Our World and Everything in It

The Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) program, established under Administrative Rules R324.1501 to R324.1511, allows regulated establishments that have demonstrated environmental stewardship and a strong environmental ethic through their operations in Michigan to be recognized as Clean Corporate Citizens. The C3 program is built on the concept that these Michigan facilities can be relied upon to carry out their environmental protection responsibilities without rigorous oversight, and should enjoy greater permitting flexibility than those that have not demonstrated that level of environmental awareness. Clean Corporate Citizens who voluntarily participate in this program will receive public recognition and are entitled to certain regulatory benefits, including expedited permits. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_3666_4134—,00.html

While I’m happy that DTE is looking into investing in environmentally sound alternatives in the future, and this attempt to clean up AROUND Monroe’s coalburner is great progress, the Clean Corporate Citizen’s award is a little out of place here. What about the mercury? What about the CO2? Has DTE turned our coalburner into a carbon capture plant, because unless all three things are addressed with this award, than clean is a subjective word?

The award comes from Michigan’s DEQ whose budget has recently been slashed again. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?p=414. The same DEQ that warns they will have fewer regulators looking out for Michigan’s wetlands, rivers, and streams, and will not likely to be able to respond to pollution spills.

If you read about the Clean Corporate Citizen program above it says, “regulated establishments that had a strong environmental ethic THROUGH their operations in Michigan…”  Come on, DTE just recently installed scrubbers that DO NOT address CO2 and or the resultant mercury emissions. It’s the second largest burner in the country.

I especially like the part above that says: “should enjoy greater permitting flexibility than those that have not demonstrated that level of environmental awareness.”  DTE is now a Clean Corporate Citizen who can enjoy EXPEDITED permits says the Dept. of Environmental Quality that no longer has the funds to regulate what happens to much of our state’s surface waters. The same surface waters of which 25% do not fall under the Great Lakes Compact protection either, thanks to Michigan’s senate.

Lovely.

And the race is on. Alternatives or the same ole polluting solutions until we’re extinct. Looks like Washington isn’t waiting around for anyone’s opinion. The oil people are getting their dibs in while they can. We won’t see any of that oil for years but hey why not?

The wealthy are starting to polish their crowns in front of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/17alaska.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

A short synopsis of what I gathered from a brief presentation of Al Gore’s speech in Washington today:

Gore thanked all of the congressman present and the many that he has conferred with over the years and around the world. He said he hoped to lift partisanship from global warming efforts.

He went on to say that America needs to shake off its complacency because the survival of the United States is at risk, as well as, what’s at stake for all civilization relative to global warming.

He acknowledged what many of us are currently thinking that so many things are going so wrong simultaneously. The economy is tanking. We’re losing job. The mortgage industry is in dire straights. We still have security risks, and the Iraq war. Gas prices keep rising. Food prices are rising.  And our weather is increasingly horrible, posing new threats to the economy as many homeowners lose everything they own to fires, floods, and tornadoes.

Global warming is advancing faster than originally thought in 2001, (National Geographic’s “Planet Earth” series proves this). Our own U.S. Navy subs went under the Arctic Ice Cap, and it’s now believed 75% of it will be gone in just 5 years. Greenland is disappearing with 20 million tons of ice melting into open water daily. Sea levels will rise. And based on the latest round of increased lightening strikes during storms, scientists say that a 1% increase in global warming will increase lightening strikes 10% more. The problem is bigger than we think.

So the bulk of America’s problems can be categorized as economic, environmental, and as national security issues. After speaking with leaders from around the world, scientists, engineers, CEO’s of major corporations, etc., all agree that old solutions that treat each of these categories separately is a mistake because at the core of every bad issue is our dangerous dependency on fossil fuels.

America needs to end dependency on carbon-based fuels!  (Roar from the crowd). It’s easy to see that these same measures to help the environment can:

• Ease the economy by offering thousands of new jobs in new green industry right here in America
•  Stop the energy/safety threat we suffer through control by foreign oil interests. These foreign (enemy) interests have a stranglehold on us. If we don’t need oil, we won’t need them. Oil fuels their wealth and power.  

Gore stated that the U.S. is borrowing money from China to purchase oil in the Middle East. We end up polluting while accelerating global warming. In that statement alone are the three categories of our problems economics, security, and the environment. We’re dealing with potential enemies to supplies us with our needs while they drain our bank account.

The quickest, cheapest, best answer to all three problems is the efficient production of electricity for all of our needs. Science proclaims that the sun provides enough cumulative energy every 40 minutes to provide 100% of the entire world’s needs. Now why wouldn’t we use that instead? Gore also reiterated what I’ve already learned, that there is enough wind through the U.S. corridor to provide all of America’s energy needs. Add geothermal power to the equation and we simply have enough energy to get away from fossil fuels once and for all.

Gore remembers a statement that was made long ago that if oil got to $30 per barrel then alternative energy sources would be competitive. We’re closing in on being 5 times that limit and greater demand for alternative energy by big corporate consumers is already bringing costs down.

The logic then follows that we must put an end to our old fossil fuel solutions. We need a new start. Gore presented a strategic challenge to all of America. It is the linchpin of a bold new strategy to change America’s direction. He urged Americans to strive to reach 100% reliance on clean alternative energy sources within the next 10 years! And we should never think we can’t, because we can. Gore sited the walk on the moon at this juncture. (Huge applause and ovation).

Talking about solutions 40 years away is ridiculous. We have to aim for less than 10 years and if that challenge is not politically viable, Gore said, “Then ask the people.” (Another huge ovation).

Gore stated that our country can’t afford 10 more years of a tanking economy, job outsourcing, horrible weather disasters whereby the home insurance business may bottom out, and 10 more years of troop deployments to dangerous regions who happen to have huge oil supplies. Hmmm that last statement was interesting. Did we really invade Iraq for the oil and how is that playing out, and what oil companies and people are benefiting from our grief?

That’s pretty much all CNBC and CNN allowed us to watch. CNN announced at the same time Gore was giving this speech that John McCain was in Kansas getting an ovation for his idea about offshore oil drilling. I think Gore can forget partisan unity at this point.   

Late last Friday night our Michigan Senate watered down and passed energy legislation that took months to put together. There was no attempt at bipartisanship here.  As a result Michigan has a pretty shabby RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standards compared to surrounding states. What took the wind out of the sails of this legislation was the deletion of mandates. There will be no mandates on business, which means business may or may not choose to reduce it’s consumption of fossil fuels by choosing other sources of energy.

The Senate decided to go the route where state government would lead by example and be the first to reduce it’s dependency on fossil fuels by choosing alternative energy and also through conservation. The idea is that business would likely follow suit—but they don’t have to!

The positive side of this move by the senate is that taxpayers will be spared the cost of switching to alternative energy sources, and struggling business in MI won’t have to spend more to comply with any mandates. The state will bear the burden for moving forward. This is protectionism and admirable, but it also degrades Michigan’s RPS to nothing. States that have a strong RPS have reaped big  rewards in economic growth as a result. Michigan is missing the importance of a strong RPS. It equates to jobs and investment into the economy.

So the biggest downside is that Michigan’s economy will not likely pick up soon despite the “Green Gold Rush” that is on right now. On top of that, among all the cities in the country that had dismal spring housing sales where that market dropped again, Detroit area home sales were actually up 8%. That was on the news. So Michigan is primed and salivating for economic growth from anywhere that more than likely will not happen thanks to this senate’s quick and rash decisions last week.

Also, Michigan ranks in the top fifteen states in the country for wind generation, but there were few incentives and little interest in wind production in the bills. Yet according to an article on Metro Mode’s website, “[A] fully harnessed wind industry could result in up to 50,000 Michigan jobs, ranging from construction to assembly to engineering to research.” In this instance, the Republican lead Senate in Michigan is actually blocking progress and job growth. Wind is nothing to overlook in Michigan where there are constant shoreline breezes.

 The last negative to the final version of the bills is whether or not the environmental changes that take place within the state government will require outside contracts. I don’t like the sound of government contracting. Senator Waxman has uncovered billions of wasted dollars in contracts on the federal level both in Afghanistan and Iraq. This kind of thing looks like just another opportunity for friends to get paid.

 Environmentally friendly voters should drop a line to our state senate. The cons outweigh the pros for their decision on this latest round of energy bills relative to the loss of a lot of new jobs, and new money into our economy from somewhere else besides the auto industry for a change. Michigan’s economy is supposed to be undergoing change remember? 

Read about RPS in MI: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/12/renewable-portfolio-standards-environmental-resume-for-states/

Entire article on Metro Mode about MI windpower: http://www.metromodemedia.com/features/MichiganWindPower0064.aspx

The Bush administration urged Congress today to lift the 27 year ban on offshore oil drilling. No one is surprised. It probably won’t pass, especially during an election year. I can’t believe McCain endorsed the idea knowing full well the price of gas will not go down for years from any drilling that takes place now. Crist a McCain pick for VP, also changed his tune toward oil. Somebody got greased or rather oiled. One article stated we wouldn’t be touching any of that offshore oil for at least 3 years. So using gas prices as an excuse is a pretty lame. That and the fact that oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of FEDERAL lands that they’ve already leased and haven’t drilled.

Besides we don’t have enough refineries, and building new is not looking to a future free of fossil fuel. Considering we’ve got whole TV channels dedicated to showing people all the new green innovation out there, how long will it be before we catch on that we’re being lied to about a lot of it? We can get off the fossil-fuel-a-coaster but we need new management.  Think of the environment this election year and put an end to the oilarchy before Mother Nature puts an end to us.

I’m sure people that have lost everything to fires, tornadoes, and floods believe the weather is getting worse and we need to do something about it. President Bush admitted in 2002 that our use of oil and coal do have an impact on the environment. But he still pushes to lift a ban on offshore drilling during a year when the middle of our country is under water, and so many tornadoes have already hit the midsection, while fires rage in N. California.  The common sense here is to have some reverence for Mother Nature before we all end up to our necks in either water, wind, or fire, and without food and fresh water, but we just keep stalling.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alQzmBT3sqbs&refer=home

I was watching Planet Green about solar energy, specifically residential solar panels, and found out answers to a lot of questions. An average 2000 sq. ft. home would need to use 24–3 X 5 ft. solar panels to supply 90 to 95 percent of all electricity to the home. The panels sit on a rail and install within hours. The current produced from the solar panels goes to an inverter box hooked to the home’s main electrical box. The inverter converts the direct current into the U.S. alternating current and that’s about it.

Now for the cost. Depending on the size of the house it would cost 15 to 25 thousand dollars for the solar panels. With federal rebates the cost is lowered to 12 to 20 thousand dollars. This is very affordable for many people, and for those that can’t afford to eat, let alone put panels on their roof, I don’t see why the U.S. doesn’t just supply the darn things.

I figure if there are 300 million people in the U.S., then there are more than likely 100 million homes. The average cost of 12 to 20 thousand dollars for solar panels is 16 thousand dollars. If the government can get trillions in debt over a made up war, and keep pork barrel spending in the millions, not to mention earmarks on bills that amount to millions, then why doesn’t Uncle Sam just bite the bullet and supply 100 million homes with solar panels? The total cost would be 1.6 billion dollars but over a 4 year time period, it would come to a paltry 400 million per year.

I say paltry because of all the stupid waste I’ve read about. If you read, you know. It’s as if there are two alternate worlds. One world is where our officials come from regarding the environment, which is totally disconnected from anything I’m watching on Planet Green lately. I’ve actually written to the offices of senators, the governor, and reps asking whether they have someone on the payroll to just watch all the latest innovations that are available because our leaders seem completely out of touch, and keep trying to feed us a bunch of bunk that we must drill for more gas, drill for more oil, fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel. They’ve had their blinders on so long they fail to realize it’s the 21^st century, and we’re able to watch and see for ourselves that there are an awful lot of alternatives out there besides the same ole, same ole. I think it’s criminal the way we are blatantly lied to.

Just yesterday I watched as Gerald Brown, Great Britain’s new prime minister, and President Bush agreed that 1000 new nuclear plants will be built world wide in order to meet energy demands. This is the big alternative we’re being fed now. But why? Furnishing homes with solar panels is so much cheaper, and immediate. There is no 5 years of building a nuke plant, with the end result being no reduction in energy costs at all. Instead of paying big oil, we pay the nuclear industry, and still end up with radioactive waste that doesn’t dissipate for 1000 years.

Evidently helping consumers deal with global warming is one thing. Helping consumers deal realistically with global warming once and for all by getting homes off the grid will never happen because big utilities won’t be able to get a piece of the action. Heaven forbid we affect the monopolies of America in such a way they would no longer be viable, and therefore unable to gouge us at every turn. We should be feeling more and more like pawns everyday. 

When we think of greenhouse gases we immediately think of CO2 emissions. But there are others on the list that are far worse and growing at a greater rate. CO2 just stands out because it is the most prevalent and can last in the atmosphere for 100 years or more.

On the Hinkle Charitable Foundation website for the environment there are some pretty interesting facts about global warming presented in a series of reports. Burning fossil fuels for energy is the main source of atmospheric greenhouse gases. We pretty much know that. The third report explained a measurement called the Global Warming Potential (GWP) that includes both a gas’s ability to trap solar heat and how long the gas persists in the atmosphere. I learned there are a lot worse gases than CO2 that are man made like perfluoromethane, an etchant and cleaning agent. It’s presence in the atmosphere is increasing at a much faster rate than CO2.  Not good.

Mother Nature certainly isn’t putting cleaning agents into the atmosphere, or sulfurhexafluoride, another dangerous greenhouse gas used in the electric industry as a dialectric medium for high voltage circuit breakers and other electrical equipment. We produce 8000 tons of this stuff to use every year.

Now get these numbers. If CO2 has a one hundred year GWP of one, and stays in the atmosphere one hundred years, how bad is perfluoromethane with a GWP of five thousand seven hundred, and lasts over fifty thousand years. And sulfurhexafluoride is outright evil with a GWP of twenty two thousand two hundred and stays in the atmosphere three thousand two hundred years.

As usual these gases are measured in parts per thousand. Again our lives are measured in parts per thousand. How many ppts have accumulated in the atmosphere over the years? This stuff never goes away. We’re messing with more than a few generations here.

Read more and look at the charts: http://www.thehcf.org/emaila3.html

Consider a few challenges for the environment: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/pure_waste_challenge_cfl.php

We’re hearing a lot lately about drilling for oil. There are people so naive to think that by drilling in the Arctic or anywhere else we will see an instantaneous reduction in prices at the pump. Anyone with any street smarts should know that an instant price reduction like that means that the whole scenario about oil and availability is a fabrication. Some people evidently think that drilling for oil is like sticking a straw in a glass of chocolate milk when in reality the process of extraction is getting tougher and more expensive as the world’s oil supplies get more elusive.

A quote from a National Geographic article from 4 years ago states:

Others think that by curbing our oil use and developing sustainable alternatives now, we can delay the peak and wean ourselves more easily when the inevitable happens. There are many things you can do to ease the transition, says Alfred Cavallo, an energy consultant in Princeton, New Jersey. And you can have a very nice life on a sustainable system. Of course, not everyone is going to be driving SUVs.

 

This was the idea in 2004, yet in 2008, people in the U.S., some of the biggest fossil fuel hogs in the world are still arguing about global warming, and just curtailing the movement to replace fossil fuels with clean alternative energy sources once and for all.  In 2002, George Bush even admitted that global warming is man made and exacerbated by the fossil fuel industry. Yet the argument against environmentalism continues. Think how far ahead we could have been by now, and how many people could have had new employment with progressive companies in green business.

The Bush/Cheney administration has loosed so many environmental laws and/or ignored them that many citizens in many states are experiencing the result of companies like Halliburton devastating the terrain in search of natural gas and/or oil. Think of humans as giant mosquitoes. We’ve bit the earth in search of oil like blood over 500,000 times. The U.S. alone has approx. 500,000 abandoned/operating mines also. We’re abusing the earth plain and simple. Now we want to keep using coal fired plants and forcing the resulting CO2 emissions from them deep into the earth. Forcing gas into the earth has a bad sound to it, and is not an exact science yet. We don’t know what will happen.

When we think of environment we immediately think of air and water, but the earth is taking an awful hit too. Before we even think to drill more, more, more, we need to gage how much fossil fuel we really need, not what we currently, hungrily devour. And in order to do that we need to establish a baseline, which can’t be done until we restrict all extraneous usage and lower speed limits, car pool, change light bulbs, use a clothesline, shut off our techie equipment–you know, the easy stuff. It’s the least we can do.

Until we’ve done our part, we shouldn’t expect poor Mother Earth to keep doing hers to the extreme. Our world is sick and could use some TLC. Conserve first, drill later if at all.

.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_us_lack_sufficient_oil_refining.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/fulltext.html

If you’ve never heard of or viewed the panorama of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon area, do it. It is absolutely beautiful. I saw a travel channel segment on Zion National Park and want to visit there. It looks like a place of God. Our national parks are a real treasure, but the Bush administration doesn’t have much time left, and is trying for land grabs right out of OUR national parks to drill for oil.

If Bush has his way, oil drills will destroy eleven million acres of national park in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. I’m hearing about these attempted land grabs happening all over the place. What I want to know is what is the sense? We know we’re short of refineries in the U.S. It’s a well known fact every time the U.S. has an oil crisis, large or small, that right away we want to invade new areas and drill for more oil. But it’s of no use unless it’s refined, and we don’t have enough refineries.

And it’s not likely we’ll be seeing brand new refineries in the future because of global warming. And yes even the Bush/Cheney administration admitted quite a while ago in 2002 that humans do indeed cause global warming. The U.S. EPA submitted a 268-page report to the UN back then admitting to and agreeing with scientists that oil refining, fossil fuel power plants, and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

It’s 2008. What aren’t they getting? I know what the Bush administration is getting–more neglectful of our rights when they simply try to take over public lands for nothing more than filling the pockets of the rich from oil production. Trashing these beautiful areas of our country will not sit well with a court system that has been standing for the environment in a number of cases so far.

According to an Earthjustice report, just recently another federal court judge ruled that: “After years of court battles, Kane County must halt its illegal efforts to create roadways through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and other wilderness areas,” which is in another area of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. A U.S. District Judge “ordered the county to take down its signs inviting vehicles into areas closed to protect sensitive streams, wildlife habitat, archeological treasures, and wilderness values.”

This is good news but Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior, needs to hear from us again, even though he and the Bush administration know that attempts to drill in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon is going to meet with some mighty big resistance since this judge’s ruling.

http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/utahm00/xwnke5k44xx5mjj?

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/utah-county-must-stop-illegal-seizure-of-rights-of-way.html

Bush admits humans cause global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_us_lack_sufficient_oil_refining.html

Now that the polar bears made the list, the push is on for global warming legislation. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act S2191 for a floor vote in early June.

It looks like another senate vote that requires 60 votes. Currently about 40 senators support the bill, and another 20 are undecided. Environmental Defense Action Fund  “is working to find the votes and to strengthen, protect and pass the bill to put the Senate on record in favor of a strong policy to cap and reduce America’s global warming pollution. But I don’t think this is a strong policy yet. It’s a start.

I’m not the only one that thinks so. I ran into this article on http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/tags/americans_climate_security_act that says Friends of Earth took out ads to oppose this bill. FOE “thinks it does not go far enough and would be a windfall to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.”

I saw another URL that Greenpeace opposes it also. So I looked the thing over @ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2191is.txt.pdf.

I found a lot of things right off the bat that were ludicrous like the sections below:

On page 7:  (5) the ingenuity of the people of the United States will allow the United States to become a leader in curbing global warming. Sure, but only if Big Oil and those in its pockets let us do so.

Then page 8 says that the idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impact of global climate change and to accomplish that purpose while preserving (23) robust growth in the United States economy, and (24) avoiding the imposition of hardship on United States citizens.

Right, just like many state energy packages lately that throw the entire burden on consumers in the form of higher rates. Boohoo, multimillion-dollar companies can’t afford to change quickly. What, they couldn’t see this coming for the last 8 years? Heck, there were climate change talks in 1994. I did a blog on companies that just forged ahead with their polluting practices, regardless of a growing global movement for the environment, that in the end would cry they couldn’t afford a fast turnaround. Why should we pay for their lack of foresight? Oh we have to think of the economy. We can’t let big business falter. Well why don’t we do away with the old fat cats and get new environmental industry going? The economy isn’t choosy about what affects its growth.

And finally my favorite part that really disappointed me about this bill is on page 13. It’s the same do-you-think-we’re-stupid list of what constitutes greenhouse gas:

(15) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘‘greenhouse gas’’ means any of—
       (A) carbon dioxide;
       (B) methane;
       (C) nitrous oxide;
       (D) sulfur hexafluoride;
       (E) a hydrofluorocarbon; or
       (F) a perfluorocarbon

This is the same long tired list that allows the removal of one or two gases while not reducing any of another. As long as the total greenhouse gas emissions of an industry falls within the limits of what that industry is allowed per year, and this sounds really high also, than it’s legal. This is what is wrong with the cap and trade solution, too many gases on the list to choose from. What if all industry decides to go the easy, cheap route and eliminates the same two gases only? For example: A coal burning facility decides to install what is called a scrubber on its plant. Lets say the scrubber collects most of the sulfur emissions and nitrous oxide depending on how it’s configured, and that alone lowers the overall emissions of the plant that’s allowed by law. CO2 just keeps on spouting forth. This is not to say that the sulfur or nitrous oxide is any less dangerous to overall global warming. Actually, it’s worse, but CO2 is the most concentrated in the atmosphere right now, and it’s not being dealt with because that industry concentrates on sulfur or nitrous oxide or hydrofluorocarbon instead.

All in all, it looks to me like the U.S. Court of Appeals did the environment a whole lot more justice than this bill when it vacated the EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule and told them cap and trade of mercury is nothing more than moving that pollution around. Amen.