Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times

Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times:

There's some good and some bad about this.

We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.

The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.

"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill."  via USA News.

Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.

The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?

Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.

NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.

It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.

Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.

Just saying...

'via Blog this'

Sweden's Prostitution Solution: Why Hasn't Anyone Tried This Before? | Solutions

Sweden's Prostitution Solution: Why Hasn't Anyone Tried This Before? | Solutions:

Here is an novel approach to prostitution. Who do you put in jail/prison, the John or the Jane.

This Swedish approach didn't decriminalize prostitution, which apparently has it's own problems. It totally decriminalized for the prostitute, but criminalized for the John. Read the logic and how surprisingly well it has worked since 1999. Also, what it took to support this change in mindset. And how it virtually eliminates human sex trafficking.

When you take this change in mindset into the laws against drugs, where half of the US prison population is non-violent drug offenders.  Lots of implications for lots of old school crime and punishment.

Hmmm...

'via Blog this'

Sustainability becomes a business law: Organic is more productive

Sustainability becomes a business law:

Two things resurfaced over the last couple days. One is very local to Florida related to Sustainability is the Business Law. It looks at the focus of sustainability from the business view, or from the environmental view; which is the right view. And the answer, of course, is "Yes".  Aiming for a win, win in the business vs. environment tug of war. The old approach of win-lose turns out to be a lose-lose in the long run.

But a separate study by the Rodale Institute, with a 30-year long (and ongoing) study of farming showed organic farming to be a hands-down winner over the mass production methods used in the USA. Actual link to the study is here: http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/

That study knocked my socks off!

Now I gotta go socks shopping for new organically grown socks (bamboo-based
maybe?).

A 30+ year field study on Organic farming vs. non-organic (now including GMOs).

Yields up, resources down (water us and drought tolerance), soil quality, profits up…

WoW!.

And, of course, there is a major move in consumer preferences toward healthier foods and more local grown foods as measured by massive moves by such players as Chipotle’s (CMG) and Whole Foods (WFM)… and against the highly processed foods like McDonalds (McD).

I’m curious what other people think of this study. I wonder how they did several things.

Also, I
could not find the exact publication date. The stats were a year or two behind.

Do you all think that the field study is fully accurate?

'via Blog this'

BIG BP payout settlement of $18.7

BP to Pay $18.7 Billion to Settle Deepwater Horizon Spill Claims http://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-agrees-to-pay-18-7-billion-to-settle-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-claims-1435842739
Put a huge amount of the BP litigation behind it.
This would be the same as all the profits that the company has made since 2012. However the payment schedule is 1.1 million dollars per year.
Yes, BP was pretty irresponsible back then. But it still makes one wonder what if it were not such a big company that can afford to make all of the payments and restitution? If this has been done by a small company, or a non-multinational company, then the whole cost of the oil spill would have gone to governments and individuals.
So, feel free to hate BP, but it could have been a lot worse on the pain and recovery side.

Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance

Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance:

It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.

Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.

One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)

Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.

'via Blog this'

EPA loss in supreme court.

High Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on Mercury Emissions http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-court-strikes-down-epa-limits-on-mercury-emissions-1435590069
The EPA must consider the cost of compliance when coming up with rules. That's what the Supreme Court ruled.
Of course it is hard to estimate the cost of the pollutants, that have been going on for a couple centuries now.
With natural gas being so cheap, and most of the conversions already complete, the whole issue is rather mute point.
But it does set back EPA action on CO2 emissions, where is the coal lobby would like to consider the cost of externalities nonexistent.
Still in the absence of Congress and its inability to do anything, you have the problem of the Fed and the EPA trying to do the heavy lifting.

Growth is always good? No matter the costs!

Saving can be hugely benefiting to all. But it doesn't show up in increased sales and higher GDP.
A bigger, newer SUV is always better...
Hmmmm?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/10/good-natural-malignant-five-ways-people-frame-economic-growth?CMP=share_btn_tw

Sixth mass extinction is here, researcher declares.

Sixth mass extinction is here, researcher declares:

Ouch. It looks like we need to clean up our collective acts. With 41% of amphibians and 26% of mammals on a course for extinction if we don't change our ways.

"To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes:

*Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement

*Introduction of invasive species

*Carbon emissions that drive climate change and ocean acidification

*Toxins that alter and poison ecosystems

Now, the specter of extinction hangs over about 41 percent of all amphibian species and 26 percent of all mammals, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which maintains an authoritative list of threatened and extinct species.

"There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead," Ehrlich said."

'via Blog this'

One of the ongoing roadblocks to full sustainability has been what to do with plastics that are no longer in use.  From the empty prescription bottle that gets thrown in the wastepaper container to the plastic container holding the fish bought at the supermarket, plastic cannot be recycled and is certain to be in landfills forever.  Well, not any more and that is very good news for those who believe in sustainability.  Plastic 2 Oil Inc ( http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/home) in Grand Island, NY, near Niagara Falls has a patent pending process that has been determined to be scale-able for converting plastic to oil with enough recyclable energy to supply part of the energy needed in the process.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that the process can be scaled.  The company has completed its first non-exclusive licensing  of its process to Eco Navigation LLC in Victor, NY.

Visitors to the website should read "$8.9 Billion US Annual Impact" for more information on the potential of the technology.

Plastics 2Oil Inc is listed on the OTC exchange (PTOI)

Fast 10 sustainability leadership tips | GreenBiz

'Fast 10' sustainability leadership tips | GreenBiz:

There are great tips.

I really like the "building a business case" tip.  If you can't build a pretty good business case for something, then it makes a case for change that is usually hard, nearly impossible.

Getting ahead means that you can play offense, not defense.

Langert is from McDonald's so he has had his work cut out for him. When McD has tried to introduce more healthy foods, the consumer usually hasn't been buying it... they go to McDonald's for BIG Mac and fries.

McD really grew sales after the Great Recession. Until 2014, when sales slumped (same-store sales). Consumers have been going for healthier foods like Chipotle.
* Check out the healthier Corner McCafe by McDonald's.
* Is Chipotle really healthier than McDonald's?

It would be interesting to see what Langert recommended for McDonald's. Healthier fair would likely be slower fair, ... and in a few weeks, it won't be there.

That doesn't make Langert's advise any less valuable. But in some places it is a whole lot easier to go more sustainable than in others.

Makes you wonder what Hall and Knab (2012) would suggest related to how these 10 tips fit into the profile of a Sustainable Leader?

Reference

Hall, E., & Knab, E.F. (2012, July). Social irresponsibility provides opportunity for the win-win-win of Sustainable Leadership. In C. A. Lentz (Ed.), The refractive thinker: Vol. 7. Social responsibility, (pp. 197-220). Las Vegas, NV: The Refractive Thinker® Press.
(Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0) 

'via Blog this'