely a minority.  In Washington, DC, a nickel has made the reusable bag the vastly preferred option. In Ireland, three nickels made them ubiquitous and virtually made the single-use bag extinct.

For 2010, Warren S made a commitment with a New Year’s Resolution. Every day, another letter to the editor or a politicians about climate change and global warming issues. He deserves more than a tip of the hat for keeping that resolution up through the year and, as per this guest post, continuing it into 2011.

A previous Warren S guest post resulted from his conclusion that the rampant inability of traditional media institutions to link global record war temperatures, the hottest year in recorded weather history, the hottest decade in recorded weather history, major disruptive weather patterns around the globe, etc requires a form letter to ease his — and others — writing of the LTEs. Thus, the MAD-LIB letter on climate change.

Let’s play word association.

Read the following phrase and what’s the first thing that comes to mind.

Rich family …

There are, of course, many possible from Hilton to Mellon to Rothschilds to … Yes, there are many that might come to mind.  For me, the ‘first to mind’ would be the Rockefellers.  Robber baron Rockefeller. When I think this name, savvy (even nasty) investing comes to mind.

With that in mind, it therefore shocks me that Senator Jay Rockefeller is taking a leadership position in opposing one of the most effective investments that the U.S. government has made over the past several decades: creation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

As Andy Stevenson’s discussion of the CAA opened earlier this year:

What if I were to tell you that we are all shareholders in an investment vehicle that has produced better returns than Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway over the past forty years. Strange as it seems it’s true. Stranger yet, that investment vehicle is called the Clean Air Act.

Enforcement of and compliance with the CAA cost some $500 billion between 1970 and 1990.  Sadly, in U.S. political culture, the discussion often ends there. That horrific $500 billion cost which, I promise you too many industry groups would assert without shame, so hobbled the U.S. economy.  Yes, hobbled it so much that the analyzed benefits from the cost totaled some $22.1 trillion dollars due to reduced health care costs, improved productivity, and other benefits that have accrued to us (the U.S. and all of us). And, of course, that fiscal number doesn’t even remotely begin to account for the avoided pain and suffering — emotional and physical — due to the reduced pollution.

As Andy put it:

While these investments in cleaner air, water and reduced death are indeed significant, they pale in comparison to the $22.1 trillion in benefits gained by its shareholders, the American people, over this time frame from lower mortality, fewer cases of chronic illness, and less frequent trips to the hospital.

Sadly, as a shareholder on Wall Street, my investments that have paid back 44+ times over the cost are rare and far between. (After all, like too many Americans, my 401(k) seemed to migrate to a 301(k) to a 201(k) over the past decade.)  And, well, the CAA’s payoff has even beaten Warren Buffett’s returns at Berkshire Hathaway.

Looking at the very strong — and essentially guaranteed — payoff from CAA regulatory efforts, it seems rather flabbergasting that a Rockefeller would want to be a leadership position to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the law.  Prior to the Senate’s ending of its session, Senator Rockefeller sought to force a vote to suspend the EPA’s ability to move forward with climate-change related actions under the CAA for the next two years.  Presented, rather farcically, as somehow necessary to give the Congress breathing space to act with climate-mitigation related legislation,

The time has come for us to make a decision on the energy future of our country. I have spent this year fighting to make sure that Congress, not the EPA, determines how best to reduce greenhouse gases

Rockefeller’s efforts seemed to show how contributions to him from coal-industry and other fossil-foolish interests could gain a high return in legislative action rather than paying any attention to the very high value for America and the American people derived from thoughtful EPA regulation executing the Clean Air Act.

Rockefeller’s drive to undermine the EPA was — and is — at odds with the bests interests of America and nearly all Americans. It was — and is — at odds with the views of essentially all the relevant experts.  As Pete Altman noted in discussing Rockefeller’s efforts, in early December

a broad spectrum of 284 national and state medical, public health and other groups representing all 50 states, including the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Preventive Medicine, urged Congress to “defend the Clean Air Act and to reject any measure that would block or delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.”

The groups made very clear what’s at stake, stating “Over the coming years the EPA will be fulfilling its duty to reduce the smog and soot pollution, air toxics, and global warming pollution that are the cause of these public health threats.  We urge you to fully support the EPA in fulfilling this responsibility.”

While Rockefeller failed to force through this anti-American action prior to the Senate’s departure for Christmas, that failure doesn’t derive from his realization of what a great investment CAA enforcement has been for the American people. No, instead, it came from his understanding that Republican colleagues wished to take the lead on this in the next Congress rather than allow a Democratic politician to have a leading role in undermining Americans’ health and prosperity.

“I have been reliably informed that long-time Republican proponents of my bill to suspend EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions have pulled their support for this year — so that they can gain some political advantage trying to take over this issue in 2011,”

Yes, one of those things to look forward to. Republicans seeking political gain through attacking measures that will undermine American security, health, and prosperity — with at least, it seems, one reliable Democratic Party vote to support this attack on a fantastic investment opportunity.

Harry Reid spoke bluntly on energy issues.

Looking the Faux and Balanced cameras square on, he spoke truth:

Coal makes us sick …

Watch it.

Reid spoke truth to an audience that isn’t used to hearing it.

[Read more →]

This thoughtful comment reviewing the ‘great scientific findings of 2010’ from a Net Guy in CT reacting to Climate Zombie manifestations highlights the scientific illiteracy required to reject carbon dioxide’s relationship to global warming.

2010’s Scientific Findings

You can count me among the tens of millions not happy with the caving to give additional tax subsidies the unneedy rich. With this deal, however, unless blocked, the true pain is wondering what we could — or should — have gotten in return.

Why isn’t there $200 billion (or, better yet, $500 billion) or so for stimulus in the coming 24 months. There won’t be anything coming out of the R House that will stimulate job creation. The Administration should have gotten some on the table and in this deal.

Staying within tax cuts and policy, why not include in clean-energy tax credits. To provide one clear example, why not extend Section 1603 (action item)?

[Read more →]

After all, collectively, isn’t that what we’re doing?

Aren’t we all, in our own and in our collective ways, truly expert at boiling frogs?

Bit by bit, incrementally, as Gore used the analogy, we are destroying ourselves and not taking the actions necessary to turn things around.

This post is sparked by my new-found desire to see “>How to Boil a Frog which is

a comedic documentary about Overshoot: too many people using up too little planet much too fast. Yes, we’ve taken the kind of material that makes people jump off bridges, put it in a blender, and churned out a Smoothie o’ Fun that gives you the Big Picture of what the hell is going on with our so-called civilization, and tells you what you and I can do about it that will not only actually make a difference (no light bulbs!) but also make our lives better right now! More fun! More friends! Free food! It’s a bargain.

Perhaps my favorite line from the trailer:

Global Warming isn’t a problem. It is a symptom of an ever bigger problem.

At the How to Boil a Frog’s website, I recommend “the funhouse” which has some great videos (including one of the best re Peak Oil that I’ve seen — see after the fold), a collection of recommended books that I can only comment “seconded”, and a great set of recommended articles (on both books and articles, check the archived recommendations). [Read more →]

Too many of my fellow citizens are without work. All too often, this challenge cannot be laid on their doorsteps as they got caught up in the maelstrom of failed economic policies and the (continued) empowerment of Wall Street robber barons.

We can, if we choose, create a set of policies to put millions back to work on a relatively fast track. Rather than fighting to give further tax cuts to subsidize the wealthiest among us, we should have a laser-like focus on JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!, with an emphasizing on job creation through paths that will help solve problems beyond the question of getting more people paychecks. (Such as a Clean Energy Jobs stimulus package.)

In the interim, until such time as the economy has a greater chance of providing real opportunities for qualified and dedicated people to have reasonable shots for employment (and paths for people to have openings / opportunities to become qualified) at livable wages, the government should provide for the common welfare. What does that mean in the near term? Funding reasonable unemployment insurance payments to keep people in their homes and fed, to boost the economy, as the economy develops to the point where there are tangible paths to fruitful employment.

The people at risk speak out … and ask others to do so as well.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These are not people who “want” to be unemployed nor do they “want” to be on unemployment but the reality is that the economy isn’t providing viable paths for them to be employed. We do not strengthen society … We are not “form[ing] a more perfect Union” and the government does not “promote the general Welfare” through policies that will put them on the streets rather than back to work.

Do you love those displays of Christmas (or Hannukah or Kwanza or …) lights? Are you awed by those so impassioned that they string up 1000s of lights in awesome displays worthy of a city center? I once did, pausing on cold winter nights, white clouds issuing from my mouth, enjoying being in the glow of beautiful displays. And, in a way, I was inspired that they would spend $1000s (or $10,000s) on displays and the electricity to power them so that others could enjoy the sight on those cold winter nights.

But … no longer … not for awhile. Far too often nowadays, my winter evenings I can wear short sleeve shirts rather than bulky coats and gloves. And, energy is no longer a question simply of money. I’ve reached the point of feeling like a Scrooge; feeling outrage over the tons of C02 going into the atmosphere via neighbors’ 10,000 light displays rather than feeling ‘joyous’.

But, a compromise does exist; a path to cut sharply those CO2 emissions while still putting out those lights: LED lights. But, far too many are unwilling to spend the money upfront to cut their electricial use, reduce their pollution, and — actually — save quite a lot of money.
[Read more →]