You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 17th, 2009.
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent – Thu Jul 16, 5:00 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice to help scientists study the impact of climate change, within hours of a recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences.
In an unusually fast move by a U.S. government agency, the Interior Department made the images public on Wednesday. The academy’s report urging this action was released at 11 a.m. on Wednesday.
Some 700 images show swatches of sea ice from six sites around the Arctic Ocean, with an additional 500 images of 22 sites in the United States. The images can be seen online at http://gfl.usgs.gov/.
Changes in the Arctic affect global climate, since the Arctic region acts as an “air conditioner” for the planet.
The Arctic images have a resolution of about 1 yard (1 meter), a vast improvement on previously available pictures of sea ice, said Thorsten Markus of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
“These are one-meter-resolution images, which give you a big picture of the summertime Arctic,” Markus said on Thursday. “This is the main reason why we are so thrilled about it. One meter resolution is the dimension that’s missing.”
The next-best resolution for images of Arctic sea ice is 15 to 30 meters, Markus said by telephone. This risks missing small features that can have a big impact on warming in the area.
SMALL PUDDLES, BIG IMPACT
For example, during the summer months, pools of melted water form on top of Arctic ice floes, and these puddles can stretch across 30 meters. The water in the puddles is dark and absorbs heat, as opposed to the white ice all around them, which reflects heat.
Knowing about these melt pools is valuable to producing models of what might happen in the Arctic in the future, but with images that have a resolution of 30 meters or so, these pools might well be missed. While individual puddles are small, collectively they cover about 30 percent of the Arctic.
“The (forecasting) models do well at capturing the overall sea ice cover in the Arctic,” Markus said. “But there are certain processes that we cannot adequately model yet, mainly … because we don’t have enough data.”
Markus said the public release of these images was “a huge surprise — I expected after the report, months could go by until somebody moved.”
“That doesn’t happen every day,” said a person familiar with the government’s decision. “This is a great example of good government cooperation between the intelligence community and academia. In the science community, we call it a no-brainer.”
The images were derived from classified images made as part of the Medea program, which lets scientists request spy pictures from environmentally sensitive locations around the globe.
Medea scientists asked for intelligence images of Arctic sea ice during the summer melting season, but these were considered unsuitable for public release. Images suitable for release were made, but were not made public until now.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/ts_nm/us_climate_arctic_images
SEATTLE – July 16, 2009
Seattle City Light is actively pursuing opportunities to purchase up to 50 Megawatts of new renewable energy.
If successful, such purchases will help City Light on its way to meeting the new, renewable energy requirements of voter-approved Initiative 937. The initiative requires large utilities in Washington to have renewable energy resources developed after 1997 make up at least 15 percent of their energy portfolios by 2020.
Such purchases also support the city’s Climate Action Now Initiative, which seeks to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions tied to climate change.
“Seattle City Light is committed to providing low-cost, reliable, environmentally responsible electricity to meet the needs of our customers,” Superintendent Jorge Carrasco said. “We look forward to hearing from the generators of new renewable energy resources who can help us continue to achieve that goal and hit the targets set by I-937.”
The 50 Megawatts of renewable energy City Light is targeting could come from one large project, several smaller projects or from a purchase of renewable energy credits.
City Light’s preference is to acquire new renewable energy resources that meet the baseload needs of our commercial, industrial and residential customers. This search will be by competitive bid, not least cost, which means the shape, capacity, seasonality and other factors associated with the energy resources will be considered. A request for proposals released this month outlines the municipally owned utility’s specifications and acquisition process. It is available at http://www.seattle.gov/light/News/RFI_RFP/rfp_ra.asp and on the city’s e-bid Web site at https://www.ebidexchange.com/Default.aspx?cid=eb31bf6e-250d-4d1d-abfb-37cb20108045 .
City Light already contracts for renewable energy with several providers, including wind energy, biomass and landfill gas.
In 2005, City Light became the first large utility in the United States to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It remains the only large utility in the country to reach that status.
Seattle City Light is the ninth largest public electric utility in the United States. It has the lowest cost customer rates of any urban utility, providing reliable, renewable and environmentally responsible power to nearly 1 million Seattle-area residents.
Source: http://www.energycentral.com/news/en/13005828/Seattle-City-Light-Seeks-New-Renewable-Energy-Resources?
Jul 16 – Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.
Crouched in a dusty crawl space, Angelo Romano jammed a piece of fluffy orange insulation between two floor joists under an old single-family home in Englewood, his face flushed with exertion.
It’s a far cry from the job Romano, 58, left 18 months ago, as a network processor for New York-based Con Edison, to find a new trade.
Yet his shift, to sealing homes for Hackensack-based Bergen County Community Action Program, puts him at the forefront of a trend toward “green” jobs championed by politicians, unions and businessmen alike.
A growing number of advocates, among them Governor Corzine and President Obama, believe that energy efficiency and renewable energy could not only help the environment but replace jobs lost in the recession.
Critics, however, say that’s an expensive and unproven way to create jobs that will destroy jobs in other sectors, and in many cases will be little more than putting a green veneer on existing trades.
“If you spend a billion dollars, sure you will create jobs,” said William T. Bogart, an economic professor and dean of York College of Pennsylvania. “The question is, on net, how many?
At issue are jobs that protect the environment, reduce energy use or curb greenhouse gas emissions. By most definitions, they fall into two categories: those that save energy and money by “weatherizing” buildings; and jobs that create renewable energy by solar, wind, geothermal or other means.
At present, energy efficiency jobs outnumber renewal energy jobs by almost 20-to-1, according to a recent Rutgers University report. But the ratio is expected to narrow to about 5-to-1 in the next two decades.
Corzine’s energy master plan calls for New Jersey to create 20,000 green jobs by 2020, part of an effort to reduce the state’s energy use by 20 percent over that period.
Obama’s stimulus package, which is expected to create more than 500,000 green jobs, includes nearly $200 million for green programs in New Jersey.
But how much that will boost the state’s economy is unclear, as are the number of jobs and the skills needed to do them. The most optimistic estimates of green job creation pale next to the 160,000 New Jersey jobs lost since the recession started.
“Right now, we are in a period where people are sculpting fog when it comes to green jobs,” said Jennifer Cleary, a senior project manager at Rutgers University’s John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, who studies the green job sector.
“Green jobs alone will only replace a portion of the large numbers of jobs lost in the construction, renewables and manufacturing sectors in recent years,” she said.
The lack of clarity is partly due to the relative newness of the idea of the green industry as an economic stimulant. It’s also because the outcome rests on so many variables, such as state and federal energy policies, the amount of green-targeted public investment and how property owners respond to incentives.
Estimates of the potential size of the green sector vary widely. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, estimated New Jersey could add 57,000 jobs by investing $3.2 billion in public and private money on transportation, saving energy and other measures.
The Blue Green Alliance, a union-environmentalist partnership, last week predicted New Jersey could create more than 17,500 jobs if the nation required one-quarter of all energy to be renewable energy by 2025.
But Bogart, in a paper written with three other academics, argued that efforts that emphasize job creation rather than production would “generate stagnation.”
“By focusing on low-productivity jobs, the green jobs literature dooms employees to low wages in a shrinking economy,” they wrote, adding that green job predictions often don’t account for jobs destroyed in the shift to green.
“Even if you keep the amount of power the same, but shift it from coal-fired plants to solar, what’s going to happen to the people at the coal plant?” Bogart said.
A recent report by Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia found that New Jersey had actually lost about 10 percent of its green jobs between 1998 and 2007.
But the report also said that New Jersey’s receipt of more green- targeted venture capital than all but seven other states from 2006 to 2008 showed investors believe New Jersey has high potential for green innovation.
That kind of entrepreneurial impulse is evident in the efforts of North Jersey businesses. The state already ranks second in the nation, after California, in solar installation. And green projects are particularly attractive as the construction industry struggles to rebound from a historic slowdown.
That was the case for Warren Zysman, a partner at Garfield-based ARC Renewable Energy, who started a wind turbine installation business this year to combat a drop in his construction business. His first installation, for talk show star Jay Leno, will soon be completed in California. Growth in the business would create work for licensed electricians, crane operators, steel fabricators and others, Zysman said. But much of that may be outside New Jersey. The turbines, for instance, are made in Michigan, he said. And the most lucrative states are those such as California, with high electricity costs, and Florida, which has high government incentive packages, he said.
David Golvsholl, the founder and sole employee of Glen Rock- based ENERGi Eastern Natural Resource Group, hopes to see a tenfold growth in revenue for the business he started last year installing geothermal systems.
That would create 10 to 15 jobs — including heating and ventilation technicians, plumbers, drillers and excavators and engineers — in his company or for subcontractors, he said.
But public money is key to these businesses, as it is to the green sector as a whole. Obama’s stimulus package, for instance, includes about $73 million for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in New Jersey and $118 million for weatherization projects.
New Jersey officials say the weatherization money will reduce energy consumption in 13,500 low-income homes and create 400 jobs for three years, based on estimates that eight to 11 jobs are created for each $1 million spent on weatherizing.
The jobs will include community outreach workers to solicit homeowners, technicians to conduct energy audits, workers to install weatherization materials, and supervisors.
State guidelines require contractors to pay all construction- related jobs $17.40 an hour and provide health benefits.
The work will be carried out mainly by non-profit community action programs. Bergen County’s, for instance, will receive $5 million to weatherize 646 housing units, enabling the agency to quadruple its workforce to about 28.
That expansion is in line with Corzine’s ambitious schedule to have the state weatherize 300,000 buildings a year by 2020, compared with fewer than 20,000 today.
Even if that’s achieved, the impact on employment is unclear. What happens, for instance, to the ranks of power company workers if energy consumption is cut by 20 percent? And how many of the green jobs would be traditional jobs retooled with a green “tint”?
Quite a lot, according to a report by Cleary, and a Rutgers University colleague, Allison Kopicki, called “Preparing the workforce for a ‘Green Jobs’ Economy.”
“The majority of green jobs in the nation’s energy sector will not be new occupations in the immediate future, but rather traditional occupations that may require an additional layer of “green skills and knowledge,” they wrote.
***
(SIDEBARS)
New Jersey’s ‘green’ economy
New Jersey officials hope “green” jobs in energy conservation and renewal activities, such as wind and solar energy will help replace the 155,900 jobs lost in manufacturing and other sectors during the recession.
Here is a snapshot of the state’s green industry:
Number of jobs (in 2007) 25,397
Number of businesses (in 2007) 2,031
Venture capital (2006 to 2008) $282 million
New Jersey’s national rank by number of jobs 9th
Rank by green-targeted venture capital investment 7th
Source: Pew Charitable Trusts
***
Green jobs and the skills they require
“Green” jobs are generally defined as tasks that conserve energy, protect the environment or reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, sometimes by creating renewable energy. Many green jobs use traditional skills that are retooled to do green tasks. Here are some of the jobs:
Weatherization:
* Electricians
* Heating/air conditioning installers
* Insulation workers
* Building inspectors/auditors
Commercial and industrial retrofits (to improve energy efficiency):
* Mechanical engineers
* Cogeneration construction and operation workers
* Measurement and verification technicians
* Energy management analysts
Renewable energy jobs:
* Environmental, energy engineers
* Iron and steelworkers
* Electrical equipment assemblers
* Construction equipment operators
Source: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University
***
E-mail: morley@northjersey.com
***
(c) 2009 Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Source: http://www.energycentral.com/news/en/13005274/Do-Green-Jobs-Pay-Off-?
By Vanessa Richmond, The Tyee. Posted July 17, 2009.
The carbon emissions of Bono’s band’s world tour are equivalent to the waste created by 6,500 average British or Irish people in an entire year.
What if celebrity news carried its own version of a nutrition label? But instead of calories, or health risks, how about a label that gets at celebrities’ impact on the planet?
Imagine if each time a tabloid or movie or TV show fed our celebrity addiction by running the image of Angelina, Bono or Gisele Bundschen, they also were required to put the celeb’s eco-footprint in the corner of that image? If the tabs really wanted to knock themselves out, they could also run a kind of eco-ingredient list — the number of hours the celeb spends in the air, the square feet of housing she owns, number of children he has, and so on.
It’s an idea with real timeliness, if I do say so myself. A few weeks ago, uber-feminist Naomi Wolf praised Angelina Jolie’s independence, symbolized by her ability to fly her own plane, without even mentioning that if every woman did that, we’d need a million planets worth of resources to support the human population.
Flying High
Wolf is far from alone. This week, the top story in several tabs was that Jolie has resumed “one of her favourite hobbies…flying lessons!” without making any comment about the relative impact on the planet of flying to, say, knitting or karate.
People Magazine ran a piece about how pregnant supermodel Gisele Bundschen is “constantly traveling” (what a good earth mother). John Travolta owns his own specially outfitted 707 jet.
And the Daily Mail ran a piece about how Victoria and David Beckham were in the Seychelles one day, then Heathrow, then LA the next. How smoggy their designer footprint must be!
But these stories, and most others, tell us nothing of the impact of celebs’ enviable lifestyles.
Glam Carbon Gluttons
Last week, Carbon Footprint calculated the impact of U2’s world tour. Ironically, U2 is outspoken about their commitment to the environment, but carbon output of their tour this year is far bigger even than Madonna’s high-maintenance carbon-heavy tour. U2’s carbon emissions will equal that of 90,000 people flying from Dublin to London, and are equivalent of the waste created by 6,500 average British or Irish people in an entire year (equal to leaving a standard 100 watt light bulb on for 159,000 years). “To offset this year’s carbon emissions, U2 would need to plant 20,118 trees.”
This story hit media outlets around the world within hours, demonstrating that not just me but a lot of people actually are interested in such information. (I’m guessing we belong to the same tribe of label readers at the grocery store.)
But it’s not enough to calculate footprints for the odd tour or movie. What the public is most often consuming is celebrity lifestyle information. And we need good information about what that actually costs.
How to Read an Eco-Footprint
People follow celebrities because “reality is scary and the surreal is not,” says Dr. William Rees, the UBC professor who invented the concept of the ecological footprint. “We have made wealth and glitter and this false world of celebrity into the ideal, and people glom onto it.” But, he adds, “in a sense, doing an eco-footprint of these folks might help ground us back into reality.”
He said it’s easy to calculate an eco-footprint: it’s simply a person’s consumption on an annual basis. And 85 per cent of it is made up of fuel, food, housing, and space heating.
Rees says that for the average individual, by far the biggest component is private transportation using fossil fuels: cars and plans. “Let’s face it, most celebrities have half a dozen of those and travel by private aircraft.”
The next item is food, because for most people, food travels long distances and therefore takes fuel, and it also consumes pesticides and so on. “Celebrities tend to have very high-end diets.”
The next major category is water and space heating, and “the bigger your house and car, the larger your consumption of those.” Of course, many celebrities not only have one large house, but many of them.
Rees said that there are only two hectares on the planet to support each person, but the average North American uses nine hectares, which means most North Americans need three to four times as much productive ecosystem as is available on the planet to support their needs. “The really inconvenient truth is that the current global development path is an impossibility serum.”
What Planets Do They Live On?
I plugged in the consumption numbers for an imaginary celebrity into this footprint calculator and this one, too. I assumed that the person had a private jet, flew more than 400 hours a year, had at least two large houses, and owned more than one car. Those consumption amounts exceeded the maximum inputs on the survey — there was no category for more than one house, or for private jet, for example. But even given that, the survey found it would take over 60 earths to support that lifestyle for everyone.
But then, celebrities aren’t everyone, are they? They live on 60 or even hundreds of planets, while the rest of us inhabit one that’s arguably in deep trouble. I’m not holding my breath that my modest proposal would ever be taken up by a media industry so invested in feeding our celebrity worship. But I’ll keep dreaming of truth in labelling.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/environment/141380/how_angelina%2C_bono%2C_gisele_and_madonna_are_destroying_the_planet/
Recent Comments