Switchboard, from NRDC

Windfall or Burden? Two New Reports Focus on "Location Efficiency" and the Real Cost of Housing

2009-11-20T23:09:53Z

Both Transform and the Urban Land Institute have recently released reports that look at the Bay Area from a perspective NRDC has been pushing in the public arena for some time: “location efficiency.” Just as appliances can be more or less energy efficient, homes and businesses can be more or less location efficient, depending on where they are. If you need to drive 10 miles for a gallon of mile, you’re not location efficient. If you can walk down the block for your milk and hop on a bus to get to work, you are.

We know that location efficiency has tremendous environmental benefits (if you’re interested in more, check out this post), but what these two reports tell us is that the way we develop has serious economic implications for American families.

In most people’s minds, what makes housing affordable is how much it costs. What the reports reemphasize is that we need to not only look at the cost of the housing, but the cost of everyday transportation to and from the house, when determining whether a home is affordable enough.

Transform’s Windfall for All: How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California’s Economy covers the basics: Transportation expenses tend to be highest for Bay Area households in areas without transit, while neighborhoods with very good access to transit spend significantly less (39% less, in fact) on transportation each year. These households not only drive fewer miles (which saves money), but they own fewer cars, which is where I imagine the bulk of the savings comes from. If we can expand transit service or create more compact communities near existing transit, there’s a huge potential to save households money.

ULI’s Bay Area Burden, Examining the Costs and Impacts of Housing Transportation on Bay Area Residents, Their Neighborhoods and the Environment, provides even more information, offering detailed analysis of the Bay Area with respect not only to housing and transportation costs, but to area median incomes. Some interesting bits:

On average, Bay Area household spend 59% of their income on housing and transportation (H + T), but this percentage varies by what county people live in, and accordingly the contribution of each element varies. For example, Alameda County residents pay 61% of their income in H + T, while San Franciscans pay 58%. Sure, housing is more expensive in San Francisco, but transportation is more expensive in Alameda County.

When H + T costs are compared to median incomes, some staggering facts come to light. For example, even with relatively low housing and transportation costs, Oakland residents pay 69% of their income on H + T, due to their lower median income. In Berkeley? 77%. East Palo Alto? 75% In the small East Bay town of San Pablo? 81%!!

Both reports encourage better regional planning and more coordination between land use and transportation planning. SB 375, the bill NRDC co-sponsored last year, is pointed to by both reports as the best vehicle for so doing.

SB 375 is known primarily as America’s first legislative effort to link land use, transportation, and greenhouse gas emissions. What’s perhaps less well known is that it puts housing affordability into the equation as well (which was why it was supported by affordable housing advocates). These reports contribute to the already large body of study telling us that this is the way we need to go. The stakes are high not just for the environment, but for the economic livelihood of American families.

Does Agency Cynicism Serve Wolves, Science, or the Public Interest?

2009-11-20T22:58:32Z

A recent meeting of the Montana Chapter of the Society of Conservation Biology showcased talks by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Ed Bangs, and the Montana Wolf Project Manager, Carolyn Sime. What struck me most about their presentations was their cynicism.

While the purpose of the conference was to discuss the application of science in conservation, Sime and Bangs chose to speak mostly about symbolism. Both talks implied that it is impossible to pursue useful scientific inquiry or to improve wolf-management practices because of the symbolism surrounding wolves.

Bangs introduced his talk by saying, "Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with each other — it all has to do with symbolism." Really? Can't science be used to help inform ranchers and others about how to reduce conflicts? Then, someone asked Bangs a question about what the most effective ways to deal with wolf/livestock conflicts are. His response? "Divine intervention." Huh? Have we really learned nothing about deterring wolf/livestock conflicts in the 14 years since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and central Idaho — and in the many hundreds of years of humans living in close proximity to these animals across Canada and Europe? Can FWS's head wolf manager, with decades of scientific experience, provide no insights on how to avoid conflicts?

One puzzling aspect of the wolf arena is that FWS has not tried to systematically or comprehensively analyze the complex nature of wolf/livestock interactions in an effort to reduce conflicts. Both Bangs and Sime suggested that the existing research being done on wolves was adequate — when, in fact, it is absent in the context of perhaps the most important question facing wolf recovery today: how can we use scientific and other information to avoid conflicts and reduce livestock losses?

This is in contrast to Yellowstone grizzly bear management, where data on conflict and mortalities are collected, evaluated and released to the public annually. The benefit of such a system is that the public — ranchers, sportsmen, landowners, recreationists and others — can see the patterns of the problems. Knowledge of these patterns, combined with mountains of readily available information about how to avoid bear conflicts (sanitation, bear spray, proper handling of food in the backcountry), helps focus efforts to avoid problems proactively. (Grizzly bear management is far from perfect, but these data-gathering efforts have helped reduce conflicts in what had formerly been black holes for bear mortality.)

For example, the Yellowstone grizzly bear conflict data show that the number one human/grizzly bear conflict area over the last few years has been around Gardiner, Montana. Conflicts there primarily involve human food attractants and a lack of bear-resistant garbage containers. Right now, we at NRDC are working with Bear Awareness Gardiner, the U.S. Forest Service, and others to increase the number of bear-resistant garbage containers for residents. It's a collaborative effort using techniques that have worked elsewhere, and we are optimistic that, together, we will make progress here.

If there is no systematic collection and assessment of data on conflicts and mortalities, it is impossible to learn from experience and improve the day-to-day practice of living with large carnivores. Wildlife managers, ranchers and others involved in the wolf arena are therefore collectively groping in the dark. In this context, calling upon "divine intervention" makes sense.

This is not to say that there is a lack of individuals inside and outside the agencies working 24/7 to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts; indeed, there are many working — quietly and without fanfare — to avoid problems by understanding what wolves are doing on the landscapes where they make their living. One classic success story involves management of sheep around Idaho's Phantom Wolf Pack, which resulted in a major reduction of depredations thanks to a collaborative effort by federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations. .

In the case of wolf/livestock interactions, there is no silver bullet to avoid conflicts everywhere. Wolves are smart and curious, and there are big differences within this region — geographically, ecologically, and in terms of prey dynamics and grazing practices. Thus, a wide array of tools, including electric fences, guard dogs, and penning livestock at night, can be helpful in various contexts. And there may be other techniques, like placing wolf urine on scent posts (communicating to wolves that the area is already occupied by other wolves), which might work in some circumstances, but have yet to be tested.

The good work that many people around the region are pursuing to coexist with wolves would be greatly strengthened if the lead agencies — Wildlife Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agencies — abandoned their cynicism and, instead, collaborated with each other and those affected by wolves, shared existing conflicts data, and systematically analyzed the data to better understand the underlying drivers of the conflicts.

All stakeholders, particularly landowners and livestock operators, should be able to obtain maps of wolf conflicts with information on the timing and nature of the conflicts. There are many livestock operators and grazing associations that would certainly put this information to good use in their own management practices; who wouldn't try to avoid conflicts if they had more knowledge and a better set of tools to do so?

Finally, in her slide presentation, "Cascades of Symbolism: Where Does the Science Fit into Montana Wolf Conservation?," Carolyn Sime hardly talked about science (but rather symbolism and values) and thus failed to address her own question. At one point, she displayed a picture of a judge throwing a spitball down on the head of a pleader with the subtitle, "And you wonder why people hate activist judges." This was an obvious dig at U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled last year that FWS's original delisting proposal was inadequate, and, in a September 8, 2009 ruling, indicated that NRDC and other conservation groups are likely to prevail on the merits of our current challenge of FWS's decision to delist Northern Rockies wolves.

Not only was Sime's remark fundamentally disrespectful of the judiciary, it undermined the principles of democracy, which rely on checks and balances among different branches of government. And it is hard to imagine how such statements serve the broader public interest regarding the management of wolves in the state. Such unnecessary remarks only serve to further inflame an already too controversial subject.

Both Sime's and Bangs' presentations relied on rhetoric about values, symbolism, and collaboration, without defining what they currently mean, or should mean, in the context of wolf recovery. They also failed to present their views or any relevant science on alternative ways to improve wolf management. Their rhetoric was ultimately unrelated to the real-world challenges of coexisting with wolves. Could it be that its purpose was to preserve the current management system and the status quo at the expense of serious scientific inquiry aimed at solving problems on the ground with wolves and moving recovery forward?

We at NRDC believe we can achieve full wolf recovery in the region, but public displays of cynicism by key leaders are counterproductive — and will only delay recovery while contributing to further polarization in the debate. We need the leaders in wolf management to sow the seeds of compassion and respect for the public they serve, to support and strengthen the creative work already being done by many to address wolf-livestock conflicts, and to become constructive participants in a truly democratic process to reach durable wolf recovery.

Three days late, but just as important: TRANSPORTATION

2009-11-20T20:43:13Z

I like what Michelle, of the No Impact Man duo for those of you who don't know, said about alternative transportation: it's ‘net net net positive gain' and that it is. You can help the environment, save money, do something good for your body, brighten your day, and make your hometown a better place to be all by avoiding one simple thing: a personal/individual vehicle.

For many reasons, living in cities is better for our environmental impact. (although, maybe not for our souls) - especially New York, where I could have taken ANY of the below listed forms of transportation, got to work with a reasonable commute time, and still beat owning a car and commuting to work:

1. subway
2. bus
3. walk
4. run
5. bike
6. ferry
7. water taxi
8. yes, even regular taxi
9. Pedi cab

My favorite and daily mode of transportation is the bicycle. I'll explain my love affair briefly. When I ride my bike in the morning, I wake up my body. I sing to myself. I find a little joy each time I pass cars stuck in traffic. I am with fellow bikers. I love, and have recounted to many friends, that when I'm running a little late to work, I can guess that most of the bikers around me are as well. I feel like we're in it together- even though most of the time we don't talk. I run into friends. I meet new people, like this morning, I ending up meeting someone simply because a car cut him off (ok, so it's too bad that happened). I get time outside- isn't it said that you need a certain amount of sun exposure to collect vitamin D? I have more mobility than relying on set routes and schedules. I rarely spend money on transportation.

On a broader scale, though, New York City has amazing options for transportation. Yes, there are issues and yes, it can, should, and will get better, but I can say with confidence that I will never have a problem reducing my environmental impact as it pertains to transportation (one of the biggest chunks of our environmental problems) in New York.

Example: New York City is home to the only (one of the only?) 24 hour subway systems in the world. On top of that, there is 24 hour access to the subway with a bicycle. I lived in Paris for a while and the metro system stopped at something like 12:30 on the week days and 2am-ish on the weekends. All their amazing urban planning and green space, nuclear energy and local food doesn't make up for the fact that if I want to get home in the evenings I must take a taxi. They have night buses, but they are far from convenient or frequent. One more point on the subway: take a minute, look up from your book and really appreciate what you see. You can do this on a bus too, or light rail, but I find the subway most rewarding. Public transportation is a little cross section of the inhabitants of a city, a microcosm if you will.

NRDC- you rock. I've done quite a bit of advocacy in relation to alternative transportation. One of the most important things to ensure a shift in how we move ourselves around is how accommodating our employers are to it. Incentives and encouragement, even simple understanding goes a long way. NRDC has really done an amazing job at making an example of itself.

1. This first, and probably most important thing that NRDC (along with many employers- ask yours) offers is the ability to put up to 230 pre-tax dollars onto a card that can be used to purchase transit related expenses like metro cards and ferry passes.

2. NRDC also buys carbon offsets. So, although many of our employees have to travel to other offices or to meetings quite frequently, we try first to take the most emissions responsible (and cost effective) mode of transportation possible, we also enter in the mileage for any travel. At the end of each year, we buy carbon offsets for the emissions we could not avoid. Most times I would worry about this, because carbon offsets have the danger of making us feel like it's ok to burn as much fuel as we want, but I've found that it is reduce travel emissions first, and compensate for those we couldn't avoid second. I like that.

3. There are bike racks on two floors- each can hold 5 or 7 bikes. I've provided pictures. I like the picture* of the 10th floor bike rack because it also shows two different sets of stairs- I appreciate that although there are 5 floors, the way to get from one to another is use in-office stairs. You can also see light from the sky light in this picture- yay, thoughtfully designed buildings!

4. There is access to elevators at all times with a bike - people elevators! I've had experiences in the past with other jobs that were not as pleasant. I like that I am not cast out to the freight elevator just because I have a bike. And I like that, although we have it so the elevators only stop at two of our floors, since we have the inter-office stairs, if I ask I can get the elevator opened on my floor.

5. When surveyed, the second most popular response people give for not commuting by bicycle is lack of showers at work. Well, NRDC has two. And while I am comfortable not showering when I get to work, many of my colleagues use our showers almost daily. It is so nice to have the option, especially in the winter when one may get caught in a cold rain, or just need a way to warm up.

Regardless of how you do it, transporting yourself from one place to another is likely to be just as present in your life as eating or sleeping. And along the same lines as food/eating, it's also likely to be one of the ways you have the most environmentally harmful impact. Think about it. And check out the non-profit Transportation Alternatives (www.transalt.org for New York) and Streetsblog.org (for nation-wide). These two networks provide a great learning space for a less-impactful way of transportation

*what's that gorgeous black cruiser** with the brooks saddle in that picture? ooooo, how pretty. And thank you to Anthony Clark (also blogging on switchboard about No Impact Week) for the lovely photos.

**yes, it's mine, but I love it so much I couldn't resist the obnoxious mention - apologies.

A Water Agency for the 21st Century: Can "Mother Met" Become Met 2.0?

2009-11-20T18:26:29Z

To the non-water wonk, a long-range planning process within the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (known as Met) might appear as exciting as drying paint. But for those of us within the water community, it has the potential to offer high drama.

This process is confronting a question that has enormous implications for the future of California's water: How does a water agency that was built upon last century's tools--dams, canals, and other forms of concrete--adapt to the age of water conservation and efficiency?

How Met answers this question will shape its future and likely influence other water agencies around the state and the country.

You see, Met is the single largest urban water agency in the United States. It is also the juggernaut behind some of the most ambitious water projects of the 20th century, from tapping the Colorado River to hauling Delta water down the Central Valley and lifting it 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains.

Met has been such a powerhouse that some local agencies call it Mother Met, and they don't always mean it fondly. Met was created to import water and was one of the nation's most powerful water forces during the last century.

But the 20th century has passed, and California has entered the era of peak water. Traditional water development has over-taxed our rivers - as shown by the closure of California's salmon fishery. And climate change is expected to reduce the amount of water in our rivers. The only river left for California to tap into is the Virtual River, the one made up of conservation, water recycling, improved groundwater management, and urban stormwater capture.

Met may be famous for building monolithic projects, but California's water future will be more decentralized. Developing the water supplies of the future means installing millions of low-flush toilets, high efficiency dishwashers, washing machines, smart irrigation systems, groundwater clean up facilities, rainwater capture systems and water recycling plants. Together, these decentralized investments will render more useable water than Met's traditional 20th century water supplies.

Can an agency accustomed to colossal water works be a leader in an era of dispersed strategies? Met member agencies are actively debating this question right now, trying to figure out how the agency can remain relevant.

I see two possible futures for Met:

Scenario 1: The Old Familiar Met

In this scenario, Met would remain the steward of last century's water strategy. It could keep making its money selling imported water from the Delta and the Colorado, even as those sources dwindle, and it could continue to maintain the massive systems its uses to transport the water.

Some local agencies would be happy to see Met stick to the same old routine, because they would be free to become the leaders in developing the emerging 21st century water tools. Over the years, Mother Met has been a strict parent, and some agencies are eager to break out on their own. If Met pursues this scenario, it will slowly shrink in significance and what happens at the local level--programs like conservation, recycling wastewater and capturing stormwater runoff from city streets--will rise in prominence.

Scenario 2: Met 2.0

In this scenario, Met would use its 20th century strength-- running complex infrastructure---in the service of 21st century conservation efforts.

The future may be more decentralized, but decentralized doesn't mean isolated. Local water conservation efforts will still require cooperation. Say your city has enough water to meet residents' needs, but your neighboring community doesn't. Maybe your neighbor would finance conservation efforts in your city if you agree to share your water. But how will it get from one place to the other? That's where Met's pipelines come in.

Or imagine your city has a first-rate wastewater treatment facility, but you don't have anywhere to store the water in the winter when irrigation use is lower. Your neighbor has extra groundwater storage, but again, how will the treated water get to the storage area? Met's pipelines.

Regional cooperation is a key to squeezing water out of the Virtual River, and Met can facilitate that exchange.

I get the sense that the agency itself wants to evolve into Met 2.0. For example, Met's Local Resources Program is already providing up to $250 per acre foot to help finance locally developed supplies, such as groundwater and wastewater recycling. Still, within the greater water community, I get lobbied from both sides: from those who believe the future of Met lies with the Virtual River and from those who say Met should butt out of local conservation efforts.

In short, what is at issue here is whether Met will be the steward of the monolithic legacy of 20th century water development or the leader in the efficiency-based water strategies of the 21st century?

Hey, it may not get the airtime of a helium filled UFO-shaped balloon, but in my world, the Met Integrated Regional Plan process represents Must See TV.

Tell me what you think Met should or will become.

High levels of benzene emissions in the Barnett Shale

2009-11-20T18:06:11Z

According to a recent news report, the head toxicologist for the Texas Commisssion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is "shocked" at the high levels of benzene being detected in the Barnett Shale area. What may be even more shocking in this report: not one of the ten biggest natural gas producers in the Barnett Shale denied that benzene is an issue in the Barnett.

TCEQ is now asking natural gas producers to monitor benzene emissions and and report any leaks. The agency is also asking producers to voluntarily reduce benzene emissions and is considering a new rule to require such reductions.

While this may sound like a good first step, TCEQ should be requiring protection, and not only from benzene, but from the other hazardous air pollutants emitted by natural gas production activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified 188 air pollutants that "may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness." The Clean Air Act established limits for these hazardous air pollutants, known as HAPs, but there is a gaping loophole for certain oil and gas production operations, as detailed in the NRDC report Drilling Down. It is time for Congress to close this loophole in the Clean Air Act and to hold the oil and gas industry to the same standards as other industries.

Wisconsin vs. Fish Ebola: New rules protect the Great Lakes ecosystem

2009-11-20T17:47:42Z

Door County, Wisconsin is famous for their fish boils. We are talking about massive kettles of Lake Michigan white fish with potatoes, onions and the perfect spices boiling in giant bonfires on the beach. Yum, it's a great tradition that has become central to the area's identity and economy as a tourist magnet. But it's a tradition that has been threatened by invasive species, like alewives and round gobies, which have been crowding out the local fish species for decades. Even scarier is the threat of VHS, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, which has been called "fish ebola" and has already appeared in some of the Great Lakes.

But yesterday, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources took a big step to help protect that tradition when they announced new regulations requiring oceangoing vessels to begin treating their ballast water to prevent invasive species from being discharged into the Great Lakes. To date, 65% of the invasive species that have been introduced into the Great Lakes since the Saint Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959 have been attributed to oceangoing ships. This biological pollution takes a massive toll on the Great Lakes economy, costing over $200 million a year.

And so, Wisconsin joins a growing list of states in recognizing that the only effective way to fight invasive species is to keep them out in the first place.

NRDC has been heavily engaged in national efforts to force the EPA and the Coast Guard to act quickly to adopt a strong federal standard that further strengthens protections for the Great Lakes. We have appeared in court alongside Great Lakes states such as Michigan and New York that have stepped up to the plate in the federal government's absence with their own ballast water protections. In fact, on Monday I will in Albany, New York, to help the New York Attorney General's Office defend the appeal of our successful defense of New York's ballast water rules.

NRDC applauds Wisconsin DNR for having the political courage to finalize these much-needed ballast water regulations. Sure, there are aspects of their law that we would like to see strengthened, but this represents real progress toward slamming the door on invasive species in the Great Lakes. It's long past time for the federal government to show leadership by creating a stronger national standard that will raise the bar even further. It is going to take more work to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and fish stocks.

Don't they care about fish boils?

American Rights at Work Launches "Not My Chamber" Campaign

2009-11-20T16:17:42Z

The US Chamber's extreme position on climate has been drawing fire for a long time, and dissatisfaction with the US Chamber is growing as more and more businesses say that the Chamber doesn't represent them on climate and other issues.

American Rights at Work has launched a "Not My Chamber" site where business owners that object to the US Chamber's position on climate, health reform, swine-flu sick leave and other issues. ARW reports that 3,102 business owners have signed the pledge, as well as over 20,000 individuals.

AFL-CIO has a blog post with lots of suggestions for getting involved.

EPA's new, interactive green homes site

2009-11-20T13:44:14Z

The federal EPA has a new and very handy "what you can do" web site on green homes. Click on a portion of the house and you'll be taken to a page with tips that pertain to that part of the house. It could be even better if the jump pages had the sort of cool graphics that the home page does (some of them have images, but they are sort of random - there's an amateurish monotone photo of someone's toilet, for example; what were they thinking?). But the site is still a neat thing to do, and it's quite informative.

Incidentally, NRDC also has a green building site with "what to do" tips and links, geared more to builders of commercial properties. If that's you, check it out.

Thanks to Lucy Minogue Rowland for the EPA tip.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page.

Laying the Foundation for US-India Collaboration on Climate Change

2009-11-20T03:50:34Z

On Sunday, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will embark on a five day trip to the United States for the first official state visit of the Obama administration. The visit will be highlighted with a state dinner with President Obama on November 24th, meant to celebrate growing cooperation between the United States and India.

In the spirit of such cooperation, Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu met with the Indian Minister for New and Renewable Energy, Dr. Farooq Abdullah in Delhi earlier this week. The two officials discussed India's ambitious solar program and agreed to expand collaboration by promoting investment and research & development in clean-tech.

This was one example of how the United States and India are increasingly working together on climate and energy issues. Next week, the two democratic leaders have the opportunity to forge a true partnership to combat climate change. While, this meeting is a significant test for US-India relations, it is vital that the two nations work to make it a historic moment in the fight against global climate change.

Prime Minister Singh's visit is a key opportunity for the two nations to jointly commit both nations to finding energy solutions and moving us towards a green economy. US-India leadership will be necessary to negotiate an international climate treaty in Copenhagen and beyond, and this visit presents an opportunity to work towards consensus in reaching that goal. The two nations should also use this opportunity to expand bilateral cooperation on climate change and energy.

NRDC's India Initiative is dedicated to working with both governments to find clean energy solutions and combat climate change. Through extensive research and consultation with stakeholders and officials in both countries, we have identified key areas for collaboration.

In a letter to President Obama, Frances Beinecke, NRDC's President, outlined potential partnerships between the United States and India:

Increase U.S.-India cooperation on energy efficiency. India's infrastructure is rapidly expanding. It is estimated that 80 percent of the infrastructure that will exist in India in 2030 has yet to be built. India presents an extraordinary opportunity to develop while constraining emissions and creating clean-technology innovations. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have done very worthwhile work with their counterparts in India for many years. These efforts need to be expanded and broadened. USAID's Energy Conservation and Commercialization program (Eco-III), funded at approximately $2 million annually, has been instrumental in launching many high-impact energy efficiency projects, including India's first commercial building code. The U.S. Government should provide increased funding for ECO-III and should foster the development of a roadmap for an expanded ECO-IV program.
Assist in creating a new India "EPA". India's Environment Minister has announced very encouraging plans to create a new environmental agency in India with real enforcement powers. The proposed National Environmental Protection Authority could play a critical role in India's constraining greenhouse gas emissions and addressing India's serious air and water pollution problems in India's efforts to move towards cleaner energy, for instance in implementing requirements for cleaner transportation fuels and vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with its decades of experience with environmental regulation and enforcement, could help the Indian Government work through structural and technical issues.
Promote cleaner transportation fuels and vehicles. Black carbon particle pollution harms the health of India's poor people and may accelerate the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Vehicles and small dirty diesel generators are major sources of this pollution. Given that the number of vehicles in India is projected to quadruple by 2020, expanding U.S. EPA's work with the India Clean Fuels and Vehicles Program to implement the Euro IV standards in India's largest cities next year is a critical step towards addressing this issue.
Create a U.S.-India clean tech fund to accelerate technology scale-up. India presents a global opportunity for expanded clean tech innovation and implementation. The U.S. and Indian Governments should provide $150 million in total for the startup of a U.S.-India clean tech fund. The fund would provide capital for U.S.-India clean-technology cooperation, technology transfers, and licensing of patented technologies. A clean tech fund could be a stepping-stone to a more expansive U.S.-India trade agreement for clean tech goods and services.
Support India's effort to adapt to the anticipated impacts of climate change. India faces the prospect of significant stresses on its food and water resources, as well as on its physical and health infrastructure, as a consequence of the impacts of climate change. U.S. support for climate adaptation efforts in India can play a critical role in ensuring the success of Indian adaptation efforts and in ensuring the stability of the region. The support can take the form both of helping fund adaptation efforts in India and of sharing U.S. experience with disaster and emergency management and planning, especially with ensuring the security of food and water resources, providing adequate health interventions, and in preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
Cooperate to reduce lead contamination in India. Initiatives aimed at reducing global carbon emissions are having the unintended consequence of increasing lead poisoning in India. The increased adoption of solar, wind power and electric/hybrid vehicles, especially in the United States, has increased the demand for lead batteries which often end up in India, one of the world's largest destinations for recycling and end-of-life disposal. We recommend that government agencies, industry, and non-governmental organizations in India and U.S. create a taskforce to address this problem, including the adoption of a third-party lead battery certification program to reduce emissions and increase used battery collection.

The letter concludes with the hope that the two nations "can lay the foundation for much expanded cooperation to address climate change and energy." A productive US-India partnership would be economically and environmentally beneficial for both countries - and to our global challenge in fighting climate change.

(Co-authored by Andy Gupta, NRDC Program Assistant)

South Korea Firmed Up Its Global Warming Commitment

2009-11-20T02:56:03Z

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has just announced that South Korea would commit to significant steps to address their global warming pollution (as Reuters and the Financial Times reported). He announced that South Korea would cut their global warming pollution to 30 percent below the projected 2020 levels (an estimated 4 percent cut from 2005 levels).

This is the most aggressive end of the target range that they proposed back in August (as I discussed here). As you can see it is the lowest emissions level (the "high" option) in the graph below.

It marks a significant shift in South Korea's global warming pollution. It will reduce emissions in 2020 by over 200 million tons - that is more than the entire annual emissions of CO2 from the Netherlands. Not too bad!

And it will help them be a leader in developing and deploying clean energy, as well as, meeting other important objectives for South Korea. As Reuters reports, President Lee Myung-bak said in the statement that:

"Through the aggressive greenhouse gas reduction, South Korea will be ready for industrialized countries' carbon trade tariffs, raise energy security and acquire market share first in rapidly growing green sectors."

As we used to say a couple of years ago: "if only major developing countries would take serious actions to curb their global warming pollution". Well South Korea was the 8th largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuels in 2005 so this isn't some small insignificant country taking action.

So way to go South Korea!

The Value of Water

2009-11-19T23:07:57Z

We have been awash with an array of unhappy water stories in this region of late. On the surface they are unrelated ... scary fish ... E. coli contamination ... improperly regulated pesticides ... intentionally poisoned waterways .... But if you scratch below the surface there's a problematic narrative developing: the water rich communities of the Great Lakes region do not understand the nature, function and value of their most precious resource.

For starters, there was Charles Duhigg's devastating series in the New York Times about the state of water policy in the United States. His stories included the on-going poisoning of our waters with pesticides, manure from agricultural operations, and the water pollution coming from coal plants. The articles are full of shocking failures of state environmental officials to enforce the requirements of the Clean Water Act within their jurisdictions against the polluters who are destroying our waters. But what is also clear is that no one has fully quantified the burden that the public and our water resources take on as a result of this pollution.

There is also the continuing, wild tale of the slow and inadequate efforts of federal, state and local authorities to protect the Great Lakes from imminent destruction by voracious, invasive Asian Carp that have been making their way up the Mississippi and its tributaries since 1993. We know the value of the aquaculture industries that introduced this dangerous fish. And we know the ludicrous costs associated with the Army Corps of Engineers Rube Goldberg fish fence that might repel them---as well as what it will cost to intentionally poison a five-mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal to kill off the carp (and any other fish actually native to the water way) when they take the fence offline for maintenance next month. But we don't know the real, full value of the already damaged Great Lakes ecosystem, and so an array of agencies dither and delay in taking action that would actually end this threat and protect the ecosystem permanently.

And now this week we saw a front-page Chicago Tribune article on city officials contemplating privatization of the municipal water system. The value of water is at the center of the issue---but not the real, full value of water as a public trust asset requiring stewardship and protection. The article treats the question of privatizing water as a limited inquiry into a "dollars and cents" revenue and service issue. It is as if such a decision is actually analogous to leasing toll bridges and parking meters---which are exclusively part of the man made, civic economy, bought and owned by a municipal corporation. In focusing narrowly on the per gallon costs that might be associated with the Mayor selling our water supply, the Tribune presents no discussion of what the water is actually "worth" or the many services it provides to the web of life that depends upon it. And who can blame them? We don't look at that issue anywhere in this region. Water is treated as an abundant resource that we assume will always be there when we need it.

An aide to Chicago's Mayor Daley said that, though the Mayor has said that "all things are on the table," the issue of privatization was being "blown way out of proportion." I hope that is true and that before there is any proposal to privatize Chicago's Lake Michigan water, there will be a full review and transparent discussion of the key issues at stake. We don't have all the answers to the relevant questions; the problem is the key questions themselves have not been recognized by many of the region's stakeholders. The issues of infrastructure, cross-community water sales and pricing, and constraints on access to Great Lakes water are complicated here. But smart questions have to be raised, probed and addressed transparently, not simply raised in order to derail the conversation and protect the unacceptable "business as usual" exploitation of our resources. At the heart of the discussion must be the recognition of the nature and value of water, framed by an understanding that water is a Public Trust asset.

All of these news stories, coupled with some of the other cases that NRDC is working on in the region, spell out the wasteful way that the Great Lakes region treats its water. The stories and cases include the ongoing fight over ballast water laws to prevent the spread of invasive species which have already fundamentally changed the ecology of the Great Lakes and our ongoing fight to force an end to dumping of "un-disinfected" human sewage (that's intestinal miasma, folks!) into the Chicago River by the government body with oversight of the issue.

It is time to get re-acquainted with the fundamental value of water as an irreplaceable, essential resource, and support the services it provides: sustenance, beauty, indeed life itself.

BREAKING NEWS: RFK, Jr. and Don Blankenship to Debate Energy

2009-11-19T22:30:40Z

This just in: Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, has accepted the challenge to debate environmental champion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., senior counsel for NRDC, on energy issues.

I was with Bobby last weekend in Nashville at NRDC's Music Saves Mountains campaign event, but at that time Blankenship had not yet committed to the debate. Now, it appears the two will square off at the University of Charleston in West Virginia on Jan. 21.

This should be a lively event, as Bobby is a life-long environmental activist and eloquent speaker and Blankenship is a controversial coal baron and fiery critic of environmental regulation. Bobby advocates for legislation to address global warming while Blankenship claims that the climate is actually cooling.

To get a flavor of the upcoming debate, watch an interview of Blankenship from earlier this week. Wow.

Without a doubt, the two are polar opposites when it comes to coal. Blankenship, of course, is the CEO of the nation's fourth-largest coal campany, which is notorious for its use of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia. Bobby, meanwhile, is a forceful proponent of clean energy alternatives who calls the industry's notion of "clean coal" a dirty lie.

A new report issued by Physicians for Social Responsibility provides a helpful primer on the environmental and health impacts of coal -- from the cradle to the grave.

The US Chamber's Chronic Reliance on Biased Policy Analysis

2009-11-19T21:54:31Z

The US Chamber's recently exposed interest in commissioning a study to put health reform in a bad light isn't the first time the federation has shown its willingness to trumpet questionable analyses about proposals it doesn't like.

Heck, the US Chamber has been peddling bad studies on the economic impacts of climate policy for years.

For instance, they've had David Kreutzer, a Heritage Foundation economist, do three presentations before local Chambers in Michigan, Missouri and Virginia. We've pointed out before (here, here, here and here) that Kreutzer is a co-author of the deeply flawed Heritage Foundation "analyses" of last year's Lieberman-Warner bill and this year's Waxman-Markey bill. Even though the Heritage Foundation presents its results as though they actually modeled the bill in question, they have a funny tendency to leave out significant parts of the proposed legislation. As my colleague Laurie Johnson explained in May, looking at Heritage's "analysis" of Waxman-Markey:

And aside from the cap on emissions, virtually none of the bill is modeled:

1) the allowance value disappears instead of being spent on consumer relief, clean energy, adaptation, and other measures;

2) no cost containment provisions such as banking, the strategic reserve, and offsets are included; and

3) no complementary policies promoting energy efficiency and clean energy are allowed.

Which is pretty similar to what I noted about their modeling of Lieberman-Warner.

By not actually modeling the legislation in question, and leaving out the parts that reduce the costs, Heritage produces the results you might expect. As my colleague Laurie summarizes:

predicted prices are drastically higher than those found in widely-respected and peer-reviewed analyses done by government agencies and universities, forcing extreme differences in results.

But despite such glaring flaws, Kreutzer has presented the results as though they do model the legislation. Here's what the Chamber's official report on the Missouri presentation said:

Dr. David Kreutzer, an economist from the Heritage Foundation, focused on the impact of cap-and-trade legislation on Missouri's economy. He used his analysis of S. 3036, the "Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act," to highlight how the program could devastate Missouri's economy, a state largely dependent on coal, through job loss, harm to the Gross State Product (GSP), and the increased cost of utilities on Missouri families.

So the US Chamber has been hosting presentations showing scary economic outcomes based on analyses that are not of the legislation the presentation is supposedly about. Way to play it straight, US Chamber!

But wait, there's more.

Sometimes the Chamber uses Margo Thorning instead of David Kreutzer. She is an economist with the American Council for Capital Formation, a polluter-funded group that has been teaming up with the National Association of Manufacturers to produce their own distorted estimates of the costs of climate legislation, which we have debunked again and again.

And well we should. The NAM/ACCF analyses use the same trick as the Heritage Foundation: leave out lots of the bill. Need proof? Look at page 9 of the NAM/ACCF study where it lists the titles of the Waxman-Markey bill, where they admit to leaving out entirely the titles that include consumer protections and cost-containment.

Yet, the Chamber has given the stage to Ms. Thorning six times since 2008 - Ohio, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

So the news that the US Chamber was looking to fund a rigged study on health reform is actually just the latest symptom of its chronic reliance upon biased policy analysis.

Come to Montana and Poach a Wolf!

2009-11-19T21:19:25Z

You could pay an outfitter in the Northern Rockies $3,600 or $2,900 for a guided hunt to kill one wolf, or you could come to Montana and illegally poach two wolves for $1,135. And you don't need to worry about losing your hunting privileges for the poaching.

$1,135 and no revocation of hunting privileges; that was the punishment imposed upon a wolf hunter in northwest Montana that illegally killed two wolves near Glacier National Park last month.

The State of Montana also failed to include those two wolves and another illegally poached wolf in its hunt harvest quota of 75 wolves.

With such a ridiculously light wrist slap, what kind of message is Montana sending about the value of wolves in the state?

For comparison, two men from Bozeman, Montana, poached one bull elk in Yellowstone National Park a few years ago. Their punishment? One of the hunters received 30 days in jail, a year of supervised probation and three years of unsupervised probation (he also pled guilty to a marijuana possession charge). The other was sentenced to five days in jail already served and three years unsupervised probation. Each was ordered to pay more than $8,000 in restitution, fines and other costs, and both were banned from hunting for four years and prohibited from visiting Yellowstone for four years. They were also ordered to forfeit the guns and ammunition they used during their illegal hunt.

And while that was a federal case, Montana has historically not been shy about dishing out some hefty punishments for poaching cases in big sky country.

But with a very public case of two illegally poached wolves during the state's inaugural wolf hunt, Montana let this wildlife thief off easy and missed a great opportunity to set a strong precedent that illegally killing wolves in Montana will not be tolerated.

What a shame.

When an animal is poached, that animal dies a needless death, and, more broadly, everyone is robbed.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Sergeant John Obst nailed it when he said:

[E]very animal poached represents one less opportunity for real hunters, and for everyone, really, who values Montana's wildlife.

It's too bad Montana didn't heed Sergeant Obst's words and drop the hammer with a real punishment for this wolf poacher.

Today is World Toilet Day!

2009-11-19T20:36:07Z

It's a fun way to build awareness for a very serious problem. Safe water and sanitation are the world's most pressing environmental health challenges as NRDC has highlighted here and here. Luckily World Toilet Day celebrations in DC did reach lots of people.

This morning on a radio show, Congressman Earl Blumenauer highlighted the importance of safe places for people to defecate and urinate. 2.5 billion people worldwide don't have access to a safe private toilet and as a result millions of people, especially young children, die of diarrheal illnesses unnecessarily.

During lunchtime in DC a variety of health, development, and water and sanitation organizations joined together to create an exhibit in front of the Capitol building showing that sanitation can provide dignity, health and safety. Children from a local school even brought signs and explained why they thought toilets were important.

What would you do if you didn't have a toilet?

Take a minute and check out news about these events around the world that are part of World Toilet Day. And see what you can do to raise awareness about this important issue. We've said it before and we will say it again It's Time to Use Your Potty Mouth.

Happy Toilet Day!