Here are some excerpts from the piece:
"The sheer amount of packaging we deal with every day is staggering. According to the U.S.-based Dogwood Alliance, 25 per cent of the 2.4 million hectares of trees cut down every year in the southeastern United States ends up wrapping and boxing consumer goods."
"The computer age, which was supposed to diminish our need for paper, has only made things worse."
"The little plastic cartridges for inkjet printers, for instance, are notoriously over-packaged, contained in complicated boxes, attached to cardboard or plastic trays, wrapped in sticky plastic and accompanied by a series of instruction pamphlets and promotional paperwork."
The problem, says the editorial "is compounded if you happened to order that inkjet cartridge from an online retailer; chances are it was shipped in a cardboard box five or six times larger than the already voluminous box encasing the little plastic cartridge, and then further protected by crumpled paper, bubblewrap or styrofoam peanuts."
"Responsible, environmentally-conscious consumers can only do so much to keep all these boxes, containers, trays and whatnot from filling landfills."
For Metro Vancouver and environs like nearly every city is facing a waste management problem. There is rising in adjacent to an environmentally-sensitive area of Burns Bog a landfill that is beginning to look (and smell) like the first stages of New York City's infamous and now-closed "temporary" Fresh Kills dump on Staten Island. Barges, railcars and trucks leave this scenic part of "Beautiful British Columbia" to be disposed of elsewhere. Incineration is being debated as an option in a region where thanks to traffic from urban sprawl plus the pollutants from ships, trucks and trains along with that from factories air quality is becoming problematic.
The editorial quite correctly recommends "manufacturers and retailers to do their part and reduce the amount of packaging material they use. Most of it we can do without."
What is needed to make that happen is leadership from the largest manufacturers and retailers e.g. BestBuy, Dell, HP, Staples, WalMart, for this bulk and waste costs them money too. Perhaps a LEED for packaging?
The other option is VAT or GST for waste i.e. disposal fees added to the prices. The more it costs to clean, destroy, recycle or transport or to clean up from the processing i.e. air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, the higher the costs. This is fair; why should these expenses, including resulting increased healthcare costs from tending to those who become ill from the effects be foisted onto taxpayers?
Either method--while the former is more preferable the latter will likely be the case knowing human nature--the net results will be developing greener packaging or a switch to virtual alternatives: cloud computing, doing away with printing and online-only reading.
"Sponsored by APTA which is partnering with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club this year, the National Dump the Pump Day is a public awareness day that highlights the benefits of public transportation, two of which are saving money and promoting energy independence."
"This year offers more than an opportunity for people to save money by using public transit," said APTA President William Millar. "Given the Gulf spill crisis, Americans can also make a statement in support of public transit and its ability to help our country reduce its reliance on oil.
"U.S. public transit ridership saves 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually," Millar said. "America needs to be energy independent and public transportation plays a critical role in our country attaining energy independence."
"Representatives from the NRDC and the Sierra Club agree that public transportation is part of the solution for helping our country reduce its reliance on oil.
"Preventing future national tragedies like the Gulf spill requires moving America beyond oil, and Dump the Pump Day reminds us that public transportation options such as trains and buses are important tools for driving down our dangerous dependence," said Deron Lovaas, NRDC Federal Transportation Policy Director.
"Taking transit this Thursday and every day after is something we all can do in response to the BP oil disaster," said Ann Mesnikoff, the Sierra Club's Green Transportation Campaign Director. "Public transportation is key to ending our dependence on oil and reducing our global warming pollution."
"Besides helping our country reduce its dependence on oil, people can also help improve their bank balances. The average household spends 18 cents of every dollar on transportation and 94 percent of this goes to buying, maintaining, and operating cars - the largest expenditure after housing. In addition, according to the monthly APTA Transit Savings Report, which tracks savings for public transit users, the national average savings per year is more than $9,000 for an individual in a two-person household who downsizes from two cars to one car. "
"More than 120 public transportation systems are participating in National Dump the Pump Day activities this year. Some public transit systems are offering free or reduced rides; holding contests with giveaways such as free transit passes; and spreading the word through social media. Proclamations have been issued, including one from Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson."
The irony is that despite the rhetoric from the President about the need to move away from oil dependency, and in the face of stimulus-driven investments in new bus and rail transit system expansions APTA members are having to cut back transit services because of shrinking state/local government resources to fill the financing gaps. IOW there is and will be fewer trains, buses and ferries to ride.
Almost every day there are announcements of service reductions. Here are just two of many examples:
"Caltrain will cut service in October, raise fares in January"--San Mateo County Times
Time to match the rhetoric with action, folks, on reducing oil dependency and pollution. Provide transit systems with stable operating income sources while putting pressure on the labor unions to get real on wage demands and give a little to so that their members can continue to work by serving the public. Supply incentives to firms and nonprofits alike to shift their work to employees' homes and business travel from in-person to conferencing.
And at the same time end the massive indirect subsidies to auto use and air travel by making the environmental damage, illnesses and emergency services costs incurred user-pay in fair portion by the oil companies, employers who by corporate decisions such as locating away from transit routes, motorists and air travellers and to those who buy and lease on greenfield i.e. urban sprawl lands.
]]>
The report's data indicates that if organizations truly want to make a difference in their costs, environment and quality of life that they need to get out of the "parks" altogether. For no matter how "green" the buildings in energy efficiency the dirt from the pollution and other even more deadly and expensive impacts on public health from car dependence resulting from their locations far outweigh the benefits.
This comprehensive study, prepared for the APHA by UrbanDesign 4Health examines all impacts and their staggering costs in 2008 dollars from transportation and land use that is shaped by and which shapes transportation choices. These include accidents, air pollution and obesity including administrative expenses (such as billing and contact centers) and where appropriate lost productivity and wages, property damage, travel delays and costs due to pain, suffering and lost quality of life and premature death.
The toll from cars in poor air quality alone range from $50 billion to $80 billion per year. Yet even that high amount is overshadowed by the costs of accidents that reach about $180 billion annually.
(Keep in mind that hybrids and zero emission vehicles also create pollution from extracting, refining and distributing petroleum products, in highway construction and maintenance, and in emergency vehicles responding to accidents. Like the one my paramedic stepson works out of, scraping motorists and truckers out of their vehicles and hauling them to the ER. Then again thanks to car commuters he has a great job and future.)
Then there is obesity. Car dependence: driving and driving others makes us and them fat because we're not exercising, leading to a vast range of horrible ailments including diabetes and heart disease, and ca-chinging up to $142 billion per year.
(This is more good news from my stepson and his young family; more bad news for everyone else and society as a whole.)
The physical toll is head-shaking. Traffic crashes causes over 40,000 deaths annually, say the report. Some 35 million people live within 300 feet of a major roadway, and are at higher risk of respiratory illness due to exposure to traffic-related air pollution. At the same time about one-third of adults are estimated to be obese and another third are overweight "due in part to sedentary lifestyles and the lack of opportunity for everyday physical activity."
Add these factors together and they are responsible for over nine percent of the U.S's fast-rising healthcare bill: from $2.4 trillion in 2008 to $3.1 trillion in 2012, and $4.3 trillion by 2016.
"The consequences of inactivity, obesity, exposure to air pollution, and traffic crashes in the U.S. are staggering when viewed in terms of cost," says the report. "Tragically, these costs are also largely preventable. "
To enable such prevention requires a serious adjustment in transportation financing and decisions. The APHA report says that much more work is needed in the area of health evaluation and cost assessment in transportation policy. There also needs to be investments in healthier transportation. It recommends a few key policy changes to achieve these objectives, among them:
* Encourage federal planning, funding practices, and decisionmaking to include health impacts, costs and benefits
* Support development of healthy communities, active transport and incentives for transportation investments that support health
* Promote measurement and evaluation of health, safety and equity in planning and development processes
* Fund research to evaluate health impacts and costs of transportation and land use actions
That means more bus, rail and ferry transit and sidewalks and bike paths as opposed to arterials and freeways and more traditional pedestrian-friendly compact development and fewer subdivisions. The report outlines several illustrative examples.
"Our country depends on a robust transportation system that facilitates easy, safe commutes and promotes physical activity in order to reduce the burden of death and disease and improve health outcomes of all communities," said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E), executive director of the American Public Health Association.
With companies picking up the tab for health insurance there are steps that they can take to do their share i.e. "think globally, act locally", which benefits the bottom line while shrinking those on their employees' physiques:
* Shrink the office by deploying telecommuting and encouraging employees to use the time saved to work out every day
* Move to offices and sites on high-transit-served corridors
* Dump the gym. They cost money, pose liability and potential harassment issues and lower-ranked staff especially (such as contact center agents) want to get the Hades out of there when their shift ends; when they clock out their time is theirs.
Instead if you own/lease employee parking then charge employees for it while level the playing field with alternative modes by paying for bike racks and transit passes
* Support transit investments and urge polluter-pay programs
By solid actions recommended by the APHA report and individual corporate practices and advocacy together we could achieve a greener, cleaner, healthier and safer environment.
Shipping goods on trains in whole or in part of intermodal (ship/truck-rail) movements uses less energy and land, emits fewer pollutants at greater labor productivity than all-truck for medium to high volumes of freight over likewise distance: short distance heavy movements, such as aggregates are also more efficiently carried on trains. On a per-ton basis, trucking uses on average four times the energy to transport freight versus rail, says the report. That means rail jobs are green jobs.
Moreover, encouraging freight rail through investment in it will also enable green passenger rail. Most of Amtrak's routes and a good chunk of U.S. commuter rail operations are on tracks that are owned by freight railroads. Therefore more freight rail and green jobs means more passenger rail, thereby generating even more green employment.
The BlueGreen Alliance and the Economic Policy Institute's study according to their release says "that the expansion of freight rail in the U.S. can create approximately 7,800 green jobs for every $1 billion of capital invested. If this is expanded to include re-spending by freight rail and supporting industry employees, between 12,300 and 26,600 American jobs would be created or sustained per $1 billion invested."
"Over the past two centuries, rail has helped the United States become the world's leading economic power," said David Foster, Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance. "As we enter the new clean energy economy, now is not the time to abandon such a profitable, clean and promising industry. It's a winning situation for everyone - thousands of green jobs are created and we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
"This report affirms the tremendous public benefits that are generated both by freight rail's inherent fuel efficiency and the industry's commitment to reinvesting in the nation's rail network," said Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Railroads.
Freight rail jobs are green jobs, states the report, "which are crucial to reducing carbon and saving energy in the transportation sector. Over the past three decades, the industry has nearly doubled the amount of goods it has shipped without increasing fuel consumption, creating a fraction of the pollution of other modes of transportation. It cites for example, TTX Company, which is profiled in the report, has found ways to prevent more than 2.5 billion empty miles per year, and save more than 167 million gallons of fuel annually."
To make an expanded freight rail system happens the report recommends that governments consider investment incentives, such as rail capital and shortline tax credits and public-private partnerships (P3s) between freight railroads and passenger rail with government paying only for public benefits, and railroads paying for the business benefits they gain from improvements to the rail network.
(A P3 was used to finance Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada's very successfully Canada Line rapid transit, which opened last year from Vancouver International Airport a.k.a. YVR and Richmond into downtown Vancouver: in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics)
"Freight rail represents a significant opportunity to create good, green jobs while making our transportation system more efficient and sustainable and also helping passenger rail," said Carl Pope, Executive Chairman of the Sierra Club. "This report shows that expanding freight rail will meet our goals of creating good jobs while helping to reduce our dependence on oil."
What is also needed are incentives to encourage rail electrification, which is virtually nonexistent for freight and only exists in the Northeast with a couple of exceptions in the Chicago area and that is only for passenger. Electric traction has the enormous benefit of being able to return much of the power used through regenerative braking i.e. turning the electric motors under nearly every locomotive into generators as well as relying on cleaner energy sources such as hydro and modern natural-gas fire generating plants.
But hey you have to start slow before you can move fast. If lawmakers adopt the recommendations in this report to expand freight rail first then we can talk about electrification later.
]]>
The only way people and organizations will truly go green, and saving the earth and in turn boosting the market for green products and practices is by making them i.e. us pay the full costs i.e. environmental and related healthcare and other expenses for the damage we incur both directly and indirectly and add that to the prices of what we buy.
And then let the marketplace works its magic to efficiently allocate resources...
In other words if you want to telecommute from an insulated-up-the tailfeathers townhouse that relies on solar energy for cooling and heating, supplemented by fans and hot-water bottles respectively...and if you want to drive a tank to your office park from a mansion whose A/C is at 60 and the heat at 75...both of which is your right...then you pay accordingly for the Earth you use. What can be fairer, and more effective?
In a letter I recently wrote to a top Metro Vancouver, B.C. planning official I explored 'full cost analysis' (FCA) to enable such a pricing system for transportation, land use and municipal services. I cited evidence such as:
(a) The Canadian Medical Association report, No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution which reports that the economic costs of air pollution in 2008 will top $8 billion. By 2031, they will have accumulated to over $250 billion. Vehicle emissions account for 1/3 that
(b) A Smartrisk report that says almost 3,000 people die and another 200,000 are injured every year in road crashes in Canada. Transportation injuries (chiefly motor vehicle accidents) cost $3.7 billion directly and indirectly in 2004
(c) The David Suzuki Foundation estimates that the impacts in erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and degraded water quality when such land is paved over range per hectare/year from $12,000 for farmland to $30,000 for wetland
(d) The C.D. Howe Institute calculation that development costs over the next 25 years in the Greater Toronto Area (road, sewer, water networks) under sprawl would reach $55 billion, plus $14 billion in operating expenditures whereas with compact development the same pricetag is: $42.8 billion (or 22 percent less)
(e) Fiscal Cost of Sprawl: How Sprawl Contributes to Local Governments' Budget Woes, by Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center, research by Colorado State University, published 2003 calculated that for $1 in revenues from sprawl, $1.65 is spent in service expenditures
These costs are not assigned, I said, which distorts commercial and residential real estate markets and municipal finances. If they were, builders and buyers would develop and locate smarter and municipalities would not have to 'outsprawl' each other in trying to attract commercial development especially.
I suggested that Metro Vancouver undertake a study into applying FCA. Here are some suggestions that I had presented:
(a) Employer and college/post-secondary institution user-taxes based on the size of footprint i.e. land and transportation mode choice of employees and students, with allowance for brownfield i.e. existing serviced excluding just-built [past 15 years, to reflect commercial payback periods] /build-to-suit properties on formerly open space.
In this transportation mode costs would be assigned on the basis of the average capital, upkeep and impact cost of each mode used by employees/students either actual (X per km [miles] multiplied by number of kms [miles] commuted) or the average distance commuted by each mode in the municipalities the businesses or schools located in.
In exchange for this shift to a user-pay system commercial taxes would be reduced. Employers and schools would be incentivized to locate on high-transit-frequency routes, employ telework, densify and stay in and make better use of present buildings. The dividend is cleaner air, less traffic, fewer accidents, more open space and lower total costs to businesses and schools, enabling them to be more competitive and to offer more.
(b) 'Service fees' imposed on new build/just-built commercial and residential property based on their initial and ongoing direct and indirect environmental and services costs and gradually extended to existing properties. In other words treat land user like other service: sewer/water and garbage. Garbage fees should rise to reflect the total environmental (including transportation and their related costs) of handling it.
In exchange residential property taxes would be lowered and business taxes cut. The net effect would be increased densification and brownfield redevelopment. More retail businesses would be attracted to downtowns and town centres while existing retail space and industrial lands would be redeveloped. There would be a shift to apartments and townhouses both owner-and tenant-occupied. Going to a user-pay system will result in keeping more money in the pockets of owners.
Yes, businesses, and influential groups and citizens will squawk with a marketplace-based full cost approach, citing all matter of damage to their livelihoods. Tough. Why should the rest of us subsidize your enterprise and your practices and your lifestyle on our dime? If you can't afford to do it, change, live without or go kaput. No one forced you to go into business or use those methods or select the housing, appliances and transportation methods that you've used.
Yet the absence of the full-cost approach has forced others to follow suit, such as by making publicly-subsidized sprawl and car use the dominant housing and mobility means, and landfilling and dumping rather than recycling the chief means of handling waste.
It will take courage to go full-cost. Yet in view of increasing environmental costs, healthcare expenses and climate change we don't have an alternative if we are to survive as a species.
]]>While mining, like many industries, do pollute through both generating emissions and scouring and despoiling the earth, there is nothing intrinsically totally 'black' about it; holes can be filled or lessened and tailing ponds can be minimized and cleaned up. Greener processes can be brought in to lessen the environmental impacts.
Alas here is the rub. Too many mining companies don't want to pay for the mess they make, witness the blowing up of West Virginia mountaintops, the Alberta oil sands ponds, citing 'costs' that they instead download to the rest of us to subsidize. Good business sense, perhaps, nonsense for society as a whole.
Yet as bad as mining practices may be in North America they are sylvan compared to those in developing countries. There, mining firms basically have carte blanche and too many of them take advantage nonexistent or ignored environmental and labor laws amidst massive corruption and grinding poverty in which individuals are willing to work in Hades just to live an abbreviated, painful existence. Much like they behaved up until the middle of the last century in the more developed nations, as any tour of a mining museum or a conversation with an elderly ex-miner or a read of George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier will tell you.
To prod the mining companies overseas there is now proposed legislation, Bill C-300, a private member's bill introduced in the Canadian House of Commons by John McKay, a Liberal Member of Parliament who I met a few weeks ago at an Olympic party in a Vancouver suburb. As Canada fought then won what turned out to be an exciting nail-biter of a game against Slovakia, so it could earn the right to face the U.S. for the gold medal, Mr. McKay and I talked about making mining firms responsible for extracting resources like gold.
McKay's bill is aimed at promoting responsible environmental practices and international human rights standards on the part of Canadian mining, oil and gas corporations in developing countries. Its purpose is to "ensure that corporations engaged on mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada's commitments to international human rights standards. The Act gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade the responsibility of holding corporations accountable for their practices by submitting annual reports to the House of Commons and the Senate for review."
The bill has been analyzed by Prof. Richard Janda at the McGill University Faculty of Law. Here is his take on one of the key contentious issues and that is whether the legislation--which Mr. McKay told me has not to no surprise been exactly applauded by the mining industry--will actually hurt mining businesses:
"There is no evidence that Bill C-300 will unfairly disadvantage Canadian extractive companies and in fact, there is strong reason to believe that the opposite is true. It is more likely to create a regulatory environment that would make Canada and Canadian extractive sector companies world leaders in the area of CSR [Corporate Social Responsibility], resulting in a competitive advantage for those Canadian companies when operating internationally. Research has shown that companies that are socially responsible--both due to mandatory measures and through complementary voluntary action-- gain certain advantages over competitors that do not have in place CSR policies and programs.
"Some of the areas of competitive advantage arising from CSR include:
* Cost savings, improved productivity and operational efficiencies
* Improved risk management
* Positive effects on employee recruitment, retention, and motivation
* Attracting customers and investors
* Improved relations with the local community; and
* Better access to lenders and insurers.
Bill C-300 survived the Harper Conservative government's decision to prorogue i.e. close and then to reopen Parliament under House rules, but whether it goes anywhere remains to be seen. Few private members' bills ever get passed into law, and the Harper regime whose political core lies in Alberta, haven't been cheering it on. The legislation is now in the hands of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for further study.
Even if Bill C-300 dies that such legislation has been introduced and has been the subject of serious discussion and analysis, is a necessary first step--for other bills will follow until one gets passed--in what will be a long road to getting the mining industry to clean up its act, one that will pay off more even to these businesses than they will 'lose'.
]]>
* One of the most significant is the expansion of the TransLink transit system both permanent and temporary to accommodate massive numbers of people, and they did. During the first week of the Olympics more people than ever before - way more - more than 1.6 million people per day rode TransLink's network of diesel and electric trolley buses, urban rapid transit and commuter trains, and ferries.
Trust me: they were packed. Even from the car-oriented suburbs like where we live there were standees all the way in and out, nearly 24 hours a day.
"Week one ridership has been staggering and our system has been equal to the task," says TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis. "This is a testament to a solid plan that built in the flexibility to respond and the great execution of our planners, transit operators, mechanics, customer service personnel and transit hosts."
* Companies heeded the call to working from home including firms such as CounterPath, which makes softphones and Telus, a leading carrier which markets and supplies work-at-home solutions
The hope is that the high transit and telework use continues with the ending of the Olympics. To keep that up needs prodding to and by governments in the form of finding ways to keep some of the Olympics transit services going, like Bombardier's Olympic Line streetcar that will end March 21, and in developing incentives to induce firms to create permanent telework programs.
(If any of you were at the Olympics and rode the streetcar I invite you to contact Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to him know, so he can let others i.e. Translink, the province know how much you want to have the 'tram' to stay in Vancouver.)
At the same time viewers have been bombarded, quite naturally with tourism ads promoting British Columbia, showing its vistas plus its cities. For me as a British Columbian they are moving for the province has always been my home ever since I first moved out here in 1980 as a university student.
Yet one of the most beautiful parts of British Columbia--the Jordan River area west of Victoria, which is the closest spot to the capital where one can truly see, hear and feel the wildness of the inappropriately named Pacific Ocean-- is threatened with ugly, environment-killing sprawl. It will happen unless cash-paying visitors let the province i.e. Premier Gordon Campbell know in bottom-line terms how unhappy they will be if his government allows this development to go ahead. There are efforts now to try and save them via the Dogwood Initiative and The Land Conservancy, whose sites explain the issue but time is running out. Action is needed.
Yes, going and staying green requires work and involvement like the call to action for the above issues. I'm active in front of and behind the scenes. Yet without such action we will most certainly lose the quality of life we have. And if there is success the payoff is enabling a sustainable environment for all of us.
Once the primary means of getting around, streetcars were targeted for elimination by a combination of an apathetic public sold on the vision of unlimited mobility, not realizing that the dark side of congestion and environmental destruction lay just around the corner and by the beneficiary car and tire makers and petroleum companies. Now streetcars have been making a comeback in cities throughout North America. People and communities are once again finding them desirable.
The latest city to witness their return, if only for a short time, is Vancouver, B.C., Canada. The City of Vancouver and Bombardier have launched the Olympic Line, a 1.2 mile demonstration route from the Canada Line rapid transit near the Olympic Village to Granville Island, a popular shopping and entertainment hub long notorious for terrible parking. A pair of state-of-the-art 100 percent low-floor Bombardier streetcars, borrowed from Brussels, Belgium began operating last Thursday and will continue to do so until March 21, with the close of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games. The service, which will be provided every six to 10 minutes from 6:30am to 12:30am, is free.
The tracks the streetcars use a rebuilt freight spur operated on by restored heritage streetcars in summer months. Vancouver lost its local streetcar system in 1955; its longer-distance electric interurbans in 1958. Rail transit, in the form of automated rapid transit, first returned in 1986 and has been expanded since.
Vancouver hopes to keep the streetcars going after March 21; it is planning a network that will connect offices, retail, transportation hubs, sports venues and parks in the downtown. City officials are keeping their fingers crossed that strong public demand and support will enable them to convince provincial and federal governments especially, for operating and capital financing.
Vancouuver is eyeing The City of Seattle, some 2-1/2 hours to the south, which has greenlighted a second new streetcar line that will connect its King Street/International District Amtrak/commuter rail/LINK light rail hub with First Hill and Capitol Hill. The first streetcar line, connecting Lake Union with the Westlake Center, a retail/transportation center that joins LINK with the Seattle Center monorail, opened in 2007. They will be part of a network that Vancouver hopes to replicate.
The Seattle system could be receiving added funding thanks to Obama Administration transit financing rule changes. The Wall Street Journal reported it was revamping them "to funnel more of the money to streetcars, bus routes and other projects that promote 'livability.'
"Transit-industry officials said many projects had been stymied by a Bush administration policy requiring the government to evaluate projects based largely on reducing commuting times at the lowest possible expense," said the paper.
The newspaper reports that a fair-sized portion of that land had been donated to the federal government a decade ago by an environmental group, which had purchased the property from Catellus Development with private and federal money. The rest has been protected in some form or another.
The rub comes with commitments for conserving this wide open space when the land was accepted and goals for green energy from two Administrations.
The Times said the federal government "made a competing commitment in 2005 when President George W. Bush ordered that renewable energy production be accelerated on public lands, including the Catellus holdings. The Obama administration is trying to balance conservation demands with its goal of radically increasing solar and wind generation by identifying areas suitable for large-scale projects across the West."
"Not only is the desert land some of the sunniest in the country, and thus suitable for large-scale power production, it is also some of the most scenic territory in the West," adds the story. "The Mojave lands have sweeping vistas of an ancient landscape that is home to desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, fringe-toed lizards and other rare animals and plants."
Sally adds that some believe the desert is the best place for utility scale wind and solar. "But that is not true, especially solar," she said. "Especially for solar thermal. Because the kind of solar proposed for that area needs lots of water and lots of new power lines. Neither of which exist where the power plants were proposed."
Sally and the other environmentalists who want to preserve the vistas have a valid point. Just because the power source is green it doesn't mean the power is green.There is not only the habitat destruction and the visual pollution--"utility sprawl"--but there's also emissions from the service vehicles.
This isn't new for those of who live in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia especially. Our rivers have been dammed (damned?) for decades for green hydroelectric power, which have wreaked havoc on the salmon runs and the salmon fishery. And there are few scars uglier than the tree stumps and other remains when the water levels drop in the reservoirs. Except for the slopes stripped and despoiled with wires and pylons.
Senator Feinstein is striving to balance the green and the green. The Times reported that she had shrunk the parkland from 2.5 million acres; her bill would provide a 30 percent tax credit to developers that consolidate degraded private land for solar projects.
"I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California desert," Mrs. Feinstein said in a statement. "This legislation strikes a careful balance between these sometimes competing concerns."
The Senator has a point. The green energy developers would be better off in more ways than one if they brownfielded their projects instead. For (and ironically) they are falling into the same lazy and environmentally destructive pattern of commercial and residential developers by focusing on greenfields.
Further to the legislation why not look for alternative power sites at the huge parking lots at malls, 'office parks', and distribution centers many of which are vacant and whose landlords are hungry thanks to the downturn. Couldn't panels be mounted on new rooftops to create covered parking? Or wind turbines erected on towers that also carry power/voice/data, cell repeaters, and lighting. One big benefit is that the utility infrastructure is already there, which minimizes construction costs and line losses.
Here is another option: how about locating these plants over and by the massive amounts of publicly-owned 'freeways' throughout the region? The 'power rights' can be sold to support California's planned new high-speed rail (HSR) line, and when the trains begin to roll, to supply electricity to them. The same concept could be deployed in the Northeast with supplemental power to help power the region's large electrified high-speed and commuter rail networks. And in Texas where LRT lines are expanding in Dallas and Houston. With creaking progress now being made towards HSR in Florida perhaps solar power in the Sunshine State can help make that a reality.
Going green does not have to mean destroying green.
In it he writes: "Europeans are beginning to find that installing windmills to generate electricity has not led to any significant reduction in CO2 emissions--despite all the early hopes and promises. Because wind power blows only fitfully, backup conventional generators are needed, at full capital costs, for intermittent use."
"Denmark's costs are 15 cents per kilowatt hour while Ontario's cost is six cents. In the U.S., wind-powered generation is subsidized to the tune of $23.34/kwh; compare this to gas at 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydro at 67 cents and nuclear at $1.59. The wind itself costs nothing; harnessing it obviously is not free."
The study Dr. Strang appears to be referring to is titled "Wind Energy The Case For Denmark" published in September 2009 by the Center for Politske Studier. Among the findings are:
--"The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway."
--"Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plant can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years."
Hmmm...do we have another case of well-intentioned greenwashing (with taxpayers' green) a la ethanol on our hands where the net benefits do not exceed the total costs? Wind energy, like solar, cannot effectively be used to shave the most critical need--namely coping with peak-power demands unless you want to invest huge sums in electricity storage schemes like batteries, capacitors, and flywheels; hydro has long used pumped storage that sucks up a lot of land.
Or is this an example where, like solar, wind can be harnessed only in rare and site specific cases in close implementation with other tools such as LEED-designed buildings as in the case of Other World Computing's corporate HQ in Illinois, that, as reported on TMCnet.com has become first U.S. technology manufacturer/distributor to become 100 percent on-site wind powered. OWC also installed the wind power plant and made other energy-saving and environmental-footprint-reducing investments like heat pumps and water conservation at the facility without subsidies.
The payoffs from this true cash for clunkers program are plentiful and immediate. There would be fewer cars gouging up expensive 'freeways' thereby reducing congestion and accidents that cost vast sums in lost productivity and in providing emergency services respectively. Not to mention enabling a much-needed shrinking of healthcare costs by minimizing harmful pollution and communicable disease spread i.e. H1N1 in offices.
There would then be less need for billion-dollar/years-to-build mass transit systems, and the need to subsidize sprawl with servicing costs. And there would be less risk of destructive blackouts caused by A/C, lights, TVs, and computers suddenly clicking on when commuters get home.
These gains are on top of the environmental benefits. These include less energy used, cleaner air and more open space. And yes, fewer cars that need to be recycled.
]]>
While federally-funded programs insist that applicants examine no-build options like transportation demand management solutions like telework, the nasty truth is that these are ignored. Why let imaginative, doable lower-cost methods get in the way of shoveling tax dollars to campaign-contributing contractors and engineering firms?
There may now, however, be at last interest and movement in getting governments to do the right thing thanks to large part to broadband becoming a necessity in homes and businesses. Hence its inclusion in the stimulus legislation.
Expanding broadband networks means money for their supplying carriers and equipment vendors. And they are at last emerging as political counterweights to the powerful transportation lobby. Just as highways and transit people talk about freeing congestion, the broadband talk is about connecting America, and increasingly about enabling greener interactions at the speed of light.
As reported by TMC last week, there are new House and Senate bills that for the first time link transportation and broadband policies. H.2428, The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2009 and a companion Senate bill, S. 1266 of the same name, would require states to install broadband conduit in new or expanded federally-funded highways. H. 2428 is sponsored by Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), and Mark Warner (R-Va.) put the Senate bill forward.
New York attorney Nicole Belson Goluboff thinks it's about time. She writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is also an advisory board member of The Telework Coalition (TelCoA), a telework educational and advocacy organization.
In a recent article published in New Geography Goluboff called upon lawmakers to introduce and pass legislation tying telework incentives to federal highway and transit infrastructure money. She also asked Congress to provide telework tax incentives for employees and employers; eliminate tax, zoning and other laws that are hostile to telework; and offer public and private sector employers technical help in developing and implementing robust telework programs.
Goluboff reports there is lawmaker interest in encouraging telework. She reported that 12 House members wrote to both the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requesting that they consider including some pro-commuter reforms as they design the nation's new transportation and energy laws. Among their requests were initiatives to incentivize telecommuting.
There is also another benefit of telework versus old-fashioned transportation: results. A new light rail line in Seattle, Washington that opened last weekend was 40+ years in the planning, including political ups and downs much like the city's notorious steeper-than-San Francisco's terrain (Seattle had cable cars until 1941). A company can institute a telework program that can pull their employees' cars off the roads, buses, and trains in three to six months.
This isn't to say there is no longer any need for new highways or rail transit lines says other telework advocates. There will always be the need for in-person work and interactions that create travel demand. Executed right with an emphasis on full-time at home, telework results in fewer trips, requiring less taxpayer-subsidized investments e.g. arterials not freeways, diesel or electric regional rail on existing railroad tracks instead of separate light or heavy rail lines, and ferries in coastal areas than land-based modes.
"'When Congress finalizes its new transportation policy, it must exploit the tremendous mileage it can get from encouraging web-based travel,'" wrote Goluboff. "'Conditioning funding to state and local governments on investment by those governments in pro-telework measures - and offering meaningful federal funding to promote telecommuting - is a dual strategy that would yield a greener and leaner transportation system. '"
But is it good news? Not necessarily from the green or economic points of view.
And here's why. If the new buildings are being built on open space and not as replacements for older homes, offices, stores, and factories on existing land that is sprawl, which eats up more resources--environmental, infrastructure, services, and taxes--than it generates in income.
Commercial building, especially offices, is not a good sign because it shows that many companies still don't get it--that you don't need as many offices as you have--because half if not more of the work can be done at home. Which helps the public good by eliminating pollution-creating commutes and helps corporate survival by doing away with needless expenses.
Sprawl also leads to vast areas of already-services dying areas, locales that have become infested with crime that infects its way to the suburbs i.e. where the money is--as any drive through any mid to large city will attest. Crime does pay and in more ways than one. Ask any supplier to the law enforcement and prison biz. Money that in reality is a drain on the economy as it comes directly from the public purse than in turn subtracts from the public income.
Such starts also worsen the plight of existing owners and their communities by depressing prices. Many are already underwater and are walking away. More new homes and buildings at a time when the economy is weak will accelerate this exodus. It makes no sense to build new homes when existing ones are being foreclosed and abandoned.
Unfortunately there is an incestuous relationship between contractors, developers, and local politicians that encourages sprawl. Campaigns even in the smallest cities require serious money--I know, I ran for local office once--and developers have the cash.
There is also a collective leeching of resources from older and more efficient cities by outlying less-efficient car-oriented exurbs, such as blocking money to support mass transit. Many businesses and residents in these communities would like nothing more than to erect barbed-wire moats to keep the inner city out. One contact center company manager told me that when they picked a site in the exurbs they deliberately chose it not to be on a transit route to thwart central city residents i.e. "those people" (their quotes, not mine) from applying.
Fortunately there is an enlightened Administration in Washington D.C, which is the first one that recognizes the dark side of growth i.e. sprawl, with a President who understands all too well the issues and the consequences.
The White House can do a lot by its control of federal highway and infrastructure dollars by rewarding those cities that encourage brownfield not greenfield developments, renewing not destroying housing and commercial building stock and neighborhoods, that create jobs that support not to ruin communities and the environment. And in turn limiting or cutting off cash to those that insist on sprawl which studies show clogs up added highway capacity in 4 to 5 years...a needless and destructive waste of tax dollars that consumers and businesses can ill afford to see happen.
In short, doing more and better with less instead of wasting land, resources, people, and the environment. That's the kind of positive news we need.
The Pacific Northwest is an epicenter of rail transportation and land use initiatives, with hits and misses given the beauty and quality of life and the unchanneled growth that threatens to destroy it. Hits that all three of the major cities: Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore. have or will have commuter and urban rail transit systems, are linked by an albeit sluggishly-growing-and-improving intercity rail network, and especially in Portland's case (with some of those most advanced policies anywhere), are encouraging transit-oriented development. Misses in that the British Columbia and to a lesser extent Washington state government continues 1950s-styled sprawl-encouraging roadbuilding and widening policies (in B.C. case's despite its commitment to carbon taxes) and service cuts including in Portland to local transit.
The Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center is sponsoring a conference that is happening soon: May 27, 2009 - May 29, 2009 and would be worth while to attend to learn about transportation alternatives and developments in the region that can be applied elsewhere: intercity, commuter/regional rail and rail/cycling integration.
The event, the Cascadia Rail Partnership Conference is subtitled Moving Beyond Oil - Connecting Communities - Rails & Trails. Among its agenda items are
* Federal High Speed Rail Legislation-Moving Passenger and Freight Rail Beyond Oil
* Cascades Rail and Interconnecting Bus Service, and the Connect Oregon Initiative
* New Rail Technology from High Speed Rail to Diesel Multiple Units
* Update on Stimulus Package and Rail Opportunities
* Moving Freight and Passengers on the Same Track
There will also be a special-invite launch in Snohomish (north of Seattle) with Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) John Nemeth, Rail Planning Manager for SMART, the builder of a 70-mile rail and trail line, and Andy Peri from Marin County Bicycle Coalition will meet with Snohomish County rail and trail advocates, and the Snohomish Chamber of Commerce to discuss lessons learned.
This last one is quite timely because there have been and continue to be conflicts between both green form of transportation: cycling/walking and rail transit on little-used or abandoned-but-being-brought-back-to-use rail lines. There has been a big battle on the Seattle area's growing, sprawling, and congested Eastside over such a rail corridor that some senior and powerful officials want for bicycles/pedestrians only while others want for a mixed-use commuter/regional rail and cycle corridor. This route is also the only feasible north-south rail transportation alternative should the principal rail line that hugs the earthquake/landslide/tsunami-vulnerable shoreline from Everett to Seattle gets knocked out: a strong possibility in 'shake-rattle-and-roll country'. Or there is a fire or explosion in the aging tunnel that brings the trains under the city center.
The event takes place in Seattle and Portland with an on-board presentation aboard the 'kickoff' train between both cities on May 27. There will also be a tour of Portland's WES suburb-to-suburb commuter rail; the group will take the MAX light rail to Beaverton, change to WES, ride to Wilsonville, and return. Following that attendees can ride back on MAX and get off near the Amtrak station or ride further directly to PDX for their flight back via Horizon (alas Sound Transit's LINK light rail from SeaTac to downtown Seattle isn't open yet but there are the King County Metro buses). There will be sessions on the 28th and the aforementioned luncheon on the 29th.
]]>