Peter Lehner's Blog: Living Sustainably

Saving Forests One Tree at a Time

2010-04-14T19:24:42Z

News about forest conservation is often filled with sobering facts about the damage caused by deforestation.

Just recently a United Nations study found that globally we are losing the equivalent of an area the size of Costa Rica each year to deforestation. This is scary news; as we lose our forests so go countless species, some still yet to be discovered, and even more greenhouse gas emissions are released into the atmosphere.

Encouragingly though, the UN study also found that targeted efforts have helped slow the global rate of deforestation. While much remains to be done to save our forests, we are seeing that we can make a difference.

Last year, with the support of our members, NRDC's Revive a Rainforest initiative planted 30,000 trees in Costa Rica's Central Valley. Our local partner CATIE, a regional leader in tropical resource management, will use this project as a model for farmers, rural communities and organizations interested in reforestation initiatives.

Photo Credit: CATIE

I helped plant one of the first trees and I'm heartened to see how big the trees in our Member Rainforest have already grown -- from just a few inches less than a year ago to nearly three feet tall.

Our reforestation initiative is also now seeking to restore the biodiversity of 50 acres of former cattle pasture and plantation land on Costa Rica's Osa Peninsula. Working with the Friends of the Osa (or FOO), NRDC’s Revive a Rainforest initiative will now plant up to 50 different species of trees and plants.

Photo Credit: Tina Lee & Kristine Bucchianeri

I've been travelling and working in Costa Rica for many years but had never had the chance to visit the Osa Peninsula until last year. I was amazed by the abundance of wildlife -- in one afternoon I saw toucans, four different species of monkeys, hundreds of dolphins in the Golfo Dulce and trees full of scarlet macaws -- including one that was very friendly! The Osa is one of the wildest places on Earth and we must do all we can to protect it from the persisting threat of unsustainable agricultural and expanding real estate development.

We can restore areas that have lost their biodiversity and recreate the type of habitat where animals such as the jaguar and spider monkey can thrive again. The goal of our project with FOO is to do precisely that.

The project site will be a living laboratory, especially for young people in the Osa to learn first-hand the importance of protecting forest biodiversity. We're excited about these projects and very grateful to the NRDC members who have supported our efforts to revive Costa Rica's rainforests.

And I'm happy to say that The Walt Disney Company is also excited about our project and has selected the Cerro Osa Restoration project as one of five habitat restoration efforts that will receive support through Disney's Friends for Change: Project Green.

Through the Friends for Change website kids can learn how to help the planet through simple every day actions - involving their friends and tracking their collective impact. Kids can also vote to help Disney decide how much support each habitat project will receive.

Disney’s initiative means that starting at an early age kids will have a real opportunity to see and learn just how important small steps like planting a new tree can be.

In fact, as we are discovering, these small steps can collectively revive a rainforest.

High Speed Rail: $8 Billion Down Payment on Jobs, Security, and Sustainability

2010-01-28T18:45:57Z

Last night, I wrote that I was excited to hear President Obama lay out plans to recover the economy, enhance our energy security, and cut pollution by investing in an efficient, 21st-century high-speed rail network. But I had no idea how thrilled I’d be to actually see the Administration’s plans on paper.

Today, the president announced the first big steps toward a network of high speed rail corridors across the nation. The $8 billion in awards will touch 30 states in every region of the country, and are a down payment on a truly visionary transportation system.

Completed in 1992, our highway system is second to none in the world (though it is in dire need of repair and rehabilitation, which must be the focus of new highways investments). But in other areas, our transportation system is woefully behind our competitors in the global economy.

High speed rail has been up and running in Europe and Japan for years, and their systems continue to expand. China is investing tens of billions of dollars in their rail system, as are other Asian nations. Other emerging economies such as Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa all have major systems scheduled to come on line in the next decade.

As I said last night, President Obama’s commitment to high speed rail is a commitment to build the other half of the transportation system. Paired with new investments in local transit, commuter rail, and local pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, it is a key part of a rebalancing of our national transportation system. With $2.5 billion more from Congress on the way in 2010, and plans for major new investments proposed by House Transportation Chairman Jim Oberstar, this rebalancing starts now.

So what exactly does the president’s plan look like? Eventually, each of the major regions of the US will have high-speed rail connecting most major cities. Though this is a long term goal, today’s announcement will take a big step toward achieving it. The strategy is to invest in key corridors in a phased approach, building on our successes with each phase.

The first phase will concentrate funding in the West, Midwest, and Southeast.

West - $2,942,000,000
Midwest - $2,599,600,000
Southeast - $1,870,000,000
Northeast - $485,000,000

Grants fall into three categories: 1) true high-speed rail service, aimed a projects that will run at up to 150 miles per hour when completed; 2) emerging high-speed rail, which will bring existing passenger rail corridors up to speeds of 110 mph, with plans to increase speeds in the future; and 3) a series of projects to lay the groundwork for future high-speed rail corridors.

Largest awards

California High-Speed Rail: $2.25 billion
Tampa-Orlando Phase 1: $ 1.25 billion
Chicago-St. Louis Midwest: $1.1 billion
Madison-Milwaukee Midwest: $810 million
Seattle-Portland: $590 million
Charlotte-Richmond-Washington, DC: $520 million

The president’s rail initiative will have both an immediate and lasting impact on our country. Not only is this investment going to create tens of thousands of jobs and build our economy in the near term, it is going to continue to contribute to our economy in the long term.

When trains start running in each corridor, it is going to be a boon to both American businesses, which will benefit from better, more efficient mobility. Since rail is much more efficient than flying or driving, it will also help our energy security and our environment. A major study of transportation and climate change found that high-speed rail investments can help to save millions of tons of global warming pollution.

Fully building a national high speed rail system is something that will take time, stretching long beyond President Obama’s term of office. However, his vision extends beyond politics to the good of the country. The high-speed rail system that American begins building today will be a legacy ensuring that tomorrow, our country continues to have the best, most efficient transportation network in the world.

High-Speed Rail Tops Obama Plans for National Investments

2010-01-28T02:56:44Z

As I watched President Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight, I was excited to see the President connect the nation’s most pressing priorities with his vision of a modern high-speed rail network, following in the footsteps of President Dwight Eisenhower.

President Eisenhower told the nation in his 1955 State of the Union Address, “A modern highway system is essential to meet the needs of our growing population, our expanding economy, and our national security.” A year later, construction began on the largest infrastructure project America had ever attempted: the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Building the Interstate System would put Americans to work, help our nation’s businesses to prosper, and make the country more secure.

In tonight’s State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged economic recovery and national security through a similarly historic commitment to build the other half of America’s transportation system. The president will announce the first $8 billion of high-speed rail investments tomorrow, a down payment on a bigger plan to connect America with fast, efficient, modern trains. But I don’t need to hear his plan to understand how it will move this nation forward, because I know from experience.

I frequently travel between NRDC’s New York headquarters and our Washington office. My priority is getting there quickly, safely and with minimal impact on the environment. I choose high-speed rail whenever I can. It’s the quicker, easier, and cleaner than driving or flying. I don’t have to deal with airport delays and I am reducing pollution. The fact that these trains frequently sell out tell me many others agree. But too few Americans have this choice to begin with.

As much as America needs high-speed rail service, we will also see its benefits before a single high-speed train leaves the station. These investments will have an immediate impact on the U.S. economy, creating construction, manufacturing, and engineering jobs that can’t be outsourced. Last year, 32 rail manufacturers and suppliers pledged to expand or establish U.S.-based operations as a result of the Administration’s funding of high-speed rail.

High-speed investments will have a lasting impact on America as well. An efficient high-speed rail network will help us cut oil use in transportation, which will increase our energy independence and enhance our national security. It will help to improve the environment and avoid the impacts of climate change. It will also help America grow and prosper by improving mobility across the country, relieving gridlocked roads and crowded airports, which helps American commerce to thrive.

Eisenhower’s transportation vision helped America to prosper for 55 years. President Obama’s commitment to high-speed rail and a modern, efficient transportation system will put America on track to another century economic success.

Driving Toward Clean Air at Our Nation’s Ports

2009-10-27T21:41:31Z

This post was co-written with Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. NRDC and Sierra Club are members of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, supporters of the clean truck program.

"Cancer alley." That's what many Southern Californians call the 23-mile rail and truck corridor connecting our nation's largest seaport to massive distribution centers east of Downtown Los Angeles. In California alone, diesel air pollution from ships, trucks and trains kills more than 3,700 people every year -- more than died in the 9-11 attacks.

Despite this stunning death-toll, the American Trucking Association is aggressively trying to dismantle a successful program adopted a year ago this month by the Port of Los Angeles that is well on its way to reducing diesel emissions from port trucks by 80 percent, and establishing a model that diesel-afflicted communities around the nation are beginning to follow.

California's diesel body count may be highest, but concentrations of cancer, asthma and other diseases caused by air pollution occur wherever large amounts of cargo move by ship, truck and train. The victims tend to be poor people of color who live or work alongside our ports, freeways and cargo hubs. But toxic diesel smoke knows no boundaries. It follows the wind, depositing carcinogenic particulate matter in the lungs of rich and poor alike.

By banning the oldest trucks outright, putting cleaner trucks on the road, and creating powerful rules to move cargo greenly, Los Angeles officials have removed 2,000 of the dirtiest rigs from service and helped business put nearly 6,000 clean-burning and alternative fuel trucks on the road.

The landmark clean truck program at the Port of Los Angeles sets the standard because it ensures that trucking companies that can afford to meet increasingly stringent environmental standards are responsible for clean-up, instead of independent truck drivers, who have been historically underpaid. Under the program, trucking companies agree to meet environmental, safety, and security standards in exchange for access to port terminals.

However, the trucking industry is spending millions of dollars to undermine this progress and the progress of like-minded ports nationwide that want to adopt clean-up plans. In an ongoing lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, the trucking industry is trying to weaken the progressive clean truck program, arguing that the port has no authority to reform port trucking operations that occur on its own property or even cure inefficiencies that affect the bottom line. Industry representatives go so far as to argue that the port should be barred from verifying whether trucks comply with clean air standards when entering port facilities.

Municipal airports and privately-owned stadiums place conditions on those who want to do business there, increasing the odds that vendors operate safely and consistently provide a high level of service. Ports should feel empowered to do the same.

The litigation by the trucking industry relies on obscure federal law that wasn't designed to restrict the right of local governments to protect their residents' health. That's why Congress should act now to clarify the right of states and municipalities to protect their citizens from the lethal byproduct of cargo transport.

Los Angeles has survived these challenges so far, but the specter of intense litigation with the trucking industry may dissuade other ports and municipalities from pursuing similar programs to reduce diesel pollution and save lives. Mayors Bloomberg and Booker of the Ports of New York and Newark respectively, Mayor Ritter of the Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of Oakland Mayor Dellums, and officials in Virginia, Charleston, Houston, and Tacoma know that unchecked diesel pollution degrades and shortens lives and causes tens of billions of dollars in health-related costs every year. They are all calling to regulate and reduce truck-produced pollution at their ports.

Our collective failure to protect the public from diesel pollution is a moral outrage and a shame on our nation. Fortunately, the Obama Administration appreciates that Americans want and deserve clean air and the sustainable jobs that accompany it. In the case of Los Angeles, there's a proven track record of success. As we celebrate the program's first year, Congress should embrace this local green-growth model and take action to protect it.

Meeting the Enemy

2009-09-15T20:53:28Z

During eight years as chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's Office, I had the political backing necessary to take on large corporate polluters.

Such support is crucial to enforce the hard-won standards contained in our environmental legislation. If there was any doubt, The New York Times ("Clean Water Laws Neglected, at a Cost") has laid bare just want happens when political will fails: polluters with deep pockets and millions-sometimes billions-of dollars at stake run roughshod over our country's cornerstone environmental laws.

Public records, government documents and even reports submitted by polluters themselves analyzed by the Times set out a stunning portrait of non-compliance across the country that includes over half a million violations of the 1972 Clean Water Act since 2004. Well over half of these were described as "significant non-compliance". Still, the Times' research found fewer than 3% of these Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishment.

For anyone in the business of enforcing environmental law, these figures merely provide unsettling detail for a broader picture they already know all too well. The numbers underscore a stark reality: our environmental laws have not failed us; we have failed our environmental laws. To quote the comic strip character Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Without enforcement, even the finest laws protect little.

Environmental regulation was rarely a Bush administration priority and the New York Times report has given a whiff of what that low priority has produced. Today, there is a new administration in Washington and the appointment of Lisa Jackson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging. She told The Times that "strengthening water protections is "among her top priorities."

It will be important that she repeatedly shows her attention to water quality because political direction-and political will-flow from the top. If the EPA shows determination on enforcement, then state regulators will get tough, too. Success in just one high profile case can cause a ripple effect with a far broader impact.

While political will is crucial, it's not enough. Government regulators at both federal and state levels often lack the resources needed to enforce key provisions of the Clean Water Act and other environmental legislation. In New York state, for example, the number of regulated polluters has doubled over the past decade, yet the number of government inspectors has remained roughly the same, according to the Times. When the economic slowdowns force governments at all levels to tighten their belts, enforcement budgets are often among the first cut.

But beyond these staffing numbers there's also a more subtle-equally damaging-barrier to enforcement that has grown steadily over the past two decades: the ability of defendants to drag out enforcement cases to the point that the process itself becomes a deterrent to regulators. If they launch an enforcement case today, they know they are taking on a long and exhausting battle, one that could last years-while still dealing with everything else on their plate.

For example, it took the New York State Attorney General's office, working with EPA, the Department of Justice and other states and environmental organizations (including NRDC) ten years to win cases against major polluters who had violated the Clean Air Act's New Source Review Provisions.

It was an important case because the pollution was costing thousands of lives each year and although we won it, the very length of such a fight raises questions about the balance of public interests versus the interests of private polluters; between public health and private gain. To protect the public, the pace of these cases must go faster at both the administrative and judicial level. There needs to be greater presumptions favoring the public interest.

To achieve that, we have to ask ourselves how we feel as a people about environmental law, the value we place on it and the value we place on those who regulate it. All too often, the regulator's public image is a negative cliché: a bureaucrat interested mainly in disrupting business and endangering jobs. The truth is far different. The New York Times story provides a glimpse of what happens when regulators are unable to enforce environmental laws. Law enforcement is critical to leveling the playing field and ending the competitive advantage given to polluters. Consistent enforcement is also crucial to create the kind of predictability needed to justify for new investment. But the real evidence of under-enforcement is that, years after the deadlines imposed in key environmental legislation, we haven't yet met the goals set out in those laws and people still get sick from drinking water.

Greening the U.S. Open

2009-09-02T18:46:58Z

This weekend, I had the pleasure of participating in a US Open event. No - not a tennis match - but something that is still an integral part of the US Open: the announcement of this year's greening initiative.

This is the second year now that NRDC has worked with the US Tennis Association to make the US Open an increasingly sustainable sporting event.

I was in good company at the press conference, with fellow spokesperson Alec Baldwin. We spoke about the genesis of this initiative, how it has progressed, and why it matters. That last part is key. It matters a lot for several reasons.

The US Open is an international platform, receiving attention from tennis fans worldwide. By making sustainability a priority at this event, the USTA is sending a message to their fans that environmental stewardship is a value they hold dear. We've been proud to be a part of this outreach and have even helped them produce PSAs for their jumbotrons and elsewhere, incorporating the assistance of their spokespeople - Alec as well as Billie Jean King and Venus Williams among others. Check them out here:

But the greening of the US Open is important for another reason - its impact in the marketplace.

When the USTA decided they were going to make a change, that inspires their vendors to change. And a ripple effect occurs - more businesses sell sustainable products. Companies that once didn't have enough hybrids in their fleet to service such a big event or couldn't produce napkins with post consumer content expanded and improved the products they had to offer. Today, multiple companies have fully developed green offshoots of their core business, and can now offer these eco-friendlier services for other clients moving forward.

While a full list of the USTA's achievements can be found here - I thought I'd take the time to highlight a few items I think are especially important:

Recycling Measures:

The USTA has made recycling a priority. They have placed recycling bins throughout 100% of the complex next to each and every trash can. This is one of the fastest expansions of a recycling program we've seen.

They are recycling the overwhelming majority of the 20,000 tennis ball cans they'll use during the event. To do this, they had NRDC find a recycling company that could figure out how to recycle the cans that contain two different kinds of plastic (in the can body and lid) and a metal ring that has to be removed. That's a lot of plastic that will no longer be landfilled - and also a reminder that most things should be recycled.

Energy:

Another important achievement is their efforts make energy improvements. They have reduced the number of energy servers they use for this event from a whopping 60 to just 6. That's a huge step in the right direction toward energy efficiency. And for the energy they're still using, they have purchased wind power through Green-e renewable energy certificates. By purchasing with Green-e they've ensured that the credits meet the standards we think are meaningful for renewable energy and make renewables that much more cost-competitive.

Concessions:

Lastly, it's important to note their work with Levy - their concessionaire. Levy is in charge of all the food, utensils, paper, etc (basically all the stuff that people normally identify as source of a stadium's waste).

The US Open worked closely with Levy to make sure they would source food from about a dozen local farms, create a pilot composting program, recover cooking oil for use as biodiesel fuel, and ensure that products including utensils and napkins were made out our recycled and/or biobased content.

And to do all this, Levy had to reach back to their own group of vendors and oftentimes seek out new ones to fulfill the US Open's request. It's another great precedent-setter for the marketplace.

In the end, I'd say I was part of a great US Open event, even if it wasn't the finals. On the cusp of the event's opening day was an ideal time to highlight all the equally great achievements happening off the court. From the upstream message the US Open is sending to companies they work with to the downstream message they're sending to their fans worldwide, the USTA has proven that - as they say - "their courts may be blue, but they're thinking green". Indeed.

But while the press event was important, I admit that watching tennis is more fun.

Secretary LaHood and Shifting the Way we Build

2009-06-20T15:30:27Z

President Obama reached across the political aisle when he selected Representative Ray LaHood, a Republican from Illinois, as his Transportation Secretary. The appointment was met by some skepticism: LaHood's resume on transportation issues was decried as very thin.

But Secretary LaHood earned special praise earlier this week when he joined the leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a new Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a landmark effort in recognizing the vital and logical but not always well understood relationship between housing, transportation and the environment.

The ambitious, collaborative approach these three agencies are taking will have a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans and represents a shift in the way we build our country and protect our environment.

Considering that housing and transportation account for two of the largest slices of our emissions pie, the Partnership and its forthcoming work will be essential to America's continued prosperity in the 21st century.

In testimony before a Senate committee, Secretary LaHood noted the urgent need to reduce emissions, the health benefits of well-designed efficient communities and the savings associated with public transit. As my colleague Kaid Benfield noted in his blog, Secretary LaHood's testimony painted a clear picture for the future of transportation:

"Transportation can play an enhanced role in creating safer, healthier communities with the strong economies needed to support our families," he said.

"Integrating transportation planning with community development and expanding transportation options will not only improve connectivity and influence how people choose to travel, but also lower transportation costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil and decrease emissions," LaHood continued. "All segments of the population must have access to safe and convenient transportation options to get to work, housing, medical services, schools, shopping and other essential activities including recreation."

As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson succinctly put it in her own testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, "where you live affects how you get around, and how you get around often affects where you live. Both decisions affect our environment."

Secretary LaHood's statement, which highlighted the economic and environmental importance of developing a new transportation network (and ethos) in the United States, showed strong vision in thinking outside the highway box. And the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is poised to do just that.

A Heart of Green

2009-04-24T22:58:40Z

Last night, Hearst's green lifestyle website The Daily Green held its 2009 Heart of Green Awards, honoring those people, organizations and companies that take the green message to the mainstream -- to the "heart" of the American people. The award recipients ranged from Hollywood stars to an inspiring Ohio teacher who transformed a marketing class into a crash course on sustainability -- and transformed his students into eco-warriors.

And receiving the lifetime achievement award was none other than NRDC's President, Frances Beinecke. Anyone who works at NRDC understands the drive, passion and perseverance that makes Frances such an effective leader, but it's always nice when others from the larger green community recognize this as well. Frances is an inspirational leader as well as an extraordinary boss who is great to work with.

Here's what Dan Shapley from The Daily Green had to say:

She's a blogger, a government watchdog, a community organizer and a policy wonk - in the best sense of the word. She fights for the preservation of polar bears and our offshore environment, for the protection of children's health, for the restoration of our economy as a sustainable green machine - and for the protection of the earth's ecosystem in the face of rising temperatures.

She's an innovator, a visionary, an inspiration. As president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the nation's most influential environmental groups, Frances Beinecke is all these things and more.

Born in Summit, N.J., Beinecke was inspired during camping trips by the "magical landscapes" of Grand Teton National Park. The majesty of those landscapes left her with a resolve to protect wild places.

She graduated in the first Yale University class to accept women, experienced the first Earth Day in 1970 and graduated with a master's degree from the Yale School of Forestry. It was while in graduate school, during this pivotal time in the nation's history, that Beinecke first joined forces with the Natural Resources Defense Council, as an intern working in the Catskill Mountains, the source of New York City's drinking water.

For three decades counting, it's a relationship that has strengthened not only the woman and the organization but the environment.

She started the group's Water & Coastal Program, designed in part to fight offshore drilling, before taking a hiatus to raise her three children. She returned in 1990 to aid in a strategic reorganization. By 1998 she was named executive director, and in 2006 she became NRDC's second president.

Still staffed with some of the nation's leading legal, scientific and policy experts, NRDC under her leadership now also boasts 1.2 million members --- real people who have been inspired to take action to protect the environment. Beinecke, who serves on the boards of numerous other environmental and academic institutions, promotes the idea that "the environment is everywhere" -- and that activism benefits not just untouched wilderness and endangered species, but our homes and our health.

During her tenure, NRDC has reached out to Spanish-speaking citizens, empowered citizen journalists, and launched both an influential blog and a Web site devoted to "Simple Steps" that help the environment. And under her leadership, NRDC argues hard for laws that fight global warming and revive our economy by investing in green jobs, clean energy and sustainable communities.

"With the right policies in place," she wrote recently, "many American companies are poised to bring clean energy technology into the mainstream -- along with the thousands of jobs, reduced oil dependence, and cleaner air that come with it."

In the face of staggering challenges, she has a vision that is clear, positive and empowering.

"To be in this business," she has said, "you have to be an optimist. You have to believe that change is possible and that you're part of the solution to getting that change in place."

She is The Daily Green's 2009 Heart of Green Lifetime Achievement Award winner.

Describing the Devastation of Mountaintop Mining

2009-01-29T14:00:55Z

As a lawyer, I've written about environmental harms quite often. Yet as I recently flew over several of the larger mountaintop mines in eastern Kentucky, I struggled to find the words to describe the devastation. The scars where trees, topsoil and many feet of unwanted rock have been ripped off, leaving barren rubble behind. The dams at the head of the valleys (known locally as "hollows") that fill the steep valleys with the rubble and other fill. Unnaturally colored ponds sitting behind the dams.

I visited eastern Kentucky at the invitation of Marianne, a friend from school, and her husband Jim. While there, we met many people engaged in fighting mountaintop removal and took an air tour of the mining sites. Appropriately enough, after our tour, we landed at Wendell Ford airport, the site of a former mountaintop mine now turned into a flat table where a steep mountain had once been. Greeting us at the airport were posters claiming that "coal is the future," with photos that can only be described as Orwellian:

Before: a mountain, looking barren and useless.
During: big trucks and bulldozers, implying jobs.
After: animals and grasses and specific claims that reclamation of mined areas "improves" the land.

The lie represented by those photos was seen clearly from the air where all we could see for miles was barren rock, not fertile productive farms. Rick, who has lived in the area his entire life, told us that there are no animals in mined areas. Animals, he explained, need nuts to last through the winter. Nuts obviously come from trees and the biggest piece missing from these lands are trees.

Truman, another life long resident of the area, put it simply: "Trees don't grow in rock rubble."

Another area resident showed us where coal companies, rushing to mine before the end of the Bush Administration, pushed over all the trees, further devastating the landscape without any regard for logging income and jobs that would be lost.

I asked our companions why so few people complain about the mines destroying their water supplies, covering their houses with toxic dust and cracking their foundations with blasting?

Carl, a third-generation miner now retired, says he's speaking out and many people tell him privately that they agree, but can't speak publicly because a family member has a job with a mine and would lose it if they did. "It's the only way to support their families now; that's why we need some wind farms and other energy sources around here," he said.

Yes, indeed. Renewable energy is part of the answer. So is energy efficiency - I did not see one compact fluorescent bulb in or on any of the houses or buildings in the hollows. We also need to cap carbon and make coal pay its true price so that clean energy can compete with it. NRDC will be working on all of that.

Oh, and we found out that the coal ash that caused the big spill in Tennessee at the TVA Kingston plant came from the very hollow - Montgomery Creek - that we visited. The coal destroyed one community when it was dug up and another when it was dumped.

Seems so last 18th century. I know that a 21st century technology and policy can do better. Working with the new Administration in Washington and the local communities that are literally being blown away, we will.

The photographs that accompany this post were taken by NRDC member J. Henry Fair. They were both taken at Kayford Mountain in Southern West Virginia in late 2005. Additional photographs by Henry can be found at http://www.jhenryfair.com and http://www.industrialscars.com

NRDC and Utilities Agree: Efficiency Works

2008-12-20T16:05:17Z

On Friday, I took the train to DC to join a panel discussion on energy efficiency at the National Press Club. NRDC is working with a broad coalition of energy groups that are calling on Congress to use part of the $700 billion stimulus package to promote energy efficiency in our homes, schools, offices and businesses.

Our coalition includes NRDC, the Edison Electric Institute, representing investor-owned utilities, which comprise 70 percent of the U.S. electric power industry, and two energy advocacy organizations, the Alliance to Save Energy and the Energy Future Coalition. Together, we urged that Congress direct about $33 billion toward increasing the energy efficiency of America.

NRDC has long held that energy efficiency is the fastest, most cost-effective and cleanest energy resource, which will save consumers millions, cut global warming pollution, and reduce our dependence on old, dirty fossil fuels.

Yet commercial and residential buildings today account for approximately 40 percent of national energy consumption, 70 percent of electricity consumption, and the largest portion of global warming pollution in the United States.

Most of this energy is wasted -- our houses leak warmth, our lights emit more heat than light, and our appliances drain energy even when they are "off." It's like we have a hole in our pocket, and our money just keeps falling out.

But we have the opportunity to change this direction. We can move our country to a new more efficient approach to energy, an approach where we save energy, instead of wasting it. This will help to immediately create jobs, reduce consumer bills, cut carbon pollution and create the foundation for long-term improvements in all of these areas.

By making our buildings, homes and schools more efficient, we can create a half million green permanent jobs, reduce global warming emission by between 700 and 900 million tons of CO2 (according to a McKinsey analysis), and cut electricity demand enough to reduce the need for about 50 average-sized power plants.

Here's the kicker: by moving in this direction, consumers would save tremendous amounts of money.

The proposal we put together would invest approximately $33 billion for greater energy efficiency. This one-time investment would trigger private sector investments and government minimum efficiency standards that would ultimately save about the same amount -- more than $30 billion -- each year within a decade or two.

One of our primary recommendations is to make grants available to states and local governments giving them a huge incentive to increase efficiency. Under this program, states would provide funding under the grants program to entities such as utilities, cooperatives, energy service companies and school districts. The grants would fall into the following broad categories:

Home Energy Efficiency Retrofits. $3 billion for a home retrofit program with the goal of retrofitting 1.5 million homes within two years.

Retrofits of Public Buildings. $3 billion for energy audits, advanced metering and the co-funding of comprehensive energy efficiency retrofits for state and local government buildings, including buildings and facilities of state government agencies, public universities, municipalities, counties and vocational districts.

Commercial Building Efficiency Retrofits. $3 billion for a program that would provide an incentive to commercial building owners for efficiency improvements based on demonstrated energy savings.

Efficiency Programs Matching Fund. $3.5 billion for a federal match of state approved energy efficiency programs that are monitored and verified to ensure that energy efficiency measures are being implemented and are saving energy on a cost-effective basis.

Having worked in state and local governments for 17 years, I can attest to this approach being a very effective way to mobilize action on this front.

One of the key objectives of this plan is to increase retrofitting for buildings -- private, public and commercial. Retrofitting homes is a good example of how energy efficiency can help us to save money, cut global warming pollution and create new jobs.

According to our analysis, home retrofits will within 10 years :

Save consumers some $25 billion annually in utility and oil bills.

Cut carbon dioxide emissions by 140 million tones annually.

Create about 500,000 jobs, about half in the building construction trades and the rest from spending the money saved on utility bills on other goods and services.

Commercial retrofits will within 10 years:

Save businesses at about $13 billion annually and reduce everyone's bill by another $10 billion annually.

Cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90 million tonnes annually.

Create about 150,000 permanent jobs.

There were many other important issues that we discussed -- like the importance of decoupling our utility services, meaning that states begin regulatory reforms that include breaking the link between utility sales and revenue (this is critical to promoting efficiency because efficiency reduces utility sales), and improving building codes. All of which are vital to saving money and greening our planet.

But here's the take away: We know that efficiency works. We know that utility regulatory reforms to promote efficiency work. We know that Americans have the ingenuity and skills to get working with new, green jobs. By making these investments in energy efficiency, we can cut our waste and build the foundation for a new clean energy future.

A Victory Garden for the Planet

2008-12-12T22:20:41Z

At a recent board meeting, NRDC's staff and trustees discussed what big ideas the new administration could propose to engage the American people in solving our tied economic and environmental problems, the way all Americans helped win World War II.

Our challenge to curb global warming is often compared to the challenge of the great war. Americans pulled together by joining the armed forces or the workforce to produce war materiel, building victory gardens and recycling metal. What should the new President ask of Americans to help us pull together in the fight for our planet?

The top suggestion at our Board meeting was to recommend that President-elect Obama ask all Americans to work with him in lowering energy use by 10 percent in two years. All energy -- meaning electricity, transportation fuels, and the energy embedded in the goods we buy and the foods we eat.

What would that accomplish? Well, a 10 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the United States would be about a 2.5 percent worldwide reduction -- about two years of average growth.

It would also be a way to educate Americans about the new lower-carbon world we must create; it would send a signal to the world about new American engagement. A 10 percent energy cut here in the United States would reduce CO2 emissions by about 600 million metric tons annually. It would take the pressure off to build dozens of new power plants. It would save thousands of lives from reduced pollution, and save us all money. It would lower the price of gas and home heating oil.

And how would people do that? It’s really not all that hard. My family, for example, reduced our own electricity bill by more than 35 percent simply by switching most lights to compact fluorescents and getting much better about turning off lights. Plugging our computers and all associated electronics into a power strip that we turned off many nights surely helped. (I’d like to say most nights, but probably cannot do so honestly.) And we turned off those unnecessary outdoor lights at night. Holiday present idea: motion sensors for outdoor lights!

Transportation? A 10 percent reduction? My family did not measure this ourselves, but many other studies show that maintaining your car, inflating tires, and driving more moderately (i.e. closer to the speed limit) can get you to a 10 percent cut. A friend took a course offered by his company to its truck drivers on driving habits and reduced his fuel costs by 8 percent; the company average reduction was almost 20 percent. And each week take one more trip by foot, mass transit or car pool and you’re clearly close to the 10 percent goal. Can you train rather than fly? Or do one less trip and instead have one more phone call or video conference?

The rest of your life? Turning the summer thermostat up or the winter thermostat down can save a lot (according to the Energy Savings Trust, turning your thermostat down by just 2 degrees Fahrenheit can save up to 10 percent of your energy bill). And it gives you a reason to wear all those sweaters your mother has given you over the years.

Of course, insulating your house is likely to pay back very quickly. Can you read the paper online rather than get daily delivery? Do a better job recycling? (Recycling just one aluminum can saves enough energy to keep your TV running for three hours).

Or finally what about skipping red meat a couple of times a week since a pound of beef has 11 times as much greenhouse gas impact as a pound of chicken, and 100 times that of a pound of carrots. See an interesting piece in the New York Times: As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions.

NRDC has many other tips for lowering your environmental footprint. You can find them on NRDC's Simplesteps website.

A 21st century victory garden would be a national commitment to reduce all energy use by 10 percent in two years. Victory gardens alone didn’t win World War II, but they helped the war effort and most importantly they set a tone; this would too.

The Bright Side of Economic Turmoil

2008-12-10T22:00:00Z

I often find myself trying to explain why next year, despite a worldwide economic slump, will present us with such a good opportunity to achieve our climate and energy security goals.

Part of the answer, of course, is a new President fully committed to our goals. We've also built years of momentum in the states (where, for example, 23 states have or are developing carbon limits and 13 states have strong energy efficiency programs) and with companies (where, for example, the US Climate Action Partnership has many of the country's top companies advocating strict carbon limits).

The hidden part of the answer is the tough economy itself. In short, the economic meltdown is forcing us to shift from a consumer society to an investment society. For the first time in generations, many influential actors, especially businesses and labor are now supporting clean energy alternatives and efficiency as a source of jobs, stable and independent energy, and economic stimulus.

One of NRDC's energy gurus, Ashok Gupta, explained it this way: The United States intentionally built a consumer society to help employ the soldiers and sailors returning from WWII. We encouraged consumption and manufactured the goods to satisfy the new demand. The manufacturing in theory would create the wealth to purchase to goods. So we'd get a spiral of manufacturing, employment, and consumption. (I'm not an economic historian, but I think this is a fair summary.)

Then the equilibrium changed. Our manufacturing moved abroad but we kept consuming and kept thinking consumption was important to maintain; after all, it was the basis of over 70 percent of our economic well being. But now the bubble has bursting and from the wreckage a new theory is emerging.

To rebuild our economy, we now must invest in the infrastructure we need. Business, which had opposed anything that they feared would raise energy rates or trucking costs, now see the primacy of job-creation.

Seeing the national economic benefits, business is now supporting home insulation, mass transit, renewable energy and related programs. Labor unions, previously lukewarm on new energy plans (higher rates they feared could affect manufacturing jobs), now see them as the major job opportunities.

The economic collapse is forcing many to revisit old positions and those new environmental alliances are part of what make 2009 such a surprisingly good opportunity for both economic and environmental progress.

We’re Drowning In Our Own Trash

2008-07-11T19:05:37Z

Thomas Malthus has suddenly become popular again. While Americans are concerned about fuel prices, much of the rest of the world is concerned about food prices. In countries like Egypt and Bangladesh, and in regions of Africa, riots have erupted over a shortage of food. In other countries, like China and India, when rice is shipped, it’s shipped under the protection of armed guards.

Global production simply can’t keep up with global consumption. And so people are asking: Was Malthus right?

Malthus, an economist and demographer from the 19th century, is known for predicting that population growth moves more quickly than the expansion of food production. As he former moves geometrically, and the latter arithmetically, its inevitable that population overcomes production. As a result, Malthus predicted, people will starve.

Many experts now believe that the 19th century proved Malthus incorrect. The Green Revolution increased global food production, helping it keep pace with global population growth. It allowed us to keep consuming.

But with anything you produce, you also have waste. And, given the growing consumption, unless one is very careful about production technologies, you have waste on a massive scale. As photographs by Chris Jordan and our daily experience of taking out the trash and seeing litter everywhere can testify, our consumption of goods leads to an overwhelming volume of trash. So much so that the scale of the numbers can be difficult to comprehend. Consider some numbers Jordan uses:

Two million plastic beverage bottles are used in the US every five minutes.
1.14 million brown paper supermarket bags are used in the US every hour.
426,000 cell phones are retired in the US every day.
While 106,000 aluminum cans are used in the US every thirty seconds.

And that’s just the waste we can see. Waste gases from power plants are filling the air that we breathe, leading to the early deaths of tens of thousands of American and hundreds of thousands or millions around the world. Invisible carbon dioxide is turning the oceans so acidic that shell fish are having a harder time growing their shells while it changes our entire planet’s climate.

The point here is pretty clear. We’re drowning in a sea of our own waste.

This point changes the way we have to understand Malthus. For him, it was a two-way balance between consumption and production. Now, it’s a three-way balance between production, consumption, and waste.

And it’s no longer simply a question of whether we can have another Green Revolution to increase production, because even if we did that we would only increase our waste problem.

We have to begin addressing this question of waste. If we are to feed more people – and we will have to, given predictions of global population growths – than we should also free more people of the sea of garbage and poison and waste our production has created.

Part of this will be to examine of our own, personal consumption habits. Each of us should find ways to reduce our waste, whether it’s by bringing lunch to work, or by using cloth bags at the grocery store, or by driving smaller cars. Whatever it is that works for you, I’d urge you to try it.

Will that be enough? Certainly not. But it is a start. A start to be expanded on every day.

(Photo credit: Chris Jordan, www.chrisjordan.com)

Let's Respect the Public With More Information

2008-06-30T14:00:00Z

We need a lot more environmental information to begin to address the lack of public understanding of environmental harms.

This may seem obvious, but it isn’t. At a meeting a few years ago, I was shocked to find the head of a state water agency opposed to an effort to provide the public with more information on sewage overflows. His argument was that he didn’t want to scare the public, and that the public wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand the information.

About our families swimming in sewage, I thought?

Sewage overflows happen much more frequently than they should. In the Clean Water Act of 1972, Congress set a goal for our waters to be fishable and swimmable by 1983. Yet today, fewer than one half of our waters have even been assessed. Of those, only about half meet their designated uses. And for most of those, the designated use is something less than fishable and swimmable.

Take our beaches, for example. In 2007, the NRDC released the results of our annual water quality survey. The results were startling. In 2006, pollution caused a record number of beach closings nationwide. Closing and advisory days topped 25,000 – more than had ever been recorded in the survey’s 17-year history. The public needs to know about this. And yet, agencies are wary of releasing information that would hold them responsible.

In one EPA negotiated undertaking I was involved with, we were discussing the possibility of electronic filing of permit applications, permits, and monitoring data. Many dischargers were first supportive – after all, it would save them time and money. But once they realized that if electronically filed it would be easily accessible, they changed their minds. They knew that publicly available information leads to more awareness, more attention, and more enforcement. They were not sure that was good.

In my opinion, this is backwards. If there is a concern about the reaction, the answer is to provide the public with more, or better, information, not less. We should have more respect for the public.

To solve this problem, we need to begin by providing the public with more information – much more information than they currently have. But we also need to provide them with better information. It’s not just about quantity, but quality. The information should be about the full range of effects – health, environmental, cultural – and not just about the associated costs.

And we need to make the information available. The internet is a truly terrific opportunity for this (if you’re reading this blog, I hope you’ll agree). Environmental information should all be up on the web so anyone can find out about the permit (or lack of a permit) for the factory or whatever is down the street from one of their kids’ schools.

This is one of NRDC’s goals. We believe that an informed citizenry is an active citizenry – one more likely to hold the federal government to its promise of providing clean water for our families, and for our kids.

Well Designed Cities Are Global Warming Solutions

2008-06-26T16:30:34Z

In response to a recent post of mine, a commenter said, “American's can go back to the ‘stone age’ and walk to work and it wouldn't make any difference to the WORLD oil market.” I appreciate your comment, Dan, but I disagree.

Americans should have the opportunity to walk to work more, to take more forms of mass transportation and to carpool more often. This would mean reduced demand on the world oil market, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. They may even find they prefer it.

A part of what we’re talking about is the geography of America’s carbon footprint – something that’s still not very well understood. But a report released recently by The Brookings Institution helps us understand a simple point: well-designed cities with easily accessible public transportation are, in fact, a critical global warming solution.

Take our New York City office, for instance. From my apartment, I walk to the subway, which I ride to work. So do millions of others. When I arrive in the morning, there is always a row of bikes hanging downstairs, left by colleagues of mine who have ridden to work. People can do this because of the way the city is designed; it’s compact, and easy to navigate on foot or bike.

This means that, per capita, New Yorker’s carbon footprint is much smaller than the national average. According to the Brookings report, the average New York resident emitted 1.495 tons of carbon from highway transportation and residential energy in 2005, while the average American emitted 2.60 tons of carbon. That’s a big difference.

This is generally true across the country. The Brookings report also found that, “despite housing two-thirds of the nation’s population and three-quarters of its economic activity, the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas emitted just 56 percent of U.S. carbon emissions from highway transportation and residential buildings in 2005.” The difference, the study suggests, “stems primarily from less car travel and electricity
use.”

Despite these potential savings, America’s carbon footprint is expanding because its settlement pattern is expanding. This is forcing Americans to drive more, consume more, and emit more greenhouse gasses along the way.

Consider that Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) – a measurement of distances traveled by all motor vehicles in a given areas – has grown three times faster than population growth since 1980. (This year VMT did, for the first time, decline.) Now, about one of every six American workers commutes more than forty-five minutes each way. Moreover, the number of people the Census Bureau counts as “extreme commuters” – meaning they travel in excess of ninety minutes each way – is, at 3.5 million, the fastest-growing commuter bracket.

These facts suggest a solution. The best cure for destructive sprawl is to build attractive, healthy, sustainable cities that people want to live and work in. In this solution, transportation plays an essential role.

And so what should we do?

If you’ll forgive three bits of completely unsolicited advice, I would say that

We can choose to live in cities, or we can choose to live close to work
We can walk or bike to work
And we can take public transportation, like subways, buses and commuter rails.

For more on this issue, I would suggest you read more from NRDC’s great Smart Growth team. Kaid Benfield, Deron Lovaas and Rich Kassel have all written extensively about these issues here on Switchboard.

I should also say that I do understand that not everyone lives in a place like New York. For years, our communities have been built to support cars and highways, and not integrated communities. Individual choice will go only so far in solving this problem.

And so we also need a federal policy that

Promotes expanded, easily accessible public transportation choices
And that changes our development patterns to favor compact, mixed-use communities.

We think of them simply as our neighborhoods, but where we live and work can have a huge impact on our personal health, and on our global environment. We need start building more efficient, and more attractive, communities.