Category: Climate & Energy

Carbon Capture – Will It Work?

FutureGen Mattoon, IL (Seth Perlman/AP)I’m very surprised a Texas site didn’t win the bid to host FutureGen’s state-of-the-art coal-fueled power plant. Honestly, I’ve become very cynical these days, and given the influence of the White House, I thought a power project using federal dollars – don’t they all? – would have easily landed in Bushland. Consider me “de-cynicized”, for the day at least.

According to the article:

“The coal used at FutureGen won’t be burned in a bioler [sic]. Instead, it will be converted to a synthetic gas so pollutants can be stripped out. And most of the carbon dioxide that’s produced will be captured, compressed into a liquid and injected deep underground instead of being vented into the air.”

I’ve said repeatedly I’m skeptical of this technology, but skepticism doesn’t necessarily lead to opposition. Let’s see how it works and go from there. I would be very happy to see it work, but only under one condition. I want the entire energy community to acknowledge that carbon capture technology would only be used as a bridge to clean, renewable energy generation. Seriously, right now. Could all polluters please sign this pledge? No? Okay, maybe next week.

While carbon capture promises not to release harmful emissions into the air, this new process of generating power from coal still creates a pollutant, in the form of a liquid. And the procedure for getting rid of this liquid, which is obviously harmful to organisms, is to inject into the ground. I can already imagine a news story breaking in 2013 that details how one of the pipes going down to whatever level is considered safe for this liquid’s deposit has burst and contaminated the water table in Illinois. Of course federal dollars will be needed to clean up the mess, and water will have to be delivered to Mattoon residents in non-biodegradable #6 plastic water bottles (ahhhh!) for years until the natural stuff is safe to drink again. Well, the de-cynicism didn’t last as long as I’d hoped.

Indirectly, I hope the economic boom forecasted for Mattoon is realized. More development between Chicago and St. Louis means higher odds of my great-great-grand children seeing a high-speed train connecting the two cities.

Financing Black Smoke

I was in a relatively good environmental mood today. The heat finally broke in St. Louis and most of what I’d read or heard today had been positive. But, reading this article, posted on AlterNet, was the equivalent of watching The Basketball Diaries after . . . well, anything that doesn’t make you want to kill yourself.

The article, “Big Banks Are Selling Us Out on Climate Change”, is one of the most frustrating pieces I’ve read recently. I think Tara Lohen knew I was having a good day and just wanted to kill my buzz! Anywho, the gist is that the two biggest banks in the U.S., Citi and Bank of America, are financing crazy amounts of heinous coal development, which counters their efforts to green themselves and their businesses on such a scale that the latter seems laughable. I’m not beating around the bush here, and neither is Lohen. From her piece:

“Global leaders are putting their heads together to come up with solutions. Across the world, countries and municipalities are passing legislation to limit GHG emissions; people are cutting consumption; new technologies are being developed to further alternative energy sources. And yet, in the United States, the coal industry has us poised to move in the absolute wrong direction. Right now, there are about 150 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing board. The amount of polluting emissions they will release is staggering — between 600 million and 1.1 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year, for the next 50 years. And this, according to Rainforest Action Network (RAN), will basically negate every other effort currently being considered to fight climate change.”

Fah-bulous, and it gets better. Also, according to Bill McKibben, who apparently wrote the first book on global warming for a general audience:

“The final question as to whether we can address it in serious fashion is whether the coal that is in the ground stays in the ground,” said McKibben. “We already know that we are going to burn all the oil we can get our hands on because we have gotten our hands on most of it and it is intensely valuable. Coal, on the other hand, is the question. If the 150 power plants get built, there is no use talking about compact fluorescent light bulbs or mass transit or any of those other things … we’ll have no hope of averting climate change short of catastrophic proportions.”

What the hell? The article gives a list of major coal projects financed by both banks, but one to note is an investment by Citi:

“In 2006 they gave $4 billion to Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal mining company, which has been ravaging Dine and Hopi lands for 40 years, taking 2.5 million gallons of water out of their desert watershed each day and leaving behind a trail of toxic waste.”

Peabody is based in St. Louis for those of you who don’t know. Yeah us!

The best part of the article is called “The stupidity factor” and details how ginormously idiotic this country’s behavior is in regards to all aspects of coal. Not one piece of evidence supports its continued use, which is substantial because no is currently being charged for the environmental damage its mining and use has on the planet.  Lohen ends with this:

“Fortunately, we have the choice to move this country in the right direction by pressuring Citi and BOA to fund clean, instead of dirty, energy. If those banks took the $141 billion they plan to spend on building new coal plants, and instead invested it in energy efficient measures, they could reduce electricity demand by 19 percent by 2025.”

I’m not holding my breath, which, incidentally, will probably kill me too.

The Debate Heats Up: Vegetarianism & Climate Change

Let it be known, I’m on PETA’s side in regards to the statement “you just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist.” Well, I guess you could be a meat-eating environmentalist, but you’d be a less effective one. Further, while PETA is known to sensationalize instances of animal abuse to make a point, a dramatic touch is often needed to appeal to people who habitually practice a behavior in direct contradiction to an organization’s beliefs. So, I was interested to read a response to the “afore-linked” article published on Grist.org called, “PETA’s dogma is all bark and no bite.”

The author, Alex Roth, reminds us of some valid points in his article. For instance, that the same report PETA uses to defend its position also states many of the environmental harms caused by livestock production can be mitigated through better agricultural practices. But, I haven’t read the report, and I don’t know if “many” refers to a lot of the little harms or actually includes removing substantial harms to the environment. Also, I agree that PETA jumped on the climate change bandwagon a little late, at least publicly. Apparently the ethics argument falls on deaf ears. Who knew?! But, I’m sure the good folks at PETA did know of the horrible environmental effects of raising animals for food long before they started advertising these facts.

That being said, hasn’t everyone jumped on the green bandwagon? This very blog wouldn’t exist without renewed interest in the environment. And fluorescent light bulb makers would only casually mention the energy-related benefits to their products in the past, choosing instead to mention the bulbs’ light was more natural or that the bulbs lasted longer. And most energy-efficient vehicles were long advertised as being affordable, because of little engines, not green.

The article weakens considerably after these few points. Roth claims that PETA is using what he calls “the paper napkin defense” in making their claim. His description of the defense goes like this:

“An environmentalist says something like, “We have to stop dumping toxic chemicals in our water, because it’s poisoning children.” Then someone who thinks he’s very smart counters that you have no right to speak up, because he saw you use a paper napkin, which is made out of trees and will be thrown in the garbage. As illogical and irrelevant as such a response is, haven’t you heard it a thousand times?”

While I’ve heard people use that type of logic before, and I do agree it’s frustrating to hear, I don’t think it’s what’s PETA’s doing. What Roth ignores, and what is of utmost importance here, is that people should do all they can to reduce their detrimental behavior. While PETA may be making absolute statements, I don’t think they’re asking you to become a vegetarian over night, though I’d surely prefer it. What they are saying is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too; eating meat and tooting your green horn is fundamentally hypocritical. The two acts are incongruous, plain and simple. Surely you can be greener than your neighbor if you have a hybrid vehicle or compact fluorescent light bulbs, but at the same time you’re not doing all you can do to lessen your impact on this planet.

Also, Roth uses the same “all or nothing” argument he claims PETA uses. He says, “To me, being an environmentalist simply means supporting policies and practices that promote a healthy environment.” To me, that means living a less wasteful life, and what’s more wasteful than creating something just to destroy it? You don’t build houses just to tear them down and you don’t build relationships just to end them. Why then, would you raise an animal just to kill it? For food? There’s plenty of food to go around in this country. Hell, farmer’s are paid not to grow food. Advocating a policy for policy’s sake, and then ignoring that policy seems to me to be like Republican politics, not environmentalism. Make a concerted effort to do less harm. Not eating meat is a good way to do that. Otherwise you’ll be nothing more than a guy who loves gay sex but tells people on TV that it’s wrong and you’ll burn for it!

Attention, Planet-Destroying Carnivores

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out on this site, raising and killing animals for food does more harm to the environment than automobiles, yet society continues to attack other major, but not leading causes of climate change.  Now, PETA, with the help of a few major studies released in the last few months, is actively trying to change the minds of meat-eating people. In summary, the two studies, as reported in this New York Times article, concluded the following:

  • In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
  • On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society.

One critic in the same article says:

“Using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism feels a bit opportunistic,” said Hank Stewart, senior copywriter at Green Team Advertising, which specializes in environmentally themed ads.

He also questions the logistics. “You want to get the message as close to the meat-purchasing moment as possible,” he said, “but can you imagine a supermarket allowing ‘Attention, Planet-Destroying Carnivores’ on the in-store radio?”

Ol’ Hank is marketer, so his logic of getting the message as close to the meat-purchasing moment as possible is understandable, but I disagree, especially with his claim that using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism as opportunistic. Opportunity is vital to success. His company, which specializes in environmentally themed ads, is the epitome of an opportunistic venture. Either he condones opportunistic behavior or is a hypocrite. Take your pick.

Changing the diets of millions of American, and billions of people worldwide, will only occur through raising awareness. This takes time, and exposing people to the facts associated with factory farming and raising livestock for slaughter is the right way to approach promoting vegetarianism. Scare tactics will not work in the long-term, though they are fun to try! The ethics aspect of the vegetarianism argument falls on deaf ears, especially when various religions tell people that animals are mankind’s to use as it sees fit, and make arbitrary claims like pork is bad but beef is good, or that chicken is meat and fish is not. Executing a well-planned campaign to disseminate the negative environmental effects of a carnivorous lifestyle is the only way to make vegetarianism mainstream.

I’m going to do my part, hopefully you’ll do yours.

The Heat Done Broke!

Glory, glory, hallelujah! Through prayer the believers have done broke through those liberal lies of science and cured the metro area of global warming. Praise Jesus! Next on the docket, “How the hell does tapping my foot to my favorite hymnal while dropping the kids off at the pool mean I want some man on man action?!” Oh Senator Larry “I’m not gay, I don’t do these kinds of things” Craig of Idaho, you make me chuckle.

From another “I” state, forward progress regarding the sustainability of our social environment. A judge in Iowa has thrown out the state’s ban on same-sex marriage and granted marriage licenses to six gay couples. Cheers! I still don’t understand how people can be so hell-bent on discriminating in the name of an “institution” that has a failure rate of 50% in the United States. That’s half for you folks you did better on the reading comprehension part of your standardized tests. And even some of the “successful” ones are built around lies, as Mr. Craig, of previous paragraph fame, can tell you. Man on oh man!

Of course, maybe the religious right’s concerns are based on science. As reported in the prestigious Weekly World Inquisitor, “Homosexuality is the chief cause of the looming ecological disaster, claims a new faith-inspired report”. This is “stain your underwear” funny.

Homosexuals are destroying the planet. That’s the stunning conclusion of a report by a British scientist working for a worldwide research institute.

“Global warming is a gay issue,” said the organization’s chief para-scientist, Professor Helmut Junk at a press conference yesterday. “The heat generated in discos, bath houses, the manufacture of interior furnishings, leather tanning and the result of … um …. friction, is a major contributor to the global rise in mean temperature. There are also lifestyle issues, such as homosexuals’ liking for gas-guzzling Jeeps and the environmental impact of frequent vacations in Ibiza, Gran Canaria, San Francisco and Margate.”

He denied, however, that gays’ fondness for houseplants and gardening offsets their carbon footprint to a degree.

Prof Junk’s work is sponsored by the United Faith Science & Biblical Truth Foundation. According to the organization’s marketing material, “The UFS&BTF adopts a far more rigorous attitude to science than most scientists. The science community in general is all too willing to accept ideas — even the most bizarre and outlandish theories such as evolution, relativity and paleontology — based on little more than data, factual evidence and predictability. Our organization adopts a more selective and stringent approach. That’s because we go the extra mile and ensure that our ideas conform with the ultimate test of reason and commonsense — the Word of God.”

While refusing to release the details of the study, Junk added: “The important thing is that, at last, we have the most convincing and morally correct proof, in scientific-sounding terms, about the roots of this important issue.”

Through my tears of laughter I see that the report appears to show conclusive proof that gays do in fact cause global warming. And while we’re talking about conclusive proof, I was entranced by this wonderful piece. Uh . . . , at least in this fantasyland global warming is acknowledged as fact. That’s progress people! You can’t debate the causes if people can’t see the symptoms. So, as you’re out and about this weekend, perhaps having a gay ol’ time in the park, abate your joy in the restroom lest you desire to make the world a wee bit warmer, or find yourself on national television standing next to your wife claiming your beliefs make the world a colder, darker place.

Happy Labor Day!

Pure Power

Attention to all Ameren customers: sign up for their voluntary Pure Power program. NOW! I don’t want to hear any excuses, just do it (swoosh!). I logged on my account at ameren.com and signed up in literally five seconds, no joke. From Ameren’s website:

What Is Pure Power?
Pure Power―AmerenUE’s voluntary renewable energy program―is an affordable way for our customers to support the growth of renewable energy. Pure Power is applying to be a Green-e Certified® program by the non-profit Center for Resource Solutions.

How Does It Work?
When you sign up for Pure Power, you volunteer to pay an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatthour (kWh). We will then use these funds to purchase Green-e Certified® renewable energy certificates (RECs) from regional wind and other renewable energy sources equal to 100 percent of your electricity use. AmerenUE medium and large business customers can purchase blocks of Pure Power in increments equal to 1,000 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity use.

Learn More about How AmerenUE’s Pure Power Works for…

Your Home or Small Business
Your Medium or Large Business

The company partnering with Ameren on this effort is 3Degrees. The company, based on the West Coast, has opened a St. Louis office and has similar utility partnerships around the country. For them to come to the Midwest, the program has to have been successful on the West Coast to a great enough degree that a lower subscription rate still makes launching possible. Of course, I’m assuming that the average Midwesterner is less likely to enroll than the average person on the West Coast, or the East Coast for that matter. Hopefully word will spread and you will prove my assumption was wrong.

It’s Freakin’ Hot

HotTwo straight weeks of 100 degree heat is testing my nerve. And there was an insanely loud, freak storm the other night. Global warming is such a myth. Stupid scientists and their hard evidence! Speaking of which, I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth. I know, it’s been out a while, and being a “green” blogger, I should have seen the film opening night. What’s done is done! Geez. The movie was great, Gore was dreamy . . . he should run for president. I think in 2000, if Gore had pointed out that he could add and/or work a scissor lift, Bush would have lost in a landslide. Healthcare? More like schmealthcare. War? More like bore! The average American wants to know the important stuff.

The funny thing is I tend not to go see political/issue films that support my viewpoint, or the opposite one for that matter. I haven’t seen Sicko ’cause I know the healthcare system is FUBAR’d. When I watch these movies I become enraged not only at the status quo but also at my lack of effectiveness in changing it, and that’s not good for the ol’ blood pressure. Of course, since I have moderately affordable health insurance, I could get an appointment with a qualified physician in no time and be medicated not too long after. Back in October, I wrote a post called, “Sustainable Healthcare Unachievable With Drastic Overcapacity“, in which I recapped my experience in getting an MRI – it was almost too easy. Check it out for a real life example of the ridiculousness of American healthcare. Good for me, bad for most. After all, the subtitle of this blog is, “common sense for the common good”.

Conservatives argue that if the poor work harder they would have access to the same things to which I have access. The argument is partially true, though where we differ is on a very important assumption. Conservatives – at least the ones I’ve had the misfortune to meet – say that every American has the same chance they had, silver spoon or not. WTF? That’s usually the point in the conversation where I start howling and jumping up and down like a chimp (and they say we didn’t evolve from monkeys!). Anyway, I’m not in favor of handouts, but people clearly start with different (dis)advantages. The system is too complex and unfair for every person to reap its benefits without a little help. That’s where a little compassion (read: liberal) comes in. John F. Kennedy said, “All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents.” How is that possible if a small child can’t even get a flu shot so he doesn’t miss school?

A Little Of This, A Little of That

The summer heat has set in and the air conditioners are surely humming, mine included.  That’s why now is a good time to start changing your habits. I’m sure (hopefully) people reading this post do more than their fair share to reduce their impact on the planet but all of us can always do more. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a nice little article in today’s paper about saving money and the world at the same time. It’s cryptically titled, “Save $, save the world“, and offers some great tips on calculating and reducing one’s carbon footprint. Seriously, go to the carbon calculator link and see just how big of an impact you have on the earth by living a standard American lifestyle. It’s sick. I walk to work, use my car once or twice a week and live in a multi-family building and my impact is still alarming. Make some of the changes offered in the article and get that footprint down!

On a side note, I saw a preview of Michael Moore’s new movie, Sicko, and it looks very interesting. Say what you will about the portly gentleman but he opens eyes. I’m not claiming he’s as fair and balanced as . . . say, Fox News, but he offers a view point on issues not addressed by mass media. I think health care is this country’s number one domestic issue, and I think most people would agree . . . though homosexuals do cause an undue burden on the poor and help rich white homophobes get richer.  Ah, screw helping people get access to good doctors and cheaper medicine. Michael Moore, why haven’t you made a movie called Homo yet? Banning gay marriage should be the focus of this nation. You’re wasting our time with this healthcare bull. Banning gay marriage will win us the war in Iraq. I wonder if Moore made a film supporting a conservative issue, might the right come out against it in principal, defeating their own ideology. It’s worth a shot.

I digress. I’m in a ranting mood today. That’s all for now, I don’t want to blow all my good points for the month in one post.

Update: International Symposium on Energy and Environment

Just two posts ago I wrote about an upcoming conference at Washington University in St. Louis. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had an update in today’s paper called, “Universities see green at forum“, detailing some of the outcomes of the Symposium.

  • Washington U. Chancellor Mark Wrighton said he plans to name a sustainability officer, put more resources toward bioenergy and clean combustion research, and make the environment a curriculum focus.
  • The president of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, said he will speed the process of making its department of environmental science a full-fledged school.
  • The head of National Taiwan University said he will quicken the pace to start an energy research institute.
  • The leader of Yonsei University said he would redouble efforts to conserve energy and resources, pointing out that his school is one of the largest consumers of electricity and water in Seoul, Korea.

Those are just four of the many conclusions of the meeting of 20 Asian and Middle Eastern universities, including 12 university presidents. Chancellor Wrighton’s plan to name a sustainability officer for Washington University is great news. Every major institution, public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit, should have one. I see Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) becoming the new senior executive position at the world’s largest organizations. Just at Chief Technology Officers became prevalent in the late 1990′s, CSOs will help guide companies as the world demands more responsibility from corporations and institutions.

I commend Washington University for choosing to appoint someone as a sustainability officer. I hope the person is empowered to make real change at the University. I also hope increased sustainability leads to increased efficiency. The latter is seemingly inherent in the definition of the first but universities are notoriously “fat” institutions. Environmental sustainability will hopefully lead to cost savings that can be passed down to the students, who already overpay dramatically for education in the United States.

International Symposium on Energy and Environment

Back in October of last year (think St. Louis Cardinals World Series Championship) I wrote a piece called, Environmentally Friendly Universities, that focused the energy-related efforts of Washington University in St. Louis, one of my alma maters. Well, now the University is hosting the International Symposium on Energy and Environment.

The Symposium, which will be held May 4-7 at Washington University, will be the first of its kind in the U.S.  At the Symposium, the “leaders of 12 premier universities in Asia and the Middle East, along with Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton, will discuss ways their institutions are addressing global energy and environmental concerns. These institutions include Fudan, National Taiwan, Tsinghua and Yonsei universities and the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.” That’s some heavy firepower. The specific goals of the Symposium are to:

  • identify specific areas of research and education of global importance in energy and environment;
  • communicate areas of strength at each partner university;
  • develop ideas for future collaboration that builds on the synergies at each university.

This level of teamwork, if fruitful, has the potential to yield tremendous progress. I’m also surprised its taken so long for the heads of international universities to come together. Hell, if oil companies can be calling for caps on carbon emissions and major universities have yet to open their mouths you know something is wrong. The world has been spinning backward since November of 2000 but last time I checked hadn’t entered another dimension.

“A novel concept of collecting educational materials from the 20 Partner Universities is being planned. In addition to compiling such information — much of which is available at eeed.wustl.edu — the McDonnell Academy will explore technological tools that will allow faculty at the Partner Universities to communicate more easily with each other.”

I checked out the site and the list of courses offered are impressive. The site says all the information will be available to anyone and everyone free of charge but I couldn’t access anything yet. Perhaps everything will be uploaded post Symposium.

I hope this meeting of the minds will lead to some innovative ideas which are practical, affordable and easy to implement. It’s time for tangible solutions to the world’s energy and environmental problems and higher education needs to play its part.