Back to the Future

In 2005, a group of interested citizens and organizations began a dialogue to create a more sustainable food system for Metro Atlanta, resulting in the creation of the Atlanta Local Food Initiative.

Some of the group’s partners include the CDC, DeKalb County Board of Health, UGA’s Cooperative Extension and Center for Urban Agriculture.

The group “envisions a transformed food system” made safer, more affordable and one that will “rebuild Southern foodways in harmony with the land.”

One of the group’s goals is to launch a farm-to-school program, which are popular in other urban areas surrounded by thriving agricultural communities. Atlanta certainly fits the bill in that regard.

 Some other goals:

• Preserve greenspace
• Reduce petroleum
• Promote healthy eating
• Build local economies
• Create new jobs

Check out the initiative’s brand-spanking new report. It’s comprehensive but not in a dull way. And, maybe report isn’t the best way to describe. It’s more like a plan, a roadmap to actually accomplish the goals ALFI has set.

Could this document outline some of the key steps that could lead to a prosperous, sustainable and yummy future for the Atlanta region?

We’re always focusing on the future on this site, but this report suggests that looking at the past is just as worthy an exercise. Back in the day, local markets sold local produce that was chemical-free and grown in a way that didn’t ruin watersheds or require barrels of oil.

And since that food wasn’t trucked half-way across the country, it was less expensive, too. Today, prices – whether gasoline or groceries -  are a big concern for most of us.

We’ve got a lot to learn, a long way to go and every little bit helps. Thanks, ALFI.

Cometh the Climate Change Cavalry?

Last Thursday, the White House released a new study on the effects of human-induced climate change on the United States.  The New York Times reports that the study concludes, as you might expect, that spread of warmth-loving pests and loss of low-lying lands to rising seas are potential effects of the climate change.

 

The study also comes to some new conclusions:  “An increased frequency and severity of heat waves is expected, leading to more illness and death, particularly among the young, elderly, frail and poor.”  Additionally, the report included new projections of how the poor, elderly and communities with lagging public-health and public-works systems will face disproportionate health risks from warming.

 

To us at Fifty Forward this is a particularly timely report.  The aging of the Baby Boomers and all the potential attendant impacts to our society are beginning to seriously capture the attention of policy makers.  And the issues of health care are becoming increasingly important in our national debate. 

 

Both of these issues take on new significance in light of this report, which raises some hopeful questions.

 

Are regulations on carbon emissions far behind?

 

Will the EPA finally grant carbon emissions the status of a threat to human health, as the Supreme Court says it should?

If You Can’t Stand the Heat….Capture It!

When power plants generate electricity, a lot of heat simply goes up the chimney, so to speak. Estimates are that for every three units of fuel — like coal, natural gas or oil — that are burned to make electricity, two are lost in the process, most of it as waste heat that just drifts away. Likewise, many manufacturing operations such as steel mills produce waste heat.

 

Ten years ago, an Indiana steel mill began capturing heat above its coke ovens to make electricity. That operation, along with other energy recycling processes employed at the plant, creates about 250 megawatts of power every day, about half of the plant’s needs for electricity. In the process, the company says it has reduced CO₂ emissions by 1.3 million tons a year.

What would happen if more companies and electric utilities captured heat and used it to make electricity? It’s a common practice in Europe. Denmark generates close to 55 percent of its electricity this way. In the Netherlands and Finland, the figure is closer to 40 percent, and in Germany it is 35 percent. But, energy recycling in the U.S. accounts for only 8 percent of the nation’s electrical power, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

Recent EPA and Department of Energy studies suggest U.S. industries waste enough heat to generate an estimated 200,000 megawatts of power — nearly 20 percent of what this nation uses. That’s enough electricity to replace up to 400 coal-fired power plants.

So what’s the problem?

State and federal laws often prohibit companies like the Indiana steel mill from selling excess power, and few electric utilities have chosen to install energy recycling equipment at older power plants because under New Source Review, they will then be subject to newer, stricter environmental regulations.

We recycle beverage cans. Wouldn’t it make even more sense to recycle energy, to use the waste heat that goes up the chimney to produce electricity and, in the process, save millions of tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere?

Full Disclosure

On April 13, in the New York Times, Abby Schultz points out that all three of the current presidential candidates say they are in favor of some type of cap on carbon emissions and astutely concludes that any such legislation could have significant impact on power companies.  More specifically, such caps will likely increase the cost of electricity generated through the burning of fossil fuels.

 

In the article, a senior analyst at Innovest Strategic Value Advisors suggests that not all of these costs will be able to be passed on to consumers.  Some of the costs will have to be absorbed by shareholders in the power corporations.  Obviously, some companies will be better prepared for carbon caps than others…and consequently a more attractive investment.  See our previous post “Carbon’s Gonna Get Expensive” which highlights the Big 3 financial institutions’ decision to more closely scrutinize loans for the construction of new carbon emitting power plants.

 

The Carbon Disclosure Project attempts to analyze the investment risk in corporations based on their environmental practices.  The organization has published a report for the last six years.  The report was published on behalf of 315 investors who manage assets worth $41 trillion.  This is enough to get anyone’s attention. 

 

One potential way of reducing the cost of the production of electricity, as well as a improving company’s rating in the Carbon Disclosure Project report is through investment in cleaner power generation technologies.

 

We understand that the looming carbon crises did not materialize over night.  It took decades for us to arrive at this point and will likely take decades for us to correct the problem.  But if we don’t start soon, where will be 50 years from now?

Choosing to be green?

Two researchers at the Kennedy School of Government have analyzed data relating to the purchase of hybrid cars between 2000 and 2006 to find out what motivates car buyers to spend upwards of $4,000 on hybrid technology. In “Giving Green to Get Green: Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology,” Kelly Sims Gallagher and Erich Muehlegger report that government incentives such as tax breaks account for very few sales of hybrid cars.

 

Inducements to driving green that have been tried around the country include allowing hybrid drivers to use HOV lanes (California, New Jersey) and waivers of public parking fees for hybrids (New Haven, CT and San Jose, CA). These have had little effect. More than tax credits, sales tax waivers seem to be the most effective in getting drivers to switch to hybrid technology, but even they accounted for only 6 percent of the 250,000+ hybrids sold in 2006.

 

While soaring gas prices resulted in 27 percent of hybrid purchases, the study found that idealism accounted for 36 percent of hybrid sales.

 

Whether they wish to leave a smaller carbon footprint, support greater energy security or simply to upstage their neighbors by being observably ‘green,’ more than a third of hybrid buyers are motivated by something other than money.

 

So what happens to the market for hybrid cars when the market for Priuses among environmentalists reaches a saturation point and gas prices drop, even a bit?

 

The Gallagher-Muehlegger study suggests that government policies that increase the price of gasoline may do more to motivate consumers to adopt hybrid technology than tax incentives.

 

What do you think?

 

Don’t just sit there, do something

At the end of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore urges us to change out our light bulbs. Such a small act in face of a big problem. Some might ask, “Why bother?”

 

There are a lot of reasons to bother, not the least of which is that small changes in behavior can make a big difference when millions of people adopt them. But as Michael Specter said, in a recent New Yorker piece on carbon footprints, “Personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough. It will also take laws and money.”

 

Mr. Gore now has a new slide show about climate change. His message is not about changing light bulbs or buying hybrid cars. It’s about political action.

 

We won’t solve our climate crisis, he says, until we solve our democracy crisis. As citizens we have to demand action on the part of our government by contacting our elected officials, by showing up at public meetings, by paying attention to the debate and by shining light on the process.

 

When was the last time you sent an e-mail or a fax to an elected official weighing in on an issue, making the case for or against a piece of proposed legislation? More important, when was the last time you actually showed up in person to make your voice heard? When was the last time you actively campaigned for a candidate you admire, not simply sent them a check?

 

If we’re too busy to act, if we leave action to others, if we don’t demand change, maybe we really get the government we deserve.

If we don’t think big, who will? Answer: the UAE

On Monday National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” carried a report from the United Arab Emirates about Abu Dhabi’s plans over the next 10 years to build a city for about 50,000 people that has virtually no carbon footprint.

 

Called Masdar City, the project will use site design to minimize the need for air conditioning. Solar panels will generate electricity to meet most of the city’s needs. Individual cars will not be allowed. Instead, people will move about in six-passenger electric vehicles, running through a subterranean network connecting some 1,500 stations. Passengers will program their destination into the vehicle and be whisked away. Water will be recycled and reused, as will most, if not all waste.

 

When asked why oil-rich Abu Dhabi would invest some $18 billion in a zero-carbon development, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said because they see the project as a natural extension of their energy businesses. In other words, when the oil runs out, he wants Abu Dhabi to be the go-to place for alternative energy technologies and processes.

 

While the U.S. is not awash in petrodollars like the UAE, why are we leaving it to others to think big and lead the way in alternative energy?

Where will our energy come from?

Good news Georgia, we’re not the only ones increasing our carbon emissions!

The New York Times published a story yesterday saying that Italy’s major power producer, Enel, is converting one of its larger power plants to run on coal, “generally the dirtiest fuel on earth,” according to the Times.

 Another article from the L.A. Times states that:

 

“For the last five years, from 2003 through 2007, the global climate averaged 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average.”

 

Our neighboring state governments, Florida and South Carolina, have begun to rethink their reliance on coal and are working on plans to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

But forget about what’s going on today. The important question is, where are we going to be getting our energy from in 50 years? Nuclear? Solar? Wind?

What source, what renewable source, has the ability to replace the juggernaut mega-watt producing coal-fired power plants that dot our state today?