Archive for the ‘Policy’ Category

How Safe is Your Drinking Water? NPR’s Terry Gross Interviews NYT’s Charles Duhigg

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

toxicwaters_article_header

This morning, I listened to part of Terry Gross’s interview with Charles Duhigg, a reporter at the New York Times, who is writing a series of articles on the quality of American drinking water. The NYT Toxic Waters webpage lists the articles and accompanies them with video. The NPR interview transcript is available here.

Charles and his staff went to every state in the US and used the Freedom of Information Act to get information about companies that dump pollutants into the water. As part of the Clean Water Act, companies have to measure what they are actually dumping, as much as once a week. From each state, Charles received waterway permits and information on whether companies are breaking the law and whether they have actually been punished. They built a giant database with this information, which supposedly rivals the EPA’s own bookkeeping.



Some key issues that I picked up (paraphrased from the interview):

  • An estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways. This includes carcinogens in the tap water of major American cities and unsafe chemicals in drinking water wells
  • The Clean Water Act has been violated more than a half a million times in the last five years, but fewer than three percent of polluters have been fined or punished.
  • Much of the water pollution in the 1970s was more obvious–you could see it, and you could taste it, and you could feel it. In addition, it took a lot of pollution to affect your life. Now, many chemicals have no scent, have no taste, making them more difficult to detect. Some are dangerous when they’re measured in parts per billion. This is the equivalent of a thimble full of chemical in a swimming pool’s worth of water, and that can actually be enormously dangerous; can be linked to cancers, can be linked to birth defects and other problems
  • The reason why the Clean Water Act isn’t being enforced is that states simply don’t have the resources to control and monitor polluters. The average Department of Environmental Protection’s budget has remained essentially flat over the last decade while the number of facilities that they have to police has doubled. So as a result, they just don’t have the manpower to go out there and actually enforce the law.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

Why Wasting Water Is So Damn Cheap

Monday, August 10th, 2009

oakland.png

In the July/August 2009 issue of Mother Jones magazine there is an article entitled Why Wasting Water Is So Damn Cheap. It walks through the East Bay’s struggle with drought and its attempts to reduce consumption by ordering most of its residential customers to slash their water use by nearly one-fifth—regardless of how much they were previously using. One problem with this, as the article points out, is it unfairly targets users who were already conservative. Some highlights from the article (my headings):

Tiered Pricing

Composed of dense coastal cities, such as Berkeley and Oakland, as well as sprawling inland suburbs, San Francisco’s East Bay is one of the state’s most balkanized water districts. Typically, 25 percent of the East Bay’s inhabitants suck down 60 percent of its residential water. For this, they are charged as much as 50 percent more per gallon than the most efficient users. During the recent drought they were asked to use 20 percent less and got a rate increase along with everyone else.

Breaking the addiction to cheap water can be tough. Less than half of California’s water districts use tiered pricing. During the last big drought, in 1991, when EBMUD hiked its rates for customers who used more than 250 gallons per day, irate homeowners refused to pay their bills and four inland suburbs sued. The utility relented. “One part of the district was subsidizing another, and fundamentally that’s not fair,” says John Coleman, vice president of the EBMUD board, sounding like a ticked-off conservationist—except that he’s defending the users who couldn’t bear to see their lawns die.

There is No Water Shortage

“There is no water shortage,” says David Zetland, a water policy researcher at the University of California-Berkeley. “We’re just doing the worst job in the world trying to allocate it. If you go down to a bar and Corona costs 12 cents a bottle, you’re gonna run out of Corona. And that’s the problem with water: It’s just too damn cheap to care about.” Even in Southern California’s Irvine Ranch Water District, which sells water to its most frugal customers at below cost but slaps an additional 840 percent charge on the biggest users, 200 gallons at the top rate still cost less than a Frappuccino.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

CA Considers Rationing Water

Monday, May 4th, 2009

drought-pix.jpg

I had this flagged to post back in February when it first occurred but didn’t have a chance to write it up until now. According to the AP, “California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state emergency due to drought and said he would consider mandatory rationing in the face of nearly $3 billion in economic losses this year.” This article also mentions that Schwarzenegger asked urban users to cut water consumption by 20 percent and for state agencies to implement a water reduction plan.

The Federal government is now involved. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack created a Federal Drought Action Team that will be working with California (press release available here). See also California’s Snowpack Problem in The New Republic.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

What’s Green Worth? Homeowners Spend $30 Billion on their Yards

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

waterlawn.png

The city of Seattle, WA sees a 40-50% increase in water usage during the summer months primarily due to lawn and gardening. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, roughly 1/3rd of all residential water usage goes towards outdoor irrigation. Two summers ago, Ben Casselman wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal about the lengths people go in the US to keep their lawns green and the strategies employed by water utilities to try to encourage conservation (e.g., Las Vegas pays people to convert their grass lawns to the more natural and sustainable desert landscape).

A few highlights from the article (with my headings):

Keeping it Green

There are 58 million lawns in the U.S., more than one for every two households, and homeowners spent $29 billion last year on their yards, up 9.4% from 2002, according to the National Gardening Association. The average American family of four uses about 400 gallons of water per day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, with roughly one-third going to maintaining a green lawn and lush garden. In total, Americans drench their lawns with some seven billion gallons of water per day, and by some estimates, as much as half of that is wasted — dumped onto sidewalks by poorly aimed sprinklers, blown away as mist from overpressurized spray nozzles and poured into gutters as runoff from over-saturated grass.

Restricting Water Usage

Watering restrictions aren’t new, but they’re getting tougher, and experts say this summer’s are the strictest yet. In the Southeast, which is suffering from a severe drought, some Alabama and Georgia homeowners are facing outright bans on outdoor watering while some South Florida counties have their first-ever once-a-week watering restrictions. In some areas of Minnesota and Ohio, a combination of dry conditions and development have prompted regulations. In the Southwest, where water shortages are nothing new, officials are taking bolder steps — raising water rates, charging premiums to heavy users and offering rebates to people who install more efficient irrigation systems. Denver has imposed fines on homeowners who waste water by letting it run into the street. Las Vegas has banned front lawns on new developments.

A number of cities have come up with a novel solution: building reclamation systems that clean sewer water and pipe it to residents for irrigation. In Cary, N.C., where this method is in use, residents are advised not to allow their pets to drink the water or to let their children play in it.

What’s Green Worth

For lawn tenders and landscapers who promise water solutions, business is good. Joe Wheeler, owner of Rainfilters of Texas, which sells rainwater-capture systems that range from $2,500 to $25,000, says business has doubled this year. Chris Spain, chief executive of HydroPoint Data Systems in Petaluma, Calif., which makes high-tech irrigation systems, says sales more than doubled last year from 2005.

Blair LaCorte, a partner in a private-equity firm, installed a $500 weather station on the roof of his home in Marin County, Calif., to help regulate his water use. If a sprinkler head breaks, his computerized irrigation system will automatically shoot an email to his gardener. Jude and Bud Thurston live at the Superstition Mountain golf club in Southern Arizona, where the typical rainfall is 12 inches a year, the average temperature in July is 104 degrees and local water policies are some of the nation’s toughest. But by planting drought-tolerant Bermuda grass, installing a new $25,000 irrigation system and borrowing data from their golf club’s weather station, the Thurstons say they have a grassy lawn, a grassy driveway and even a grassy play area for Black Ice

Some people don’t care about fines. In Eden Prairie, Minn., where more than 800 people have received citations this year, city officials have noticed a pattern. Habitual offenders tend to live in wealthier neighborhoods, where a $300 fine “is well below the threshold of what it’s worth to have a green lawn,” says City Manager Scott Neal. One homeowner in Palm Beach, Fla., recently used 11.7 million gallons of water in 12 months — running up a $33,629 water bill, according to public records.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

Energy vs. Water

Monday, April 27th, 2009

energyvswater.JPG

A fantastic article from Scientific American exploring the intrinsic relationships between water and energy in modern society. The article was written by Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas, Austin and the associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy. A few highlights from the article (my headings):

Water and Energy

Water and energy are the two most fundamental ingredients of modern civilization. Without water, people die. Without energy, we cannot grow food, run computers, or power homes, schools or offices. As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, the demands for both resources are increasing faster than ever.

Woefully underappreciated, however, is the reality that each of these precious commodities might soon cripple our use of the other. We consume massive quantities of water to generate energy, and we consume massive quantities of energy to deliver clean water. Many people are concerned about the perils of peak oil—running out of cheap oil. A few are voicing concerns about peak water. But almost no one is addressing the tension between the two: water restrictions are hampering solutions for generating more energy, and energy problems, particularly rising prices, are curtailing efforts to supply more clean water.

The Cost of Storing, Treating and Delivering Water

The earth holds about eight million cubic miles of freshwater—tens of thousands of times more than humans’ annual consumption. Unfortunately, most of it is imprisoned in underground reservoirs and in permanent ice and snow cover; relatively little is stored in easily accessible and replenishable lakes and rivers.

Furthermore, the available water is often not clean or not located close to population centers. Phoenix gets a large share of its freshwater via a 336-mile aqueduct from, of course, the Colorado River. Municipal supplies are also often contaminated by industry, agriculture and wastewater effluents. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 2.4 billion people live in highly water-stressed areas. Two primary solutions—shipping in water over long distances or cleaning nearby but dirty supplies—both require large amounts of energy, which is soaring in price.

We use a lot of energy to move and treat water, sometimes across vast distances. The California Aqueduct, which transports snowmelt across two mountain ranges to the thirsty coastal cities, is the biggest electricity consumer in the state. As convenient resources become tapped out, provi­ders must dig deeper and reach farther. Countries that have large populations but isolated water sources are considering daunting megaprojects. China, for example, wants to transport water from three river basins in the water-rich south over thousands of miles to the water-poor north, consuming vast energy supplies. Old-guard investors such as T. Boone Pickens who made their billions from oil and natural gas are now putting their money into water, including one project to pipe it across Texas. Cities such as El Paso are also trying to develop desalination plants positioned above salty aquifers, which require remarkable amounts of energy—and money.

In addition, local municipalities have to clean incoming water and treat outgoing water, which together consume about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity. Health standards typically get stricter with time, too, so the degree of energy that needs to be spent per gallon will only increase.

Water and Power Generation

Nationwide, the two greatest users of freshwater are agriculture and power plants. Thermal power plants—those that consume coal, oil, natural gas or uranium—generate more than 90 percent of U.S. electricity, and they are water hogs. The sheer amount required to cool the plants impacts the available supply to everyone else. And although a considerable portion of the water is eventually returned to the source (some evaporates), when it is emitted it is at a different temperature and has a different biological content than the source, threatening the environment. Whether this effluent should be processed is contentious; the Supreme Court is set to hear a consolidation of cases about the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements that power plants retrofit their systems to minimize impact on local water supplies and aquatic life.

Cars and Water

Plug-in vehicles are particularly appealing because it is easier to manage the emissions from 1,500 power plants than from hundreds of millions of tailpipes. The electrical infrastructure is already in place. But the power sector swallows water. Compared with producing gasoline for a car, generating electricity for a plug-in hybrid-electric or all-electric vehicle withdraws 10 times as much water and consumes up to three times as much water per mile, according to studies done at the University of Texas at Austin.

Biofuels are worse. Recent analyses indicate that the entire production cycle—from growing irrigated crops on a farm to pumping biofuel into a car—can consume 20 or more times as much water for every mile traveled than the production of gasoline. When scaling up to the 2.7 trillion miles that U.S. passenger vehicles travel a year, water could well become a limiting factor. Municipalities are already fighting over water supplies with the booming biofuels industry: citizens in the Illinois towns of Champaign and Urbana recently opposed a local ethanol plant’s petition to withdraw two million gallons a day from the local aquifer to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. Resistance will grow as ranchers’ wells run dry.

Warning: There is No Replacement for Water

Regardless of which energy source the U.S., or the world, might favor, water is ultimately more important than oil because it is more immediately crucial for life, and there is no substitute. And it seems we are approaching an era of peak water—the lack of cheap water. The situation should already be considered a crisis, but the public has not grasped the urgency.

The public has indeed become more open-minded about the risks of peak oil, which vary from the dire (mass starvation and resource wars) to the blasé (markets bring forth new technologies that save the day). Supply shortages and skyrocketing prices have ratcheted up confidence in the claims of the “peakers.” Policy levers and market forces are being deployed to find a substitute for affordable oil.

What will it take for us to make the leap for water and, better yet, to consider both issues as one? When the projections for declining oil production are overlaid with the increasing demand for water, the risks become severe. Because water is increasingly energy-intensive to produce, we will likely be relying on fossil fuels for pumping water from deeper aquifers or for moving it through longer pipelines. Any peak in oil production could force a peak in water production. Peak oil might cause some human suffering, but peak water would have more extreme consequences: millions already die every year from limited access to freshwater, and the number could grow by an order of magnitude.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

Brown Bag with Teresa Peters: ICTs and the Environment

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

ICTD is a growing research area at UW (see the Change website). A few weeks ago (February 17th), I went to a brown bag session at UW lead by Teresa Peters (formerly with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Global Libraries Program) who spoke about the environmental implications of ICTD. Specifically, what are the environmental impacts of information and communication technologies in the developing world, and how can we use these new technologies to improve the environment? Many of the questions she raises are relevant to the developed world as well.

Talk Abstract

Environmental issues cut across all areas of development, but in the area of information and communications technology for development (ICTD), many environmental costs and benefits appear in even starker contrast. ICT can serve as a valuable tool to help protect the environment – for example, as a means for monitoring and managing complex environmental systems. But technology also raises serious environmental concerns – especially for developing countries – in particular related to power and e-waste. Developing country governments expect to have the same opportunity to exploit natural resources as other countries have had on their path to development, and protecting the environment is often pitted against other more pressing development concerns. Yet, given what is known today about the risks to future generations if steps are not taken now to protect the environment, it is short-sighted not to consider the environmental aspects of any development activities. Since ICT plays such an important role in development, the environmental impact of increased ICT use in developing countries merits special attention.

Benefits
Teresa argues that ICT4D can help the global sustainability effort in the following ways (she expands on each of these in turn in a concept paper):

  • Given the complexity involved, the ability to solve the global environmental challenges facing the planet may well depend on the effective use of ICT as a tool to monitor, collect, and analyze data, and implement coordinated solutions.
  • The opportunity that ICT provides for improving information exchange also plays a critical role in environmental protection, helping people understand how their actions affect their world.
  • The use of ICT can also improve efficiencies and lower costs in development projects – including environmental costs.

Downsides
Despite the benefits, Teresa argues that there are significant environmental downsides to increasing the use of ICT in developing countries, most notably energy consumption and e-waste.

  • The question of power hangs in the air when development initiatives call for the introduction of electricity-hungry technologies, especially in geographies where the power grid already struggles to meet current demands. Innovation can help: integrating environmentally-friendly technologies and methods can help reduce the environmental impact of development.
  • E-waste (including discarded computers, entertainment electronics, and communications equipment) is also a grave concern for development, because so much of the waste produced by the global consumer electronics industry is making its way – often illegally – to developing countries that are the least equipped to deal with the highly-toxic substances it contains.
  • The problem is that e-waste recycling is costly and dangerous, and management of discarded materials is controversial because no one wants toxins in their own backyard.
  • Part of the answer to the e-waste problem is to improve handling procedures and raise awareness about the risks of e-waste. Another part of the solution is for manufacturers to remove harmful materials from their product designs.

Critical Questions
Teresa ended with some critical questions:

  • What are opportunities and best practices in the use of ICTs, the Internet and sensor networks in environmental management, energy efficiency, cleaner technologies and improved resource management?
  • What are the overall magnitudes of the impacts of ICTs on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency? What are the impacts of digitalization and digital delivery on environmental performance? What are the environmental impacts of expanded use of ICTs in work and social organization? How have ICTs affected transport and logistics patterns and what is the potential for further improvements?
  • Developing countries in particular will need a growing amount of energy to fuel their development, especially ICT4D. How can development be fueled in a sustainable way? What are realistic options for promoting a sustainable energy system in developing countries? What is the role of emerging markets in leading the way to a sustainable energy future? What have they managed to achieve so far and what potential is there for them to be leaders in alternative energy both in their own countries as well as around the globe? What are the respective roles of the government and private sector in charting the course to a sustainable energy future?
  • To promote and scale out alternative energy technologies, government policies and financing opportunities need to be examined. How do governments develop their own regulatory and market incentive structures to address carbon emissions reductions in a way that fits with their own values, institutions, and economies? How can economies achieve GDP growth while reducing carbon emissions? What kinds of regulations, market structures and incentives are different countries exploring? How can the demand for, and use of, alternative energy be scaled out – particularly to support needed social and economic development around the world. How can needed financial support and incentives be provided? What are the sources of financing for shifting and scaling out energy technologies in emerging markets?

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

President-Elect Obama Highlights Key Parts of Economic Plan

Monday, December 8th, 2008

On Saturday, President-Elect Obama highlighted the key parts of his economic recovery plan including initiatives to make public buildings more energy efficient, investing in public infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, modernizing and upgrading school buildings, broadening access to high speed internet, and upgrading technology in hospitals.

From change.gov:

Yesterday, we received another painful reminder of the serious economic challenge our country is facing when we learned that 533,000 jobs were lost in November alone, the single worst month of job loss in over three decades. That puts the total number of jobs lost in this recession at nearly 2 million.

But we need action – and action now. That is why I have asked my economic team to develop an economic recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street that will help save or create at least two and a half million jobs, while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving billions of dollars.

We won’t do it the old Washington way. We won’t just throw money at the problem. We’ll measure progress by the reforms we make and the results we achieve — by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world.

Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt

Energy as a Cyclic Problem

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

I am reading Advances in Environmental Psychology, edited by Andrew Baum and Jerome E. Singer and published in 1981. One essay called Encouraging Residential Energy Conservation Through Feedback by Clive Seligman et al. begins:

The seriousness of the energy problem has been dramatically characterized by President Carter, who said: ‘With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our nation will face during our lifetime.’

Fast forward to 2007, during the UN General Assembly meeting in 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said something hauntingly similar:

The danger posed by war to all of humanity – and to our planet – is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming. I believe that the world has reached a critical stage in its efforts to exercise responsible environmental stewardship.

More recently, in November 2008, President-elect Barack Obama on 60 Minutes commented directly about the cyclic tendency of complacency and action when dealing with energy:

(CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy independence. Now you’ve got the price of oil under $60.

Mr. Obama: Right.

(CBS) Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now than…

Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it’s not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

In some ways, it’s disheartening to read quotes from the 1970s and 1980s and realize just how little we have progressed. However, with the new administration focusing significant effort on clean tech and green jobs to bolster economic recovery, perhaps now is the time that we develop new social norms. Barack Obama, who has no direct ties to the oil industry like the current administration, seems to be more confident in defining an aggressive clean energy policy.

From Earth2Tech:

Cleantech investors are certainly cheering the win — they backed Obama more than 6 to 1 over McCain. That support was due to Obama’s pledge to invest $150 billion over a decade in alternative energy, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and introduce a cap-and-trade system to manage carbon emissions.

Share with the World:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt