Again, having watched the documentary Gaslands by Josh Fox and Koch Bros. Exposed by ?, I have been reminded of the need to keep renewable energy options and opportunities alive and vigorous.
Today, some selections from sites about windpower in Denmark and Germany. "Green greed is good," to coopt the Oliver Stone character based on the 1980s Ivan Boesky.
The Wind Guilds
Because of the large size, location in visible wind-swept sites, noise, effect on wildlife, and other impacts of wind turbines, landowners, planners, environmentalists, and others sometimes resist these technologies. In the United States, such "environmental" opposition frequently proves the final barrier to the development of a project. The Danish solution to this—parts of which appear to have evolved independently of any overarching guidance from the government—was to allow turbine ownership by guilds or co-operatives, and to require member-owners to live within 3 kilometers of the site. The guilds eventually organized as the Danish Wind Turbine Owners Association, which became a powerful political force. Today, 100,000 Danish families own wind turbines or shares in wind co-operatives.
In the mid-1980s, this ownership rule was modified somewhat, to require that guild members live in or within 10 kilometers of the same borough as the turbine and to limit the share of any individual owner to the greater of 6,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year or 135% of that person's electricity consumption. This change was made in part because of pressure from electric utilities, which were seeking to limit private ownership of generating facilities. Under pressure from the various guilds, the law was amended again in 1992 to relax ownership requirements. The geographic area of residency was expanded to include residents of the borough in which the turbine was located and those of neighboring boroughs. The ownership share was increased to the greater of 9,000 kWh per year or 150% of consumption. The rules were expanded further in 1996 to allow ownership of up to 30,000 kWh per year by any person who lived or worked in the borough or who owned a house or real estate there.
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr14/02Denmrk.htm
12 10 2011 Danish government: “50 percent of power consumption from wind power in 2020”
The new Danish centre-left coalition government has increased targets on wind capacity. Wind power is set to represent 50 percent of the total power consumption in Denmark in 2020.
The new Danish government just recently released its targets on renewable energy and CO2 emissions. The new disposition increases the previous CO2 reduction target from 30 to 40 percent, measured relative to 1990.
“A green and more sustainable world does not evolve by itself,” says Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt at the Global Green Growth Forum in Copenhagen on the 11th of October.
As a part of the increased ambitions on CO2 emissions, wind power is targeted to represent 50 percent of the total power consumption in Denmark in 2020. The major role of wind power should be seen as a part of the government’s plan to phase out fossil fuels by 2050.
The ambitious targets place Denmark in pole position on renewables among the developed countries.
http://www.windpower.org/en/news/news.html#720
http://www.windpower.org/en/news/news.html#719
04 04 2011 New all time high record in exports
Backed by rising exports, the Danish wind energy sector beat expectations to register healthy growth in 2010, the Danish Wind Industry Association announced in connection with the annual meeting on March 30th.
Sectoral revenues rose by 8.3 percent in 2010, corresponding to 55.3 billion Danish kroner (10.44 billion U.S. dollars), up from 51.1 billion Danish kroner (9.64 billion dollars) in 2009.
Meanwhile, the sector's exports rose 11 percent, earning 46.2 billion Danish kroner (8.72 billion dollars) in 2010, up from 41.7 billion Danish kroner (7.87 billion dollars) the previous year, indicating that overall sectoral growth is strongly-pegged to export strategies.
http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/wind-power-in-germany.html
With single wind turbines now routinely capable of three megawatts of output – enough to power 3,000 homes per turbine – wind power has become too cheap and too practical to ignore.
No country on earth is more determined to realize the potential of wind energy than Germany, although the Danes and the British are giving them a run for the money. With virtually no energy resources in-country other than coal, and a national consensus that pretty much rules out nuclear power, the wealthy German nation is likely to extend its lead in wind power.
German officials claim that by 2050 their country will be powered 50% by renewables – solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels. Considering Germany is one of the world’s largest consumers of energy, over 15 quadrillion BTUs in 2003, which included over 100 gigawatt-years of electricity, they have a long way to go. Currently Germany produces only 3% of their energy from renewable sources; about (taking into account net yields) 9% of their electricity from wind. Yet Germany’s lead over other major nations in wind energy is impressive and growing. – Ed “Redwood” Ring
The German wind industry in 2003
installed 1700 propellers rated at 2,645 MW. Although this figure is 18.5% down from the 3,247 MW newly connected in 2002, it is a good in light of the mainly negative economic trends of the last months of the year. Peter Ahmels, President of the German Wind Energy Association, stated that no other country can point to such growth in absolute numbers. Last year more than 22% was added to installed capacity making Germany the world’s second most important wind market. As of the end of June 2004, the total wind energy capacity installed in Germany amounted to almost 15,327 MW. This makes Germany the world leader in the use of wind power.
Nationwide the power stations produce 14,645 MW. In a normal wind year they could produce 5.9% of the national power supply – another indicator that the use of wind power is growing.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
From Gaslands to Baywind
Gaslands the documentary was shown recently at a nearby library in Nassau County, New York where I've been visiting this July, back in the US from Brazil. The devastating account by Josh Fox of Pennsylvania about communities across the US where corporations have been drilling and practicing "hydraulic fracturing" or fracking, shows pervasive and deadly contamination not just of water but also of the air. The tragic suffering of too many people from toxic chemicals is just heartbreaking and outrageous. A call to action it is, and I've been getting emails for awhile now that I value even more. Love Canal, New York in 1978 was a community contaminated to a comparable degree in a less systematic situation, though the pervasiveness of toxic contamination is clear from the Superfund toxic waste identification legislation that passed soon after. I worked briefly for the PIRGs in the 1980s and 1990s and we were working on those issues already at those times.
Besides organizing to prevent and end fracking, I submit we need to keep clear the opportunities to advance decentralized renewable energy.
England's Baywind co-op was spurred by a Swedish enterprise in the 1990s. The British citizens have shown a spirit of initiative worthy of Ian Fleming's fictional James Bond.
Consider this: Westmill Wind Farm, in South Oxfordshire is built on land owned by Adam Twine, an organic farmer. The project consists of five 1.3MW turbines, capable of generating sufficient electricity for the equivalent of 2,500 homes. It is the largest 100% community-owned wind farm in the UK, taking over that title from Baywind Energy Co-op in Cumbria which has existed since 1996.
Adam Twine had wanted a wind farm (preferably community owned) on his land for many years and by the time it was finally built in 2008 he had invested a great deal of his own time, effort and money to bring his dream to fruition. The planning process dragged on for many years against some fierce opposition but eventually consent was given for the project to proceed, to the delight of the enthusiastic group of local activists who had campaigned for a local wind farm....
http://www.communityshares.uk.coop/case_studies/westmill-wind-farm-co-operative
Baywind on youtube:
http://www.baywind.co.uk/baywind_newsdetails.asp?newsID=19
Things have been happening in the US too.
Check out Co-op Power in Massachusetts for example:
Besides organizing to prevent and end fracking, I submit we need to keep clear the opportunities to advance decentralized renewable energy.
England's Baywind co-op was spurred by a Swedish enterprise in the 1990s. The British citizens have shown a spirit of initiative worthy of Ian Fleming's fictional James Bond.
Consider this: Westmill Wind Farm, in South Oxfordshire is built on land owned by Adam Twine, an organic farmer. The project consists of five 1.3MW turbines, capable of generating sufficient electricity for the equivalent of 2,500 homes. It is the largest 100% community-owned wind farm in the UK, taking over that title from Baywind Energy Co-op in Cumbria which has existed since 1996.
Adam Twine had wanted a wind farm (preferably community owned) on his land for many years and by the time it was finally built in 2008 he had invested a great deal of his own time, effort and money to bring his dream to fruition. The planning process dragged on for many years against some fierce opposition but eventually consent was given for the project to proceed, to the delight of the enthusiastic group of local activists who had campaigned for a local wind farm....
http://www.communityshares.uk.coop/case_studies/westmill-wind-farm-co-operative
Baywind on youtube:
http://www.baywind.co.uk/baywind_newsdetails.asp?newsID=19
Things have been happening in the US too.
Check out Co-op Power in Massachusetts for example:
Co-op Power hosted a Community Finance Summit July 14th and July 15th in Northampton. Every day, the decisions we make about how we spend and save and invest our money shape our local economy. We learned how to move our money from Wall Street to Main Street to transition to a more just and sustainable future. Michael Shuman, author of Local Dollars, Local Sense, was the featured speaker. We also heard from John Cronin from the Vermont Securities Administration, Sara Ross from SunGage, Glynn Lloyd from City Fresh Foods, Mark Hensley, Todd Ford from Hampshire County Council of Governments, Rochelle Prunty from River Valley Market, and Lynn Benander, Christian Lagier, and Shakoor Aljuwani from Co-op Power.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Nuclear Plant Emergency Zones/ Fracking....
Dear Friends,
The end’s not near, it’s here! The public comment period for the Emergency Planning Zone Petition for Rulemaking expires on July 16, 2012. That’s today! Nearly 2,000 of you already have commented in support of the petition, but we could use more! Please send in your comments in support of the petition today if you have not already done so.
In the wake of the disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl we need to expand these inadequate and outdated emergency planning zones and strengthen emergency exercises now more than ever!
According to a report issued in July 2012 by The National Diet of Japan (Japan’s version of Congress), the Fukushima disaster was man-made and caused largely as a result of collusive efforts by the government, regulators and TEPCO to avoid developing and implementing basic safety requirements. Additionally, the report found several issues with the evacuation, specifically that confusion over evacuation was the direct result of failure to implement adequate measures to protect against nuclear accidents and poor planning by previous governments on crisis management.
The situation hasn't been much different in the U.S., where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry have long colluded to resist necessary safety measures. But the NRC now has the opportunity to show that it has learned at least some of the lessons of Fukushima by adopting this petition.
Improving emergency planning rules is obviously not a substitute for closing nuclear reactors. We all would prefer that such rules not be needed at all--nuclear power should be ended and that's our goal. But that's not the world we live in right now: with 104 operating reactors in the U.S., it is essential that emergency evacuation rules reflect the real dangers each of these reactors presents.
Our petition calls for a three-tiered Emergency Planning Zone: the current 10-mile zone would expand to 25 miles, with all current requirements intact. A new zone from 25-50 miles would be established; utilities would be required to identify evacuation routes and annually notify residents of them. The Ingestion Pathway Zone, designed for interdiction of contaminated food, milk, and water, would be expanded from the current 50 miles to 100 miles. And a new rule would be established that would require emergency exercises to include scenarios of initiating or concurrent regionally-appropriate natural disasters.
We have prepared some sample comments for you to submit--you can do so here. However, we encourage you to edit these comments to reflect your own concerns, and to discuss emergency evacuation issues in your own communities. What happens if there is an earthquake in your area, or a hurricane? Has population growth in your area outstripped road networks? What about public transportation--how would people without cars be evacuated?
The original petition, along with sample resolutions for local officials and other background information, can be found on our Nuclear 911 website here.
Thanks for your support, thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet@nirs.org
July 9, 2012
Dear Mark,
Do you know
how many natural gas wells are operating in your state or near the watershed
that supplies your drinking water? You should.
Most of those wells rely on a process known as natural gas fracking that employs toxic chemicals to crack open shale beds and release methane gas. Both the chemicals used in fracking and the methane gas released pose a risk to local water supplies and the health of those who live nearby.
Our new report, The Right to Know, the Responsibility to Protect: State Actions Are Inadequate to Ensure Effective Disclosure of the Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking, finds that public information about these chemicals is spotty and incomplete at best, and important safeguards are missing.
Because of a loophole written into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, natural gas fracking activities are exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result, oversight of fracking has shifted to the states, and officials have been struggling to find a way to protect water supplies and public health as natural gas drilling activity rapidly expands.
Released today, our analysis lays out what an effective chemical disclosure policy would look like, highlighting four key elements. We also assessed 13 established state disclosure policies (and four proposed policies), and we found that no state requires enough upfront collection of data and ongoing monitoring to adequately protect local water supplies and public health. Some states with significant fracking activity have no oversight rules on chemical disclosure.
Ultimately, Congress should reestablish effective oversight of fracking on the federal level under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the meantime, we hope you will share this report with friends, colleagues, and government officials in your area and join us in encouraging state and local authorities to improve their chemical disclosure standards.
America has been blessed with an abundance of water. We can't sacrifice the sustainability of this critical resource in our search for new domestic energy supplies. Americans should not be forced to choose between clean water and affordable energy. We can have both.
Find OMB's report here:
http://www.ombwatch.org/naturalgasfrackingdisclosure
Dear Mark,
The
United States is on the path to end overfishing and rebuild depleted ocean fish
populations, thanks to the law and regulations that were put in place with
overwhelming support from people like you. These gains may be in
jeopardy, however. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has recently decided to reevaluate its regulatory framework and wants the
public to participate. Urge NOAA not to weaken the rules that protect U.S. ocean fish.
If NOAA’s fisheries service makes any changes to its rules, it should place greater emphasis on promoting long-term conservation and protecting ecosystems. Unfortunately, the agency is considering alternatives that would weaken current guidelines by creating new delays and exemptions that could allow overfishing. Please write now to ensure the future of fish and fishing in America’s oceans.
Thank you,
Lee Crockett
Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns
Pew Environment Group "Lee Crockett, Pew Environment Group" advocacyemail@pewtrusts.org
The end’s not near, it’s here! The public comment period for the Emergency Planning Zone Petition for Rulemaking expires on July 16, 2012. That’s today! Nearly 2,000 of you already have commented in support of the petition, but we could use more! Please send in your comments in support of the petition today if you have not already done so.
In the wake of the disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl we need to expand these inadequate and outdated emergency planning zones and strengthen emergency exercises now more than ever!
According to a report issued in July 2012 by The National Diet of Japan (Japan’s version of Congress), the Fukushima disaster was man-made and caused largely as a result of collusive efforts by the government, regulators and TEPCO to avoid developing and implementing basic safety requirements. Additionally, the report found several issues with the evacuation, specifically that confusion over evacuation was the direct result of failure to implement adequate measures to protect against nuclear accidents and poor planning by previous governments on crisis management.
The situation hasn't been much different in the U.S., where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry have long colluded to resist necessary safety measures. But the NRC now has the opportunity to show that it has learned at least some of the lessons of Fukushima by adopting this petition.
Improving emergency planning rules is obviously not a substitute for closing nuclear reactors. We all would prefer that such rules not be needed at all--nuclear power should be ended and that's our goal. But that's not the world we live in right now: with 104 operating reactors in the U.S., it is essential that emergency evacuation rules reflect the real dangers each of these reactors presents.
Our petition calls for a three-tiered Emergency Planning Zone: the current 10-mile zone would expand to 25 miles, with all current requirements intact. A new zone from 25-50 miles would be established; utilities would be required to identify evacuation routes and annually notify residents of them. The Ingestion Pathway Zone, designed for interdiction of contaminated food, milk, and water, would be expanded from the current 50 miles to 100 miles. And a new rule would be established that would require emergency exercises to include scenarios of initiating or concurrent regionally-appropriate natural disasters.
We have prepared some sample comments for you to submit--you can do so here. However, we encourage you to edit these comments to reflect your own concerns, and to discuss emergency evacuation issues in your own communities. What happens if there is an earthquake in your area, or a hurricane? Has population growth in your area outstripped road networks? What about public transportation--how would people without cars be evacuated?
The original petition, along with sample resolutions for local officials and other background information, can be found on our Nuclear 911 website here.
Thanks for your support, thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet@nirs.org
July 9, 2012
Dear Mark,
Do you know
how many natural gas wells are operating in your state or near the watershed
that supplies your drinking water? You should.Most of those wells rely on a process known as natural gas fracking that employs toxic chemicals to crack open shale beds and release methane gas. Both the chemicals used in fracking and the methane gas released pose a risk to local water supplies and the health of those who live nearby.
Our new report, The Right to Know, the Responsibility to Protect: State Actions Are Inadequate to Ensure Effective Disclosure of the Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking, finds that public information about these chemicals is spotty and incomplete at best, and important safeguards are missing.
Because of a loophole written into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, natural gas fracking activities are exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result, oversight of fracking has shifted to the states, and officials have been struggling to find a way to protect water supplies and public health as natural gas drilling activity rapidly expands.
Released today, our analysis lays out what an effective chemical disclosure policy would look like, highlighting four key elements. We also assessed 13 established state disclosure policies (and four proposed policies), and we found that no state requires enough upfront collection of data and ongoing monitoring to adequately protect local water supplies and public health. Some states with significant fracking activity have no oversight rules on chemical disclosure.
Ultimately, Congress should reestablish effective oversight of fracking on the federal level under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the meantime, we hope you will share this report with friends, colleagues, and government officials in your area and join us in encouraging state and local authorities to improve their chemical disclosure standards.
America has been blessed with an abundance of water. We can't sacrifice the sustainability of this critical resource in our search for new domestic energy supplies. Americans should not be forced to choose between clean water and affordable energy. We can have both.
| |
Sincerely, Katherine McFate President
|
http://www.ombwatch.org/naturalgasfrackingdisclosure
Dear Mark,
The
United States is on the path to end overfishing and rebuild depleted ocean fish
populations, thanks to the law and regulations that were put in place with
overwhelming support from people like you. These gains may be in
jeopardy, however. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has recently decided to reevaluate its regulatory framework and wants the
public to participate. Urge NOAA not to weaken the rules that protect U.S. ocean fish.
If NOAA’s fisheries service makes any changes to its rules, it should place greater emphasis on promoting long-term conservation and protecting ecosystems. Unfortunately, the agency is considering alternatives that would weaken current guidelines by creating new delays and exemptions that could allow overfishing. Please write now to ensure the future of fish and fishing in America’s oceans.
Thank you,
Lee Crockett
Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns
Pew Environment Group "Lee Crockett, Pew Environment Group" advocacyemail@pewtrusts.org
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Single payer
Dear Mark,
Despite the Supreme Court leaving most of President Obama's health care law intact, the prognosis is still grim for America's broken health care system.
Republican governors and conservative state legislators are already planning to reject the Medicaid expansion envisioned in the health care law.
This will leave millions of low-income Americans without any kind of health care coverage, in addition to the tens of millions we already knew the law wouldn't cover. 1
And Republicans in Congress are determined to repeal the law — and they might gain the power to do so in the next election.
We need to solve America's health care crisis, and we know it may take awhile. So with health care reform back in the public debate, we need to start advocating now for the real solution: single-payer health care.
...
"Matt Lockshin, CREDO Action" <act@credoaction.com>
Dear Ms. Sloane:
I write to complain about the service provided to me by Con Edison.
On July 1, 2012, Con Edison locked out 8,500 skilled workers and has since replaced them with management employees. I am concerned that my service will be interrupted because of the lockout. I am also concerned that the replacement workers lack the current training, skills and experience necessary to provide safe and reliable electricity, gas and steam. In addition, it is simply impossible to take 8,500 workers off the job and maintain comparable service.
My concerns are not unfounded - service interruptions and reductions have been reported in various media outlets each day since the lockout began. More serious are the multiple reports of injuries to replacement workers.
I respectfully request that the New York State Department of Public Service take action to ensure that the Con Edison lockout does not jeopardize safe, secure, and reliable access to electric, gas, and steam for consumers. I also request that the New York State Department of Public Service conduct an investigation to determine whether any links exist between Con Edison’s lockout and the recent injuries, interruptions and reductions.
....
http://nysaflcio.org/pscletter/
Dear Ms. Sloane:
I write to complain about the service provided to me by Con Edison.
On July 1, 2012, Con Edison locked out 8,500 skilled workers and has since replaced them with management employees. I am concerned that my service will be interrupted because of the lockout. I am also concerned that the replacement workers lack the current training, skills and experience necessary to provide safe and reliable electricity, gas and steam. In addition, it is simply impossible to take 8,500 workers off the job and maintain comparable service.
My concerns are not unfounded - service interruptions and reductions have been reported in various media outlets each day since the lockout began. More serious are the multiple reports of injuries to replacement workers.
I respectfully request that the New York State Department of Public Service take action to ensure that the Con Edison lockout does not jeopardize safe, secure, and reliable access to electric, gas, and steam for consumers. I also request that the New York State Department of Public Service conduct an investigation to determine whether any links exist between Con Edison’s lockout and the recent injuries, interruptions and reductions.
....
http://nysaflcio.org/pscletter/
Mark,
|
|
Are you feeling the heat? We’re sweating here in the nation’s capital. And not just because of the triple-digit temperatures, but also because these severe weather patterns we’re seeing across the country are a harsh reminder of the serious consequences if we don’t find solutions to the climate crisis soon.
The rash of extreme storms, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods we’ve been seeing this past month unfortunately reflects the trends that climate scientists have been predicting would result from global warming. And it’s time that our leaders take bold steps to do something about it -- NOW.
Dirty energy interests and their allies have spent billions trying to distract and mislead people from the reality that their polluting practices are causing real problems for our planet. But you can’t distract people when there are trees crashing through their front windows, fires burning through their neighborhoods, water flooding under their doorsteps, and blackouts putting their homes and businesses out of commission.
This week, AP science writer Seth Borenstein published an article bringing together facts and quotes from leading climate scientists to attest that “what we're seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like.” It highlights that since January “the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records” and explains how “the 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West.”
....
"Vanessa Kritzer, League of Conservation Voters" <feedback@lcv.org
Energy Independence: How Renewables Could Produce 80% of Our Electricity by 2050
In honor of the Independence Day celebrations taking place today in the U.S., we're pleased to report that energy independence via renewables is very much a possibility within the next 40 years.
A report released last weekby the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that using renewables to provide the lion’s share of our electricity by 2050, without requiring any technological breakthroughs, is a reasonable proposition. Now that's a cause for celebration!
Not to be outdone, Denmark released its energy strategy this week which calls for reaching 100% renewables within the same timeframe. Windmills anyone?
....
Triple Pundit <contact@triplepundit.com>
Energy Independence: How Renewables Could Produce 80% of Our Electricity by 2050
In honor of the Independence Day celebrations taking place today in the U.S., we're pleased to report that energy independence via renewables is very much a possibility within the next 40 years.A report released last weekby the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that using renewables to provide the lion’s share of our electricity by 2050, without requiring any technological breakthroughs, is a reasonable proposition. Now that's a cause for celebration!
Not to be outdone, Denmark released its energy strategy this week which calls for reaching 100% renewables within the same timeframe. Windmills anyone?
....
Triple Pundit <contact@triplepundit.com>
Dear Mark RegroMontiero,
My heart goes out to all those suffering through the country's summer heat-wave and wildfire season. Here in the DC area, our 100-degree heat-wave and related storms have left 2.5 million people without power. This is what the leading edge of the climate crisis looks like.
Still there is good news: A huge thank-you to all Green Americans who submitted their comments to the EPA in support of stronger carbon regulations on new coal-fired power plants. Because an appeals court unanimously ruled the EPA has the right to addresscarbon as a pollutant, the EPA remains free to move ahead with implementing your recommendations, which set a record (more than 2 million comments!) for the most public engagement on any EPA regulation ever.
What's more, you can take action where you live tosupport clean energy in your own community, starting with your own home. This month's Faces of the Green Pages interview introduces you to Brian Higgins, owner of Green Home LLC in Hyattsville, MD, a specialist in green building, energy efficiency, and renewable energy at home.
And check out the latest from Sungevity, a solar-leasing company with a great $0-down solar offer for select states across the country. Our links to articles from ourGreen American magazine will point you toward even more solar-leasing companies, and energy-efficiency resources.
Finally, later this month, Green America is proud take part in actions to oppose hydraulic fracturing, another form of dirty energy. We're supportingStopTheFrackAttack, four days of activism in Washington, DC culminating in a July 28 rally on Capitol Hill. See below for how you can join us at the rally, if you're able to be in DC.
"Green America" <coopamericanews@coopamerica.org>
Monday, June 4, 2012
Greenpeace on Sumatran Tigers
Could we lose the last 400 remaining Sumatran tigers to fast-food packaging?
At the current rate of destruction, it’s possible. Every day, Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) bulldozes giant swaths of tiger habitat in Indonesia for fast-food packaging and other throw-away goods. It’s a tragic situation for these tigers.
Their homes are being destroyed, their lives forever changed. And then — as they roam through the devastation that once was forest — they can be shot and killed by poachers for their body parts or by the people moving in. If we lose these last 400 tigers, there's nothing we can do to bring them back.
Now more than ever we need your help to ramp up the pressure on companies buying rainforest fiber from APP and to save the last Sumatran tigers.
At the current rate of destruction, it’s possible. Every day, Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) bulldozes giant swaths of tiger habitat in Indonesia for fast-food packaging and other throw-away goods. It’s a tragic situation for these tigers.
Their homes are being destroyed, their lives forever changed. And then — as they roam through the devastation that once was forest — they can be shot and killed by poachers for their body parts or by the people moving in. If we lose these last 400 tigers, there's nothing we can do to bring them back.
Now more than ever we need your help to ramp up the pressure on companies buying rainforest fiber from APP and to save the last Sumatran tigers.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
2011 IPCC- ILSR on Romney-Obamacare- Boulder and XCel
Here's a fine sequence of articles and issues.
1) The new IPCC report keeps up the basic pressure of the problem of climate change and the human industrial cause, but is timid on the solution. Here, we advocate the local, community, and distributed solution with government incentives as Danish artisan technology, community co-ops, and government incentive preceded Germany's additional feed-in payments, partnerships, and mutual funds.
2) The Institute for Local Self-Reliance has two articles lately on Romney's corporate views, and on Obama's Health Care. I've commented on my views and the distributed, community-based enterprise view.
3) Boulder, CO has ventured a desire to attempt a takeover of XCel energy to increase their renewable energy. Good luck to them. Maybe Ursula Sladek and the EWS municipal co-op of Schoenau, Germany can inspire them. The Goldman Environmental Award (or the Right Livelihood Award?) has honored Sladek and the EWS, so see there site for more info.
|
World
Future Council: New IPCC Report On Renewable Energy Is 'Litmus
Test' For Policy Makers
|
|
However,
concrete policy recommendation falls too short
|
http://www.world-wire.com/news/1105090001.html
 HAMBURG,
GERMANY, May 9, 2011, --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The
new IPCC report on renewable energy provides a litmus test for
all policy makers, proving renewable energy is the world's number
one energy source in the future. Furthermore, the report provides
evidence to show that the deployment of renewable energy
especially in developing countries is faster and more cost
efficient than the combustion of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In a statement released by the World Future Council (WFC) in
Hamburg today, however, the WFC criticises the report for falling
too short in making concrete policy recommendations. The WFC also
stated that the report fails to suggest efficient measures to
finance the renewable energy uptake.ãLeaving no doubt about the leading role for renewable energy in the future is good. But it's not enough! Especially for developing countries concrete policy recommendations such as âfeed in tariffs' for renewable electricity and innovative funding mechanism such as the issuing of SDR's by the IMF are of utmost importanceÒ, said WFC founder Jakob von UexkŸll. ãFeed in tariffs are the most powerful mechanism to unleash the development of wind, hydro and solar energy. And we have already passed various learning curves on how to get it right. In this regard, unfortunately the IPCCC report's summary for policy makers does not give any clear guidanceÒ. Meanwhile, the WFC has also made a concrete proposal of how the financial resources for renewable energy in the developing world can be generated by Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund without any inflationary effect. The advantage of the proposal is that resources totalling at least $ 100 Billion a year would be immediately available. Also, no country would be required to overstretch its national budget. Given the current under-utilization of global production capacities, no significant inflationary impulse would to be anticipated from the new demand. The Special Report on Renewable Energy (SRREN) contains a comprehensive overview including barriers to renewable energy implementation, experience with and assessment of policy options, enabling environment and regional issues. It is meant to enable policy makers, the private sector and the global civil society to identify ways in which to integrate renewable energy technologies into future energy systems. Press Contact Ina Neuberger Media & Communication World Future Council Foundation Mexikoring 29, 22297 Hamburg Tel: 040 / 30 70 914-16 |
Profiles in Political Courage
David Morris |
No Comments | Updated on
May 3, 2012
A
few weeks ago Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA who is retiring from the
House this year, gave a memorable interview to
New York magazine in which he criticized President Obama for
aggressively pushing health care reform. Frank says he warned
Obama the Democratic Party would pay “a terrible price.”
Apparently
Frank was not alone in counseling Obama to take health care off the
front burner. “At various points, Vice President Joe Biden, senior
advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised the
President to focus entirely on the economy and leave comprehensive
health care for another day,” Jonathan Alter, senior editor of
Newsweek reports.
“‘I begged him not to do this’, Emanuel told me when I was
researching my book about Obama’s first year in office.”
After
the law passed Alter asked Obama why he overruled his team. The
President responded, “‘I remember telling Nancy Pelosi that
moving forward on this could end up being so costly for me
politically that it would affect my chances’ in 2012.” But
he and Pelosi agreed that if they didn’t move at the outset of the
his Presidency “it was not going to get done.”
In
2009 Obama put country above party. Bringing health security to
over 30 million
Americans, strengthening the social compact and laying the foundation
for a major restructuring of our health system were sufficient
rewards for him to accept the political risks.
Almost
exactly 45 years before Obama’s decision we witnessed another
profile in political courage. Former Texas Senator Lyndon Baines
Johnson, after becoming President on the death of JFK, aggressively
and decisively ended the south’s filibuster against a Civil Rights
Act, ensuring its passage in July 1964. In 1965 he secured
enactment of the Voting Rights Act.
As
is the case with the health care law, the Constitutionality of the
Civil Rights Act was tested. Southern states argued the federal
government had no right to force the private sector to treat blacks
and whites the same. The Supreme Court ruled it did.
May 13, 2012
Mark R. said...
Your
comment is pending administrative approval.
It’s
an important issue you raise.
Thanks to Michael Moore’s film, Sicko, we now have a clear idea of the propaganda that has controlled the discussion of universal health care.
Thanks to Michael Moore’s film, Sicko, we now have a clear idea of the propaganda that has controlled the discussion of universal health care.
A
clear identification of corporate health care misbehavior needs to be
organized, and the international success stories of universal health
care to follow it. Debunking corporate lies and public misperceptions
and informing them of its successes is the sure way to direct the
shamefully manipulated debate about US health care.
I think the ILSR could use Moore’s information and the opportunity to create Health Care Co-operatives to contribute to the debate and its essential community enterprise and government components.
I think the ILSR could use Moore’s information and the opportunity to create Health Care Co-operatives to contribute to the debate and its essential community enterprise and government components.
Romney, Hoover, Eisenhower and that Pipeline
David Morris |
No Comments | Updated on
May 9, 2012
After
winning the Illinois primary, Mitt Romney delivered a
victoryspeech in
which he deplored America’s lost “can do spirit”.
Unsurprisingly, he blamed it on government. If elected he
promised, “We’re going to get government out of the way”.
Then he offered a few examples of what he meant. “We
once built the interstate highway system and the Hoover Dam. Now we
can’t even build a pipeline.”
Romney
liked the line, and the thunderous applause it generated so much that
a few weeks later at a Tea Party gathering in Pennsylvania he used
it again.
Rachel
Maddow and
many others have pointed out the fundamental flaw in Romney’s
argument. The government built both the Hoover Dam and the
interstate highway system. Republican administrations
championed both projects. They were testaments to the can-do spirit
of government, grand collective undertakings that benefited
generations to come.
How
grand? The Hoover Dam cost the equivalent of $24 billion in
today’s dollars, notes Steve
Benen.
Congress appropriated $25 billion to build the first 40,000
miles of the interstate highway system, equivalent to $830 billion in
today’s dollars.
Few
have commented on Romney’s second sentence. “Now we can’t even
build a pipeline”. Having cited two examples that
contradicted his thesis that government lacks the can do spirit, he
offered an example of how government is preventing the private sector
from having the can do spirit that may be even more problematic.
Romney,
as everyone in his audience and most of the country knew, was talking
about the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama had delayed
construction while a detailed environmental impact study is
completed, generating universal Republican outrage.
Mark R. said...
Your comment is pending administrative approval.
Great points, David!
Of course, private, corporate enterprise is what has generated Romney’s wealth. Moreover, all the Republican talk is strongly controlled by ideology, and their underlying bases in big corporate wealth and political influence. Most Democrats aren’t much better, and certainly seem stifled and unable to break through their own capitualtion to “free market” fundamentalism.
Of course, private, corporate enterprise is what has generated Romney’s wealth. Moreover, all the Republican talk is strongly controlled by ideology, and their underlying bases in big corporate wealth and political influence. Most Democrats aren’t much better, and certainly seem stifled and unable to break through their own capitualtion to “free market” fundamentalism.
I was just reading about the 2011 IPCC report on climate change which continues to conclude that the problem keeps growing. I wrote my masters thesis on the origins of modern wind energy in Danish artisan technology, co-operative enterprise, and government assistance, followed by Germany’s even greater feed-in incentives and social enterprise.
You at the ILSR have been advocating community enterprise for a long time. Who can advocate for these policies? Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Kurt Conrad (ND) of the Democrats have certainly shown some leadership, and the Green Party must have the will, though still maybe somewhat unsophisticated.
Boulder’s Takeover of Xcel Energy Faces Strong Winds
A
different type of wind is blowing for Xcel Energy — the kind where
its Boulder customers are rebelling and working to municipalize that
slice of the utility’s eight-state system. while Boulder’s 97,000
citizens narrowly voted to “condemn” Xcel’s electric business
there, the process will remain long and expensive.
About
100 cities have examined the concept of forming municipal utilities
in recent history. but if the past is a prelude, very few efforts to
assume control of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) will come to
fruition. That’s because costs are often underestimated. Things
like distribution systems, generation assets, stranded costs,
engineering expenses, fuel costs and reliability issues all factor in
the ultimate price. in the end, the anticipated price tag is always
more than expected.
Sponsored
Ads
“The
vote is just one step in the process,” says Bob Bellemare, chief
operating officer for UtiliPoint International and a former advisor
to Xcel. “Condemnation is the roughest process you can try to
undertake.” he adds that the city will have to come up with
hundreds of millions to acquire the electric business, which will
likely lead to financial losses for years.
At
the heart of the matter is Boulder’s desire to move much more
aggressively toward incorporating green energy into the city’s mix.
And while Colorado has a 30 percent renewable portfolio standard, the
city wants to increase that to as much as 70 percent. It says that
Xcel simply has no plans to move that aggressively and in fact, is
more interested in building combined cycle natural gas plants.
Right
now, 11 percent of Boulder’s power is green. Xcel had offered the
city a chance to buy into a new wind project that would raise its
share of sustainable energy to 70 percent in 2013, rising to 90
percent by 2020. City leaders rejected that offer and decided
instead, to pursue condemnation.
Several
hurdles still stand in the way of Boulder’s attempt to municipalize
parts of Xcel. Most notably, the ballot measure stipulates that any
city-owned and operated utility must be able to offer the same rates
as Xcel, although confusion exists as to how to calculate such
“guarantees” over an extended time. That’s something that will
prove challenging, given the high cost of owning a utility that does
not have the same leverage in the marketplace.
Meantime,
the two entities would still have to come to terms on an agreed upon
price. the city, for example, says that Xcel’s distribution system
is worth $120 million, which the utility says is vastly understated.
In response to Germany’s expanded reliance on nuclear energy, Ursula Sladek created her country’s first cooperatively-owned renewable power company.
Nuclear Energy in Europe
Twenty-five years ago, the catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in the Soviet Union produced a radioactive cloud that quickly spread across Europe. As news of the event rippled through the continent, questions arose about toxic fallout and its implications for communities thousands of miles from Chernobyl.
Twenty-five years ago, the catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in the Soviet Union produced a radioactive cloud that quickly spread across Europe. As news of the event rippled through the continent, questions arose about toxic fallout and its implications for communities thousands of miles from Chernobyl.
At the time, West Germany relied almost exclusively on nuclear and coal energy to power its growing economy. A small handful of companies held a monopoly on the energy market, controlling most of the local grids. An anti-nuclear movement had been active throughout the 1980s and had gained some popular support, but German power companies did not provide opportunities for consumers to opt out of using nuclear-derived power.
Motivation
For Ursula Sladek, a mother of five from the tiny community of Schönau in Germany’s Black Forest region, the Chernobyl disaster served as a serious wake-up call about the dangers of nuclear energy. She and her neighbors were alarmed by reports about radioactive residue detected on playgrounds, backyard gardens, and farmland in Schönau. Suddenly, it was unsafe for Sladek to go about her normal routine of eating locally grown foods and sending her children outside to play.
For Ursula Sladek, a mother of five from the tiny community of Schönau in Germany’s Black Forest region, the Chernobyl disaster served as a serious wake-up call about the dangers of nuclear energy. She and her neighbors were alarmed by reports about radioactive residue detected on playgrounds, backyard gardens, and farmland in Schönau. Suddenly, it was unsafe for Sladek to go about her normal routine of eating locally grown foods and sending her children outside to play.
In response, Sladek, her husband, and a small group of parents began researching the energy industry in Germany to see if there was a way to limit their community’s dependence on nuclear power. They found that power companies were not allowing citizens to have a say in energy production decisions. Chernobyl proved that though nuclear energy could be called “green” by some standards, the safety risks associated with it were cause for deep concern. Sladek also knew that nuclear energy was not the only option. Thus, the group began what would become a 10 year project to take over the local grid, and in a second step, allow people all over Germany to choose safe, reliable, sustainably-produced energy. This project would transform Sladek from a small-town parent trained to be a schoolteacher into the founder and president of one of Europe’s first cooperatively-owned green energy companies.
Impact....
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Verizon the Greedy
Dear Mark ,
Recently, we launched our CEO Pay and the 99% website1 to expose the outlandish practices of companies giving huge compensation to CEOs while cutting jobs and sitting on record amounts in cash holdings and short-term investments.
One of the most egregious examples of corporate excess and greed is Verizon. While Verizon tripled the salary of CEO Lowell McAdam to $23.1 million last year,2 it also was cutting U.S. jobs, gutting worker pensions and charging current and retired employees and their families thousands of dollars more for health benefits while reducing disability coverage.
This is unacceptable and we need to let Verizon know it.
Call 800-229-9460 now to record a message that will be delivered directly to Verizon executives.
Today, while Verizon holds its shareholders meeting in Huntsville, Ala., working families and Verizon customers in Huntsville and across the country will be calling on the company to end these “VeriGreedy” practices, respect its customers and the workers who keep the company running and save good, middle-class jobs.
Because of the hard work of tens of thousands of customer support representatives, technicians, electricians and other workers who provide the best quality service they can to customers, Verizon has enjoyed success. Verizon workers are part of the solution, not the problem. They should not be punished with job cuts and increased health care and benefit costs while Verizon executives get huge pay raises and the company sits on $14 billion in cash holdings and short-term investments.3
Call 800-229-9460 now and tell Verizon to treat workers and customers with respect—by negotiating a fair contract.
Corporate greed on this scale is bad enough, but when combined with neglecting workers, it’s completely unacceptable. Together we can put an end to these terrible corporate practices—but only if you speak up and make your voice heard.
In Solidarity,
Andy Richards
New Media Strategist, AFL-CIO
Recently, we launched our CEO Pay and the 99% website1 to expose the outlandish practices of companies giving huge compensation to CEOs while cutting jobs and sitting on record amounts in cash holdings and short-term investments.
One of the most egregious examples of corporate excess and greed is Verizon. While Verizon tripled the salary of CEO Lowell McAdam to $23.1 million last year,2 it also was cutting U.S. jobs, gutting worker pensions and charging current and retired employees and their families thousands of dollars more for health benefits while reducing disability coverage.
This is unacceptable and we need to let Verizon know it.
Call 800-229-9460 now to record a message that will be delivered directly to Verizon executives.
Today, while Verizon holds its shareholders meeting in Huntsville, Ala., working families and Verizon customers in Huntsville and across the country will be calling on the company to end these “VeriGreedy” practices, respect its customers and the workers who keep the company running and save good, middle-class jobs.
Because of the hard work of tens of thousands of customer support representatives, technicians, electricians and other workers who provide the best quality service they can to customers, Verizon has enjoyed success. Verizon workers are part of the solution, not the problem. They should not be punished with job cuts and increased health care and benefit costs while Verizon executives get huge pay raises and the company sits on $14 billion in cash holdings and short-term investments.3
Call 800-229-9460 now and tell Verizon to treat workers and customers with respect—by negotiating a fair contract.
Corporate greed on this scale is bad enough, but when combined with neglecting workers, it’s completely unacceptable. Together we can put an end to these terrible corporate practices—but only if you speak up and make your voice heard.
In Solidarity,
Andy Richards
New Media Strategist, AFL-CIO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)