Sustaining what? For whom? For how many? Andrew Revkin from Dot Earth

Demographers estimate that by 2050 the Earth will house 9 billion people. As of now, humans only have one planet that we can live on. This is a bit of a conundrum.

That is the primary conundrum that Andrew Revkin explores on his blog, Dot Earth hosted by The New York Times. Revkin has covered human-environmental issues as a journalist for 30 years for a number of media and is the author of three books. Today, he came to Penn State and gave a presentation on this complex but inescapable issue.

First, human population is growing. Today, there are ~6.8 billion people and many more to come. Second, global development institutions and initiatives, expanding markets, technological innovation, and political, cultural, and climatic changes will change how those people live. To support that development will require a lot of thought and effort on how to supply the developing world with energy, and currently the industrial economies rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels. Third, the human and ecological impacts of all of this development are large and many are damaging. They include climate change, large scale visible pollution, and massive species loss.

Revkin explains industrial human activities today with this metaphor: Imagine that you wake up in a car and you are in the driver's seat. You have never driven before and have not taken driver's ed. There is no manual for how to drive the car and well, the car is going about 50 mph and accelerating into a foggy night. If there is a curve ahead, will you know what to do?

He said, "I think it's still kind of even odds that we'll hit the guard rail or that we'll fly off or that some large part of us doesn't make it around that curve."

It is with a combination of skepticism and hope that Revkin invites readers into a more fruitful conversation. "We are a young species," he says. He doesn't blame us for what has happened. In a sense, it's as if we are just waking up to the ramifications of our intelligence. If we are seeing things differently, then we have a chance to do things differently by listening to scientists who have told us, repeatedly, that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. If we smartly design our artificial world from cities to economic instruments, perhaps we won't reach peak everything against peak us. Maybe there is some more optimal way to be without a global catastrophe. Maybe.

What is sustainability in such a world? Or as Revkin says, "Well sustain what?" Watch his short answer to Sustainability Now:

To have a sustained relationship with the planet around us requires a lot of innovation, a sense of resilience, and a sense of engagement that the human-planet relationship need not be the way that it's been...Take energy. What I say is energy for the long haul. What is an energy policy that works for the long haul? And that means having a durable sense of responsibility that it's not just about the now but about how you utilize resources that makes sure that people who come after you have some options as well and that nature has some space as well.

What is that responsible energy policy? Where do we put our efforts in this hot and crowding world? Over the past year we've talked about smart grids, about home and business software to help reduce consumption, about energy deregulation, the intransigence and polarization of our policy makers on climate and environment issues, and of course on Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania (Revkin posted about shale gas rhetoric and distortions today). Energy comes up again and again.

What would you ask Andrew Revkin as a follow-up to his response? Perhaps we can send them to him.

Can we measure happiness?

On today's show we are going to explore happiness. What is it? Can it be measured? Even more, can we develop an understanding of happiness that can steer our society, culture, economy, politics, and our educational systems? In the last few years, the nation of Bhutan has adopted Gross National Happiness as its indicator of human well-being instead of Gross Domestic Product. Even British Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative Party, has indicated that he is interested in moving Britain toward happiness.

Is this just nutty thinking? Or does it have the possibility of moving human civilization in better directions? Is it puppy dog tails, bubble gum, and the idea that we can fuel cars on children's laughter or something deeper than that? Can we "get stuff done" with happiness?

On today's show, we'll be talking about happiness and Gross Domestic Happiness with Cole Hons of Penn State's Center for Sustainability and Karma Thinley, the senior program officer for the Department of Higher Education at the Ministry of Education in Bhutan and visiting Humphrey Scholar in Penn State's College of Education.

Listen in from 4-5 pm today at The Lion 90.7 fm. As always, feel free to call at (814) 865-9577in or leave comments below.

Gas driller might leave Mt. Pleasant over zoning changes

The Allegheny Front is reporting that a big shale gas drilling company is threatening to pull out of Washington County because of new zoning regulations. Range Resources, LLC, the first company in Pennsylvania to successfully combine horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract gas from the Marcellus Shale is opposed to new zoning requirements put forward by the Mt. Pleasant Township supervisors. The new requirements haven't passed yet.

You can read and listen to the full story here. The proposed requirements are pasted here (you need javascript).



The industry has opposed the few local ordinances that have appeared across the state. Some local activists might want to propose such legislation but could find it difficult for their municipalities to enforce. Meanwhile, the state level seems disinclined to increase regulation. What's to be done?

Drilling responsibly?

That question drove today's show. Barb Jarmoska of the Responsible Drilling Alliance came on the show today. They are a group that "Seeking truth about the consequences of deep shale gas drilling." Jarmoska walked us through numerous problems that Pennsylvanians face when it comes to the shale gas drilling. It ranges from the well-known damage in our state forests to the migration of gas into roughly 70 wells in Bradford County and the corporatization of the state government.

What's to be done? Get involved with RDA and other groups. Give a listen here and feel free to leave comments below.

So where are Pennsylvania's Senators?

Released on March 31st: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 30 colleagues today introduced a resolution calling for continued implementation of the Clean Air Act.

In the face of efforts by House Republicans and some senators to weaken the nation’s clean air protections, the resolution which specifies the benefits of the Clean Air Act has 34 original cosponsors who and will continue to seek additional support from their colleagues.

The landmark law saves 160,000 Americans from premature death every year and helps avoid tens of thousands of cases of lung disease, heart attacks, and emergency room visits. The act also has reduced major air pollution by 41 percent over the last 20 years even as the economy grew by 64 percent.

Sanders said, “It is absolutely unconscionable that in the year 2011 the Congress is debating amendments to gut the Clean Air Act and I am going to fight back. I also think that at a time when House Republicans might force a government shutdown unless the EPA backs down from protecting public health, we must not let the budget process be used to deregulate polluters.”

Whitehouse said, “Americans are expecting us to roll up our sleeves and get to work, solving today’s pressing issues – putting America back to work, and reducing the federal deficit. Instead, radical Republicans are using the budget process to push for extreme policy positions that would gut the Clean Air Act and roll back important public health protections. These same Republicans are literally demanding that we compromise our children’s health to get a short-term budget deal.”

Carper said, "For the last forty years, the EPA has use the Clean Air Act to foster economic growth and protect Americans from life threatening air pollution. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA has saved thousands of lives and saved billions of dollars in health care costs, while keeping electricity rates – adjusted for inflation - constant. At the same time American jobs in engineering and design, as well as in manufacturing, installing and operating pollution control and clean energy technology are being created to meet our clean air needs. Put it another way, the Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 30 to 1. Talk about a return on investment. It just doesn't get much better than that.”

Kerry said, “Ever since Richard Nixon signed it into law, the Clean Air Act has saved tens of thousands of lives by curbing air pollution and helped jumpstart new technologies that created millions of jobs in the process. But somehow our political environment has become so divorced from reality, facts, science and history that today even a commonsense law like the Clean Air Act can be used as a partisan punching bag. This Resolution showcases just some of the Clean Air Act’s many achievements, and I hope it will remind my colleagues that under this law we were able to grow our economy and cut harmful pollution that threatens our families.”

The Senate is expected to vote soon on up to four amendments that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to reduce carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. An amendment by the Senate Republican Leadership would overturn EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a public health threat and allow the biggest polluters to spew carbon pollution without restrictions. It also would undermine fuel economy standards that are projected to save drivers of new vehicles up to $2,800 at the gas pump, save more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (roughly as much as the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf), and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

House Republicans are also reportedly pushing for riders attached to their budget bill, which would shut down Clean Air Act enforcement of big polluters’ greenhouse gas emissions, to be included in a congressional budget deal.

Sanders’ resolution is also sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Environment Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Democrat Conference Secretary Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Governor Corbett limits DEP inspectors' authority and power

Can gas companies be limited in Pennsylvania? A new piece by ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarden shows that the Corbett administration has just hamstrung inspectors for the Department of Environmental Protection.

Oil and gas inspectors policing Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania will no longer be able to issue violations to the drilling companies they regulate without first getting the approval of top officials...

The memos require that each of the hundreds of enforcement actions taken routinely against oil and gas operators in Pennsylvania each month now be approved by the department’s executive deputy secretary, John Hines. The memos are raising concerns that the state’s environmental inspectors can no longer act independently and that regulations could be overridden by the political whims of the state’s new governor, Tom Corbett.

“What this apparently is saying is that before any final action, the inspector must get approval by two political appointees: the secretary and the deputy secretary,” said John Hanger, who headed the DEP until January under former Gov. Ed Rendell and worked to strengthen the state’s oil and gas regulations. “It’s an extraordinary directive. It represents a break from how business has been done in the department within the Marcellus Shale and within the oil and gas program for probably 20 years.

There are already cries from community groups. Iris Mary Bloom, Director of Protecting Our Waters wrote in an email today to supporters, "Don't 'read it and weep,' get angry and organized." We will hear more from her on tomorrow's episode of Sustainability Now.

The blogosphere is starting to buzz. Susquehanna River Sentinel is already taking a cynical view, writing "Hmmmmm. Let's see: August 22, 2011 - "Under Governor Corbett's tough new enforcement policies, the number of reported violations related to gas-drilling activities has dropped significantly..." Yep, that is probably what they have in mind."

What do you have in mind? Is this reasonable practice or will it, as Hanger said, "cause the public to lose confidence entirely in the inspection process?"

The Republican Congress's War on Clean Air and Water

Today, we will be talking to Ed Perry of the National Wildlife Federation. A few weeks ago he hosted a protest outside Pennsylvania Congressman Glenn Thompson (R) because of Thompson's support of some legislation that will gut environmental regulations, inhibit the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, and will expand polluting industries' governmental entanglement.

Ed has recently written the following:

The House Majority Wants to Gut Environmental Protections

On Feb. 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a continuing budget resolution to keep the government operating and cut spending. But most people didn’t notice that it also was intended to gut environmental agencies and regulations that have protected our air, water and land for more than 40 years.

The U.S. Senate wouldn’t go along, but a House majority was willing to trash decades of bipartisan support for our most basic clean water and clean air protections in a full retreat from the fundamental expectation that elected leaders should safeguard our health and natural resources.

Instead of adding earmarks to its first budget resolution, this Congress added “oilmarks.” An oilmark is a prohibition attached to a spending bill that handcuffs regulators, forcing them to look the other way as polluters endanger the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the lands and waters that nurture fish and wildlife.

Oilmarks are like earmarks in that they don’t get debated and scrutinized, so members feel safe in voting for them. Of 51 amendments added to the original House continuing resolution, 14 were oilmarks aimed at letting politics override science and commonsense public-health protections.

Among other things, the oilmarks would have:

• Allowed 5,000 additional tons of hazardous air pollution and mercury emissions.
• Blocked new health standards to reduce soot pollution, which is particularly harmful to the lungs of our children.
• Blocked funding for climate change science and sensible regulations to start reducing carbon dioxide pollution from oil refineries and power plants.
• Blocked science-based restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, Klamath Basin, San Francisco Bay Delta and Florida waters.
• Blocked new rules and guidance to prevent hazardous coal ash from entering water supplies as happened in the 2008 Tennessee disaster.
• Blocked new rules and guidance to protect stream valleys and wetlands from the dumping of waste from mountain top-removal mining and other sources.

The total budget savings for the 14 oilmarks would have been zero dollars. Not one dime would have been shaved from the deficit, which ostensibly was the purpose of this bill.

While adding all kinds of oilmarks to the spending bill, the House rejected the one amendment, offered by Rep. Markey, D-Mass., that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. Closing a royalty payment loophole for oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico could save taxpayers $53 billion in the coming years, but the amendment was defeated.

At least Congressmen Glenn Thompson and Bill Shuster were consistent. They voted for every one of these oilmarks and then voted against the only amendment that would have reduced the deficit; the one that would have cut taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies.

The sheer audacity and scope of the assault on environmental protection makes you wonder if these folks are out of touch with their constituents. Poll after poll shows Americans want Congress to protect air and water regulations and take action on climate change.

A national survey found that two thirds of Americans — including 54 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents — said the EPA should “reduce carbon pollution without delay.” One poll question revealed particularly strong support for clean air updates the EPA is putting forward: 66 percent of Americans — including 54 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents — favor stricter limits on the release of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic from coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities.

Our representatives may say they don’t want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats setting carbon limits for the United States; they want Congress to do it. But what they really mean is that they don’t want any limits at all.

Last year, Congress had an opportunity to pass clean energy legislation to reduce carbon emissions and virtually every representative who voted for the oilmarks voted against the bill. They continue to vote against clean energy legislation, yet they have no alternatives.

Is this what Americans want this new Congress to do? Assault the agency that has effectively reduced air and water pollution and set environmental standards that make our country’s quality of life the envy of the world?

Really?

You know, not long ago our government reflected Americans’ strong environmental values. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were passed with bipartisan support in the 1970s, with Republican representatives and senators leading the way. And when Congress updated the Clean Air Act in 1990 to protect thousands of lives and curb acid rain, the House passed the legislation with an overwhelming vote of 401-25. Now it appears all of that has changed.

Fortunately, the U.S. Senate refused to go along with the House oilmarks in last month’s temporary budget resolution. But with another resolution coming soon, let’s hope the Senate — with the help of Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey — stands firm again and continues to support the EPA and its efforts to protect our air, land and water.

- Ed Perry, PA Outreach Coordinator, National Wildlife Federation

Listen in today from 4-5 pm on The Lion.