Earthships

There are a lot of thing that some people in the transition community seem to really want. One of them is surely to have a home off the grid, something that doesn't contribute to climate change and is built in a way that is bioregionally appropriate.

Enter the Earthship, a home concept that can be built in any (really?) environment. And it must have gotten somewhere when it's on the Weather Channel. Come on guys, there's a guy who works for the oil and gas industry living in one. Why? Because he understands the planet's systems.

Watch.



But can you retrofit houses in the northeast to be biotecturally in sync?

Higher Education in a Warming World

Last night about 200 people came to Thomas building to hear and see "Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change."  The Centre Daily Times reports today:

Penn State professors Michael Mann, Donald Brown, Janet Swim and Rick Schuhmann, and graduate student Peter Buckland spoke Monday evening at “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change,” a talk that focused on climate change denial. Mann is director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and part of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Susannah Barsom, with the university’s Center for Sustainability, moderated the event, which included a question and answer session.  

See images of the event here or our sister publication, Voices of Central Pennsylvania.

The five speakers walked the audience through the dilemmas climate change, climate change disinformation and various kinds of climate change denial create. In particular,  they addressed why and how universities should do better to confront these issues.

Has the Wind Been Knocked out of Wind Power? The Sun Gone Down on Solar?

The energy discussion in the United States is crazed right now. Just a couple of months ago, Obama nixed the Keystone XL pipeline but yesterday he fast tracked the southern portion of the Keystone XL. He has promoted shale gas drilling. He has said we can "win the future" by working on big building energy conservation measures and pushing renewable energy. It is a full-scale run at everything "all of the above" (with a lot of oil) energy strategy.

Last fall, there was a "phony scandal" about Solyndra, a solar energy company that went bankrupt even though it received government funds. Republicans decried the government funding as a form of cronyism and government interference in the market to further an environmental ideology. Critics were quick to point out that Republicans have been essentially subsidizing fossil fuels for decades to companies whose quarterly profits are at 10s of billions of dollars.

There have also been anti-wind dust-ups. In Massachusetts, some very wealthy people opposed the Cape Wind project because they didn't want their ocean view impaired. Even environmental groups, worried about habitat impacts to snakes and threatened species, migration routes for raptors, or harm to bats, have opposed wind power projects.

These scandals certainly hardened anti-renewable energy people's views. And they have done some PR damage too.

But there is some consensus in the public that climate change is real and that we need to act to curb it and renewable energy is part of that answer. Rasmussen reports that among likely voters, "64% say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 30% who say it’s Very Serious." In the same report, 51% of respondents think oil companies should have to invest their profits in alternative energy forms. In March of this year, Pew found that 52% of those they surveyed think that alternative energy sources need to be the top energy priority, down from 63% last year.

But all of this is still confusing. It's hard to know what the actual state of renewable energy is in this country. People are outfitting their houses with solar PV panels and there are large solar arrays going in in California and big wind projects all over. Then there are places like Germany that seem to defy the Republican dismissal of solar. What's the rub?

Today, Dr. Bevin Etienne will be on our show. He works for Sustainable Planning and Development and has advised renewable and alternative energy projects in California, Nevada, Mexico, Dominica, and more. He works on the projects understanding the engineering and the financing aspects, enabling him to work with governments and corporations to solve energy dilemmas.

Listen in today on The Lion 90.7 FM from 4-5 pm. As always, feel free to call with questions or comments: (814) 865-9577

51% of all renewable energy in Germany is owned by individual citizens or farms. Can we do that?

There is a lot of talk in the United States about renewable energy sources, especially solar, since the Solyndra debacle last year. In Germany they are doing something different, and succeeding. But not in the United States.

A lot of people here worry. Politicians worry about business competitiveness and government "picking winners and losers" in the market. Fossil fuel companies argue solar PV and wind can't provide the service 24-7 that oil, gas, and coal can. Climate scientists, environmentalists, wildlife observers, and people in movements like Transition Towns worry we aren't ameliorating climate change and preparing for a post-carbon economy. In the northeast where we live, a lot of people think there just isn't enough sun to make it worthwhile, even though Pennsylvania receives about 70% of the sunlight New Mexico does annually. Can Germany provide a model that gets us over that worry?

According to Paul Gipe at Wind Works, "51% of the renewable energy generation is owned by its own citizens." [See chart below for breakdown. Image from Wind Works.] They will be holding a conference for people to learn about the German "Stromeinspeisungsgesetz, literally the "law on feeding in electricity" (to the grid) was introduced by conservative Bavarian farmers frustrated with their utility's intransigence to connecting their small hydro plants with the grid."

He continues,

"The "feed-in" law was passed overwhelmingly by the conservative government of Helmut Kohl, and quickly ushered in a revolution in the way electricity was generated in Germany, spreading rapidly from Bavaria in the south all the way to the Danish border in the north.

Farmers, individuals and community groups could, for the first time, emulate their Danish neighbors by installing their own wind turbines and selling the resulting electricity at a hoped-for profit. These electricity rebels, Stromrebellen as they're called in German, began appearing all across the country, even in the former communist East Germany."

Could there be an opportunity in the United States for community solar or in individual states or communities? First, we are in an economic recession and people are looking for work and construction companies need work. Second, local governments need long-term cost-cutting measures and renewable energy sources can provide that after initial implementation costs. Third, Transition Towns and community organizations are on the rise domestically, many of whom focus on community energy resilience and community food security. Fourth, electricity companies are incentivizing efficiency and paying back homes that feed back to the grid. Maybe we need more collaborations like this.

But there are things like it happening. There are parks in Seattle where pavilions are being outfitted with solar PV. The New Rules Project has created a guide for implementing a local community solar project. Northwest Community Energy works to increase access to solar energy, to reduce up-front costs for participants, improve economies of scale, increase public understanding of solar energy, and generate local jobs. Our former guest, Janaia Donaldson of PeakMomentTV has a 4-disc series called "The Renaissance of the Local" some of which details how to build energy resilience into your community.

Imagine this patchwork of initiatives getting more support. Imagine getting 20% of our energy from renewable community initiatives and half of that owned by you, me, our farmers, and indirectly through outfitting our parks with solar PV. We pool risk through insurance. I think it's time to pool burdens for energy sustainability and a clean environment. The Germans have done it at a large scale. Can we?

How would you contribute to pooling sustainable energy projects?

Getting off a diet of tar sand with Toni Brink

Toni Brink (pictured at right) was a dietician for over three decades. Today, she sees the U.S. fossil fuel diet as not only unhealthy, but destructive. She doesn’t just hope that President Obama helps us get a better diet, she is doing something about it.

This week Brink, a 66-year-old mother of five and grandmother of ten will join the No Tar Sands (their Twitter feed) protests in front of the White House in Washington, DC.

Over the last week and a half, hundreds of people have joined noted environmental author and activist Bill McKibben (see 350.org). climate scientist James Hansen, and writer Naomi Klein to protest the Keystone XL pipeline. The proposed pipeline would bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico across vulnerable habitats in the Midwest. A broad coalition of Midwest residents, farmers, conservationists, and scientists worry about the pipelines’ and tar sands’ long-term effects.

“If that oil is taken out it’s a dirty process,” says Brink referring to the tar sands extraction process. Matt Price of the Environmental Defense Fund says that the Florida-sized affected region of Alberta where the tar sands lie is effectively destroyed. And the waste ponds left from the process can be seen from space.

Proponents say that Canada’s proximity to the United States can help us use energy that comes from friendlier sources with less travel. However, the process from beginning to end is itself very fuel-intensive, yielding little energy compared to the energy return from the sands themselves. Daily, tar sands production generates the amount of greenhouse gases of approximately 1.3 million cars. Those effects combine with the tar sands refinement and its eventual use as fuel to create one of the most greenhouse gas intensive fuels on Earth.

Brink says. “The use of that oil will raise the temperature of the Earth more. It’s already evident that we have extreme weather. It could play into making the Earth uninhabitable to humans or at least unfriendly,” she says. Climate and atmospheric scientists have predicted that storm, flood, drought, and heat wave intensity as human fossil fuel use generates more greenhouse gases.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change reports that hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean have become both more frequent and more intense in recent years consistent with predictions by scientific bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. High temperature records have also been more frequent and heat waves longer and more intense.

Noted climate scientist James Hansen has said similar things. Writing on Huffington Post, he says,

Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth's climate.

Phasing out emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

It’s not just climate or extraction. “The pipeline will go over the Oglala aquifer in the Midwest. And they say the pipeline won’t leak but there’s no guarantee,” says Brink. Indeed, the pipeline would transect farmland and interrupt wildlife corridors. However, the risk of spill is predicted to be very low by the State Department. Russ Girling, the President of company proposing the pipeline has said, "[T]he Keystone XL pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.” But Midwest residents are not convinced.

And what about our energy infrastructure? Brink worries that increasing U.S. reliance on tar sands and the Keystone XL will harm us in other ways. “I’m afraid it will divert from renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal and also from energy conservation.” Currently, the United States gets only a tiny portion of its energy from renewables. But if Richard Alley is correct in his program, Earth: The Operator’s Manual, things could be different with the major proportion of our energy coming from renewables if society and economy could be rearranged.

Tomorrow she is going to risk arrest at the White House. “I think it’s really important. Future of life on our planet depends on it.” Like many who have engaged in non-violent civil disobedience before her, she believes that this is the right thing to do. It shows that a large number of people think that this issue needs to be visible.
The protestors, she said, “speak out by putting their bodies on the line.”

What does this all come down to? “We could do so much better,” said Brink. So she is going to put her own body on the line.

---

If you care to follow up, Tar Sands Action asks that you call or write President Obama or send a letter to the editor of your local paper to speak against the Keystone XL pipeline. Brink agrees.

Electricity Deregulation and You

On Sustainability Now we've been talking a great deal about energy. On almost every show we discuss energy "needs," sources, problems, solutions, and approaches. From photovoltaic solar panels to wind energy to coal and the problems and possibilities in the way that communities face energy and power issues, we have explored a lot.

The Transition Town movement in the Centre Region has been one of the foremost community groups in our area considering some of the problems and community possibilities with electricity deregulation. We've hosted Katherine Watt and Bill Sharpe of the local movement on the show and they are looking beyond the diagnosis of the problems. They are looking to solutions and community actions.

Next Tuesday, February 22nd, they are holding a panel on deregulation hosted by Sustainability Now's Peter Buckland. This would be a great way to cap off your day following the incredible work of students at Penn State to Focus the Nation on climate change and renewable energy.

Over the last two years, the Pennsylvania electricity market has gone from regulation to deregulation. Proponents say increased competition affords people with better and cheaper options. Opponents say removing price caps and other regulations pave the way for excessive corporate profits. On one hand, you might buy "green energy." On the other, prices have risen unevenly around the state. For many, the Enron and California deregulation debacles are fresh in mind.

Join the Centre Region Transition Town for a panel presentation and discussion to learn more about energy deregulation.

7 pm on February 22 in Schlow Memorial Library in State College, in the back conference room, Transition Town will bring together a panel for presentations and to answer questions. Presenters include Erik Foley-DeFiore of Penn State's Office of Sustainability and Shaun Pardi of Envinity, a local "green" business.

"Natural gas will be a significant improvement"

Penn State, under EPA guidelines and student pressure is almost certainly going to move away from coal. To what?

A large contingent of students has pushed for a larger renewable energy portfolio, mainly solar and wind but some. Others, like Byron Faye who spoke on Sustainability Now in December, don't oppose putting nuclear power into the mix.

But Penn State seems likely to go ahead with a large natural gas component. State College.com reports:

Senior Vice President for Finance Al Horvath told the trustees Friday that natural gas is the most viable alternative to the coal-burning set-up. Speaking with reporters later, Horvath said university officials worked with faculty members in the field to help develop the recommendation for the trustees board.

"The switch to natural gas will be a significant improvement in the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions," he said. He underscored that the project will deliver a 37 percent cut in carbon dioxide emitted from the campus steam facilities.

That's equal to taking 12,400 cars off the road for a year, according to the university.

In the economic and climate change calculus, many will call this a big win. CO2 emissions at university of Penn State's size are considerable. Given the fact that universities prepare the future workforce, this switch and its focus on greenhouse gas reduction are important. But at what cost?

Many do and will see this as a push toward more dangerous extraction processes that endanger Pennsylvania water. What will Penn State do to protect water? Will we ensure better practices than those that exist? How should this be handled? These questions have to come down to more than economic calculation.

When we had Erik Foley on the show, he talked about the environmental assessment that Penn State was putting on coal. Will Penn State do that more rigorously for natural gas extraction? As the institutional home of natural gas exploration, perhaps they can.

Is this the future of sustainability? The local and regional?

How will we adapt to peak oil? To climate change? To the fact that we are overworked and dependent? If you look at global happiness, "We the people" may have life and we may have liberty in purchasing, but our pursuit of happiness has been compromised by too much work and too much consumption. That consumption has been tied to toxification of our shared environment with plants, animals, and the microbes that support us all and none of that can last in a finite world. What is the future of human happiness?

On today's show we talked about biofuels and the future of regionalism: watersheds, foodsheds, and energy sheds. Is that our future?



Is the collapse of oil the end of nations as we understand them and the emergence of some new political, economic, and biological organization? Tell us what you think.

What's worse? Public nudity or dirty fossil fuel?

In the U.S. we have lots of prohibitions about dirtiness and a lot of that is related to sex and body image. I remember listening to an interview with the philosopher Peter Singer about ethics and the interviewer asked him about morality and he talked about the ethics of eating animals and harming the environment. Sex or sexual "dirtiness" were not much of a concern.

Well what is dirty? Coal. Natural gas. Oil. At least, that's what EcoAction said in a protest yesterday at Penn State's University Park campus. The Daily Collegian reports:

Eco-Action members said they are concerned the university is not seriously considering using renewable energy.

“The West Campus Steam Plant consists of 95 percent of all campus heat and hot water. We want the university to do more extensive research on all of the different types of renewable energy like wind, thermal or geothermal energy,” Eco-Action Vice President Stefan Nagy (junior-economics) said.

One month ago, the club marched to Penn State President Graham Spanier’s office to voice its concerns. A coalition was formed between the students, faculty and administration to create goals for reducing carbon emissions, Nagy said.

“The march was a big success, but we don’t want our progress to be forgotten in the public’s eye so we came up with the idea for this protest,” he said. “A lot of issues still need to be resolved and we don’t want our voices to fade out.”

That's one way to keep attention up.