Joe's Land Blog

Step It Up

2007-04-08T21:08:00.000-04:00

Next Saturday, April 14, will witness a grassroots effort called Step It Up 2007. The brainchild of environmental writer Bill McKibben, Step It Up envisions thousands of Americans taking to the streets or precious natural areas, to encourage our lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at combating Global Warming. I've written in this blog (though not often enough) that this country needs true leadership to step up and combat this ominous threat to human well-being. Next Saturday will be an opportunity to demonstrate that, by sitting on their hands, our lawmakers are not representing our wishes. So get out and lend your voice to the effort.

Activities will take place in all 50 states, including 32 planned for Maine. I plan to be at the Polar Bear Action in Brunswick. I hope to see you there, or hear about your participation in other events.

Breaking News - Humans Responsible for Global Warming!

2007-02-02T11:55:00.000-05:00

A UN panel has announced that it agrees (with > 90% certainty) with what Al Gore has been telling us for 30 years - humans are responsible for Global Warming. This report also discusses some of the catastrophic results over the next 100 years from Global Warming, should we fail to stop or reverse the process.

The Kyoto Protocol has proven ineffectual thus far. The Protocol is toothless without US involvement anyway, however the Bush Administration pulled out in 2001 because capping emissions would hurt corporate profits. (This is becoming a recurring theme in the Joe's Family of Blogs.) Bush also offered the following lame reason - developing nations should also be included in the Protocol.

Well, ain't that some damn fine leadership?

But that's six-year old news. Today's announcement from the UN should end the debate over how much influence humans have had over the rising temperatures of the planet. The planet is warming and, unless we want to see Wall Street executives arriving to work via gondola, action must be taken.

"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures.
It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," French President
Jacques Chirac said. "We are in truth on the historical doorstep of the
irreversible."

The time has come for true leadership on the issue. Plans for unachievable ethanol use is not an answer. Market based emissions caps are not an answer. The US and the rest of the world's industrial nations need to establish comprehensive measures that regulate everything from automobile to manufacturing to power plant emissions. We all also need to find ways to mitigate the carbon that we do continue to emit, sequestering the pollutants via reforestation efforts for example.

The power companies and auto manufacturers and the rest of corporate America are just going to need to live with the changes that must be made, regardless of what happens to share prices. (Much of the value of corporate shares is currently residing in our polluted air, land and waters. The cost of this cleanup must be borne by the corporations, and ultimately by you, as your investments decline in value and costs are passed on to the consumer - but that's a topic for another day!)

We as individuals must also radically change some of the daily choices that we make. We can choose to buy our electricity from sustainable sources, or buy carbon offsets for the electricity that we use. We can buy more energy efficient appliances and automobiles and lightbulbs. We can reduce, reuse, recycle. We can carpool or bike to work or telecommute. We can drink tap water rather than water or soda transported by trucks. Likewise, we can grow some of our own food and buy much of the rest from local sources, eliminating the need to truck lettuce across the country (and supporting your local economy). And many more things that we can do that are too numerous to mention on my lunch hour.

The time has come for leadership, and for us all to do our part to stop Global Warming.

It's Beginning to Look Not Like Christmas

2006-12-21T15:45:00.000-05:00

Here it is, December 21, 2006. Brunswick, Maine. The first day of winter. Per usual during the cold months, the wind is whipping down Maine Street. And there's a guy walking toward me who is wearing a short sleeve shirt. I'm a more practical sort - I have a long sleeve shirt and a fleece vest on. My notoriously cold hands are comfortable sans gloves.

The air temperature is 50 degrees. What is going on here? Whether it's El Nino or Global Warming, it just ain't right. I'm happily not burning fuel to heat my home, but - it just ain't right. Bring me snow. Make me wear a hat. Jack Frost, please come nipping at my nose. This warm December is crazy!

Water Is Life

2006-12-19T21:16:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since I've posted here, so you're probably not reading this right now. However here is a link to a blog that I came across, dedicated to all things water. The human population of this planet will soon have outgrown the freshwater resources avaialable to sustain it. When that happens, as the header to the blog states, it will be the "oil of the 21st century."

There are a lot of alarm bells in this blog, but it also contains good information about the need for us to live more sustainably within our water supplies.

The US is currently engaged in a war to enable us to control more of the world's oil supply. In the future, wars will potentially rage over the water supply. The time for strong leadership to come forward in this country to fight our oil dependence, and to fight climate change, has long since passed without any action (apologies to Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, of course). This is because those who fund the political campaigns are well entrenched in an oil economy. Perhaps when somebody faces facts over peak oil and climate change, they will also face facts over water supply, and try to protect our resources.

I have my doubts, however. Already the water supply in third world countries has started to become privatized (i.e., has become the "property" of major corporations like Bechtel). When governments try to control somebody else's "property," conservatives get their undies in a bunch. Privatization is also an issue in this country. I live in a state where a major water bottler, Poland Spring, continues to expand its pumping operations. It does this without paying a significant tax to the people of the state, although the citizens of the state are required to protect the water supply from pollution. It's not an issue at the moment, because there is ample water in Maine's aquifers. It will be a problem in the future, however, as Poland Spring pumps out more water and ships it out of state.

The government needs to take control of the water supplies before we reach a crisis stage. This control should include regulation of bottled water pumping. It should also include the promotion and perhaps regulation of irrigation systems, requiring that sound farming practices be followed in order to preserve the water that is supplied by mother nature. It's the right thing to do, and it should be done before we have to start killing people over the issue.

BioHeat's time has come

2006-07-26T23:34:00.000-04:00

It's going to be an exciting year for the Joe family. We've decided to make the switch this year to B20 BioFuel (80% petroleum, 20% vegetables) for the 2006-07 heating season. As my partner and I have grown more committed to our efforts to minimize our impact on the planet, we have decided that money can no longer be a barrier to following our values in this area. Hence, in February we bought a Honda Civic hybrid that gets nearly 50 miles to the gallon and has very low emissions. We continue to purchase as much locally-grown and/or organic food as we can find. We have reduced our use of plastics. And now we are going the BioFuel route. And the best news about BioHeat is that the prices are now competitive with petroleum.

We received notice, through the Maine BioDiesel newsletter, that local supplier Independence Fuel in the neighboring town of Durham, is among several BioDiesel companies in the state now offering fixed-price plans for BioDiesel. This is a huge step in bringing Bio Fuel to the mainstream. The product is cleaner, safer and more environmentally friendly than pure petroleum, and 20% of the product is produced in this country! In prior years pricing wasn't competitive, and the companies couldn't offer the security of the fixed price contracts that are so important with the constant rise in oil prices. This year is different, however. The contracts are available, and the pricing actually beats that offered by my former supplier. I was willing to pay more for all of the benefits that BioFuel provides, so I'm certainly willing to pay less. In fact, I signed up for a budget (10 payment) plan that is 10 cents cheaper than the price-cap pre-buy price of my incumbent supplier! I save money and I don't have to write a check for $1,500 this summer? Where do I sign?

According to Independence Fuel's web site, they still have fixed-price plans available. Click here to find other BioFuel dealers in the state. If you don't live in Maine (and why don't you?), check the map to find a supplier near you.

Freedom Lawn (or, How Hannah Holmes Changed my Life)

2006-07-11T20:26:00.000-04:00

I have what most American suburbanites would describe as “a crappy lawn.” The US ideal, as promoted by the people at Scotts, Chemlawn, and even the environmentally friendly Nature’s Lawn, is a lush sea of green grass. Neither flower or non-conforming foliage must tarnish the landscape.

My lawn, on the other hand, is comprised of clover, dandelions, paintbrushes, buttercups, strawberry vines, baby ferns, some purple flowers that I kind of like (and some white ones, too), a bunch of things that I should know the names to by now, and at least three varieties of grass, including the crab variety. It’s a mess.

Is this any way to run a lawn?

I even went so far as to contract an assessment (“high weed content”) and quote from Nature’s Lawn a couple of years ago. Despite their promises to not use chemicals and pesticides, I decided that I had better things to spend a few hundred dollars per year on. At least my lawn is already green. Besides, I don’t live in a subdivision, I live on a country road where you can’t see anybody else’s lawn while standing on mine. I figured I could wait before trying to strengthen the grass (and choke out the weeds) on my own.

Then I met Hannah Holmes, who talked me out of even that.

That’s not entirely true. I didn’t actually meet Ms. Holmes, though I live only about 20 miles away from her South Portland home. I did, however, receive a copy of her 2005 book Suburban Safari, in which she spends a year documenting the actions of the flora and fauna in her own back yard. And right there on page 103 Holmes introduced me to the concept of the Freedom Lawn:

The freedom applies both to the plants and the people, the latter of whom
needn’t water, fertilize, pesticize, or other otherwise interfere. Nurseries now
sell Freedom Lawn seed mixes, for lawn owners who life in parts of the world
that have been shortchanged in weeds. But even before I came across the official
term, I thought of my yard as a Darwin Lawn. Whatever could survive the mower
and the drought was welcome to stay.

That’s what I have! A Freedom Lawn. And it’s a good thing, too. Holmes later writes about the problems with having a lawn that is comprised of one species of grass:

Monocultures are sickly, that’s a scientific fact. While it’s true that some
plants fight each other, it’s also true that a high diversity of plants protects
everybody. Together, the plants pool their talents. Each plant probably repels a
few harmful insects. Each probably attracts a beneficial insect or two. The
wastes of one species feed the roots of the next. The bold produce shade for the
shy. They also dilute themselves, making it tougher for diseases to roll from
clover to clover, or ryegrass to ryegrass. This has been proven in experiments:
A plot of grassland hosting many species produces a lot more total greenery than
a plot with fewer species. Even the most carefully tended plot of a single
species can’t compete.

Rather than spend a lot of time an money and resources forcing your lawn to be something that it doesn’t want to be, and isn’t all that desirable (from an ecological standpoint), Holmes and the Freedom Lawn community suggest just letting the thing run free. And indeed, since I stopped applying water and fertilizer a few years ago, my lawn has become more lush and green and (dare I say) healthier than ever before.

Looks OK when you mow it!

Suburban Safari is full of such practical advice. While promoted as a chronicle of the activity in Holmes’ back yard over the course of a year, it is much more than that. Holmes takes on such important topics as global warming, disease, invasive plants and animals, and, importantly, water diversion. The last topic isn’t one that we hear about much in New England, which receives ample precipitation most years, but it is an issue in the desert southwest where rivers and groundwater are depleted to feed agriculture, humans and, increasingly as the population grows, human lawns. It takes a lot of water to grow grass. Growing grass where there isn’t a lot of rainfall requires one to divert water from other, more practical uses. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that human population centers require a lot of pavement, which doesn’t absorb rainfall but instead sends it down into the sewers. Less absorbed rainfall means more water needs to be diverted. It’s a downward spiral.
The book does live up to it’s original billing as well, and it’s an interesting story. Like any good story, there is romance, violence, and the struggle to survive. It’s man vs. nature as well as nature vs. nature. We follow crows, chipmunks, squirrels, ants, slugs and spiders. We also follow oak trees, apple trees, pear trees and grape vines. We see how plants, animals and humans fight amongst themselves for space. Most enlightening was Holmes’ description of the defense mechanisms employed by the trees. We all know that plants are living things, but Holmes portrays them as, if not thinking beings, species that are able to adapt to threats and changing conditions, and even react with unseen, unknown defense mechanisms. It’s a fascinating read.

There is much to be learned from Suburban Safari. Some of it is in the “cool to learn something new” department, like the aforementioned discussion of the trees. But much of it is practical advice for what we as humans can do to preserve the natural world around us. It is an eye-opening look at how our attitudes toward rain water, energy usage, chemicals and invasive species affect our communities and our lives. Highly recommended.

Initial Farmer's Market Washed Out

2006-05-02T21:32:00.000-04:00

Barren Farmer's Market

The annual forebearer of summer, the Farmer's Market, made it's 2006 seasonal debut on the Brunswick Mall today. However, the event was basically washed out due to heavy rains. The much-needed precipitation was welcomed by all but those farmers hoping to get the season off to a robust start. Unfortunately, as can be seen in the photo above, there are few farmers and even fewer customers. The market is supposed to be open until 2:00, but the folks were packing up their trucks by 12:30, when the above photo was taken. If there are no customers during the noon hour, there are no customers. Hopefully, the weather Friday will moderate and we will see a vibrant crowd on the mall buying flowers and seedlings for their own gardens.

I am a firm believer in supporting local businesses, and support of local farms can go a long way toward boosting the local economy. There is also a benefit to the economy, as locally-grown food obviously requires less fuel to transport to the consumer than that grown on mega-farms across the country. And fresh fruits and vegetables simply taste better than any others.

I was working in a different town last summer, one that didn't have a farmer's market, and I missed having the opportunity to walk around and see everybody's wares, from the flowers and seedlings of the spring to the fall and autumn harvest. I was very much looking forward to getting started today, but that didn't happen. The market runs until November, so there is no reason for me to despair. I got to take a walk in the spring rain, and the gray skies make the flowers, particularly the forsythia, burst with color.

Brilliant Forsythia.

Garden Time!

2006-05-01T08:09:00.000-04:00

Buds are bursting, birds are singing, and green grass is pushing through the earth. It's springtime in Maine, and that means that it's time to prepare the vegetable garden in hopes for a bountiful harvest this fall. The growing season is short in this part of New England, so it is the prepared gardener who will reap the most rewards from his or her toils.

That, of course, is not me.

April carries its share of frosty mornings, so it's really too early to get much planted other than peas (which I don't grow) and onions (which I do). We had a very mild winter, at least in terms of snow, so there was the opportunity to really get a head start on preparing the soil.

I, of course, did not take advantage of this opportunity. My main excuse, other than I'm trying to do too many things, is that I hurt my back at the end of March, and it wasn't up to the rigors of preparing the garden. See, my 14x20 (or so) little piece of botanical paradise is small enough that I cannot justify using mechanical means to turn the soil. Which means that I spade over every square foot, then I rake in and hoe any soil amendments that I feel the garden needs. This effort takes its toll on my back in the best of times. April wasn't the best of times for my back.

However, I was feeling pretty good over the weekend. Unfortunately, my lack of attention at the end of last fall and the beginning of this spring have me at a bit of a disadvantage. The weeds that I left behind last year have already taken root and started to grow this year. This patch of soil is hardly ready for planting:

The weed garden.

So I set to work with the spade, turning the soil, casting aside as much of the grass and weeds as I could. The work was easier than in prior years. My soil has a high clay content, but I've been mixing in compost and peat moss for several years now, and it seems to be breaking up the big clumps of clay. The work was also eased by the dry spring we've had. In years past, snowmelt and April rains have left a big patch of mud where the garden belongs. This year, things are pretty dry. It's good for this exercise, but a concern for the growing season.

Surprisingly, my back felt fine while spading the earth. For the first 15 minutes or so, anyway. Then it started to balk a little bit. Then a little bit more. As I noted above, this was going to cause an aching back even if I didn't already have an aching back. Still, I carried on for about two hours, and finally the whole garden was turned over. No more grass and weeds, just pure brown earth:

Pure brown soil. Note the challenging afternoon shadows covering the plot.

I have yet to work the amendments in. I will continue to work in the compost and the peat moss, as they seem to be having positive effects. This means next weekend (if the weather is OK), when my back is feeling better, I will make it hurt again. But it's worthwhile to get the uncomparable flavor of fresh picked vegetables, made all the tastier from that satisfaction of recognizing that one's own hard work made them grow.

Earth Day News - Green Inns

2006-04-23T17:41:00.000-04:00

Today's Maine Sunday Telegram has an article about Maine's new Green Lodging Certification Program. Ten inns have been already been certified as providers of Green accomodations, with several more working on their applications. Inn owners find that running a green business can save money (primarily energy costs), as well as provide a boon to business, as many travellers will prefer to patronize a business with a good environemental record.

According to the article, the Maine program is modeled after similar ones in Vermont and Nova Scotia. Ten Maine inns are currently certified, including the Inn By The Sea, The Harraseeket Inn, and America's Best Inn of Augusta, all of which are members of the Green Hotels Association. Special mention also goes to the Maple Hill Farm B&B in Hallowell, which generates a portion of its electricity with an on-site wind turbine.

Some of these facilities are making a business decision, while others may be actively attempting to grow awareness in the public about environmental issues. I personally never really considered the enormous volumes of water and detergent that go into laundering hotel towels and linens until I read a card in a room that I stayed in a few years ago. Now I try to make a point of staying in Green hotels, and I make sure to reuse my towel and make sure my sheets are not washed until I leave. Every little bit helps, and one day it will be a habit for all travellers.

Kudos to Maine for its new program, to the hotels joining in, and to Vermont and Nova Scotia and any others engaged in a similar program. Go Green when travelling!

Store Wars

2006-02-27T20:28:00.000-05:00

Store Wars is something that you just need to see to believe. A very clever promotion to promote the use of organic foods. In our family, we shop the natural food stores first and supplement with the mainstream grocery stores. Even at the natural food stores, we give preference to organic over something labeled simply as "all natural". As the web site points out, the out-of-pocket costs for organic goods are greater, but the benefits to your health and that of the planet are immense. Furthermore, organic foods taste better.

As I get back into more regular posting at this blog, I hope to spend more time discussing organic and sustainable alternatives to the products that we have come to depend upon in the US. Organic food is a good way to start. Check out the information that goes along with the video.

Senators Seek Stricter Global Warming Curbs

2006-02-03T08:11:00.000-05:00

New Mexico senators Pete Dominici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D) have initiated a path that they hope will lead to the US' "first mandatory program for trading greenhouse gases in the marketplace. " According to the story, the report is

an attempt to make a reality of a nonbinding resolution the Senate passed
last year. It called for "mandatory, market-based limits and incentives" on
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases from fossil fuel burning
that warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

I'm not certain that "mandatory" and "market-based" are concepts that can coexist peacefully, but we'll see on that. I suppose that it might be akin to the deregulated, market-based electrical supply in Maine.

Also according to the story, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe opposes the idea of limiting emissions, but did it in a cowardly manner. Instead of coming out and admitting that he doesn't care about the environment, he said "that the Environment and Public Works Committee he chairs has jurisdiction over legislative action on climate change and emissions."

That's it, it's not that it's a bad concept, it's just the wrong process.

Industry also doesn't support the measure, but it sounds like some may be waking up an smelling the coffee:

Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said the utilities he represents continue to favor voluntary approaches. But he added that the senators' report "raises many good questions about the possible design of a mandatory scheme for reducing greenhouse gases. Of course, there are no easy answers."

It's nice to see someone in Washington (a Republican even!) admit that there is a problem and take action to address it. It's a far cry from our Fearsome Leader, who begrudgingly admits that the US has a problem with foreign oil. Bush, however, insists that new technology and domestic sources of fuel will solve the problem. We need to educate Americans about the benefit of saving oil (and other fuels), not finding replacements. Finding new fossil fuels, for one thing, doesn't address the global warming issue, it just finds a new source for the same problem.

Conservation and the implementation of sustainable, renewable energy sources, starting today, is the direction that we need to go in. We also would benefit from renewing the forests that are so instrumental in mitigating the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon offsets (which appears to be part of the plan from the New Mexico senators) is a topic that I will be exploring in a future entry to this blog.

Baby steps, when we need giant steps, but it's better than no steps at all.

It's Snow Season

2006-01-30T13:28:00.000-05:00

Part of the everyday struggle in the Joe household is the (self-imposed) requirement that I consider the ecological impact of my actions. Hand wash dishes or use the dishwasher? Flush or no flush (usually a no-brainer)? Drive to the gym or take a walk? Burn oil or wood? The list goes on. Winters in Maine force me into one of the most important decisions that I am faced with - shovel, or use the snow blower? (Or, if the forecast is favorable, do I give Mother Nature a day or two to take care of the snow for me?)

Unlike the wood vs. oil situation, the shovel vs. snow blower debate is a clear choice between helping to preserve the environment and bowing to convenience. Shoveling is quiet and takes nothing but the use of one's own muscles. It's good exercise, although it can be overdone, especially if the snow is deep and wet. Snow blowing, on the other hand, requires one to use petroleum (as lubricant as well as fuel), blasts noxious fumes into the air and is incredibly noisy. That's not to mention the fact that the manufacture of a snow blower requires far more resources than that of a shovel. (That, of course, is a sunk cost in my case.)

It's also a heck of a lot faster than shoveling, which really matters when one has to get everybody off to their jobs by a certain hour. I have established certain criteria to help me in the decision process. If we get three inches or less, I will shovel (which doesn't take all that long) or leave it to Ma Nature. If we get six inches or more, it's almost always necessary to use the snow blower. When we get 4-5 inches, I have a decision to make. How much time do I have? How heavy is the snow? Is the snow blower working today?

Of course, about 90% of the snow storms that come through leave 4-5 inches of snow in my driveway. I always have a decision to make. This morning was no exception. A storm over night left four inches of snow at my house. It might have been three only inches. I actually had plenty of time to take care of the snow, and on another day I might have taken out my shovel and gotten to work. However, I had been playing with my friends' kids over the weekend and managed to strain my back in the process (the joys of being 40!).

I suppose I could have left it, but there's another storm coming tonight and it wasn't going to be any easier tomorrow. And we get in trouble when we leave too much snow to melt and become several inches of ice in the process. There was really no choice but to get out the machine.

With some measure of guilt I took out the snow blower. I wear hearing protection to guard against the noise, but there is nothing to keep the carbon emissions from heading off to the ever-increasing hole in the ozone. This hole in the ozone is leading to an increase in our air temperatures and, I assume, has led to the unseasonably warm weather that we've been enjoying this January.

And this is where the story comes full circle. The unseasonably warm weather has kept my gravel driveway from freezing solid this winter. This means that the snowblower often digs up rocks when I am using it. The rocks get caught in the auger blades, breaking the shear pins and rendering the snow blower non-functional. I broke four shear pins this morning. My last four shear pins. I ultimately wound up shoveling about a third of my driveway regardless, much to the dismay of my back.

When possible, I encourage those in cold weather states to use a shovel rather than a snow blower. For me, there's usually a sense of calm while I'm shoveling in the quiet winter air, and accomplishment when I finish. Using the snow blower does nothing of the sort. Thanks to mother nature for reminding me. My back will feel better in a couple of days. There is no such quick-fix for the planet.

Solar Symposium Recap

2005-11-15T19:43:00.000-05:00

I'm a little later than promised on this post (as has been the case for the last two months or so), but I would like to take the opportunity to recap what I learned at the Green Store's Solar Syposium the other day. Unfortunately, the presentation ran quite long, and I had to leave before Mr. Coon was finished speaking. I will, however, present the highlights of the first part here.

A large crowd of about 30 people turned out to hear the talk. On hand was Pat Coon of Energyworks, a company that has been in the business of installing renewable and efficient energy systems for a decade now. Along with speaking about the technical details related to solar electric installation, Mr. Coon also provided an interesting history of the evolving solar electric industry.

Ten years ago, all solar powered homes depended upon a battery of batteries to store electricity for use when the sun isn't out. There were very few component parts, meaning that installation took a lot of fabrication and labor time. In other words, it was slow and expensive to install solar electricity in a home, and it was primarily done in new construction. However a series of events, including a growing awareness of the environmental and political impacts of our oil dependence, have led to drastic changes in the industry. Not the least of these events were the Enron blackouts experienced in California in the late 1990's. Concerned about capacity, the State of California passed legislation providing incentives to install solar electric systems.

Suddenly a niche market became a much larger market, and industries stepped in to meet the increased demand. Manufactured mounting rails replaced the need for installers to fabricate the foundation upon which the solar panels would rest on the roof. The panels themselves became "plug and play" models, rather than those featuring an intricate series of wires to navigate. Instead of a matter of weeks, installation of an entire system could be completed in a matter of days.

But perhaps the biggest change to bring solar to the masses, as it were, was the development of the "Grid Tie Inverter". This unit enabled solar panels to exist electricity generated by the utilities. When the sun is generating more electricity than the building needs, the excess is in effect stored on the grid (and the meter on your house runs backward). When the sun isn't enough (or isn't out at all), the house draws from the utility system. Instead of a bank of batteries and a retrofit to a house, all that was required (in addition to the photovoltaic (PV) panels), was relatively small piece of equipment that currently costs only a couple thousand dollars. Now practically anybody can put solar panels on their house.

A typical home can have a 2,000 watt system (14 panels) installed for less than $20,000. At current electrical costs, the typical Maine home will save $40 a month with this kind of system, meaning the sytem will pay for itself in a little more than 20 years. (Thankfully, the panels are warrented for 25 years!) The part of the talk that discussed rebates and financing, unfortunately, is the part that I had to leave during. I did hear that Maine's rebates appear to be quite insufficient. The state is offering $500,000 per year in rebates, only 25% of which ($125K) is earmarked for PV installations. At $3,000/1,000 watts of capacity, the rebate for a typical house will be $6,000. This means that in a given year, only about 20 homes will receive rebates to install solar systems. And judging by the number of people in attendence in Brunswick, there are a lot of families interested in putting solar on their homes. If many of them, like myself, were looking at the rebate as a way to make solar affordable for their homes, I'm afraid the incentive will ultimately fall short. (Read the entire law here.)

The remainder of the rebate pool ($375K) is pegged for solar hot water (SHW). Because electric hot water heaters are so inefficient, SHW provides more "bang for the buck," according to Coon. (I'm not certain what the numbers are). A SHW system costs $7,500, of which the state will rebate $1,250. Still a sizeable rebate, and the pool will cover 280 homes per year. The problem, according to Coon, is that his company can only install about 60 systems per year, and they are by far the biggest company in Maine when it comes to SHW installation.

The bottom line is that there doesn't appear to be enough of a rebate available for PV, whereas SHW will likely have unused rebate money, at least in the early years. While this is unfortunate, I think that I understand where the State is coming from on this one. My intuition tells me that many low-income Mainers probably have electric hot water heaters in their homes that they can't afford to replace. The state probably figures that it's better to get rebate money to the people who need the help the most, rather than a bunch of middle-class people who can possibly afford to "go solar" even at the higher cost.

Mr. Coon gave a nice talk, and it was great to see so many people show an interest in solar power. There's definitely a wave of interest, which will probably lead to "market forces" that will make the technology even more affordable to the middle class, even without government incentives. Coon believes that solar technology can meet all of our needs, with one major caveat: we need to stop wasting electricity. And we waste a lot of electricity in this country. Coon could (and does) give an entire presentation on how to cut back on our electrical waste, which I hope he can bring to the Green Store in the future. My hope is that solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tide power and other clean renewables will continue to be developed in a responsible manner, eliminating the need for this contry to burn environmentally damaging fossil fuels to power its toys.

Solar Symposium

2005-11-09T21:29:00.000-05:00

Brunswick's wonderful Green Store will be hosting it's next Sustainable Living talk this Thursday. The topic is Going Solar, and the guest host is Pat Coon of Energyworks. The hour long program starts at 5:30. I look forward to hearing about my options for going solar, and will be equipped with questions about subsidized loans and tax rebates. I'll report back on Friday (or so). Hope to see you there!

Land Bond Passes

2005-11-09T20:09:00.000-05:00

By a 2:1 margin, Mainers approved a $12 million bond to re-establish funding for the Land For Maine's Future program. It's not a lot of money - a far cry from the $50 million or so that legislators were planning to put forth in 2004 - but it will help to protect critical landscapes that are important to Maine's heritage. Mainers have always heavily supported the LMF bonds and I expect that organizers will be emboldened by Tuesday's victory to bring forth another bond proposal in a few years when this one runs out. LMF has done some important work, and look forward to supporting their cause in the future.

Also of note, and supported by an even greater margin, Mainers approved a constitutional amendment that will permit the legislature to regulate taxes on commercial fishing property. Similar to the law that allows farmland, forestland and open spaces to be assessed at "current use" value, rather than market (i.e. development) value, this amendment will protect the small portion of Maine's coastline that is currently devoted to commercial fishing from residential development. This was kind of a no-brainer for Mainers, as the vast majority of people who are buying up the coastline for multi-million dollar mansions are "from away". Taxes assessed based on the development value of property have become a burden on fishermen, which endangers this important aspect of Maine's heritage and economy. Unfortunately for some, waterfront homes that are owned by families of fishermen (or, increasingly, former fishermen) are not protected. Many people whose waterfront homes have been in their family for generations have been forced to sell their homes because they are no longer able to afford the property taxes. While municipalities need to generate revenues somehow, it is a shame when someone has to leave the homestead for rising taxes.

Vote Yes on 5

2005-10-27T21:10:00.000-04:00

The Land for Maine's Future bond is a $12 million bond proposal that, if passed, will leverage at least an additional $7 million for a total of $19 million to protect Maine Land from development.

The LMF program, through two prior bond initiatives, has provided $85 million since 1987 that has been used to protect wild lands and farm lands from development. According to the Maine Land Bond web site, the LMF program has protected over 120 parcels of land, helping to preserve Maine's rural culture, and maintain wild lands for recreational use. According to a 2004 report issued by the University of Maine's Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy, and USM's New England Environmental Finance Center of the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, the LMF program is an "investment in the future of Maine's environment, economy, and cultural heritage....(Mainers should view LMF) not as an end in itself, but as a tool or instrument of their larger abiding purposes: sustainable economic development, environmental stewardship, and community building." Furthermore, "In addition to recreational and ecological impacts, changes in land use can have improtant economic effects on Maine communities. Throughout the state, there is recognition that natural resources have economic value beyond their potential for extraction or development. "

There are more than 100 businesses and governmental units in the coalition who recognize the importance of continuing to protect Maine's rural heritage for future generations. I fully support the bond initiative, and hope all will vote yes on November 8.

Buy your 2006 cars now

2005-10-14T19:17:00.000-04:00

The US DOE and EPA have released the 2006 automotive fuel economy guide. It's their annual listing of the rated fuel economy of most 2006 models. (Some models, like apparently the Honda Civic Hybrid, weren't available for testing. Also, vehicles weighing over 8,500 lbs, like your average Hummer, aren't tested. I guess for these vehicles, the answer is pretty obvious.) Tops on the list, no surprise, are the Hybrids along with a host of diesel-powered VW's. Bottom of the list - well, I'm not going to bother, because you, the kind readers of this Blog, aren't in that market.

I know that there has been some controversy about the EPA fuel economy ratings (that they are set under unrealistic driving conditions and are, therefore, inflated), but this seems to be a pretty good guide. It discusses tax incentives available for buying hybrids and other altenatively-powered vehicles, improved emissions from fuel-efficient cars, and how you can increase national security by reducing the country's dependence upon foreign oil. (Hey, if it gets somebody to buy a more efficient vehicle, I'm all for it!) There is also a guide telling us how to get the best performance out of our cars. For a document prepared by the US government, it's actually quite useful.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ has a lot more useful information on the subject.

Environment takes a back seat - again and again

2005-10-09T20:18:00.000-04:00

The Republican party is at it again, with House of Representatives voting to gut the Endangered Species Act in a ballot that followed party lines in the Republican-led House. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, key elements of the bill undermine species recovery, eliminate habitat protection (the single greatest threat to endangered species is habitat destruction), exempts pesticides from Environmental review (!!!), and allows corporations to collect millions of dollars in damages by asserting that they have been haremd by endangered species protections.

Words cannot describe how disgusting this bill is, especially in eliminating environmental review of pesticides and sacrificing plant and animal life in favor of corporate profits.

Closer to home, a similar story takes place in Brunswick, where the town council rejected a "rural smart growth" ordinance that would have required developers to consider the impact that developments would have on wildlife habitat. According to the Times Record's op-ed piece, "the four councilors voting against the plan essentially took the position that the proposal infringes too much on landowners' property rights. They are simply affirming our society's norm, which asserts that human needs take priority above all else."

It saddens me that in this day and age, not only do we routinely reject the need for environmental consideration in the world of business, but we are rolling back existing protections for the environment. I believe that profit which comes at the expense of the enviromenent and other living beings needs to be curtailed, taxed heavily, or eliminated.

It is impossible to imagine a world in which humans have no impact on the environment, where we live in complete harmony with other living things. However, that is no justification for not making every effort to minimize our impact. Capitalism and the pursuit of profit are an artificially constructed value that has taken hold in this country and is seen as the guiding motiviation for everything that people do. We seek out profit at the expense of our fellow humans, so it comes as no surprise that animals and plants should also get little consideration if they get in the way of additional dollars.

The "profit is primary" value is not universally held in this country, however, and certainly not across the planet. Some of us get much more satisfaction from coexisting harmoniously with nature. My attempts to live a sustaining lifestyle bring me much more spiritual satisfaction than the pursuit of dollars ever has, or ever will have. But my opinion is in the minority in this country, and I don't believe that this moral obligation that I feel is sufficient reason to protect the environment. (As much as I wish it were true, I know that most Americans are not "environmentalists".) I do believe, however, that these threats to the environment and to other species threaten the very existence of humankind.

We know, for example, how pollution can adversely affect our health, and how wetlands destruction eliminates natural barriers against flooding. But, as I wrote in my Ecosystems at the Millenium post, "we don't know what we don't know." Other than the nebulous "lack of biological diversity" argument, we don't really know what will happen as more species become extinct. We are all familiar with the concept of the "circle of life", where the existence of one species (plant or animal) sustains the existence of another species, and so on. What happens when too many species are eliminated, however? Is there some sort of "critical (lack of) mass" point that we might reach whereby we have eliminated enough species that human life can't be sustained?

I'm certain that there are plenty of skeptics out there who will dispute the potential of this ever happening. However, I'm pretty sure that human population has already exceeded a level that can be supported by the Earth over the long term. (Baumer told something to me last night, stating that the planet can't sustain more than 6 million humans, but I can't remember the citation. Help me out, Jim?) We may not be on the track to human extinction, but I'm convinced that we are on a track toward a massive reduction in human population over the next few generations. I find it repugnant that people who have children, or who hope to have children, continue to make choices that will have negative repurcussions for perhaps centuries to come.

The choices we are making today could change what happens in the future. That the Town of Brunswick has not chosen to take a stand asking landowners to make sacrifices today for the long-term benefit of the planet is disappointing. That House Republicans have chosen to reverse long-standing protections in the name of greater corportate profitability is disgusting.

NIMBY-Pambys

2005-10-01T15:49:00.000-04:00

A developer is proposing to build a "clustered housing community" in the wilds of Saco, Maine. According to the linked Press Herald article, "Diane Doyle's plans call for a cluster of 31 "green" houses on 15 acres of a 65-acre parcel off Route 112 near the Buxton town line, with the rest of the land set aside as open space."

Doyle, a Saco developer, said she envisions the project as a demonstration of
green building techniques and land-use planning. She said the homes, priced at
about $400,000 and restricted to people 55 and older, would be positioned to
maximize solar gain and feature landscaping requiring no irrigation or
chemicals. The clustering of the homes is meant to foster a sense of community
and leave open space for all residents to enjoy.

This project is the sort of community that we will need to build in the future. It combats sprawl, which has led to excessive resource waste (fuel consumption primarily), and we will be seeing more and more use of green building technology in the future as fossil fuels become more scarce. It appears to be a proactive approach to building a subdivision.

Naturally, the neighbors are pissed. "(A) few neighbors who never expected to see a cluster of homes in their neighborhood have expressed doubts." One guy (Paul Rouleau) has a reasonable argument: "Rouleau said he is not necessarily opposed to the project but he believes the City Council needs to closely scrutinize the effect on traffic and neighbors' wells."

When you consider, however, that 150 acres or so will not be built upon, these concerns seem to be minimized. When you could have 70+ houses in the area and you're only getting 35, I would think that would be better. It's just the people who abut the development area who are being impacted by the concentration of houses. These are issues for the city council to consider, as a zoning change would need to be in the offing. The area is currently zones as "rural", meaning that lot sizes can not be under two acres. The rural designation seems to be a bit antiquated, as what it does today is lead to overly sprawling subdivisions.

It seems like people are all over "good ideas", until they have to deal with those ideas themselves. People love tax cuts, but they don't like their services to be cut. I could go on, and in fact I do have some ideas that I'm developing for a full-fledged "NIMBY" post. I hope that the Saco city council decides that the needs of the many should take precedence to the needs of the few. A "green" development is to be applauded, and I hope that I read about more such projects in the future.

Ecosystems at the Millenium

2005-09-30T12:53:00.000-04:00

The latest issue of The Nature Conservancy's quarterly magazine has an article discussing the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, which looks at "what the environment has done for us lately, and how well it will be able to support us by midcentury." According to the magazine (and website), the MEA was "a five-year research effort by 1,360 of the world’s leading scientists, gives compelling evidence of our dependence on healthy and diverse ecosystems for clean water, food, a stable climate, and much more."

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows that unsustainable human actions
are degrading ecosystems throughout the world. The short-term economic and other
benefits that may be derived from exploitation of our forests, wetlands and
oceans are significantly outweighed by the far greater long-term damage to human
livelihoods and health.

For example:

1) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment notes that wetlands provide services
to humanity valued as high as $15 trillion annually, including the water supply
on which an estimated 1.5 -3 billion people depend. Yet current human practices
are degrading and destroying these wetlands at a faster rate than any other type
of ecosystem.

2) Over-fishing off eastern Canada depleted cod stocks to the point that an
entire industry collapsed in the 1990s, putting tens of thousands of people out
of work.

3) In the aftermath of the recent tsunami, we are learning that areas where
development had not damaged natural barriers such as sand dunes, reefs and
mangroves experienced less damage.

And the lessons continue to come. Hurricane Katrina was another example of how development can damage the natural barriers provided by our ecosystems. It's not discussed here, but scientists are learning about the benefits of forest fires as a natural force that enables certain species to be sustained (and, almost counterintuitively, helps control wildfires).

The Earth has existed for billions of years, and the ecosystems have evolved over the course of its history. The defenses contained within these ecosystems, to put it simply, are "tried and true." Species (both plant and animal) and surfaces, for the most part, are where they are because they are what has come to fit the geographical and meteorological forces inherant in their particular region. When humans come along and change the landscape to satisfy their own desires, whether they pertain to having a nice view (real estate) or having a lot of money (procuring natural resources), we are changing the ecosystems that surround us, perhaps to our detriment.

To be clear, I am not faulting individuals who have chosen to live on the waterfront (for example). Water is powerful and beautiful, and most of us would love to have an oceanfront home if we could afford it. And the truth is that when humans started building on the ocean (or rivers, etc.), we didn't know what kind of impact we were making on the ecosystems. Similarly, I am not faulting humans for using the natural resources that this planet has to offer. It is human ingenuity in finding uses for the resources that the planet offers that has led to this fairly cushy way of life that everybody reading this enjoys.

What I am saying is that we know a lot more today than we did 100, 50, even 25 years ago. I am also saying that we don't know what we don't know. America has grown by leaps and bounds, growth which has been fed by the gluttonous consumption of land and natural resources. We now know that this type of gluttony is unsustainable, and in fact imperils our own long-term existence. We need to be more thoughtful about how we use what we use, as well as the impact of that use (e.g. mercury emissions, which endanger the public's health, from burning coal to produce electricity).

So while environmentalists are labeled as "Tree Huggers" (I've heard this one quite a bit over the last couple of weeks), written off as people who care more about some silly little insect than humans, the opposite in fact appears to be true. Saving a spotted owl or a canadian lynx or even a cave-dwelling cricket may seem like a waste of time to some people ("survival of the fittest!"), but in doing so we may be preserving natural ecosystems that turn out to be critical to our own survival. This is why we must think about the repercussions of all of our actions, and consider the environmental cost in our every endeavor.

Cross-post: Joe's Air Blog

2005-09-28T22:23:00.000-04:00

Here's the post on the big news regarding my new job with the Nature Conservancy. This is something that I have strived toward for quite some time, and I am very much looking forward to it. While the work of the Conservancy is extremely important - protecting land from developoment to conserve natural resources and promote species diversity - there are other areas that I am concerned with that will be the focus of future posts on this Blog. Primary amongst them are the need to reduce our utilization of fossil fuels, the need to promote and develop sustainable and renewable energy sources, and the need to limit the damage caused by the Bush Administration's shredding of our environmental protection laws. There are posts on all of these subjects coming in the future. There is also the post that I started a couple of weeks ago (it's right there in the "Drafts" queue) regarding how our ecosystems support human life on Earth, and how our attacks upon them could affect our way of life in the 21st century. More to come in the coming weeks, when I have more time to focus on this blog.

Senators see the impact of Global Warming

2005-08-22T12:51:00.000-04:00

A group of US Senators, including Maine Republican Susan Collins, recently toured Alaska and saw first-hand the impact of the warming environment on that state.

"Collins said Friday that she witnessed coastal erosion that threatens Eskimo villages in Alaska, devastation in forests in Alaska and the Yukon, and evidence of melting permafrost that caused utility poles to topple over."

Collins has increased her resolve to promote legislation that limits greenhouse gasses. With more and more republicans (not the President, of course) acknowledging that greenhouse gasses (mostly the result of industrial and utilities emissions) do contribute to global warming, it appears likely that laws will be enacted in the coming years. We are certain to see resistance from the kings of industry during the process. It is my continuing mantra that corporate profits must not come at the expense of the environment. With this in mind, I applaud Senator Collins and her colleagues.

My Garden

2005-08-08T12:25:00.000-04:00

The summary description of this Blog metions the environment, land preservation, and my own gardens. Today, I would like to take a moment to talk about my own gardening experience.

First of all I would like to explain that I have very little formal knowlege in how to grow things. I have a few books that I take snippets from, I read some stuff in the newspaper, and I pick up hints here and there from family, friends and co-workers. Much of what I have learned is the result of trial-and-error. It's quite gratifying to put a seed or a seedling in the ground and have it eventually grow and creates flowers and/or food for my enjoyment.

Currently I have three "gardens" at my home, a vegetable garden, an herb garden and a "shade" flower garden. I also have a few things planted here and there that may develop into a garden, or may get moved elsewhere. We have long-range plans to add a porch and a garage to the house, so there's not a lot of "around the house" lanscaping going on at the moment.

Today I want to talk about my vegetable garden. It's quite small, something like 15'x20', depending on how aggressive the crab grass and clover are. This year I planted tomatoes, peppers, pumkins, cucumbers, gourds, broccoli, onions (scallions) and carrots, with sunflowers, marigolds and basil thrown in for color and pest control. It's kind of crowded, and it would have been moreso had I got my pole beans planted. Alas, the spring was just too wet and I was unable to find the time to prepare extra space for the beans.

Some results thus far:

Carrots and onions are coming along nicely, it would appear. 'Course, you never know with the carrots until you pull them out of the ground. My soil has a high clay content and is far from fluffy, especially given all the rain we had in the spring. The onions grow well, but came up fairly sparsely this year.
I start the broccoli inside, always later than I should. I started about 10 plants, only four of which survived the transplanting process. The foliage has been chewed on a lot, and no florettes have appeared yet, but I think I'm OK. I've never treated broccoli for pests before, so I'm thinking that I don't need to. Experience has shown that the broccoli likes to have room to develop its flowers, and I am afraid that they might be feeling a little cramped. No moving them now, however.
Cukes didn't come up on the first planting, so I replanted them in mid June. They popped up nicely and are now starting to flourish. We harvested the first cuke of the season on Saturday. It got big real fast, but it was tasty. We got a lot of cukes last year, but it doesn't yet look like we'll get that kind of bounty this year. Hopefully we'll have enough to make a couple batches of pickles, however.
We did gourds for the first time this year, for decoration purposes. They've really taken off and I already have one that is the size of my fist. Our pumpkins, however, are another story. They've always grown like crazy in our garden, but this year they just haven't done anything. The vines aren't growing and the leaves are very small. I don't have any idea what the problem is, unless I wasn't supposed to plant them in the same spot as last year. Another possible issue is that I haven't, ahem, been real good at the weeding this year.
Peppers were planted from organic seedlings purchased at the Maine Organic Gardening Supply store in Topsham (can't find a web site). I've had spotty success with peppers in the past, with the exception that I got way more superchilis than I could possibly use last summer. Green/red bell peppers, however? Only a few. I've got a couple of baby ones started this year, but it seems kind of late. Hopefully they will have time to grow to maturity.
As with many people, tomatoes are my favorite vegetable to grow. There just is no comparison to the taste of a ripe red tomato taken directly off the vine. Last year my tomatoes came down with a fungus that I couldn't get rid of, and my yields were very poor, with poor quality. This year I put them in a different part of the garden (and used a different variety - Early Girl), and the results have been much better. Some of the plants are suffering a bit from the fungus, but they are much stronger than last year and already have a lot of fruit on the vines. In fact, we also harvested the first tomato the other day, which was delicious. I think that the plants are a little more snug than they ought to be, but they are doing pretty well nevertheless. Not a grade A performance this year, but much better than last year's D-. I have also planted some basil between the plants to keep the worms away, but the basil is overshadowed by the tomatoes and might not get big enough to make a difference. I haven't noticed any pests on the tomatoes yet however.
Finally, the sunflowers are just beginning to develop flower buds, and the marigolds are also slow to blossom. I saw a couple of buds on the marigolds a couple of weeks ago, but no flowers yet. Not sure what the problem is there.

So there's a nutshell summary of the vegetable garden. I haven't tended to it the way that I normally do because I've been so busy and because there has been so much rain. I would prefer to spend some time every day/evening tending to weeds and making sure things are going OK, but that hasn't been the case this year. I feel lucky that things are going as well as they are, given the circumstances. I'll give another progress report in another couple of weeks.

Bio Oil

2005-08-04T12:48:00.000-04:00

According to this story from the Yahoo headlines today, a University of Idaho grad student is working on technology to convert wood into "Bio Oil". "Juan Andres Soria says he has developed a process that turns wood into bio-oil, a substance similar to crude oil."

"The process — in which sawdust and methanol are heated to 900 degrees Fahrenheit to create the bio-oil — is already drawing some interest from energy and wood product companies, Soria said.

So far, Soria's research has focused on sawdust from Ponderosa pine trees, although he said any variety of tree could be used, including fast-growing varieties like those being cultivated for wood pulp. "

I have questions that aren't answered by this story, such as:

What is the environmental impact of the manufacturing process? Is it a "clean" process?
How efficient is the manufacturing process, with regard to energy consumed vs. usable energy produced?
How efficient is the final product, in comparison to other fuel sources?
Can trees be grown fast enough to sustain production? (After all, we don't want this to result in clear cut forests and, therefore, another "non-renewable" source).

I'm not being skeptical by asking these questions, mind you, just curious. Any renewable source of fuel that reduces or replaces or reduces our current utilization of the Earth's finite petroleum reserves is a good thing. I would like to know how good a thing this is.

Another question is, why is this news? According to the Natural Resources Canada web site, Bio Oil is currently in production. (This web site is fantastic, by the way. It's easy to navigate and has lots of information about alternative energy sources that are currently being used or studied). The Yahoo story (from AP, I believe) makes no mention of this, which seems to be slipshod reporting. A couple quick Google searches came up with many references to existing technology, including this paper from Ensyn that appears to answer some of my technical questions, at least as they relate to Ensyn's own Bio Oil production process. Sadly, but not surprisingly, most of the hits reference Bio Oil produced and consumed outside the US.

I don't know if the technology or the process or the resultant products in the Universtity of Idaho research are significantly different or improved from existing technology. If so, it is definitely an angle worth pursuing.

I hope that people continue to find new renewable ways to create energy to fulfill our ever-growing needs. (I also hope that we can somehow curb that need, but that's another post.) As an added benefit, if Bio Oil can be produced while sustaining the forests and Bio Diesel can be produced from soybeans, then it may remain economically beneficial for owners of forests and farms to continue to use their lands for forestry and agricultural purposes, rather than housing or retail development. This will help contain urban sprawl and maintain the natural beauty of our land. And maintaining the natural beauty of the land is my number one goal for the environment.

If I owned the Sun

2005-07-28T10:58:00.000-04:00

Here's a Blathering from Jim Baumer regarding the energy policy in Nova Scotia (and here's the original link).

The gist of this article is that Nova Scotia’s energy policy was based upon assumptions of plentiful natural gas off Sable Island, which now appear to have been vastly overstated. Original estimates were that the Sable Island reserves totaled 3.6 trillion cubic feet. This estimate has been downgraded three consecutive years, with the current estimate being 1.35 trillion cubic feet – a 62.5% decrease. Based on this decrease (which I personally assume will continue to decrease), the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Think-tank issued a report recommending changes in the Nova Scotia provincial energy policy. These changes would focus on (drum roll please) conservation efforts and renewable energy sources.

Brilliant idea! Let the US government know, too!

Reading this article has me asking - once again – why the world’s energy policies are so focused on fossil fuels. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there’s a humongo ball of Hydrogen burning a scant 93 million miles away. Every day this ball of fire provides – free of charge! – sufficient energy to provide for much of the world’s power needs. Furthermore, technology exists today that can convert this raw source of energy into usable electricity. But instead of attempting to maximize the utility of sunlight (which, did I mention this?, is free), we continue to look for more places to dig and drill to extract coal, oil and gas from the earth.

Critics of solar power like to point out that converting existing infrastructure to alternative fuel sources is an expensive proposition. And it is. However, drilling a hole in the ocean floor in the North Atlantic and venturing further afield to find new sources (e.g. above the Arctic Circle) is also expensive. Furthermore, sunlight is abundant and will be available for billions of years to come. Once we make the investment in the technology to collect sunlight, the energy will be there forever. With fossil fuels, even when we get the equipment in place to collect the fuel, we really don’t know how much of it we will be able to extract from the source, however we do know that the source will eventually run out.

While technology is improving, solar power isn’t efficient enough to handle all of our energy needs on its own. Certainly most industrial applications draw more electricity than any practical solar implementation can provide. On the other hand, most homes could have most (if not all) of their electricity needs fulfilled with solar power. Increasing the demand for solar power would increase the incentive for manufacturers to improve the technology to get an edge in the marketplace. This effort would significantly reduce the need for fossil fuels, meaning our existing sources would last much longer than they will at today’s depletion rates. Which means that we have less incentive to harm wildlife breeding grounds in Alaska in order to run our plasma TV’s.

It seems like such a no-brainer that one might ask, why aren't we making every effort to maximize the utilization of renewable energy?

And the answer is, of course, "because nobody owns the sun." Government works to satisfy the needs of those who fund campaigns – the Kings of Industry. Because the cost is such a barrier for most people to install solar panels on their homes, the solar power industry doesn’t have the same kind of money to send to the politicians that the oil, gas and coal industries do. And because the oil, gas and coal manufacturers don’t benefit from the use of solar power, there is little incentive for the politicians to make policy to develop the solar industry. And because nobody owns the sun, nobody is going to get rich on its continued production of electricity.

If I owned the sun, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be spending all kinds of money to make sure that my product was used in as many homes and businesses as possible. I would help fund every campaign within my legal power to do so. I would be saving the environment, and I would be getting rich beyond my wildest imagination. I wish that I owned the sun, because I would enjoy both of those outcomes.

But I don’t own the sun, and nobody else does either. What we need then is for people who already have a lot of money to invest in solar technology (and other renewable resources) and in political campaigns. Imagine, for example, that instead of spending money trying to prove that drilling for, refining and burning oil isn’t bad for the environment, a company like ExxonMobil were to invest in a facility that manufactures photovoltaic (PV) cells. Suddenly you have a company with a lot of lobbying clout, with a material financial interest in the expansion of solar technology. Badda bing! Instant government incentives for the solar industry. As an added bonus, they would have a product to sell once the oil fields dry up.

Of course, we’re probably not close enough to the end of the oil supplies that the big oil companies to concern themselves with what to do after it’s all gone. There are various models pointing to when this will happen, but it certainly will happen. I’ll refer you back to Jim Baumer, who writes fairly regularly about Peak Oil theories (and at Words Matter, too). I encourage you to also follow some of his interesting links. It will be the wise business person who will be poised to take advantage of the need to move from fossil fuels, ready with PV cells, wind turbines, biodiesel production and more. I’d like to see the social conscience of the United States and the world change such that the incentive to change happens sooner rather than later. But ultimately it will be dollar signs that create this change in the collective conscience. If you and I don’t create the demand for renewable power today, we risk the well-being of the Earth and its inhabitants.

MTBE in the Energy Bill

2005-07-19T16:27:00.000-04:00

The House and Senate are currently working on a "compromise" bill that will eliminate the differences between the House and Senate versions passed earlier this year. A major issue deals with the gasoline additive MTBE. The House of Representatives passed its version including a provision protecting Oil producers from liability lawsuits related to pollution caused by the additive MTBE. The Senate version contains no such protections. MTBE was originally added to gasoline in 1979, replacing lead to reduce engine "knocking" and allow engines to run more efficiently. The problem with MTBE is that it has escaped from underground storage tanks and contaminated water supplies in at least 29 states, and it is considered a likely carcinogen.

The compromise bill promises to be a contentious one, though Senate members indicate that the bill will not pass with the MTBE protection. The issue in the House, according to the National Review (an unlikely reference for me, but there you go), is that MTBE manufacturers shouldn’t be held liable for the cleanup because

a) They did not install the leaky storage tanks, and
b) MTBE usage increased due to Congressional mandates in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Both of these points ignore the fact that the producers had to know that MTBE is a pollutant and a danger to the public waterways, had to know that some gasoline storage tanks might just leak some day, and had to know that there were other (less dangerous/more expensive) oxygenates available to comply with the 1990 Act. They also ignore the fact that the MTBE producers earned massive profits by introducing a dangerous product to the enviornment. Why should they be allowed all of the profits while somebody else cleans up the unfortunate side effects of their product? As I write in the Air Blog's sister post to this one, civic responsibilty should not be an afterthought in the pursuit of profits. Let's not allow it to be.

I encourage everybody to contact their Congresspeople, particularly those in the House of Representatives, in support of deleting the MTBE non-liability provisions. While you're add it, see if you can kill the drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, too. It's bad enough that the bill will likely pass with further subsidies to environmentally-unfriendly energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear), minimal support for sustainable energy industries, and hardly a mention of conservation; protecting known polluters from facing the consequences of thier actions is a slap in the face to us all. MTBE should be outlawed altogether, allowing its use to continue with no liability when it causes harm is unfathomable.

Welcome

2005-07-19T12:46:00.000-04:00

Hello, and welcome to Joe's Land Blog. This is the latest installment in the growing family of Joe's Blogs, which already includes Joe's SeaBlog, an indispensable resource for fans of the AA Portland Sea Dogs baseball team, and Joe's Air Blog, which I use to to express what's on my mind (largely political in nature), review films and books, and compose essays and other writing excercises. Joe's Land Blog is an offshoot of the Air Blog, in which I plan to focus on the political arena that is dearest to my heart, the environment.

I am particularly interested in how our petroleum-based society impacts the environment of the US, and in exploring how we might use renewable/sustainable/"clean" energy sources to reduce our petroleum dependance. I am further interested in land protection and preservation efforts that result in the preservation of plant and animal species as well as the natural beauty of the United States. And, just to mix things up a little bit, I'll throw in the occasional post about what's happening in my home gardens, what I've learned, and what remains a mystery about the plants around my house. I'm glad you came by, and I hope to make things interesting enough to get you to visit again and again.