Obama’s Transportation Secretary

by Jesse Fox for treehugger.com

Image via The New York Times

“I think we’re doing great things right now,” says Ray LaHood, the Obama Administration’s Secretary of Transportation. A former Republican Congressman from Illinois, many advocates of sustainable transport were initially unsure what to make of his appointment. Several months later, LaHood is shaping up to become one of the administration’s more activist figure

Secretary LaHood, who oversees a $70 billion budget, along with some $50 billion in stimulus funds, admits that the United States’ transportation systems are a long way from sustainability. “We’ve spent three decades building an interstate system,” he told US News & World Report recently. “We’ve put almost all of our resources into the interstate system.”

The new administration, however, appears to be breaking with America’s highway-loving tradition, bringing in a new set of priorities including high-speed rail, building more efficient cars and creating “livable communities.” Back to the One-Car Garage.

In a June 12 interview published in US News & World Report, LaHood said that the USDOT is in a “transformational” moment right now:

This is a transformational president, and the department is following the president’s lead. People haven’t really been thinking about these things. They have been thinking about how to build roads, how to build interstates, how to build bridges. People now are thinking differently about where they want to live, how they want to live, and how they want to be able to get around their communities.

In another interview, published in The New York Times, LaHood said he envisions a shift from the three-car garages of today back to the one-car garage, as Americans begin to live in communities where they are less dependent on their cars:

What we’ve talked about is getting to a concept that we call livable communities, where people don’t have to get in a car every day. You can use light rail, you can use buses, you can use walking paths, you can use your bike.

Integrated Urban Planning

In order to make that happen, LaHood’s Department of Transportation wants every metropolitan area in the country to conduct “integrated housing, transportation, and land use planning.” As the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Kaid Benfield notes on the NRDC’s blog Switchboard, this by itself is an almost revolutionary shif

Although it sounds like a no-brainer, in reality transportation, housing policy (including affordable housing) and land use issues are rarely addressed in an integrated fashion. The results of this disjointed approach to planning can be seen in every American cit

In another groudbreaking move, a three-way partnership has been created between LaHood’s DOT, the Environmental Protection Agency and HUD, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal of the partnership is to use the three agencies’ collective influence and budgets to build more equitable and sustainable communities, with cheaper, more efficient transportation and more affordable and walkable neighborhoods. All of this adds up to a real sea change in the way the US government deals with transportation issue

New Budgets for Transportation

Meanwhile, the details of a new transportation bill, which would transform the way the government budgets transportation projects, have just been released. Congressman James Oberstar’s Surface Transportation Authorization Act would begin to shift funds from highways to mass transit, allocate a massive $50 billion for high-speed rail, sketch out a detailed vision for a new national transportation system and establish a National Infrastructure Ban

However, for the moment anyway, it appears that such a serious legislative overhaul will have to wait. Apparently preferring to save its political leverage for the coming battles over health care and climate legislation, the Obama Administration is likely to support extending existing transportation legislation for another year and a half – effectively pushing off the new bill until the

For more updates, check out Secretary of Transporation LaHood’s official blog, appropriately named The Fast Lane, as well as Yonah Freemark’s comprehensive blog The Transport Politic.

$467 Million in Stimulus Money Released for Solar Power & Geothermal

photo: David Blaikie via flickr.

Solar power and geothermal power have finally gotten their portion of money allocated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, to the tune of $467 million. President Obama announced this by touting the usual rhetoric of decreasing dependency on foreign oil and putting people back to work in through green energy jobs. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu too talked up green jobs, plus the role renewable energy can play in combatting climate change Frankly, absolutely nothing new or novel was said, but it is great that solar and geothermal have finally been shown some federal stimulus love. This is how all that money is being divided up:

Geothermal to Get Most of the Funding
All told geothermal is getting $350 million: $140 million is going toward Geothermal Demonstration Projects; $80 million towards Enhanced Geothermal Systems Technology Research and Development; $100 million towards Innovative Exploration Techniques; $30 million towards a National Geothermal Data System, Resource Assessment, and Classification System.

Solar Power Gets One-Third of Geothermal
Solar power has been allocated $117.6 million: $51.5 million for Photovoltaic Technology Development; $40.5 for Solar Energy Deployment (“Projects in this area will focus on non-technical barriers to solar energy deployment, including grid connection, market barriers to solar energy adoption in cities, and the shortage of trained solar energy installers.”); Concentrating Solar Power Research and Development brings up the rear with $25.6 million.

More: Department of Energy

The Copenhagen Call

At the World Business Summit on Climate Change, the latest of the climate change meetings going on in Copenhagen in the run-up to the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference, global business leaders have issued what has been dubbed as the Copenhagen Call – a six-point statement of what they believe is required to create an effective new global climate change treaty. The points are stated and elaborated below

1. Agreement on science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets

We support the scientific evidence of the IPCC’s 4th. We are concerned that some recent scientific evidence suggests the problem may be worse than many of the IPCC estimates.

An effective global climate treaty must establish an ambitious goal and set emission targets that protect us and future generations from the risks of climate destabilization. Limiting the global average temperature increase to a maximum of 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels would entail abatement of around 17Gt versus business-as-usual by 2020.

This will require an immediate and substantial change in the current global greenhouse gases emission trend: it must peak and begin to reduce within the next decade. Longer-term targets must be informed by the evolving science, but the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report indicates that global emissions must fall by at least half of 1990 levels by 2050.

We believe that working to reduce emissions now is less costly than delaying our efforts. There is nothing to be gained through delay. The deepest reductions should initially be made by developed economies though global emissions reduction will require all nations to play a part.

Emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business, and business is already taking action to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. We are ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions to address the climate challenge wherever we operate. If policies are well designed and implemented, the benefits of early action will outweigh the short-term adjustment costs. This early action can only be achieved by setting an ambitious 2020 target.

2. Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions

Achieving and tracking greenhouse gas emissions reduction is vital to measuring convergence towards the objectives of an effective climate treaty. As businesses we can set an example by contributing to a unified, coherent and reliable measurement, reporting and verification discipline leading to mandatory reporting. Accounting for the emissions we are responsible for will provide the basis for emissions reduction beyond what may be required by regulation and allow our performance to be properly judged and rewarded by investors and the public.

3. Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emission technologies

To promote effective, efficient, equitable and ambitious action to address climate change the world will need to mobilize the scale of investment necessary to achieve the emissions reduction required. Properly established, an international carbon market framed around ambitious reduction targets can enable both cost-effective abatement and create the carbon price stability to drive the deployment of technologies that will deliver large-scale emissions reductions.

The first steps to establishing a global market will be to enable linkage between national and regional carbon markets. An international agreement will help secure investor confidence in the carbon market, and national actions will help generate new financial flows for climate investment.

The new climate treaty must “push” the development of new technologies through the use of public funds to leverage private finance in early stage demonstration and deployment. This will require policy measures that create clear, predictable, long-term incentives to stimulate private investment and enable the global diffusion of capital and technology.

4. Deployment of existing low emission technologies and the development of new ones

The private sector is already the source of over two-thirds of the world’s investments in clean technology innovation, and is the most effective source of know-how and technology dissemination and transfer. Many low-technologies already exist and can significantly reduce global emissions. Significant emissions reduction can be achieved through energy efficiency, much of it with positive financial returns. Standards and regulations are the best way to achieve this. A new treaty must support deployment of low-carbon solutions by encouraging incentives for public and private purchasers to choose the lowest emissions infrastructure and technologies and for investors to account for climate risk in their decisions.

Government and business must work together to ensure that all nations have equitable access to new clean energy technologies and other innovations by, among others, working with developing countries to improve the infrastructure required for effective deployment.

An effective global climate treaty must provide the means to fund research, development and the deployment of new clean energy technologies. Pricing can help “pull” these technologies through the innovation chain, generate revenue and enhance the flow of investment to developing countries. Governments should strive to end the current perverse subsidies that favour high-emissions transport and energy infrastructure and promote deforestation.

A shift to a low-carbon economy, supported by private sector participation and government, has the potential to drive the next generation of technological innovation, address the environmental and economic challenges that climate change presents, and contribute to global development.

5. Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change

We recognize that adaptation is as important as mitigation in an effective global climate treaty. Adaptation planning will require a holistic and long-term planning perspective, which will require different levels of activity at the international, national and local levels. Businesses will be responsible for building much of the infrastructure needed to protect us from climate impacts. An effective global climate treaty will mobilize funding that supports public private partnerships to enhance development, adaptive capacity, climate resilience and management of risk.

6. Innovative means to protect forests and balance the carbon cycle

Because a significant proportion of the CO2 reduction required by 2020 comes from the sequestration of carbon in forests and agriculture lands, an effective climate treaty must facilitate such sequestration. If emissions reductions targets are to be met, there is an immediate need to protect forests and enhance carbon sequestration. The private sector can play an important role in reducing deforestation, particularly in developing countries, through mechanisms structured to value conservation.

We believe these elements should form the core of the international climate change treaty agreed at Copenhagen. As business leaders we stand ready to innovate and operate within the framework established through that treaty and national policies.

Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, development and innovation. Acting together, we owe it to future generations to meet this challenge. Now is the time to create the foundations for long term, low carbon prosperity. We are willing to work with government to do so.

For more information, the Call itself, transcripts of the special address by Cate Blanchett and opening address by Ban Ki-Moon, do visit the Copenhagen Climate Council’s website.

Plants to Monitor Pollution in Two Turkish Cities

Redbud trees are among the plants that will help monitor air pollution in the Turkish cities of Tarsus and Erdemli. Photo by B~ via Flickr.

The bounty of tulips that the Istanbul municipality plants in the city’s public squares, parks, and gardens each April to celebrate the coming of spring shows how radically–and attractively–a bit of nature can transform urban space. But decorative plants are more, so to speak, than just a pretty face. By using them to monitor air pollution, cities can clean up as well as green up.

Monitoring heavy metals
A pilot project has been launched in two cities in the eastern Mediterranean province of Mersin to monitor the heavy metals and other pollutants in exhaust fumes using decorative plants, trees, and shrubs. A joint effort of the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, Çukurova University, and the Tarsus Municipality, with support from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture, the project will last for three years and will be conducted in Tarsus and Erdemli.

Some 390 redbuds, rubber plants, magnolias, orchids, Jacaranda, oleander, and Pyracantha have already been planted along busy roadways in the two cities.

A model for all of Turkey
Dr. Ayhan Aydın, the project officer at the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, where the plants to be used in the research are being cultivated, said if the pilot project is successful, it may be launched nationwide after the conclusion of the initial study period.

Istanbul could certainly use the additional greenery, as well as the new tool in its ongoing, and often seemingly futile, battle against pollution from cars, burning coal, industrial operations, and other sources. The capital, Ankara, and the Mediterranean city of Adana, the country’s fourth largest, are also air-quality trouble spots.

Air pollution a big issue
According to data compiled by the Environment and Forestry Minstry in 2007, out of the country’s 81 provinces, 73 are “faced with serious environmental problems.” Air pollution was named the most pressing problem in 27 provinces, but the ministry said it was an issue in almost all provinces.

A European Union report the same year said progress on the subject has been “limited” and “Turkey needs to adopt further legislation and take steps to start implementation, including upgrading air quality monitoring.” In making this recommendation, the EU may have envisioned something more high-tech than magnolia plants, but from small seeds, great things can sprout.

Via: “Plants to measure effects of exhaust gas,”Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review

Australia: The Politics of Environment – A Brief Round-Up

Kudos to Warren McLaren, Sydney for writing this great article for treehugger.com

They say “a week is a long time in politics.” And this was my first thought when Matthew asked me, a month ago, to consider a round-up of business and politics events from Australia.

It may be a large sunburnt land blessed with many natural assets, but the so called Lucky Country might be using up some of its nine lives, if recent events are anything to go by. Some of the worst weather since records began suggest the climate is a changing. And not just atmospherically, politically as well. Not only are international icons like the Great Barrier Reef at risk via climate change, so are one of the oldestindigenous peoples on the planet. So what should a country, which can claim the dubious distinction of being the world’s highest emitters of carbon dioxide per capita, do to improve it’s environmental footprint? We peek at a smattering of the issues below.

Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs

Photo: Peak Energy

Australia has a bit of reputation for being world class innovators, but lousy entrepreneurs. We can problem solve with great flair, but we’re not particular brilliant at bringing products to market, oftentimes selling the new technology to someone else to commercialise. This has been our experience with solar. As a staffer at one of our leading photovoltaic research universities recently told me, “We make engineers, we don’t make solar panels.”

So Australia has the technology. In many cases we invented it. We certainly have the sun. But we have just lacked the political and commercial will to forge this country into the solar dynamo it should be. One of Australia’s leading suppliers of renewable energy, Energy Matters, put its bluntly. Germany, “ … while having half the sunshine of Australia, have 200 times the solar production capacity of our country …” And they put this down to Germany having a generous feed-in tariff program.

A feed-in tariff is where the owner of a a grid connected renewable energy system, like solar, is paid a premium (usually greater than the retail price of electricity) for the energy they feed into the grid (that their electricity utility can on-sell to other users.) There are two basic types of tariffs, net and gross. Net is only paid for any energy supplied to the grid that is greater than what was used. For example, if the system generated 12 units of power, but also drew down on the grid for 10 units, then the tariff would only be paid for the 2 units that were in surplus. With a Gross Feed-In Tariff (FIT) the premium is paid for the full 12 units.

Australia has no national feed-in tariff, with some of the states only just implementing their own disparate versions in the past couple of years. At the time of writing, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had the most generous solar program. In this our tiniest self governing region, they offer, to those of their 340,000 residents who have grid-connected photovoltaic systems, just over 50 cents AUD (38c USD) per kilowatt hour, for up to 10kw of solar capacity. This is roughly four times the retail price of electricity, depending on the plan an ACT customer is on. The program went live for residential solar systems in March 2009.

However, according to the recently announced Western Australian budget, the ACT has been trumped by a more generous feed-in tariff of 60 cents AUD (45c USD) per kilowatt hour. This high premium will only be open to those customers who also sign up for 100% GreenPower for the energy they purchase. With these rates it has been calculated by the WA Sustainable Energy Association that a solar system could be paid off in nine years. (Most solar panels are designed to function for 20-25 years.) The most populous Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) is currently deliberating on what form of feed-in tariff it will legislate. A result is expected by June 2009. The rest of country has a mish mash of tariff, but there remains a push for a national gross feed-in tariff of 80c /kWh.

Solar Power Adoption

Photo: PV-Tech

The feed-in tariff argument has recently reached prominence, due the success that Germany and Spain have had in rolling out photovoltaic systems. But it has not been the only influencing factoring in the slow adoption of solar technologies in Australia. Being a long way from anywhere has meant panels have been expensive to import. And with a relatively small population, (only 57% that of California!) sparsely spread around the country, they have tricky to produce locally, given high wages and small economies of scale. BP Solar, the only on-shore producer of PV panels announced in December 2008 they would close their Sydney plant to concentrate on production out of Asia.

In the face of such pricing pressures, various Australian federal and state governments have, over the years, rolled out different rebates for solar panel purchases. Initially these were to assist people in remote areas, but more recently with utilities embracing grid-connect systems, rebates for photovoltaics became more pervasive. In general the federal government will pay $8,000 towards the cost of 1 kW residential solar installations. In the 2008 budget the government announced the $8,000 rebate would ‘means tested’ and only available to those households with a combined income of less than $100,000. This sent a tremor of fear through the Australian solar industry. However, they need not have worried as, inexplicably, installation applications increased in such demand that rebate processing times about doubled.

It may have been that the political debate over the changes alerted more people to the fact that rebates were available, or maybe the announcement raised concerns that the rebate was being reviewed and interested parties needed to get in quick while it was still on offer. If the latter, then their instincts were spot on, for change was coming. For as of 30 June 2009 the $8,000 is gone, replaced by a new Solar Credits scheme.

Under this new process, there is no direct cash rebate, but tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) will allocated on a sliding scale of points, depending of the carbon reduction efficiency of the installed system. RECs are already in place for the likes of solar hot water rebates, but with the new Solar Credits program their value will beartificially increased five fold.

This process has drawn flak from many quarters. Some believe it means polluters, like coal-fired power stations, buying the exchangable credits on the market, will be purchasing much cheaper credits to allow them to continue their carbon dioxide emissions,negating the efforts of the homeowner to reduce CO2 output . In pure economic terms, the RECs will not, in many instances, reward the residential householder as much as the current lump sum $8,000 rebate.

Couple these rebate changes, with the aforementioned move to gross feed-in tariffs and with the newly emerging business model of communities, co-ops and businesses bulk buying panels and inverters to bring the price down even further, and you have a mad rush of residential solar installations.

Renewable Energy Targets

Photo: Wind in the Bush

All of which goes to help the government inch closer (sounds better than ‘centimetre closer’) to their stated aim of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Back in April of this year the federal and state governments under the umbrella of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) agreed to expand the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to this goal. In reality this means that nationally Australia will strive for a legislated target of 45,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020. More than four times larger than the present MRET.

This won’t just come from solar, but also the likes of wind, biomass and geothermal (aka “hot rocks”). But on the solar side of things, the government of Kevin Rudd, just this weekend past detailed one the ways the federal government will be contributing to this target.

It plans under its Clean Energy Initiative to build four solar plants, which in aggregate will amount to “largest solar energy project in the world.” As the Australian newspaper understands the Solar Flagships proposal, there will be almost $1.4 billion AUD invested in two solar thermal, and two solar photovoltaic stations with a combined output of 1000MW coming on stream by 2015.

Other government initiatives like Solar Schools and Solar Cities will also contribute towards the national MRET. As will wind power, although rolling out wind farms tends to more problematic when the NIMBY (not in my back yard) element comes into play.

Geothermal energy holds great promise as water is flushed into deep holes in the earth’s crust, to be heated by hot rocks and returning to the surface as steam, to drive turbines. Although feasible to the point it is said it could provide for all of Australia’s energy needs, it is currently experiencing some technical teething issues. But not everyone will need to make a contribution, like the big polluters, known as ”emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry”, who’ll be largely exempt.
In the federal Budget just announced last week the government said they would invest $465 million to establish Renewables Australia to support this sort of leading edge research and make it commercial.

Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Photo: AAP / Dean Lewins from the ABC

However Australian governments aren’t having the good news stories all flow their way.

The federal Rudd Government have come under concentrated attack from green groups, and particularly the national Greens poltical party, for their 2009 budget announcement, that they’ll be funding so called ‘clean coal’ to the turn of $2.4 billion AUD, most of which will be directed a Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program. That’s $0.4 billion more than the Solar Flagships program.

And the Victorian government has been chastised for its feed-in tariff, which will be a net system, not gross and be eligible for only up to 3.2 kW energy systems (the ACT’s is 10 kW) and will be a credit on their electricity bill, not a payment.

On the much bigger picture is the federal government’s emission trading scheme, or as they prefer to call it, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Many believe that the Labor party was successful at the 2007 election, in part because they promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol and actually do something about climate change, unlike the previous government.

Professor Ross Garnaut, was employed to inform the Australian government on the economic impact of global warming to the country. Part of his recommendations included the establishment of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). (The US has been talking around a similar idea, but using the terminology ‘cap and trade.’ In short, enterprises who want increase their emissions beyond an allowance (or cap), set by the government need to buy (trade) credits from businesses who emit less greenhouse gases.

Anyhow. acting on the Garnaut report, the government developed their version of an ETS. But up until recently they have had no joy getting anyone to like it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the federal opposition party, the Liberal/National Coalition was right when he said, “It’s literally completely friendless.” Environmentalists and The Greens felt it was wishy washy, because it only strove to reduce emissions by 5% and gave a heap of ‘get out of jail’ free cards to the big emitters. The influential mining industry (Australia is the world’s largest exporter or coal) obviously are not keen on any legislation that impedes business opportunities. It was so universally disliked that it did not pass through the parliament. It didn’t look like anything was going to be place by the election promised date of 2010.

Then at the start of May 2009 the government reneged, coming out with a revised plan. They were now moving it back to 2011 and implementing a raft of compromises, like a new low price for carbon — $10 a tonne — and yet more free permits for large polluting industries. Yet these changes enabled them to drop their bombshell (the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had repeatedly stated that “It would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment,” to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme), supported on the day, by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and mainstream enviro groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute and the World Wildlife Fund.

One of the concessions was that Australia would move to a 25% Greenhouse Gas reduction by by 2020. Which on the surface sounded great. But devil is always in the detail. This cut would only occur if a comprehensive global agreement on emissions reduction can be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. Of course, the Greens are incensed at what they see as ‘smoke and mirrors.’ But the government wants some sort of scheme passed by parliament, so it can attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with at least something in its pocket, as a bargaining chip.

And There’s More?

Photo: Warren McLaren / INOV8

With all this talk of emissions trading and solar programs one could be forgiven in thinking there weren’t other environment issues stalking the corridors of Australian political office. Let’s briefly touch on just a few.

As previously noted here the state governments couldn’t agree on national campaign to rid shops and waterways of the dreaded plastic shopping bag, so South Australia went it alone. (As they many years ago, being the only state to have Container Deposit Legislation, placing a redeemable deposit on all beverage containers.)

The food bowl of Australia is the catchment of two major river, the so-called Murray-Darling basin; it is, as Reuters points out, “as large as France and Germany combined, accounts for 41 percent of Australia’s agriculture and provides A$21 billion ($13.54 billion) worth of farm exports to Asia and the Middle East. Around 70 percent of irrigated agriculture comes from the basin. And whether due to the worst drought in over a century, or the early onset of climate change the region is under some pretty severe stress.

“The drought has already wiped more than A$20 billion from the $1 trillion economy since 2002. It is the worst in 117 years of record-keeping, with 80 percent of eucalyptus trees already dead or stressed in the Murray-Darling region.”

It’s not just ecosystems at imminent risk of devastation. If the current dry conditions continue, as they are forecast to, then the South Australian capital of Adelaide may run out of water within two years. Other states have offered to sent drinking water for the city of over 1 million people, but they too draw upon the Murray river, which only has 18% of its capacity at the moment. The federal government has given the The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) $50 million to buy back some of the seven billion litres of water from water licence holders along the catchment, who are willing to sell.

The devastating bushfires in the state of Victoria, which claimed around 170 lives and 2,000 homes, are another aspect of Australia’s dry climate. There are claims that not enough fuel reduction burns were undertaken preceding the fires, though the bush and forest is the reason many of the people live in those locations in the first place. Others believe that with the ongoing drought, there are not enough safe days in the year to undertake the scale of reduction burns needed. A Royal Commission is presently underway to determine the factors that contributed to the most deadly natural disaster in Australian history.

Before the Commission convened and on behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff, the National Secretary of United Firefighters Union of Australia sent an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister and Victorian Premie. It said, in part:

“Something is going on. As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk. Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

And how about this one: The ABC reports that “Tasmania’s Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts will be shut down to help cover a looming budget black hole.”

But there is some good news. A massive amount of environmental rebates available from state and national government to help householders, landlords, schools and community groups. These cover ceiling insulation; rainwater tanks (with added incentives if these are connected up to washing machines and flushing toilets); solar hot water systems; energy and water efficient washing machines; compost bins; drip water gardening systems; grey water systems, green loans, and more.

And we have to stop there. For next week there’ll be a whole new set of challenges and opportunities confronting our elected representatives.

Smart Meters in Every UK Home by 2020

UK Government Reveals Ambitious Smart Meter Plans
The European Union has already made moves to mandate smart meters, but according to the Guardian, UK will be following suit. The British Government has revealed that it will be ensuring that every UK home is fitted with a smart meter by the year 2020.

Here’s more from The Guardian:

“The meters most of us have in our homes were designed for a different age, before climate change. Now we need to get smarter with our energy … so it’s important we design a system that brings best value to everyone involved.”

Ed Miliband, Energy & Climate Change Secretary

Energy companies welcomed the switch, which will reduce their running costs by making meter readers obsolete and eliminating the customer service time spent on dealing with estimated bills. Consumers and small business owners could benefit from savings achieved through increased awareness of their energy use.

Previous studies have shown that smart meters encourage homeowners to cut their energy use by 3-15%, although experts warn that the technology requires consumer education and is not an “install and forget” energy-efficiency measure like loft insulation.

It’s certainly true that instantaneous feedback on our energy consumption can encourage more efficient behavior but in order to be successful, we’ll need efforts to educate the public about how to get the most out of these meters, and tips to reduce energy consumption in the household.

World Oceans Conference 2009 – 6 Rules of Thumb of Maintaining Healthy Reefs

Photo via World Resources Institute Staff

At the World Oceans Conference 2009 in Manado, Indonesia, scientists are focusing on the Coral Reef Triangle, a section of ocean near the nations of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Solomon islands. The Coral Reef Triangle is home to the largest number of diverse coral species on the planet, and while it remains relatively healthy right now, researchers know that it is only a matter of time before climate change and pollution do their damage…unless we put in place a few rules right now.

The six regional governments, Australia, and the US are all working to implement the Coral Reef Initiative, a move that puts forward six rules of thumb for how to maintain healthy coral reefs.

1. Allow margins of error in extent and nature of protection, as insurance against unforeseen threats
2. Spread risks among areas
3. Aim to create networks of protected areas which (a) protect all the main types of reef creatures, processes and connections, known and unknown; (b) achieve sufficient protection for each type of reef habitat type, and for the whole region; (c) achieve maximum protection for all reef processes (d) contain several examples of particular reef types to spread the risk
4. Protect whole reefs where possible; place buffer zones around core areas.
5. Allow for reef species to spread over a range of distances, especially 20 km
6. Use a range of conservation approaches, including marine protected areas.

The purpose of the rules is to make sure that even in areas where research about how problems like global climate change, over-fishing, and pollution is sparse, there are steps that can be taken to preserve the habitat.

“The Coral Triangle Initiative is one of the most important marine conservation measures ever undertaken anywhere in the world and the first to span several countries. It involves the six nations of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Solomon islands, and is as much about nation building and food security as it is about reef conservation”

-Professor Terry Hughes, Director of the CoECRS

The World Ocean Conference runs through Friday, and more than 5,000 scientists are in attendance, hoping to work out ways to care for the oceans and reefs that are clearly in distress. And some countries, such as Indonesia, move that such countries with large sea territories should receive credit for the carbon storage capacities of their ocean areas, thereby reducing the country’s total carbon footprint and earning assistance from other countries in preserving marine areas. However, some people at the conference feel that more than loose rules and easy rewards should be put forward.

“We must make sure that we are not spectators at the climate talks but that those of us who speak for the ocean have a role… To get credit for preserving the ocean or avoiding deforestation is like getting credit for not beating your wife”

-Tony Haymet, Director of Scripps Institute for Oceanography of the University of California

I’ll update this post in due time as the Conference ends on Friday

Almost Half US Colleges Go Trayless. Why?

by Kristin Underwood, for treehugger.com. Original Post:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/almost-half-us-colleges-go-trayless.php#ch02

Image via: Getty Images

Trayless? Really? When I started hearing that colleges were going trayless all I could think was, “how is saving plastic by not using a couple of trays going to cut down on the environmental footprint of a campus that is the size of a small town?” Well actually, according to the New York Times, several studies have been done now pointing to rather large savings, and we’re not just talking waistlines. As almost half of the 300 schools with the largest endowments across the US go trayless, we thought we would take another look at this latest method to save some green.

So how does not using a tray benefit the environment? Apparently using that tray allows students to stockpile food like they’re in a depression era – the same food that many of the studies found also ends up completely uneaten and in the garbage. If you only have your two hands to hold your dinner, then your eyes are suddenly not bigger than stomach and you mentally weigh getting up repeatedly to get more food with just eating what you have and only going back if you’re actually still hungry.

Going trayless also helps save water because as students conserve plates, silverware and cups, it also means extra water isn’t being used to wash all of those items. Some students report that the trayless dining halls make the area feel closer to home and less like an institution. Another benefit – students are less likely to gain the freshman 15 because they don’t have a way to just pile the tray high with food and sweets and breads and cakes and several drinks.

Benefits of Colleges Going Trayless

Williams College saved 14,000 gallons of water last year by changing one dining hall to a trayless system. They plan to change their other 3 dining halls to trayless due to the successful program. Rochester Institute of Technology noticed a 10% drop in food costs by going trayless, despite rising food prices during the same period.

Moravian College (PA) is going completely trayless starting this fall after they had such a successful “Trayless Tuesdays” program. Their studies showed a 25% savings in food waste and as many as 25% of the student body now voluntarily chooses to go trayless every time they eat in the cafeteria. Moravian College has also committed that all financial savings they achieve through the program will be reinvested into the cafeteria and food programs.

American University (DC) environmental science students conducted their own research on going trayless and found that there was a 47.1% savings of food waste during the dinner hour and a 30.8% reduction in plates and bowls. Both sectors also had savings during the lunch hour, though the percentages were lower.

One casualty of going trayless: the loss of automatic sleds when the first snow of the season hits. As a student on the east coast who had never seen snow before college, and who also remembers vividly clambering for a cafeteria tray for both shield and shovel during the school snowfight, this is a big loss. A big loss indeed. :New York Times:Moravia College :American University

US Department of Energy: $786 Million for Biofuels Research & Commercialization

photo: Steve Jurvetson via flickr

The latest allocation of funds from the stimulus bill by the Department of Energy has been announced. This time it’s for biofuels and in the amount of $786.5 million. Here’s where it’s all going:

$480 Million for Integrated Pilot- and Demonstration-Scale Facilities

Projects selected under this Funding Opportunity Announcement will work to validate integrated biorefinery technologies that produce advanced biofuels, bioproducts, and heat and power in an integrated system, thus enabling private financing of commercial-scale replications.

DOE anticipates making 10 to 20 awards for refineries at various scales and designs, all to be operational in the next three years.  The DOE funding ceiling is $25 million for pilot-scale projects and $50 million for demonstration scale projects.

These integrated biorefineries will reduce dependence on petroleum-based transportation fuels and chemicals. They will also facilitate the development of an “advanced biofuels” industry to meet the federal Renewable Fuel Standards.

$176.5 Million for Commercial-Scale Biorefinery Projects

$176.5 million will be used to increase the federal funding ceiling on two or more demonstration- or commercial-scale biorefinery projects that were selected and awarded within the last two years.

The goal of these efforts is to reduce the risk of the development and deployment of these first-of-a-kind operations. These funds are expected to expedite the construction phase of these projects and ultimately accelerate the timeline for start up and commissioning.

$110 Million for Fundamental Research
This allocation will be further divided as follows,

Expand the resources available for sustainability research through the Office of Science Bioenergy Research Centers and establish a user-facility/small-scale integrated pilot plant ($25 million).

Create an advanced research consortium to develop technologies and facilitate subsequent demonstration of infrastructure-compatible biofuels through a competitive solicitation ($35 million).

Create an algal biofuels consortium to accelerate demonstration of algal biofuels through a competitive solicitation ($50 million).

$20 Million for Ethanol Research

The Biomass Program is planning to use $20 million of the Recovery Act funding in a competitive solicitation to achieve the following:

• Optimize flex-fuel vehicles operating on high octane E85 fuel (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend).
• Evaluate the impact of higher ethanol blends in conventional vehicles
• Upgrade existing refueling infrastructure to be compatible with fuels up to E85.

More: Department of Energy – Recovery and Reinvestment

New Limits to Antarctica tourism

(Image Credit: AdventureCollection on Flickr)

Countries with ties to Antarctica have adopted US proposals to limit tourism in the region, in a bid to protect the fragile ecosystem of the continent.

Parties to the Antarctic Treaty agreed to limit the size of cruise ships and the number of tourists taken ashore at a meeting in the US city of Baltimore.

Limiting tourism has taken on urgency due to a surge in visits and a number of cruise ship accidents.

Antarctic visits have risen from 6,700 in 1992-93 to over 45,000 last season.

The agreed limits will only become legally binding once ratified by each of the 28 nations who have signed the Antarctic Treaty, launched in Washington 50 years ago.

The restrictions do not set out an enforcement mechanism or penalties, but require member countries to prevent ships with more than 500 passengers from landing in Antarctica and to allow a maximum of 100 passengers on shore at any given time.

Another resolution adopted at the meeting places a mandatory safety code on vessels operating in the region, while a third enhances environmental protection for the entire Antarctic ecosystem.

Two cruise ships ran aground during the 2008-09 season, and officials documented several incidents which carried a risk of major contamination.

The most high-profile accident in the region was the sinking of the M/S Explorer cruise ship in November 2007.

Antarctica is the unique home to several varieties of penguin, an important base for others such as seals, and a vital feeding ground for whales.

Source: BBC Online