Our World and Everything in It

There are many states that adopted RPS’s (Renewable Portfolio Standards) years ago:
California – 2002, New Jersey – 2006, Texas – 2005, Nevada – 2005, New Mexico – 2004,  New York – 2004. These particular states were so successful they upped their ante. California is aiming at 22.5 % by 2021, Texas doubled their previous goal, Nevada’s raised their goal to 20% by 2015 with 5% from solar, and New York originally required 25% by 2013. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/clean-energy-policies-and-proposals.html

And what does our Michigan Senate come up with—an extremely weak little energy bill. SB 1000 simply says that state government, and no one else, should buy at least 25% of the electricity that powers the state government buildings from renewable sources by 2025, but only if renewable energy costs are within 5% of the cost of non-renewable energy. What does this end up amounting  to—1%? Also approved was SB 1041 that requires all electricity providers to offer customers the ability to purchase power through renewable resources. Big deal.

The Senate says its part of a larger package to come. They may mean a larger comprehensive House Bill outlining Michigan’s RPS, but I doubt it. The Senate beat that House Bill with this one to show they really are green, a really, really transparent green at best, which isn’t reassuring that they mean serious business or cooperation. All I see is stalling either by haggling with the House/Governor over everything, putting out lukewarm bills of their own that will cause haggling, and taking too long to pass legislation that didn’t come from the Senate, giving lobbyists more time to water down bills.

Due out soon, the House RPS presents a statewide renewable energy requirement of obtaining 10% renewable sources by 2015. Compared to other states reaping the economic benefits of establishing a good RPS, Michigan is late, and not very aggressive except the cost, which is being shoved on us, and to the benefit of big business. I’m feeling right wing economics here, giving big breaks to business and sticking us with the cost again. Big business can benefit all they want, it doesn’t mean it will trickle down to the little guy. I deem the trickle down theory dead. I didn’t see Exxon Mobil’s 40.1 billion annual net income in 2007 trickle down to the pumps! Did you?

Just this past October 24, 2007, Michigan’s Senate Republicans launched the Green Michigan Initiative that predominantly focuses on the Great Lakes, expanding recycling, developing green energy alternatives (this bill?), and reduction of waste in landfills. Sounds great doesn’t it? Most of what I’ve seen addresses recycling, and it took 4 years to come up with that! http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?id=876.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester said that the Senate had been hard at it for more than five years to initiate proactive legislation. Why so long? We’re years behind states that are sitting a lot better economically than Michigan. We need green jobs. The states that surround us that have a good RPS are drawing green business in the millions, like Minnesota—250 million in new green business just from implementing a wind generation program.

Most of Michigan’s Senate legislation so far is about recycling relative to landfills. It’s just a start also.  Most of these bills just left in November, 2007 to go to the appropriate committees. Who knows how long they will linger there. Plug in bill numbers 889-907 at this website to read them: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(su1elh45wa2xlkzion3od445))/mileg.aspx?

Are you getting the idea yet that our senate is dragging their feet, because besides the recycling bills above the only other environmental bills I’ve seen from 2007 are as follows: 

· SB 0616   Environmental protection; water pollution; CAFOs; regulate land application of manure.
· SB 0483 Environmental protection; water pollution; baseline environmental assessment fee; eliminate sunset
· SB 0152 Environmental protection; prohibited products; use of phosphorus in dishwashing detergents; prohibit.
· SB 0081  Environmental protection; landfills; solid waste disposal surcharge; establish and earmark for recycling and other programs.
· SB 0007 Energy; conservation; appliance and equipment energy efficiency standards; establish.
· SB 0008 Environmental protection; permits; zoning compliance; require as a condition of issuance of wastewater permits.

All of this fiddle faddling around about going green in Michigan stalls thousands of new jobs with new business, a new economy besides the auto industry, and millions in new tax revenues. Michigan can’t afford it. So why the stall? Our governor wants to move ahead for change. Why would our Senate take so long to come up with nothing all that exciting, the big green wash, when people are really struggling financially in Michigan? Do they want us to starve until we scream we’ll take $14.00 per hour and forget unions? Because this feels like Psychology 101 to me used over and over by the Feds and now here. Strain people to the max like $4.00-$5.00 per gallon at the pumps, so we scream drill in the Arctic, drill in the wild life refuge, drill in my back yard, just give me cheap fuel again. And at least half of us don’t even know we’re being manipulated.

My blog about an RPS and how much money it brings into a state: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=250.

Another article about SB1000: http://www.mitechnews.com/articles.asp?id=8499&sec=104
 

HP has found a use for leftover plastic bottles. When we return our used HP (Hewlett-Packard) print cartridges, they “undergo a multi-phase recycling process that reduces them to raw materials such as plastics and metals.” The plastic from the inkjet cartridges gets mixed with recycled bottle resin and other binders to create brand new ink cartridges according to an article in Environmental News Service. They are not remanufactured. Other cartridge suppliers have yet to do this. The amount of recycled content varies from 70 to 100 percent, while the finished product remains at HP’s highest standard.

That’s a pretty good solution for some of our leftover plastic problems considering mixing plastics usually diminishes the strength and durability of a finished product. There are 10,000 different types of plastics, and many are not compatible together. If you haven’t noticed, most recyclable bottles are stamped with numbers. These numbers are to group the different plastic materials together when reprocessing.

But new research just might change things in the future. HP has discovered a way, and according to an article by Michigan Molecular Institute, “researchers from Eastman Kodak, Eastman Chemical, and the University of Florida (UF) accomplished that goal by establishing the fundamentals of compatibilization of multiphase polymer blends.” Researchers found effective methods to compatibilize comingled-plastic waste.” In other words they’ve found a way to mix some of the normally incompatible leftover plastic we toss to make new plastic.

Sharp has developed “a new technology to blend plant-based plastic that uses corn as the raw material, and waste plastic recovered from scrapped consumer electronics” according to an article on Physorg.com.  Now this is real news because Sharp is getting away from petroleum based plastics, which is the common raw material for most plastic. I don’t think corn should take a hit again, because of its overuse by the ethanol industry, but who knows, corn today, rutabaga tomorrow as a raw material for plastic. 

With new technology coming out all the time relative to plastics, hopefully we will greatly reduce the environmental impact our leftover plastic products produce. Next on the list, we need to see plastic that easily strips away in one zip from the cloth part of those dirty disposable diapers that get tossed. Anybody got any ideas about that? 

Read more about HP at: http://world-wire.com/news/0801300001.html

About MMI’s article on mixed plastic technology read:  http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/sp950-1/mmi.htm.

About Sharp: http://www.physorg.com/news5062.html.