Susanna Murley

Being able to take information and turn it into action is the cornerstone of being a responsible adult, right? But with energy efficiency, Americans have the alarming track record of getting burnt out, distracted or ignoring the facts. Even with oil gushing in the gulf, many haven’t recognized the gushing of gas into their cars as culpable in this disaster.

So, with this in mind, how do we fundamentally change the way we use energy? Our organizing question for the next few months is just this: what are the innovations that improve the way we generate or use energy. And for me, it starts with how we use less.

A recent ACEEE smart meter study suggests that smart metering might do the trick…if properly implemented.

Can information be the panacea? Most smart metering programs are being forced on utility companies who have to do something about reducing energy, which is, of course, not what they’re in the business of doing. It’s like asking tobacco companies to put meters in their cigarettes – “at this rate you’ll be dead in 15 years,” on the next cigarette, it tells you “sweet Jesus put that down you’re going to be dead in 10 years” and so on, which might be more effective than warning labels alone.

What actually motivates people to reduce their energy use? Not just a little information, but a lot of information, and consistently, if they want it. OPOWER (whose parvenu glam can’t be resisted by even ACEEE) has developed a system that provides feedback to users based on their neighbor’s use (and a smiley-face if they’ve done better) and provides simple steps to reduce energy use. They claim this has resulted in 1.5% and 3.5% in average energy savings in their targeted areas.

But this alone won’t solve the problem according to the report. Feedback must be real time to see huge results. “To realize potential feedback-induced savings, advanced meters must be used in conjunction with in-home (or on-line) displays and well-designed programs that successfully inform, engage, empower, and motivate people.”

Johann Hari, a long-time environmental justice activist, published a piece in The Nation titled,”The Wrong Kind of Green,” which criticizes mainstream environmental groups for taking money from corporate giants and “selling out their principles.”

It’s causing a ruckus in the environmental community. Take a look at what many environmental leaders are saying in response to his article.

“What’s wrong with this seemingly healthy refreshment? You’ll be shocked to find out that it’s often less clean, less tasty, and way more polluting than the water from your tap. This is the story that water bottlers Coke, Pepsi, and Nestlé don’t want you to hear — but thanks to Annie, millions of you will. Be one of the first and help spread the word at StoryofBottledWater.org.”

By now, you should know that bottled water is wasteful. Not only are we paying for something we should be getting almost for free from our household sinks, bottled water requires more than 17 million barrels of oil to produce just to me the US demand for it. So why are we still using it?

Many people think it’s healthier to drink bottled water, others think it tastes better. This movie deals with both those arguments.

What do we need to do to move people away from bottled water? Do we just need more education, or should we ban the bottle? Leave your reasons and reasoning below.

Indonesia’s forests are burning. In the movie Burning Season, which showed yesterday at the DC Environmental Film Festival, you see fires destroying massive swaths of land—as much as 72% of their forests have already been lost.

Watch some clips from the Q&A yesterday:

When Europeans colonized the US, they immediately began removing forests to clear land for farming and to sell timber for shipbuilding. In the last 200 years, 95% of our forests have been logged. It’s not new—with industrialization comes a need for more land.

American and European forests can’t do what the Indonesian forests can do—and are quickly losing their ability to do—which is to be the “lungs”, or in the words of Governor Irwandi Yusuf of Aceh, the “septic tanks” of the world. These forests take in pollution and store it in their soil like a septic tank—and until now, they have been doing it for free.

There are two ways to incentivize developing nations to save their forests. Both involve money—money that goes to the governments or the organizations that save the forests or to replant them. One is called avoided deforestation the other is reforestation, both can be sold as offsets to businesses and governments.

The question is where does that money come from. Does it come from the polluting countries themselves, and therefore the taxpayers of those countries? This would create a “fund” that in effect pays for the septic tank of the American taxpayer.

Alternatively, we get businesses to pay for the preservation of forests through carbon offsets. The director of Burning Season, Cathy Henkel, takes the latter approach: get business, through carbon offsetting, to pay for the preservation and reforestation of the world’s greenhouse lungs—the septic tanks of the world.

Ultimately she argues that this is a temporary solution. There needs to be a better way that we monetize the world’s forest. But until businesses start to invest in the technologies that reduce the carbon impact of their operations, offsets help preserve the forests and reduce a major cause of global warming pollution.

The problem many in the audience had with carbon offsets is corruption. Who actually gets the money when you pay for an offset? Does that money just line the pockets of corrupt politicians? Many argued the legal or political structures of countries like Indonesia are incapable of doing this sort of program.

Governor Irwandi Yusuf of Aceh, profiled in this move, doesn’t seem to be one of those corrupt politicians. Henkel was explicit about the fact that Burning Season is not a movie about political corruption. Instead, she tried to show a hopeful story, lifting up a governor who is not corrupt as an example.

You don’t need to go to Magic Mountain to get a good thrill ride anymore. Spain’s high-speed trains go 217 miles an hour and have started to beat out flights as the country’s preferred method of transportation.

It’s green, but they’re not mentioning it. Emphasizing luxury, the trains have been luring travelers with gourmet food, TVs, computer outlets, and white-gloved attendants, not cheap fairs or carbon reductions.

The US train system lags far behind its European counterparts, a position we’ve been fine with for many decades. But it’s the Chinese who are starting to rattle some cages—they’ve secured “cooperation memos” to build California’s high-speed rail system, which is a part of the $8 billion Obama committed to high speed rail in January.

Many are not pleased to see US tax dollars go overseas, especially when the high-speed rail project promises jobs for thousands of Americans. But the key part of the story is that China is investing $300 billion to build in their rail system and develop high-speed technology and the US is spending $8 billion. With more resources at hand, perhaps the Chinese engineers will be able to develop a better product at a better price than what the US offers.

Slate writer Daniel Gross is a pretty lucky guy. He’s using the wisdom of the crowd to help him reduce this energy use in his home. It’s part of a larger project by Slate called The Hive, which is using the collective wisdom of their readers to come up with solutions to everyday problems.

Last night, Slate hosted a meeting of energy experts, journalist, bloggers, business execs and other Slate readers to discuss energy efficiency and what it takes to get people to install insulation, change their light bulbs and save money.

A lot of ideas came out of the event. One of the more interesting ones came from Lane Burt, an engineer and the Manager of NRDC’s Building Policy program. Focusing on the point of sale of a home, he suggested that people get a comprehensive energy analysis of that building to see how much it will cost to actually live in the house they’re purchasing. That $300,000 suburban home won’t feel like such a good deal if you’d have to pay another million dollars in the next 25 years just to live in it. Imagine, suggested Burt, if you had invested $10,000 in your home 25 years ago instead of the stock market.

As educated as we are in home financing, homebuyers are still woefully uneducated when it comes to the energy efficiency of their homes and are loath to pay for it even if it’s clear they’ll save money in the long run. Another suggestion was to have community financing of solar panels, which get attached to the property rather than the homeowner, and gets transferred to the next homeowner after sale. Over the lifetime of the house, the solar panels get paid for.

Behavioral research was also brought to bear in the meeting. A recent study showed that when neighborhoods were mailed summaries of their energy use and it was compared to their neighbors, the people whose usage was above average actually started to reduce their energy, but the people whose energy use was below average started to use MORE energy—everyone drifted toward the average. However, when researchers included simple smiley-faces or frowny-faces along with the letters, both users reduced their energy. As Lisa Hymas of Grist said, “Who knew that people are still motivated by smiley faces after 4th grade?”

What do you think? What makes people reduce their energy use in their own homes? And what would make the biggest impact on our collective energy use? Weigh in below.

Moms Against Climate Change just released a video that has to be one of the best climate videos to date. Watch it and see if you’re not affected:

The campaign is calling on strong action from governments at Copenhagen this December. See more of their campaign here: http://www.takeactiononclimatechange.com/

The US Chamber of Commerce has shown how riled up it is over the exodus of major companies from its membership rolls. In a letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs over the company’s recent departure, the Chamber’s CEO, Thomas Donohue, explains the Chamber’s position on climate change. Unfortunately it merely highlights why Apple, Exelon, PG&E and Nike all oppose the Chamber on this point.

Donohue complains that Apple “didn’t take the time to understand” the Chamber’s position on climate change. Apparently the Chamber’s call for a “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” last month on climate change actually belies their “support [for] legislation to address climate change.”

According to Brad Johnson on Think Progress, the Chamber has questioned climate science since at least 1992:

2008: Chamber President Tom Donohue Says ‘Scientific Inquiry’ Into Climate Change ‘Should Continue’ Because Of ‘Cooling Trend.’ [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/4/08]

2001: Chamber Claims Global Warming ‘About One Percent From Human Activity,’ Says ‘Things Just Change.’ [CNNFN, 7/16/01]

1992: Chamber Sponsors Global Warming Denier Pat Michaels To ‘Refute The Global Warming Warnings.’ [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/92]

The letter argues that any climate solution must defend the US economy and business competitiveness and that they “oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs.” Although, most reports have shown that the Waxman-Markey bill will increase jobs—as much as by 1.9 million jobs, according to a new analysis by economists at University of California, Berkeley.

Read the rest of this entry »

Numerous reports have linked exposure to coal ash to an increased risk of cancer, birth defects and other health problems for the communities who live close to dump sites. Last year, a slurry broke in Tennessee, dumping a billion gallons of ash into waterways, burring houses and destroying ecosystems. The spill also raised concerns in Kentucky and other areas with coal ash. Lesley Stahl looks at the health effects and the safety of coal ash in her 60 Minutes report last night on the coal industry.

Stahl interviews several coal industry representatives on the impact of coal ash on human health. From refusing to say “coal ash is safe” to arguing that it’s the same as dirt, this inside look into the coal message machine and the actual damage it’s doing to the people who live close to it is a must-see. Check it out:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

A new report shows that $70.2 billion was given to the fossil fuel industry over the last seven years from government subsidies. Only $12.2 billion was given to renewables like wind and solar, in the same time period.

The study, released this week, is available through the Power Shift ‘09 site and here.

Read more>>