Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

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

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

Al Gore’s Infant Son + Superman Parody = Environmentally Conscious Comic Genius

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

Gore Baby Son in Rocket

From a hilarious Onion article:

EARTH—Former vice president Al Gore—who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save—launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.

“I tried to warn them, but the Elders of this planet would not listen,” said Gore, who in 2000 was nearly banished to a featureless realm of nonexistence for promoting his unpopular message. “They called me foolish and laughed at my predictions. Yet even now, the Midwest is flooded, the ice caps are melting, and the cities are rocked with tremors, just as I foretold. Fools! Why didn’t they heed me before it was too late?”

Al Gore—or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al—placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity’s hubristic folly.

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