Hydrofracking Poses Serious Concerns

Photo by flickr.com/photos/arimoore/

On February 26th, The New York Times released a front page exposé on the new “gold rush” of natural gas exploration in the United States: Hydrofracking.  Natural gas is a relatively plentiful domestic energy resource and some environmentalists and policy-makers alike have heralded the recent jump in natural gas exploration as a means to curb carbon emissions (natural gas, supposedly, releases less carbon into the atmosphere than fossil fuels like oil and coal).

Nevertheless, the NYTimes article presents a disturbing case against such massive, and oftentimes unregulated, exploration. Hydrofracking, or the injection of water and chemicals under high pressure into rock formations to extract natural gas, can directly impact the quality of groundwater, and inevitably, our drinking water.  Drilling supporters have responded that no contamination of groundwater has been directly linked to the practice, however, the NYTimes reported that the EPA has been aware of the potential risk associated with this technique citing internal documents “from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers [that] show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.”

Potential dangers of hydrofracking include leaked radioactive materials and other drilling wastes, such as corrosive salts and carcinogens, which are inadequately treated before being discharged directly into adjacent rivers that supply drinking water.  Alarmingly, the NYTimes also disclosed a never made public 2009 EPA document that concluded some hydrofracking treatment plants in Pennsylvania could not remove wastewater contaminants and were thus violating the law.  Furthermore, other undisclosed studies by the EPA and a confidential study by the drilling industry found that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be completely diluted via discharge into rivers and other waterways.  Yet, despite these startling findings, the EPA has taken no action to safeguard public water supplies and water sources downstream of hydrofracking wastewater and discharge sites have not been required to test for radioactivity. “In other words,” the NYTimes concludes, “there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.”

To learn more about hydrofracking and action steps, you can watch Gasland or visit the Sierra Club’s hydrofracking group at: http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team.

America’s #1 Demand? Clean Energy.

US Capitol by DC Public Library Commons

In a recent GOOD article, it was noted that a remarkable 83% of Americans want to see legislative support for clean energy projects according to a current Gallup poll; solar and wind energy specifically received greatest mention. This data is especially eye-opening since this percentage tops the list of all other current major American policy agendas, including health care, taxes and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Of course, not all the energy-related responses supported 100% clean, renewable energy — 65% favored an “energy bill that expands drilling and exploration for oil and gas.” A significant percentage of respondents also showed support for both clean energy incentives and expanded fossil fuel extraction, illustrating that climate change, or general environmental concerns, are not as high a priority as energy independence. That said, 83% is a notable level of popular support.  Now, will Congress actually listen to the voice of the American people?  It will be interesting to watch this issue further develop and unfold over the coming months.

MLK, Many Helping Hands, and CEA (photos within)

Over 400 volunteers listen to Lori Landers' introduction.

This year’s Martin Luther King Day saw an event put on by Many Helping Hands at the Central Square YWCA, which brought together over 400 Cambridge volunteers to create blankets and scarves for the homeless, emergency room activity kits for children, valentines for home-bound seniors, and bookmarks for literacy program participants.

The day opened with an introduction by the organizers, and then a single vocalist on stage singing a chill-inducing “River Jordan” before leading the crowd in “This Little Light of Mine,” all a cappella to send them off to work with the right spirit firmly in mind.

The Cambridge Energy Alliance was fortunate enough to have been present for this event, among many other local Cambridge volunteer-seeking groups. In addition to getting connected with volunteers, myself and Meghan Shaw were able to interact with residents: adults were able to ask their energy efficiency questions and sign up to take advantage of their Free home energy assessment, while children (see photos below) had a blast playing our  new energy efficiency game.

This event had a wonderful turn-out, and we look forward to being a part of such impactful gatherings on MLK days in the years to come.

Jesse stands by, waiting for the crowd to arrive after setting up.

Meghan demonstrates the spinner for passersby.

An enthusiastic game contestant conquors our fuel Find & Seek challenge!

Not only did this young man manage to be the first to complete our more competetive math-oriented Find & Seek challenge, but he recruited a handful of friends to try their hand at it!

A particularly proud player, having just completed our Crossword Challenge!

As a nice treat, Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis made a cute Valentine for CEA with white crayon and watercolors. It's a CFL, can you tell?!

Speaking with Climate Change Skeptics

The World Revs its Heat Engine by NASA on The Commons Feel like banging your head against the wall each time you try to discuss climate change with someone you know? Below is a highly valuable blog entry that was spawned from climate change concensus-building expert Larry Susskind‘s participation in a CEA/HEET-sponsored event. Here, Mr. Susskind thoroughly discusses how best to communicate with those who are critical of climate change’s legitimacy. Ultimately you must work around confrontation by facts, to get to the heart of concerns for each conversation partner. If you have been experiencing difficulty communicating with skeptics in your life, this is a blog for you.

From Larry Susskind’s blog, The Consensus Building Approach:

On Wednesday, November 10th, I had an opportunity to speak to a packed room of students and community residents at Harvard College seeking advice on how to talk to climate skeptics. The premise was that students would soon be heading home for Thanksgiving. They were looking for advice on how to talk to family and friends around the holiday table who either don’t believe that global warming is happening, or accept the fact that the climate is getting warmer, but attribute relatively recent temperature changes to natural rather than man-made causes. To get things started, we heard from a local radio talk show host who really is a climate skeptic. He made it very clear that he doesn’t trust Al Gore, is sure that scientists disagree about almost everything (because that’s what science requires), and thinks that anyone who believes that climate change is the result of human activity (rather than cyclical natural phenomena) has been sold a bill of goods.

First, I tried to make clear that seeking to convert “non-believers” is probably a mistake, and is certainly no way to encourage constructive dialogue. Rather, I suggested, the goal of dialogue ought to be to share ideas, advance the cause of mutual understanding, and see what opportunities to reach agreement might exist — in spite of fundamental differences in beliefs or levels of understanding. A number of the students present found this unacceptable. From their standpoint, the threat posed by the continued build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so frightening, they are compelled to convince anyone who doesn’t believe this to admit that they are wrong. These want to repeat and review what the vast majority of atmospheric scientists know to be true — the atmosphere is warming; this is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and methane; this build up is caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels; and the end result will be a worldwide catastrophy — sea level rise that will inundate vast coastal areas, particularly in the developing world; increasing storm intensification the will cause destructive flooding and Katrina-like devastation;increased drought in some areas and increasing numbers of extremely hot days that may cause massive eco-migration; more rapid spread of airborne disease, and irreversible harm to a range of marine and terrestrial species and habitats. The skeptic on the dais with me indicated that scientist can’t possibly know exactly when and where such things will and won’t happen (and he’s right). He also insisted that even if warming is occurring, it is impossible to know for sure whether it is mostly or entirely a man-made or nothing more than a natural phenomenon.

That was my cue. I said I didn’t think that mattered. I urged people interested in engaging in useful conversation with skeptics to shift their conversations to a discussion of risk — to talk about risk and risk management. I used the example of earthquakes. We don’t need to know for sure whether (where and when) an earthquake will occur to seriously consider taking action to minimize its serious adverse effects an earthquake would cause if it does occur. It turns out, we can require construction standards in new buildings that will protect people from collapsing structures. We can even retrofit existing buildings to make them more earthquake proof (although this comes at a cost). While there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to reduce the odds of an earthquake occurring, there are lots of things we can do (including organizing and practicing emergency relief efforts) to save lives and reduce misery and reconstruction costs when earthquakes do occur. Even if the majority of scientists are right — that if we don’t reduce to 350 – 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents in the next fifty years the worst effects of global warming will be impossible to correct, we won’t be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough over the next three decades to mitigate the effects of global warming. So, given the chance that the many thousands of scientists around the world who study these issue might be right, we could look for things to do that will reduce the disastrous effects if climate change is, in fact, occurring. And, if we could find things that also serve to achieve other laudable objectives (that help almost everyone), why would anyone be opposed to that?

So, I suggested reframing the discussion around what is called adaptation. If we can switch to energy sources that don’t involve the burning of fossil fuels, but instead rely on infinite energy sources like sunlight, wind, ocean waves, biofuels and the flow of fresh water, we may be able to simultaneously reduce the adverse effects of climate change (if it does occur), decrease our country’s dependence on imported oil and gas, dramatically reduce the health dangers to human beings, minimize the ecological damage caused by air and water pollution and the degradation of surface lands, and create more jobs in our own country. This would be a “no-regrets” response to the possibility of climate change. Similarly, if we can help every household reduce the amount of electricity it wastes (especially at peak times), we can eliminate the need to build new power plants, thereby reducing everybody’s electricity rates and saving all consumers money. Even if the risks are not fully predictable, a shift to renewable energy (especially if planned in a way that compensates anyone who suffers any losses in the short term as a result of the shift), would be a more desirable way to proceed. If you think about each component of climate change risk, it should be possible to brainstorm adaptive responses that minimize the chances of serious harm to the public and to the environment while simultaneously improving the economy, and enhancing social well-being. That’s what you want to ask skeptics to think about. Ask them to join you in various “thought experiments:”

“Whatever you think the chances are that a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, and that such increases will trigger a host of dangerous and costly consequences, can we brainstorm cost-effective ways to reduce the harm that would occur if the worst happens and achieve a host of other benefits at the same time?”

Improved emergency preparedness in cities will help if flooding of the sort that occurred in New Orleans happens more often. (Increased storm intensity is one of the presumed effects of climate change.) It will also help cities whether any kind of natural or man-made emergency. Almost every city could do more at a modest cost to update and practice its emergency response procedures.

Investments in expensive transportation, wastewater treatment and other municipal infrastructure should probably be made greater consideration for the possibility of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion into fresh water marshes, and increased storm intensity. It would be crazy to be in a position of having to pay off infrastructure bonds long after a facility is no longer useable because we didn’t think twice about climate change risks. Instead, by factoring the risks associated with climate change into infrastructure planning, safer locations or new designs for new facilities might be selected.

As we think about the possibility of a lot more hot days (over 95 degrees farenheit) every summer, what improvements might we make in public and elderly housing that would help people without air conditioning survive? It should be possible to design or retrofit public housing units and to add trees and plantings to keep these units cooler. It should also possible to designate public cooling centers along with ways of helping the disabled get to these locations during a heat wave. Many lives could be saved. These are things worth figuring out regardless of whether anyone is sure that the increase in the number of hot summer days over the past decade was caused by climate change. People died in Chicago two summers ago because of what is now called “the heat island effect.”

When you getting into brainstorming sessions with skeptics, avoid asking yes or no questions. Instead ask “when, where and how” questions. How could we reduce certain risks while accomplishing other worthwhile goals? When we have the information in hand, and the public dialogue that follows could look at the full range of costs and benefits (and I don’t just mean in dollar terms) what kinds of choices might be made? People with very different views about what climate change science allows us to know might still agree on useful steps to take to reduce the risks associated with climate change because these same activities would help them achieve other things they see as important.

Don’t personalize these discussions. Focus on outcomes that would respect everyone’s principles. Talk to people you disagree with in the same way you would like to have them talk to you.

Don’t paint people into corners by saying something like: “Since science knows Fact A to be true, then you must agree that everyone ought to take Action 1.” That will just provoke a counter-attack arguing that there must be someone (somewhere on the web) who disagrees wit Fact A. Moreover, everyone who agrees that Fact A is true will not agree that only Action 1 is the logical thing to do. Instead, ask “Forget for a moment whether Fact A is true or not. What are things that people who don’t necessarily agree about Fact A would suggest are worth doing for a variety of reasons?

Cambridge Switches to Single-Stream Recycling

On October 25, Cambridge is switching to single-stream recycling. Also called zero-sort recycling, this method allows residents to throw all recyclables into one bin, rather than separating paper and cardboard from plastic, glass, and metal. It’s a method that’s already been adopted by many urban areas worldwide, with great results. To find out more about it, I talked to Randi Mail, recycling director for the City of Cambridge.

What are the benefits of single-stream recycling?

Single-stream means that residents can mix clean bottles and cans, paper, and cardboard together in the same bin, so people don’t have to sort recycling anymore. Across the country, communities have seen that when you don’t require sorting, you get a lot more participation. It makes it easier for people. We’re also switching to a different type of truck that can take any size cardboard, so people won’t have to cut their cardboard or flatten it down to three feet by three feet, which is a huge reason why a lot of cardboard in Cambridge doesn’t make it into the recycling truck.

There are also going to be new materials that are going to be accepted as part of the single-stream program: empty pizza boxes; big plastic items like laundry baskets, buckets, plastic toys; spiral cans like those that potato chips, coffee, or nuts come in; and empty paper coffee cups.

The city is going to be providing large recycling toters on wheels to all residences. Providing a bigger container also increases the amount recycled. Sometimes when people’s bins fill up, the rest goes in the trash. So the bigger the bin, the more recycling we’ll get. The toters are easier to move to the curbs; they don’t require lifting. I think the sidewalks are going to be clearer, and the trucks themselves will be safer because they’re going to empty those toters into the back of the truck, rather than over the top. There are a lot of different benefits, from minimizing the trash to cleaning up the streets and just making it easier for people to participate.

How much do you expect recycling to increase?

Cambridge has a pretty high recycling rate already, at about 35%. That includes yard waste, electronics, and food waste that we collect through our composting program. We are expecting between a 10% and 25% increase in recycling tons. We’ve worked with the state to project what the increase will be, and they believe that we’re going to see a 25% increase. We hope to see at least 10%. If we achieve more than that, it will be fantastic.

Have other towns seen increased recycling rates?

Yes. The City of Boston has switched neighborhood by neighborhood—they’ve just finished up—and they are looking at almost doubling their recycling rate across town. Communities in Massachusetts and across the country, like Newton and Worcester, Everett and Chelsea, Quincy and Framingham, every one is seeing a huge increase. You definitely see more when you give out the large toters; some communities have not given those out and they don’t see as big of a jump.

Do you think contamination is going to rise with single-stream recycling?

As always, bottles and cans must be emptied and rinsed out. No food waste is accepted. As long as people are recycling correctly, there shouldn’t be any increase in contamination. It’s not acceptable now, and it’s not going to be acceptable in the single-stream program. If recycling bins have trash, food waste, or other unacceptable items, drivers have the ability to reject them by leaving an orange sitcker. We try to be proactive about educating residents when they’re not recycling properly, to make sure they know what to do right the next week.

Cambridge recycling is pretty clean overall. Our processor is Casella Recycling, they’re based in Charlestown, and they consistently report to us that we have no more than 3% contamination, which is very low, and they’re able to handle that. They’ve told us that we’re probably the cleanest load in the Boston area, and they take from about 50 communities.

Clean recycling is important because the material is marketed to companies that use new products. Good education and immediate feedback to the residents is key. Casella won’t accept loads with more than 7% contamination, that’s part of our contract, and our drivers don’t want to get their trucks rejected, because that causes problems and delays.

The first quality check is the education of residents, because if people know what to recycle, they’re not going to put the wrong stuff in the bins. The second check is when the drivers can reject the bins. And then the third check is at the recycling facility, where there’s sorting going on with different technologies and people. They’re sorting that material and selling it back to markets, so contamination isn’t acceptable. They’ll remove that stuff, whether it’s trash or dirty recycling.

How much is this whole process costing the city?

We’re looking at about $700,000 to purchase toters for 1-5 unit buildings, and the recycling collection contract is increasing a little bit, but really it’s going to present a savings to the city overall, because the more that we recycle, the more the city saves. There’s about a $60 difference between the cost to throw a ton of waste out versus the cost to recycle a ton, so with an increase in recycling we’re going to see disposal savings.

How long will it be until the savings makes up for the outlay?

A few years, definitely, but long term, the city is committed to recycling. And overall, especially with the new vehicles, I think it’s going to make things a lot easier for residents. There are different ways to try to increase recycling, and we’ve decided that single-stream is going to be the one way that we definitely can do. Other communities have implemented pay-as-you-throw systems, where residents pay for each bag of trash that they throw out. That really hasn’t been a program that the city has been able to consider seriously. It’s difficult to implement with so many multi-family units, and I don’t think there’s the political will for that kind of program. By making recycling easier and providing bigger containers, I think we’re going to see the kind of jump in participation that we’re looking for.

What’s happening to the old bins?

People can continue to use the bins inside their houses if they want to fill them up and then empty them in the toters, which would be kept outside. If not, we’re going to be collecting bins at the curb the day after collection through November. There may be broken bins that we recycle, but the other ones we’ll clean, and those will be available to people who are going to continue to use bins.

There are basically three options for recycling come October 25. We’re going to be providing toters to residents. If they feel that they don’t need them or can’t fit them on their property, they have other options. People can convert a trash can for recycling, and we have stickers that people can put on their cans similar to the yard waste program. And the third option, which is really the last resort, is continuing using the small bins.

There are two sizes of toters. Single-family homes are going to get one small, 65-gallon toter. That’s the equivalent of 3 ½ bins. Two-family homes are going to get two small toters, and three- to five-unit buildings are going to get two large toters. Those are 95 gallons, and they can fit the equivalent of over 5 bins. The amount of recycling that we see out of households is definitely going to increase because cardboard’s going to be much easier, and we’re taking those large plastics, so they’re going to take up more space.

If people want to change the size of their toter, they need to contact us by September 1 at recycle@cambridgema.gov or 617-349-4815, when we’re going to be putting the order in. We’ve heard from almost 400 households who want to go bigger, go smaller, or share a bin with a neighbor.

Cross-posted on pragmaticenvironmentalism.com

Human body: Enough phosphorous for 2200 matches and…

Bisphenol_A by marcospozo…lots of unsavory chemicals according to the latest biennial National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals from the CDC. One finding that is getting a lot of attention is that 90% of the people assayed had the endocrine disruptor Bisphenol-A (BPA) in their systems. Many of you are probably aware that BPA can be found in polycarbonate bottles and some canned goods, especially those of acidic foods such as tomato paste where it is used in corrosion prevention coatings. A less obvious route of exposure? Many cash register and ATM receipts from thermal printers are covered in BPA which may deeply penetrate the skin in casual contact.

Celebrate (bio)diversity

Snail darter Amidst continuing reports of species loss, both high-profile exotic beasts and domestic it’s easy to forget that, all creatures great and small are threatened by our heedless exploitation of nature, not only the charismatic mammals. One of the most famous examples is the humble snail darter (right).

Consequently, the US Senate recently declared that Friday, May 21 Endangered Species Day. Celebrate by visiting the zoo or aquarium, and perhaps savoring a (farmed) buffalo burger… an animal we pushed to near extinction but with careful stewardship have brought back from the brink.

The Economics of Climate Change

Paul Krugman Talk by TaekwonweirdoLooking past the exciting technical, legislative and community advancements made to address climate change over the last few years, lies the reality of whether we as a society will make the necessary changes in energy use, lifestyle choices and investment decisions in time to avoid the most catastrophic global warming scenarios.

In last weekend’s New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman examined the question that could fatally delay the steps necessary to reduce the impact of climate change. It’s the question that many of the people running our government and global corporations are now pondering, “Is it good for business?” Photograph by Yoshikazu Nema; Artwork by Yuken Teruya

Even when people accept the reality of climate change, there is some legitimate debate on how fast and how hard the truly negative effects of global warming will visit us. So Krugman quickly takes the argument past the philosophical diatribe conducted by climate deniers and examines first how business plans for any other crisis. He identifies the best and worse case economic effects on GDP if we make drastic cuts in CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the very worst that could happen is a 3% drop in GDP that would likely soon be made up through the manufacture and marketing of the technical solutions and products necessary to live in a low-carbon emissions world.

Krugman then makes an attempt to predict the impact on the world economy if the effects of global warming produce the disastrous changes in climate and weather patterns that scientists predict will come true by the middle of the century. Suffice to say, a 3% decline in GDP would be the least of our troubles.

Like me, it might take you a couple of days to get through the article and ponder the consequences of Krugman’s predictions. It’s well worth your time-both for how well it shines a light on the decision-making processes of our legislative and business leaders, and because the facts may come in handy for debating colleagues who believe ‘the business of America is business’.