Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Consumers’ Category

Press Release: Perry Government Mishandles Programs that Benefit Consumers, Groups Say

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, natural gas, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2010 |

Public Citizen, Environmental Defense Fund Call for Independent State Agency to Coordinate State’s Energy Efficiency Efforts

AUSTIN – In response to the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) planned adoption of new energy efficiency goals, Public Citizen and Environmental Defense Fund today called for sweeping changes to the way Texas runs its energy efficiency programs. The groups said that a single independent state agency would better serve Texas because it could coordinate programs currently regulated by multiple agencies and reduce agency overlap.

“We have no confidence in the Public Utility Commission process,” said David Power, deputy director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The time has come to change the way Texas saves energy because the current setup is ineffective. It is time for the Legislature to take control and create a new state agency that can put consumers first and save more money.”

The groups plan to send a letter to state Sen. Troy Fraser, chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and state Reps. Jim Keffer and Burt Solomons, chairs of the House Energy Resources and State Affairs Committees, asking them to support legislation in the upcoming session to create an independent efficiency agency.

Under current law, the PUC, the agency in charge of regulating most of the state’s “poles and wires” companies, is supposed to review and approve the energy efficiency programs of the utilities. But other state agencies oversee efficiency programs too, including the Department of Housing and Community Affairs and State Energy Conservation Office. Housing the coordination of these efforts under one roof would help streamline state regulation and create more savings potential for Texans, the groups said.

“Several agencies either run or oversee similar programs,” said Kate Robertson, energy efficiency specialist with Environmental Defense Fund. “In some instances, like market outreach, a single state agency could coordinate the activities of all efficiency programs instead of multiple people doing the same thing for their own programs.”

The groups also criticized the PUC’s negative attitude toward energy efficiency. Over the past year and a half, agency staff had been developing plans to increase the state’s goal for energy efficiency. On Friday, however, the three commissioners appointed by Gov. Rick Perry slashed the proposal dramatically, ostensibly for cost reasons, reducing the efficiency goal from 1 percent of peak demand by 2014 to a third of the growth in demand by 2013 – a much smaller increase. The PUC even has proposed curtailing the amount utilities can spend on efficiency measures.

“It is baffling to us that the commission thinks energy efficiency is not worth the cost,” said Matthew Johnson, a policy analyst with Public Citizen’s Texas office. “Ratepayers’ utility bills pay primarily for fuel like natural gas and coal, power plants and the grid infrastructure. Energy efficiency costs around a dollar per month on a typical $100 electric bill and it pays for itself by reducing the need for new, costly power plants.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

NRG Energy Scales Back Nuke Investment; Makes TPPF Look Bad

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 2, 2010 |

In their recent report on how energy efficiency is bad for consumers in Texas, the Texas Public Policy Foundation took some time to tout nukes.

To distinguish the development of new nuclear reactors from the previous generation which was frought with cost overruns and delays, they claim the following (page 7-8):

“But unlike consumers from the 1980s, today’s consumers won’t be taking on the risk of cost overruns. In fact, they won’t be taking any risk at all. Once the new nuclear plants are complete, the price of the electricity sold from the plants will be determined by market forces. If the price is higher than the cost of the electricity, the plants will be profitable. If not, the plants will lose money. But it is the investors–not consumers–who will bear that risk.”

The investors will bear all the risk? Really? Well, published today is a report from Forbes.com that, in addition to announcing NRG’s dramatic scaling back on nuclear development (by some 95%) quotes NRG Energy’s CEO David Crane as saying he is:

“more comfortable when someone else takes risk.” (as in, the citizens of San Antonio?)

Ouch! I encourage y’all to read the full Forbes article and this one from last December, which notes that a major part of NRG’s strategy is to sell to municipally-owned utilities and electric cooperatives. They are medicine for those that think new nuclear is cost-competitive because they’re all about how dependent nuke developers are on federal loan guarantees (aka subsidies).

EDITOR’S NOTE: Also of interest is an article from this morning’s NYTimes that shows the cost of solar is now cheaper than the cost of nuclear, and a hot-off-the-presses article from Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current saying that with NRG taking so much investment out of developing the plant, and the US gov’t balking at more subsidies for this nuclear pork behemoth, that the only way to make the deal work is to get the governments of France and Japan to also help bail out their investors with, you guessed it- more loan guarantees. How many countries and government bailouts does it take to build a nuke plant in Texas?  Three, apparently.  Ahhh, nuclear power- it’s like fiscal conservative kryptonite. One mention of it and any and all pretense of being pro free market just disappears as they can’t stop lining up to the gravy train of pork, loan guarantees and subsidies. ~~Andy

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Energy Efficiency: Things Were Going So Well Until the Commissioners Got Involved

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, Consumers, Diesel, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, green jobs, natural gas, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on July 30, 2010 |

Perry Appointees Smitherman, Nelson, Anderson protect consumers from energy efficiency

There is a disturbing trend emerging in Texas. A once successful consumer-oriented program is floundering because of a deficit of perspective behind the dais at the PUC.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas proposed adopting an update to the state’s energy efficiency program that would cap the amount of money utilities could spend on programs that reduce the energy bills for homes and businesses.

Under the rule, utility expenditures on energy efficiency would be limited to one tenth of one cent per kilowatt-hour. That’s $0.001, which would amount to around a dollar a month for the average home. It’s worth pointing out that there are no cost caps for other energy resources, just the cheapest one.

This bears repeating: the PUC does not want utilities to spend more money to fund programs that make Texas homes more energy efficient and reduce their utility bills.

During today’s hearing, it was abundantly clear that Governor Perry’s appointees to the commission have folded to industry pressure and adopted the bizarre world view that energy efficiency costs consumers too much money. As evidence, in addition to only considering utility industry estimates on the cost of future efficiency resources, they frequently alluded to a report released this week by the conservative and industry-friendly Texas Public Policy Foundation which made unsubstantiated claims that the consumer benefits of energy efficiency programs could not only be less than currently estimated, but actually negative (page 3). (A more detailed critique of their report is coming).

At a workshop earlier this month, the commissioners only allowed industry representatives to present information. No consumer advocates, environmental groups, no academics were allowed to present and even the comments by ACEEE seem to have been ignored.

It’s now time for the Legislature to be the grownups in the room (more…)

Read Full Post »

Smitty: Austin and San Antonio took different paths when choosing new electric utility management

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Good Government, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , on July 23, 2010 |

This is Andy checking in from Vegas and Netroots Nation: sheesh, we leave Texas for a few days and the wheels start to come off the bus, don’t they?  Of course, our fearless and tireless leader, Tom “Smitty” Smith is there to handle everything, as he has done for the last 2 and a half decades.

This ran in today’s Texas Energy Report, but want to give all of our Public Citizen Texas members and followers a taste if you’re not a subscriber to the Energy Report.

Tom Smitty Smith, Director of Public Citizen TexasSMITTY: TWO CITIES TOOK OPPOSITE PATHS IN SELECTING UTILITY GM

An Op-Ed by Public Citizen’s Tom “Smitty” Smith.

The recently announced new general managers for Austin and San Antonio couldn’t be more different, and may have huge economic repercussions for both cities.

Austin has chosen Larry Weis, a “green” general manager from Turlock, California, Irrigation District. San Antonio’s CPS Energy has chosen Doyle N. Beneby Jr., from Exelon Corp. While Mr. Weis opposes nuclear power due to its costs, Mr. Beneby comes from a utility that has the largest nuclear assets in the country.

The process that each city underwent in selecting their new managers stands in stark contrast with one another. Austin announced its finalists over a month ago and invited the public to question the candidates.

CPS kept its candidates secret. In light of this lack of information, I am left to wonder what San Antonio’s fate will be given the recent track record of Exelon. Could Mr. Beneby signal the re-nuclearization of San Antonio or does he represent a future of renewable energy and green power?

Although San Antonio is still reeling from the trebling of cost of expanding the South Texas Nuclear Project, the CPS board has chosen someone from Exelon, which has tried and failed to buy NRG Energy, CPS’s partner in the nuclear expansion project, while simultaneously trying to develop another nuclear plant near Victoria.

While Exelon does have a mix of fossil fuel, hydroelectric, solar, landfill gas and wind generation sources, it only amounts to a meager 7 percent of its generation assets. The other 93 percent is nuclear.

Since the public was not privy to the public utility’s selection process, we are left to speculate what Beneby ‘s plans are. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Memorial Day Energy Star Sales Tax Holiday!!

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, tagged , , , , , , , on May 27, 2010 |

I’ve told my parents and now I’m telling you. ¡Si se compran una lavadora o un aire condicionado marcado Energy Star este weekend, no tienen que pagar sales taxes! If you buy an Energy Star appliance this Memorial Day weekend you won’t have to pay a sales tax! Representative Veronica Gonzalez announced the third annual Energy Star Sales Tax Holiday and encouraged Texans to lower their utility bills and conserve energy with more energy efficient appliances. Gonzalez went on to say:

Many of use see our utility bills go up during the hot summer months…energy efficient appliances are better for our environment and our wallets, and even small changes like switching to fluorescent light bulbs can make a difference. I encourage Texans to take advantage of this weekend.

If there’s no room for a brand spanking new energy efficient appliance in your budget here are some tips on how to prep your home for the coming summer heat as presented by Ed Begley Jr.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=497852292298798919#]

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas

Read Full Post »

Cap Metro’s debut at the Sunset Commission

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, Renewables, Transportation, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2010 |

Cap Metro’s hearing at the Sunset Advisory Commission on Tuesday wasn’t the public flogging many might have expected, given the mass transit authority’s myriad problems over the past several years. It came as a shock to no one as Sunset staff delivered testimony that centered on the financial crisis the transit authority faces. Several commissioners, however, none of whom represent Austin, were surprisingly engaged and cognizant of recent reforms at Cap Metro and gave them credit for their responsiveness to the Sunset Commission’s Staff Report which recommended several changes ranging from financial management to labor contracts to rail safety.

For those who have not followed the story from the beginning (include me in that), Cap Metro’s Sunset review began with the passage last session of Sen. Kirk Watson’s (D-Austin) SB 2015. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin). In addition to calling for the review “as if the authority were scheduled to be abolished”, it changed the structure of the Cap Metro board and called for another review in 2016. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Week in Review

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, green jobs, Nuclear, Renewables, solar, tagged , , , , , , on May 21, 2010 |

Busy, busy, busy. Public Citizen staff have been making the rounds this week, traveling all over Texas in order to educate, empower, and organize citizens. From Beaumont to Dallas. From tar sands to the Public Utility Commission, we are working to protect the economic and environmental well-being of all Texans.

The Week in Review: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Proposed Rules Could Allow Disconnections for Some Critical Care Customers

Posted in Consumers, tagged , , , , , , on May 18, 2010 |

The Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) is considering proposed rules changes that will in many ways improve consumer protection, but contains some provisions that could allow retail electric providers (REP) to disconnect medically vulnerable customers who rely on electricity to sustain their lives.  Other rules being considered could make it impossible for a consumer who is in debt to a retail electric provider to switch to lower cost services, eliminating their right to choose.  (more…)

Read Full Post »

Green-up Your Life! Holiday Edition

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 17, 2009 |

By Kirsten Bokenkamp

Happy Holidays! Just saying those words is enough to evoke joyful images of families gathered in the kitchen preparing a succulent holiday meal to be enjoyed together, or excited and wide-eyed children opening gifts next to a beautifully decorated Christmas tree. When I close my eyes, I can almost taste the cinnamon-spiced hot apple cider. Yum. Unfortunately, for some of us, the holiday season also means traveling long distances to be with our loved ones; fighting the crowds at busy stores as we endlessly try to find the perfect gifts; and paying higher energy bills resulting from our holiday lights and all of our cooking.

Amidst all the holiday cheer, sometimes it is inconvenient to think about how our activities might contribute to climate change. The purpose of the Holiday Edition of Green-up Your Life! is to give easy ideas about how to have the lowest impact on the earth while still enjoying the holiday season.

Time to Travel

With all the crowds and delays, flying during the holiday season can be really frustrating. And what about those 4 to 8 hour drives? Unfortunately for many of us, flying or driving are often the only options – for now. The future, however, looks bright. President Obama is already in support of investing in the high-speed national rail service, as it would reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment. It would also create many new green-jobs, something that we desperately need to jump-start the economy. What can you do? Click here to tell your Representatives in Congress that you are in favor of appropriating government funds towards the creation of a national high-speed passenger rail system. I have to admit, there is something romantic about taking the train home for the holidays.

The Gift of Giving

Giving gifts makes us feel good; it is a way to let our loved ones know we are thinking about them; and it is a token of appreciation of being part of another person’s life. Too often, though, we get caught up in the act of giving a gift, without thinking about the repercussions. By following some simple guidelines, you can keep your gifts environmentally friendly, and socially responsible.

  • Skip anything that you plug in, or that requires batteries.
  • Buy from local vendors when you can. I can think of many gift ideas, from hats and scarves, to food, to jewelry, to artwork, that you can buy from an artisan in your own community.
  • Think outside the box: Give a gym membership, a haircut, a massage, or tickets to a game or a concert.
  • Combine errands, or better yet, leave the car in a parking spot and walk from store to store.
  • Skip the wrapping paper: Use an old newspaper or a paper bag instead. Same goes for a card: Unless it is a private message, write something right on what ever material you wrap the present in.

Do you need a gift for people who already have everything they could ever want? Buy them something from Oxfam. A gift such as soap, purified water, manure, seeds for a garden, a cooking stove, a bicycle, or a dozen chicks will be delivered to somebody in the world who needs it, and your friend will get a card thanking them for their contribution. This kind of gift can be more thoughtful than yet another sweater, and it is a nice way to to contribute to those in need during the holiday season.

In the kitchen and around the house

One of the best things you can do, even though it defies tradition, is to skip the meat (or at least, if possible, buy it from a local organic rancher). Why is this important? Refer back to earlier blogs in this series – Eat Less Meat, and Go Organic. While I wish more people would do this, I do recognize that not everybody will. So, thankfully there are also other, less drastic, measures we can take in the kitchen. For instance, if you are slow roasting something, there is no need to preheat the oven. Also, each time you open the oven door, the oven temperature decreases by about 25 degrees. If you have an oven light, use that instead. When your oven is on, try to fill it up by baking multiple things at once. As long as there is still room for air to circulate, your food will be just as delicious. A helpful hint for stovetop cooking is to match the size of the pan to the size of the burner. According to California’s Consumer Energy Center, using a smaller pan on a larger burner wastes 40% of the energy!

Other hints around the kitchen include only running your dishwasher when it is completely full, and if it has an energy saver mode – use it! Try to limit the amount of times you open and close the refrigerator. Each time that door opens, the fridge needs to work overtime to keep the temperature at its setting.

Do your wallet & the earth a favor...no need to go overboard!

Holiday lights outlining the frames of homes and around the tree are beautiful, and are such a classic mark of the season. They also raise energy bills and are not all that good for the environment. One thing you can do is replace old lights with LED (light emitting diode) bulbs. They are more expensive, but because they are 90% more efficient than your average light bulb, they can start saving you money within the first year of purchase, quickly making up for the upfront costs. Another thing to do is turn off the lights in the day time when it is hard to see them anyway, and put them on a timer at night, so they automatically turn off once everybody has fallen fast asleep.

Happy New Year!

With many New Year’s resolutions in the air, it is a great time to make a commitment to living a greener life. When you think about it, actions that we take during the holiday season can be taken throughout the year. We have so many things to be thankful for, not least for the earth that sustains us. With that gift, comes the responsibility of doing our part to ensure that our families can celebrate for generations to come.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

You CAN teach an old dog new tricks . . .

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2009 |

Las Brisas Energy Center, a proposed pet coke power plant, is still in the midst of a protracted permitting process which most recently has taken the form of a state hearing. Opponents have claimed that projected pollution from the proposed plant has been under-estimated by engineers. Testimony ended in the hearing last Thursday, and closing statements have been ordered by January 22. At this time, the two judges, Craig Bennett and Tommy Broyles, will have 60 days to issue a recommendation to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which will ultimately make the final decision. The hearing ended with testimony from Joseph Kupper, an engineer, who was not able to confirm his calculations concerning the particulate matter projected to come from the plant.

Las Brisas might be seen as one battle in the conflict which has been escalating between the EPA and the current Texas air permitting program.

Dr Al Armendariz was scheduled to give testimony in this hearing on November 6th; however, he did not appear due to his recent appointment as Regional EPA Administrator. Dr Armendariz was appointed by Lisa Jackson just the day before. He most recently was a faculty member at Southern Methodist University in the Environmental/Civil Engineering department and has been an outspoken critic of past EPA oversight in Texas.

Dr Al Armendariz

Now, as concerned citizens, Dr Armendariz claims we should worry that “Texas has allowed big utilities and industry to operate any way they want to for decades.” We hope for the best as Dr Armendariz takes on this job with the EPA, which he is already getting on with – some say that by the end of the month the EPA will most likely “declare that Texas’ air permitting program lacks adequate public participation and transparency.”

The EPA sees three areas in which Texas fails to meet standards:

1) Public participation and transparency, which do not adhere to Clean Air Act regulations.

2) Flexible air permits given to many industrial operations (including the Fayette power plant).

3) Greenhouse gas emissions, recently brought into regulation under the Clean Air Act.

So best of luck, Dr Armendariz. If we let the numbers, facts and models speak for themselves, Texas could certainly be a cleaner place for all.

J Baker

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Externalities of Coal

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , on November 5, 2009 |

Coal has been used by man for several centuries as a means of warmth, transportation (via Watt’s steam engine) and most recently electric power. It is currently used nearly exclusively for the generation of electricity in the US (in 2001: 86% of total US coal production). It has always been claimed that coal makes good economic sense because it is both cheap and abundant (both economic variables).  As for factors that fall outside of this – how do we measure these in an economic sense? Perhaps we should just leave them by the wayside, or dust them under the carpet? Out of sight, out of mind? In this blog, let’s consider some of the external costs of coal.

A report was recently released by the National Academy of Sciences examining the externalities of energy – the hidden costs of the energy we use. It was requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This little statement, found in the executive summary, gets at the heart of what an external cost is:

Modern civilization is heavily dependent on energy from sources such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Yet, despite energy’s many benefits, most of which are reflected in energy market prices, the production, distribution, and use of energy also cause negative effects. Beneficial or negative effects that are not reflected in energy market prices are termed “external effects” by economists. In the absence of government intervention, external effects associated with energy production and use are generally not taken into account in decision making.

Interesting, and perhaps even a bit understated. The point is that externalities exist within our energy-economic system, and by keeping them external they can have fairly serious consequences.

Here are some of the more grave externalities of coal-power, with an illustration to help:

1

Effects of Coal, Alan Morin, taken from "Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal," Clean Air Task Force: http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf

(1) Classical Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), SO2, NOx, as well as other pollutants such as O3, CO, Benzene, Benzo-[a]-pyrene, and a host of other tongue-twisting compounds. These have negative effects on health through cancers, respiratory disorders, and a general decrease in life expectancy. They can also have a negative effect on building materials (acid damage), crops (yield reduction, acid deposition), and ecosystems (eutrophication).

(2) Greenhouse Gas emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, and others. Contributes to climate change.

(3) Direct Environmental Damage: Mountain-top removal mining (MTR), Strip mining, etc. Mining causes irreparable damage to the local land and water resources, and can lead to chemical spills as a consequence of the mining.

(This information was taken from a similar European Report, published in 2003).

The grand total in external coal-induced damages put forward by the report is $62 billion (for 2005). That said; keep in mind the fact that not all coal-fired power plants are created equal. Researchers took data from 406 coal-fired power plants from across the US (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) and produced some notable results. The top 5% in terms of pollution caused damages of over 12 cents (per kWh), whereas the lowest-emitting 5% of the plants caused less than 0.5 cents (per kWh) of damage. That is quite a difference. This diagram illustrates the extreme variation in damages:

3

Damages of Coal and Natural Gas Plants, taken from "Hidden Costs of Energy," report in brief: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/hidden_costs_of_energy_Final.pdf

These numbers take into account neither possible climate change effects, ecosystem damage (such as MTR), nor mercury emissions. The study done by the European Commission did try to include all factors, and as expected found significant costs related to climate change and ecosystem damages. Here is a summary of the external costs produced throughout the energy sector in Germany:

4

Taken from "External Costs," European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf

Looking at the same data, we can see the relative little external costs of wind or hydro power (renewable energy sources).

There is quite a lot of crying these days about subsidies for renewable energy, and how these forms of energy are too costly to be feasible. However, as this report points out, if we were to look at all of the costs of conventional coal power (internal and external) at least we would have a more level playing field. Perhaps then wind, solar and other renewable energy sources would be better able to compete? (This discussion ignores both the fact that coal is a finite resource and that there are huge subsidies given to coal companies each year – other matters altogether).

But the past is behind; let’s see this in light of the future. The US Department of Energy, in their International Energy Outlook of 2009, has predicted that world coal consumption would increase by 49 percent from 2006 to 2030, saying that “coal’s share of world energy consumption increases from 27 percent in 2006 to 28 percent in 2030.”

By continuing to allow the torrid growth of coal in the next two decades, how much more damage will be left out of the equation? You can work out the economics of that one.

J Baker.

 

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Green-up your life! Go Organic.

Posted in Consumers, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , on October 8, 2009 |

By Kirsten Bokenkamp

organic-boxDo you ever find yourself in the grocery store stuck in a moment of indecision?  Should you go with the $2 conventionally grown – flawless enough to win a beauty contest – cantaloupe, or the $4 smaller, uglier, but organic one; a regular tube of toothpaste for $3.50 or the organic brand that costs double the price for half the amount; Wolaver’s sustainably produced organic beer for $9, or good old Lone Star for half the price?  The marketplace sure doesn’t make it easy on our wallets to do the earth-friendly thing – that’s for sure.

True, organic products are almost always more expensive than their conventional counterparts and it is not unanimously agreed upon that they are always safer to eat, or that they offer greater health benefits. But one thing is certain: Organic farming practices reduce harmful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Organic agricultural practices reduce carbon dioxide emissions by sequestering carbon in the soil. In Europe it has been shown that organic farming decreases greenhouse gas emissions by 48-66%.  According to the Rodale Institute, “if all 434 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of eliminating 217 million cars” from the road.  The University of Puget Sound shares similar findings: If all corn and soybeans were raised organically, 580 billion pounds of CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere.
Some argue that we would not be able to feed the almost 7 billion people on the planet with strictly organic practices, but many studies actually show increased yields from organic farming. And, let’s be honest – with more than enough food to feed all people on earth, more than a billion people are still not getting enough food to eat – which leads one to believe it is a problem of distribution and access, not of quantity.  An added bonus of organic farming is that it is more labor intensive, which would help decrease the current rate of unemployment.
But back to the subject at hand. Organic farming:

  • Promotes healthy soil, which reduces erosion and increases soil nutrient retention;
  • Reduces ground water pollution attributed to industrial agricultural practices that often lead to various problems from the threat to public health caused by pesticide ridden water coming out of our kitchen sinks to the dead-zones as seen in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay;
  • Maintains biodiversity which helps crops naturally resist diseases and adapt to different weather patterns;
  • Collects 180% more solar energy than conventional agriculture – which saves 64 gallons of fossil fuel per hectare.

Are you convinced?  If so, start shopping more at an organic-foods store, or ask the manager of your neighborhood store to increase the amount of organic products on the shelves. (While organic is important in and of itself, buying fresh and local will always cut down on carbon emissions.  Frozen foods take 10x the energy to produce, and buying local can cut emissions by up to 20%.)

It doesn’t stop with food,either.  According to the Pesticide Action Network, “conventionally grown cotton uses more insecticides than any other single crop and epitomizes the worst effects of chemically dependent agriculture.  Each year cotton producers around the world use nearly $2.6 billion worth of pesticides — more than 10% of the world’s pesticides and nearly 25% of the world’s insecticides”.  Wow – pretty gross! Luckily, a growing number if stores sell clothes made with organic cotton (Patagonia is a good one).  Don’t have organic clothing stores at your fingertips?  Check out online sources, such as the Organic Mall.  Finding that buying new, organic clothing doesn’t fit in your budget?  Find a thrift store – buying used clothes is even more environmentally friendly than buying organic ones.

As environmentally aware consumers, the more we demand organic goods, the more the market supply will adapt to fulfill our needs, the more inexpensive these products will become, and the happier our planet will be. Think about changing products from your shampoo to your coffee; from your bed sheets to your sunscreen; and from your carrots to your wine.  It all makes a difference.  Next time on Green-up your life: how composting reduces global warming.

Read Full Post »

Green-up your life! Oct 1- Eat less meat.

Posted in Consumers, Global Warming, tagged , , , , on October 1, 2009 |

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is going to be one of our ongoing series on climate change and how we can all make a personal impact.  Since today is World Vegetarian Day, I think this is an appropriate way to kick things off.

With various climate change proposals circulating on Capitol Hill, and the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen right around the corner, we are all reminded that legislative action and global cooperation are needed in order to protect our planet. While it is the responsibility of our leaders to work out an effective agreement, we must not forget that normal people like us can also make a big difference in reducing greenhouse gases. The Green-up your life! blog series will discuss the many ways in which we can all make a difference, just by making small changes in the way we live. Today, it is about what’s for dinner.

Many discussions about climate change are full of scientific jargon and are political in nature, making them hard to follow. We hear about increasing wind and solar power, implementing cap and trade, and reducing industrial carbon emissions. For those of us who want to personally contribute to the effort, we might switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or install solar panels on our homes. In addition to these large (and sometimes expensive) personal changes, there are many little things we can all do on a daily basis to make our planet healthier. One thing we can all do to decrease global warming is not always on the top of the list: eat less meat and dairy.

So, does the agricultural industry really contribute that much to climate change? Yup. Meat production accounts for a whopping 18% of total global greenhouse emissions–more than all forms of transportation put together. About 9% of anthropogenic (read: derived from human activity) carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to agriculture. In addition, methane, the smelly heat-trapping gas emitted from both ends of livestock, warms the world 20% faster than carbon dioxide. Almost 40% of methane in the U.S. is generated from enteric fermentation (which takes place during a ruminant animal’s digestion process) related to animal husbandry. Beyond carbon dioxide and methane, agriculture is responsible for ­65 % of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide only accounts for 5% of total greenhouse gases, but has heat trapping effects 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. More than 37% of the earth’s land is used for agricultural purposes, and as the global demand for meat increases, the creation of more grazing land is a major contributor to deforestation, especially in Latin America, where 70 % of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, with the remaining 30% largely used for growing feed crops.

Beef is the largest culprit, but there are similar stories for all farm animals, including seafood. There is no doubt that agricultural practices contribute to global warming, both directly through emissions created from all levels of production, and indirectly through deforestation. Beyond this, it is just plain inefficient (as tasty as it might be) to get our calories this way. While most grains, fruits, or veggies require 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to create 1 calorie of food, this ratio grows up to 80:1 for beef!

When breaking bad news, honesty is the best policy. Nobody really wants to hear it, (and the agricultural industry most certainly doesn’t want to tell it), but as responsible stewards of our planet, and as daily consumers of food, one of the best things we can do is to eat less meat and dairy products. (Cutting down just on meat, but not dairy, will not make a big difference, because dairy cows burp and produce manure too). The silver lining is that what is better for the earth is also better for our health. Studies show that veggie-based diets decrease the chance of suffering from numerous types of cancers, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. When we do choose to eat meat, buying from local ranchers who raise pasture grazing livestock will ensure that we are limiting our impact on the earth. It appears more expensive to buy meat this way – but not when all the hidden costs are accounted for.

Nobody is asking that we all take up a diet of strictly brussels sprouts and brown rice, but if we all spend a little more time learning about the impact that our food systems have on the planet, a greener diet may just start to look more appealing. Stay tuned for next time, when, sticking to the topic of food, the importance of purchasing organic products will be discussed.

Read Full Post »

Energy Efficiency & East Austin

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, tagged , , , , on July 21, 2009 |

Tomorrow from 8am till noon, Public Citizen and ReEnergize Texas will be at the Rosewood Zaragoza Community Center in East Austin handing out free compact fluorescent focos and registering community residents for free energy efficiency upgrades. ¡Gratis! Free low flush toilets, insulation and windows and doors to keep your hogar cool in the summer and calientito in the winter. Si habla español no se preocupe, Public Citizen estará ahí para ayudarle llenar las formas necesarias. All of these efforts will result in you owning a low flush toilet que conservara agua y su dinero. Also, a house with good insulation will save you money on your facturas de electricidad.

Public Citizen and ReEnergize Texas want y’all to know that there are programs out there right now. Que usted puede ser la diferencia in whether or not we conserve our resources and survive the current economic environment. So come on down bright and early mañana en la mañana and let us help you sign up for these amazing programs.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt-PJayE8vw]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySeOw4j_dJA]

Read Full Post »

South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 |

After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:

1971: Houston Lighting and Power presents proposal for South Texas Nuclear Project, with an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars for the entire project.

1973: Construction begins, with contractor Brown and Root. A $1 billion cost is agreed upon and the first reactor is projected to be finished by 1980 and the second by 1982.

1979: Brown and Root Inspector Dan Swayze gives interview with CBS Magazine, discussing his decision to stop inspecting concrete pours after a 1977 incident at STP in which concrete workers at STP threatened his life and physically assaulted another inspector. “They beat the hell out of him” -Swayze

1979: Estimated costs rise to $2.7 Billion and completion of the reactors is postponed

to 1984 for the first and 1986 for the second.

1979: Three Mile Island accident. San Antonio reevaluates its role in the project.

1980: After 3,000 complaints reports of work deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a report citing 22 violations and fines HL&P $100,000 and issues a “show cause order” requiring the company to explain why the project should be allowed to continue.

1980: HL&P voluntarily stops work after problems are discovered in the welding and concrete. The projected is rated below average by Ralph Nader’s Critical Mass Energy Project. It is ranked among the top 4 worst ongoing projects.

1981: HL&P fires original contractor Brown and Root (who had no previous experience with nuclear reactors) and replaces them with Bechtel Corporation. Estimated completion costs increase to $4.5 billion.

1985: Brown and Root looses a $750 million law suit, filed by Houston Lighting & Power, San Antonio City Public Service, Central Power, Light of Corpus Christi and the city of Austin. At the time this was the largest cash legal settlement in U.S History.

1987: HL&P receives low-power operating license for Unit 1 nuclear reactor.

1988: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts last minute inspection of facility after hundreds of allegations of poor construction, over 50 of which were made by plant workers through the Government Accountability Project. Among the allegations was a claim that roughly 20% of the plant’s safety valves were installed backwards. This was never corrected after it was concluded that the plant could still function with backwards safety valves.

1988: Completion is announced 7 years late and 500% over budget.

1989: City of Austin files lawsuit against Houston Lighting and Power for unexpected expenses and delays during the construction of STP. Texas Court in Dallas Rules in HL&P’s Favor.

Since 1990: STP and other nuclear plants spend an average of $45 million each year disposing of waste. To clarify that is average is per plant.

CPS energy is giving an optimistically low estimate of the total cost of the project.  Estimates that consider the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued STP and similar projects last time  peg the plant at no lower than $17 billion. This look at STP’s history provides a good example of what can happen when we don’t recognize the likely additional expenditures an expensive project like this will have and operate on an unrealistic time frame.  San Antonio is on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, and it is the citizens that will have to pay.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »