Green Counsel

Eating Oil and Passing Gas

If you thought the food chain's biggest contribution to climate change was the methane emitted from animals, guess again. It turns out that approximately 20% our fossil fuel consumption goes toward feeding ourselves. According to Michael Pollan, author of the excellent new book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," the most worrisome aspect of the current U.S. food system is its reliance on fossil fuels.

Pollan says that this happens in three places. First, farms use enormous quantities of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which is made from natural gas and a great deal of electricity.

Second, commodity crops (such as corn, soybeans and wheat) are processed so intensely that we add seven calories of fossil-fuel energy for every one calorie of food produced. According to Pollan, "It's a very intensive process to take the corn and turn it into the high-fructose corn syrup, or take the corn and turn it into the chicken, and the chicken into the Chicken McNugget. As we move further away from eating food to eating highly processed, complicated food products -- as we move from yogurt to Go-GURT -- it takes more energy, and more energy in the packaging."

Third, our food arrives from all around the world and in the United States travels an average of 1,500 miles before it arrives at our plate.

An Interview with Michael Pollan appear on Grist. Or listen to Tery Gross's interview with Michael Pollan on Fresh Air.

"Talking 'bout My (Distributed) Generation"

Several years ago, I attended a conference about renewable energy at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The City Bar is a great granddaddy of a bar association -- housed in a beautiful but stodgy old building with many of its members hailing from the largest and oldest law firms in New York -- and I was pleased that the City Bar was so forward-thinking to have a conference on renewables.

The conference, however, was immediately disappointing; it was mostly about financing and siting issues relating to large wind projects, with almost nothing about solar, distributed generation or energy efficiency -- the things I was most interested in.

Upon reflection, the reasons were obvious. Clearly, large wind projects were moving forward and law firms wanted the legal work. But beyond that, why is large wind moving forward faster in the U.S. than other renewables? Is it solely that large wind technology is inherently better and more cost efficient than other renewables? Is it a quirk of nature that large wind is more efficient than solar? Or is something else going on?

Whatever technical advantages large wind may have, one major institutional factor favoring large wind is that it fits the model of traditional electricity generation. Although large wind has great environmental benefits, from an energy and economic perspective it is similar to coal, natural gas and nuclear. The power is generated in large facilities and transmitted through the electric grid to consumers. Large wind is financed, sited, developed, and implemented almost identically to how the energy business has been conducted for years by utilities, governments, lenders and lawyers.

By contrast, distributed generation -- where energy is produced at the point of use and every home and business can be an energy producer -- is revolutionary and threatening to those who benefit from the current infrastructure. For that reason (and others), it doesn't receive the same favor from governments as coal, natural gas and nuclear, and is resisted by utilities and other entrenched interests. This is one reason why, for example, utilities in the United States are almost universally against improved net metering laws (that allow locally generated electricity to be put back into the grid). Utilities claim there are "safety" issues, but there doesn't appear to be evidence of danger, and the real reason appears to be that distributed generation is threatening to utilities' income base and method of doing business.

The benefits of distributed generation are great: a more stable grid, more energy security, more efficiency, elimination of transmission costs and waste, and more possibilities for use of renewables such as solar and small wind. Fortunately, the institutional barriers against distributed generation can be largely overcome by good government policies and sufficient incentives to get the industry started, as evidenced by German and Japan. New Jersey and California have made signficant strides, and the province of Ontario just implemented a "Standard Offer Contract" (similar to feed-in tariffs in Germany).

All the states and the federal government need to implement similar programs so that the next City Bar program on renewables will focus on legal issues relating to distributed generation.

NY's Abuzz with Green Energy

Interesting energy news from NY's top elected officials yesterday:

1) AG and gubernatorial heir apparent Elliot Spitzer laid out a campaign energy policy calling for funding for low-income residents and businesses to make their buildings more energy efficient, and called for a complete audit of New York's energy use; and

2) Times' columnist Maureen Dowd noted that Hillary "Ozone Woman" Clinton gave a "wonkish speech" on cellulostic ethanol, low sulfur diesel, biomass liquid fuel bases, "feebate" tax incentives, CO2 sequestration, hybrids, RPS, continuous reheat furnances, Brazilian ethanol, Danish windpower and Kyoto targets ("and you thought she was incomprehensible on health care.")

And no less than three out of four op-eds today in the NY Times, plus a whole stack of letters to the editor, related to global warming and renewables. Favorite quote from K.R. Sridhar in Thomas Friedman's column: "It's time for government to use its buying power when buying power."

Can Public Companies Be Truly Green?

Jeff from Sustainablog will be hosting a a Green Business Chat tonight from 930-11pm EDT (630-8 PDT), and the topic will be "Green Business: Is Bigger Better?" Among other things, there will be discussion about what the the new green initiatives of GE, Wal-Mart and Ford mean for sustainability, and what do they mean for smaller start-up green businesses?

One interesting legal question, especially for public companies, is whether they can have a strong green ethic and simultaneously protect the interests of their shareholders (as they are required legally to do)? What happens when the shareholders' interests conflict with sustainability concerns? In order to be truly green, do we need laws that mandate that corporations "act green," or do corporations need to explicitly spell out their green ethic in their corporate charter?

If you want to participate in the chat, contact Jeff for an invite.

Great Hudson River Revival Festival

For those of you who aren't familiar with Clearwater, one of the nation's first environmental organizations, it does environmental education, enviromental advocacy, and sails the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater -- a beautiful replica of an 18th century Dutch work sloop. Clearwater began in 1966, when a handful of Hudson Valley residents, including Pete Seeger, came together "believing that by learning to care for one boat on one river, the public could come to care for all our threatened waterways."

I've been a Clearwater board member for nearly three years, and Clearwater's staff, board and members are all committed to reinvigorating not just the Hudson River, but our entire natural environment. Perhaps Clearwater's greatest quality is its love for celebration, and each year in June, it hosts the Great Hudson River Revival Festival on the banks of the Hudson in Westchester County just north of New York City.

This year's festival is June 17 and 18 in Croton Point Park and features music, crafts, storytelling, family stages and environmental expositions. Performers include: Guy Davis, John Gorka, Janis Ian, Lucy Kaplansky, The Mammals, Holly Near, and Michelle Shocked.

This year, Pete Seeger will be featured on the Main Stage, when he will share seven decades as a singer, songwriter and activist. In light of the release of the Bruce Springsteen's "Seeger Sessions" this year, Pete undoubtedly will perform some of his songs that were recorded by Springsteen. You can hear Pete's original Seeger sessions by going here and clicking on Pete Seeger.

For tickets to the Clearwater festival, go here.

Also, here's an interview with Pete Seeger on Living on Earth rebroadcast several weeks ago in connection with release of the "Seeger Sessions."

Blogs Against the Empire

Call me paranoid.

After September 11, I became active in the efforts to close the two Indian Point nuclear reactors in Westchester County, NY. Having seen the impossible two blocks from my office in lower Manhattan, I imagined the unthinkable at the plant, near my home, just 40 miles from Ground Zero in the most densely populated region of the country (20 million people within 50-mile radius of the plant).

Others were paranoid too, realistic even. The Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC), a coalition of more than 70 groups, formed to close the plant and promote safe and renewable energy. In his State of the Union address in January 2002, President Bush said that diagrams of U.S. nuclear plants had been found with terrorists in Afganistan. IPSEC rallied support from citizens and officials in the Hudson Valley, NYC, Connecticut, and New Jersey; 52 municipalities, 13 community boards, and over 400 public officials (including 11 members of Congress), have called for the closure of Indian Point. A report commissioned by NY State in 2002 and conducted by former FEMA head James Lee Witt and Associates concluded that the Evacution Plan's "system and capabilities . . .are not adequate to . . .protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point." Hardly a suprise to anyone who's tried to escape from Westchester during rush hour, even without a radiation release.

Entergy, the owners of the plant, felt threatened. Their income -- reportedly $2.3 million per day -- was at risk. What do large corporations do when their core business is at risk from political and public pressure? They turn on the public relations machine, and Entergy has used all the tricks. They:

1) Hired PR powerhouse Burson-Marstellar, best known for defending Union Carbide after Bhopal, as well as human rights violations by totalitarian regimes around the world;
2)Spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbying (see this report by Common Cause and this article,"Radioactive Money 2005," by Daniel Wolff);
3) Hired 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani as a security consultant even though he had no expertise in nuclear reactor security;
4) Sponsored forums, contributed to various charities, and began massive advertising campaign including NY Yankees radio targeting general public -- even though consumers do not buy directly from Entergy;
5) Created a phony "grass roots" campaign using a front group that was targeted at black, hispanic and low-income communities;
6) Removed "nuclear" from the plant's name and began calling it the "Indian Point Energy Center" (not suprising from an industry that calls nuclear power "clean" even though it creates perhaps the most toxic waste on the planet); and
7) Claimed the plant was "safe" even though it has been plagued with safety issues since it went online in the 70's, and it currently has radioactive leaks from unknown sources.
(For more details on Entergy's public relations efforts on Indian Point, see this excellent article by Riverkeeper's Lisa Rainwater van Suntum)

* * *

So last week, I blogged a story about a new solar panels on Town Hall and a Green Energy Fair in the Town of Greenburgh, where I live. The Town and people of Greenburgh have been extremely supportive of the efforts to close the plant. I posted the story also last Tuesday to the several listservs for people interested in closing the nuclear plant (which apparently have some Entergy molelurkers). On Wednesday, I looked at my web tracking software and I noticed a curious notation:

"(Entergy Corporation)
Arkansas, Russellville, United States, 0 returning visits
10th May 2006 09:58:37 AM nylawline.typepad.com/greencounsel/
[Arriving From:] www.alltheweb.com/search?advanced=1&cat=web&jsact=&_stype=norm&type=phrase&q=stephen filler&itag=crv&_b_query=&l=en&ics=utf-8&cs=utf8&wf%5Bn%5D

Hmmm, apparently someone from an Entergy Corporation office in Arkansas (their headquaters are there) had used my name as search parameters from the "Alltheweb.com" search engine.

I also had sent my post about the Greenburgh Energy Fair as a letter to the editor to the Journal News, the local Gannett paper that has devoted a large amount of coverage, editorials, and letters on Indian Point over the years. I was told that on Thursday my letter would run, and so it did. The Journal News posts letters on line, and when I found mine, in small print on the left part of the screen, I smiled. But then I saw it, the large lumbering animated gif to right (you can see it to the right and above, on this page right now) drawing it's attention away from my words, just telling me, assuring me, italically insisting how safe I feel (if you visit the site, you may have to "refresh" a few times to see it, the ads alternate).

Coincidence? Well, I don't think Entergy targeted my specific letter to the editor, but they know that the letters to the editor section has had dozens, maybe hundreds, of letters from people who want the plant closed. Clearly Entergy is placing their ads in places that might negate the sentiment of the writers.

So how about it, now that you know more, do you feel safer? Or is really time to renew the xanax prescription?

IPSEC is gathering forces to stop Entergy’s anticipated bid to re-license Indian Point for an additional 20 years. To contribute, write letters, or join the efforts, go here.

Silence . . . and The End of Self-Sustaining Existence

Two Items from today's NY Times editorials:

The Times had an editorial today relating to yesterday's fascinating page 1 story about nearly 80 members of the Nukak hunter-gatherer tribe who walked out the jungle and "renounced their ancestral ways." It's unclear why they left -- perhaps the jungle had become less habitable because of coca farmers or marxist guerrillas. As the Times editorilized: "In one sense there has never been a better time for a people like the Nukak to leave the wild. They'll find medical care, sustenance and a genuine attempt at cultural respect that would have been impossible years ago. Yet the fact that they're leaving suggest how much their world -- and ours - has been impaired. . . .The Nukak have every right to make this decision for themselves. But it's hard to escape the feeling that their self sustaining existence -- which went almost entirely unnoticed by the rest of the world -- was holding something open for us, something that has now been lost." (See also a multi-media presentation of the story here.)

A separate editorial concerning former Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal who died this week quoted him: "When something is going on, silence is a lie."

Does Your Town Hall Have Solar Panels?

Ours does! This Saturday, May 13, 2006, the Town of Greenburgh, NY (in Westchester County), will have an Energy Conservation Fair when, among other things, they will celebrate the Town Hall's new solar photovoltaic (PV) system.

The PV system is the product of several key decisions demonstrating the best in state and local government. First, several years ago the State of New York won a law suit against a Virginia utility for acid rain from coal plants, and NY Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Elliot Spitzer negotiated that $2.1 million of the settlement would go to New York to install solar energy equipment on government-owned buildings in the state. The fund is administered by the New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which made the money available by grant to local governments.

Paul Feiner, the Greenburgh Town Supervisor pushed the Town to apply for a grant, and after some opposition and wrangling, he succeeded in getting the project funded and completed. Greenburgh is one of twelve municipalities from New York State that are using this fund to develop solar projects. One of the goals of the NYSERDA funding was to create high visibility projects, and the Town hopes that as a result "businesses and residents will be motivated to pursue solar panels and other energy alternatives at their homes/businesses."

Greenburgh is a clean energy leader for other reasons as well: it has appointed one of the country's few local energy conservation coordinators, Nikki Coddington; and several years ago Greenburgh became the first locality in New York to require new dwellings to comply with New York Energy Star guidelines, ensuring considerably less energy use.

Coddington has organized this weekend's energy fair that will feature exhibitors and speakers to help residents learn about saving energy, energy audits, solar energy, biodiesell, hybrid vehicles, ride-sharing programs, green construction, and buying green power from wind and hydro. The Greenburgh Library is planning to take advantage of geothermal (earth energy) technology when they expand the library.

For more info on the Energy Fair, see the press release.

No Big Boxes in My Back Yard

The New Rules Project Institute for Local Self-Reliance reports on three recent developments where localities have succeeded in keeping out big box stores:

1) A California appeals court upheld (against a challenge by Walmart) a local ordinance that banned supercenters on the grounds that the ordinance was reasonably related the city's efforts to maintain stores throughout the community to support neighborhoods, and to avoid excessive driving and air pollution. (Anti-Supercenter Ordinance Upheld).

2) A Montana County unanimously adopted a 60,000-square-foot size store cap following a public hearing (Crowd of 1,400 Turns Out as Montana County Bans Big Boxes).

3) A Maine town adopted a 35,000 sq. ft. limit in an election that may have been the largest turn-out in the town's history, and three nearby towns are considering similar legislation (Damariscotta, Maine, Rejects Wal-Mart and Endorses Size Cap).  The ordinance was enacted in spite of a study, issued two weeks before the election, that was comissioned by the town and paid for by Wal-Mart, and concluded that the supercenter would be a boon to the local economy and would raise wages in both the retail and non-retail sectors. The citizens group supporting the ordiance quickly issued two rebuttals to the study, one produced by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

"Reality has a well-known Liberal bias"

Take a look at Stephen Colbert's roast of our President at the White House Correspondent's Dinner:

www.thankyoustephencolbert.org