Switchboard, from NRDC

Op-ed on biofuels, food prices, and GHG emissions

2008-05-14T01:55:11Z

It has already been such a crazy week that I'm only just getting a chance to do my own PR. On Monday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran an op-ed coauthored by my friend Lee Lynd and yours truly. Lee is one of the foremost thinkers on consolidated bioprocessing of lignocellulosic biomass into fuels, a professor at Dartmouth, and the chief technical officer at Mascoma. So he knows what he's talking about, and it's always a pleasure to piggy back on the clear thinking of smart people.

I've written about the gist of the article here before, but to reiterate what I think are the three most critical points:

The solution to the food vs. fuel debate and the concerns about the GHG emissions of biofuels are one and the same--use the nonfood part of the plants and get the biomass off the land in doesn't interfere with food production or convert our wild landscapes rich in carbon (and biodiversity) into crops.
There is ample reason to believe that there is a significant amount of biomass that meets this criteria and that much more can be produced if the regulations guide the market to develop this material.
We need to build on the safeguards and standards adopted as part of the RFS in December with a low-carbon fuel standard and technology-neutral and performance based incentives.

The editor did a pretty good job cutting our 885 word original down to a svelte 663 words. For posterity's sake, I've pasted the full, original text below. There are two important substantive cuts both having to do with the importance of the context of biofuels.

The first came in the first paragraph where the second sentence originally read:

While these concerns should motivate greater efforts to do biofuels right, we must not throw the biofuels baby out with the bathwater – especially given the dearth of viable alternatives to power a sustainable and secure transportation sector.

But the part about the dearth of viable alternatives was dropped. I wrote about the reasons that we bother to struggle with biofuels a few weeks ago.

The second big cut came towards the end when this entire paragraph was dropped:

We need efficient vehicles, mass transit, and plug-in vehicles, but along with reducing demand for liquid fuels, we need to find new ways to sustainably produce them. A major focus of the renewable fuel standard is expanded production of cellulosic biofuels. Farmers and producers involved in the existing biofuel industry are generally open to such an expansion as long as they are not left holding the bag.

So now, for your reading pleasure, I offer the unedited original text of our op-ed:

Rethink Biofuels But Watch the Bath Water

Nathanael Greene and Lee Lynd

Biofuels were riding a wave of popularity only a few months ago, but now suddenly they’re being roundly condemned in light of rising food prices and recent studies showing that biofuel production can exacerbate climate change. While these concerns should motivate greater efforts to do biofuels right, we must not throw the biofuels baby out with the bathwater – especially given the dearth of viable alternatives to power a sustainable and secure transportation sector. Rather than retreating from current policies, which do more for smart biofuels than many realize, Minnesota and the nation should follow California and Massachusetts in building – wisely – on this foundation.

The current rise in food prices is causing a humanitarian crisis that we must address. But if we want to fix the problem, we first need to understand what’s behind it. Biofuels are a modest part of the food price picture, consuming only 4 percent of world grain, and there is little evidence that food prices would be much lower if we did not produce biofuels. The primary reasons for skyrocketing food prices include our rising energy costs, increased demand for meat in developing countries, drought, and misguided national and international agricultural policies.

Global warming is also a crisis, and two recent papers in Science identify issues that we must pay attention to if biofuels are going to contribute to lowering global warming pollution. The papers point out that if the demand for biofuels causes unmanaged forests or grasslands to be converted to row crops, we must account for the global warming pollution released during that conversion, and that these emissions can overwhelm the benefits of displaced gasoline or diesel consumption. However, showing that these undesirable results could happen given unsustainable practices in no way establishes that they must happen. There are solutions.

We can produce biofuels in ways responsive to these challenges. This can be done by making biofuels from non-food biomass (woody material, grasses, stalks and stems), while also producing this “cellulosic” biomass in ways that neither compete with food production nor cause increased global warming pollution that comes from converting wild landscapes to row crops. In other words, using the right part of plants and producing them in the right ways take biofuels out of the food price equation and makes them part of the solution to global warming.

Such cellulosic biomass is available from a greater diversity of sources than row crops, including wastes, land that cannot grow food crops or is not needed for food production, and potentially new approaches that coproduce food and biofuel feedstocks. Several studies have shown that wastes from the forest products industry, crop residues and winter cover crops could provide hundreds of millions of tons of biomass annually and certainly enough to comply with the recently adopted 21 billion gallon federal renewable fuel standard for “advanced biofuels.” Higher production levels are likely possible, particularly in light of emergent market forces and public policies.

The renewable fuel standard, signed into law in December as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), is the first biofuels policy to mandate a shift in our production practices in a way that directly addresses global warming pollution and indirectly – by promoting sustainable cellulosic biofuels - will address the food production challenge. The Act establishes minimum global warming pollution standards for biofuels and critical land-use safeguards. New biofuels projects that increase global warming emissions—including emissions from land conversion—are not permitted under EISA. Most of the mandated 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol production capacity required by the Act is already in place or under construction. As expansion beyond this level is unlikely to be favored by either market forces or regulation, the ceiling of corn ethanol production appears to be in sight.

The low-carbon fuel standard, first embraced by California and recently by Massachusetts, goes beyond setting a minimum standard and rewards the best solutions. This approach requires that oil companies reduce the average global warming pollution of their fuels, but lets the market decide the best mix of options. Biofuels that provide the most reductions will certainly play a big role, but so can other technologies such as plug-in vehicles that use electricity and natural gas powered cars and trucks.

We need efficient vehicles, mass transit, and plug-in vehicles, but along with reducing demand for liquid fuels, we need to find new ways to sustainably produce them. A major focus of the renewable fuel standard is expanded production of cellulosic biofuels. Farmers and producers involved in the existing biofuel industry are generally open to such an expansion as long as they are not left holding the bag.

In the middle of April, six committees of Minnesota’s House and Senate jointly gave the low-carbon fuel standard a full initial hearing. We should build on foundation provided by the renewable fuel standard and follow the state level leadership with a federal low-carbon fuel standard as part of comprehensive climate legislation. We also need to realize that better biofuels policies are no excuse for not addressing world hunger head on through better agriculture and food aid policies. More generally, we should go beyond all or nothing headlines and pursue a transition to biofuel strategies that realize the compatible objectives of replacing oil, expanding opportunities for existing producers, and securing both food supplies and a sustainable future.

Nathanael Greene is a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council; Lee Lynd is a Professor of Engineering at Dartmouth and Chief Scientific Officer of Mascoma Corporation.

How smart is your city?

2008-05-13T21:30:46Z

After so many wonky posts in a row, this time I'm going to lighten up with one of those fun internet quizzes that I can do more or less all day when I have something I want to procrastinate. This one is "How Smart Is Your City?" offering just a few breezy (but not entirely impertinent) questions. It's part of a special series about sustainable and green cities this week on Grist, and it will have articles on cities in the southwest, Atlanta and the southeast, cities in the Rust Belt, and the ever-popular "how to green your city!" conclusion. I make fun, but I'm really glad they are covering these issues.

In fact, if you live in a larger US metro area, chances are your city is ranked on a sustainablity scale published with the first article. My home, Washington DC, comes in 12th (out of 50). Portland, Oregon is ranked first.

Of course, some bozo has already posted on Grist that Portland doesn't deserve its green hype. He couldn't be more wrong. Portland isn't perfect, but through excellent coordination of walkable development and public transportation, the greater Portland region decreased its per capita rate of driving by six percent from 1996-2006, a period in which other regions across the US increased theirs by an average ten percent. I think Portland may have been the only major US region to reduce driving rates over that period.

Here's what the American Planning Association said in giving its 2008 Planning Excellence Award to Metro, Portland's regional government:

"Helping reduce sprawl and carbon emissions in the 25-city, three-county Portland, Oregon, metropolitan region with 1.4 million residents by developing "up not out" is Metro, the area's unique governmental agency. Through nearly two dozen transit-oriented development projects completed during the past decade — and another dozen in the pipeline — Metro is showing how development can be more compact while at the same time reducing residents' dependence on automobiles for local trips and commuting to work.
"Projects completed to date have used 80 acres of land compared with 587 acres that would have been needed using conventional development practices."

Well-earned, in my opinion. And probably worth a blog post of its own at some point.

Thanks to NRDC's Kim Ranney for pointing me to the Grist series.

Ecological Accounting: A New Measure of Economic Health

2008-05-13T17:13:53Z

My day-to-day work life focuses on relatively concrete notions: passing global warming legislation, getting more energy efficient appliances into the hands of consumers, pushing automakers to produce more efficient cars. These are the tools I believe we must use to protect our environment. But every once in a while, I take a step back and apprehend just how transformative the change has to be if we are really going to restore the Earth. Reading Gus Speth’s new book was one of those moments.

Gus was a member of the original crew who had the quixotic notion that we could open the first the first American law firm that would hold polluters accountable in court. That was NRDC, and I think we have done pretty well for ourselves. But Gus didn’t stop there. He went on to found World Resources Institute and become the dean of Yale’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Perhaps one of Gus’ most important roles is as philosopher and provocateur. In his new book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, he calls for nothing less than replacing capitalism with something more sensitive to the natural world.

His list of environmental indicators is grim--the Earth is clearly in dire condition. The world’s economic growth is exploding so rapidly that is outpacing the gains we have made in protecting the environment.

What does he recommend? Nothing short of changing American-style consumer culture:

First and foremost, he says we have to cap global warming emissions. If we don’t, if we keep doing what we are doing, the planet won’t be able to sustain us any longer.

But second, we have to question our devotion to economic growth above all other values. As he calls it, we must rethink “our pathetic capitulation to consumerism.” This unquestioning drive toward more and more creates a paradox: we have achieved abundance but it is teetering on extinction.

Gus’s book reminds me that fighting to protect the planet is not just about policy and proposals and legislation. It’s about what we value, what is meaningful to us, what brings us peace and long-lasting health.

I recommend you read his book--and so do many reviewers. You may not agree with his conclusions, but you will be inspired to reflect on what it is you value and what you will do to support those values.

Rethinking environmental impacts to manage growth

2008-05-13T12:00:51Z

When faced with a situation where rapid growth is occurring, such as I discussed yesterday, the best thing to do environmentally is to manage and shape it so that a good quality of life is maintained with the least environmental harm. This is fundamentally about per capita, or per household, thinking: how can we shape the new development so that it has the least impact per increment of growth?

This is the essence of smart growth. But it also represents a fairly radical departure from traditional environmental thinking (and much of environmental law), which focuses our attention not on per capita impacts but on particular pieces of land, parcel-by-parcel.

There are dramatic differences in the results of the two methods of thinking. Consider the two maps of the San Francisco Bay Area, below. The one on the left shows carbon dioxide emissions from cars, on a per-acre basis. The deeper the red, the greater the emissions. The one on the right shows the same emissions on a per-household basis:

The maps are practically opposite images of one another. Someone trying to plan how new development should be located, if not thinking in per capita terms, might look only at the map on the left, and conclude that development should avoid the more densely populated portions of the region, because of higher emissions there. The planner might also conclude that new development should be spread out, to avoid mimicking the apparent effect of density.

But it would be the worst thing to do. The map on the right shows that the densely populated areas actually have lower CO2 emission rates than the outlying areas, when considered on a per-household basis. Overall CO2 emissions in the atmosphere will be minimized if new development, to the greatest extent possible, locates within and mimics the more heavily settled areas. This is because people in denser, more central locations drive less.

You can make the same sorts of comparisons for other environmental media. Stormwater runoff, for example, is exacerbated by pavement, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces. Compare the two maps of Seattle below, which show per-acre impervious surface on the left, and per-capita impervious surface on the right. Again, the deeper the color, the greater the imperviousness:

Remember, the choice is not between growing and not growing. The choice is only about how and where. And what the maps show is that per-person incremental impacts of growth are minimized by density and central locations. In other words, for a given amount of growth, the way to reduce overall impervious surface in the larger watershed is to concentrate it in as few places as possible and keep the overall development footprint of the region as small as possible. The result will be increased per-acre runoff in some parts of the watershed, but it will also mean less runoff in the watershed as a whole. This is mostly because more compact neighborhoods require less pavement - fewer road miles and parking lots - to serve them, on a per-unit basis. For more on how compact, centrally located development can benefit watersheds compared to sprawl, see EPA's terrific research on the subject.

The CO2 maps of San Francisco come from NRDC’s longtime collaborator, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. And the impervious surface maps of Seattle come from another longtime collaborator, Criterion Planners.

Different Coasts, Same Schmutz

2008-05-12T22:54:05Z

I used to play basketball with a guy we called “Schmutzie,” a playground variant on the Yiddish word “schmutz,” which means dirt. I don’t know how he got the name – he wasn’t any dirtier a player than the rest of us.

Recently, I travelled across the country from the Port of Los Angeles to the Port of Newark, N.J., to meet with local environmental justice advocates about another kind of schmutz: diesel particulates from port-serving trucks, ships and trains. I learned that the Newark ports have many of the same problems as the L.A. ports, including reliance on a dirty, aging truck fleet driven by “independent”, low-income owner-operators who can’t afford to maintain or replace their trucks. And, like the L.A. ports, the Newark ports want to expand to bring in more business.

But unlike the L.A. ports, Newark has not realized that port operations with dirty trucks and high-sulfur marine fuels treat the air as a public sewer and carry a high price in public health. Expansion without a change in that attitude will only make matters worse. Newark is not alone in this – every major U.S. port has these problems to one degree or another.

I’m not here to say that Newark or any other port should slavishly copy the L.A. model or the organizing/legal strategy that has been effective here – but what L.A. has to offer is worth a serious look around the country. The Port of Los Angeles is the largest port in the country and port leadership has taken it upon themselves to set the bar high when it comes to cleaning up future port operations. NRDC stands ready to help in Newark and anywhere else where diesel pollution is sickening and killing people and causing irreversible damage to the physical environment. Allowing industry to profit from this situation in the 21st century calls to mind another Yiddish word: meshuggenah. It’s crazy.

How much the US will grow, and where: numbers and a map

2008-05-12T12:50:51Z

The housing market may be in a slump right now - in part because we've been building too much sprawl - but over the next 25 years or so the US is going to experience rapid population growth, and the construction and development to go with it. I've mentioned before the work of Chris (Arthur C.) Nelson of Virginia Tech, perhaps the country's leading researcher on building trends projected into the future.

Chris projects the following changes between 2005 and 2030, nationally:

Population growth: 70 million (roughly twice the current population of California, or the current population of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland combined)
Job growth: 40 million
New households: 32 million
New and replacement homes: 50 million (because buildings deteriorate, a portion of our current stock must be rebuilt or replaced each year)
New and replacement nonresidential space: 78 billion square feet

The growth will not be distributed evenly, which means that some regions will not experience its benefits while others will experience the benefits but will also have to bear a greater share of the burden. Consider the map below, which comes to us courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design and the America 2050 Initiative:

The map is delineated by county. The deeper the red color, the more rapidly a particular county is expected to experience population growth. The deepest red counties will double in population by 2050. The gray counties are projected to lose population, and the darker the gray the more rapid the loss is likely to be. The darkest gray areas will lose 10% or more of their current population.

How we accommodate this growth matters a great deal to the environment and to the maintenance of our quality of life. The areas in red need to get their act together. As I will discuss in a future post, this will require a new approach to environmental thinking - one that may not come naturally to regulatory agencies or even to groups like NRDC.

Press Clips: airline fuel economy, a conservation deal, integrated pest management, more

2008-05-10T02:24:33Z

NRDC in the News (May 9, 2008)

NRDC’s Deron Lovaas scored some valuable real estate on the front page of the USA Today business section discussing attempts by airlines to reduce fuel use. Lovaas, director of NRDC's Vehicles Campaign, told the paper, "The airlines have historically done a much better job than the auto companies at increasing efficiency."

"They feel fuel prices,” Lovaas explained, “much more than your average consumer feels changes in fuel costs at the pump."

More on airlines and fuel economy

***

Speaking of valuable real estate, quotes from NRDC's Joel Reynolds book-ended a New York Times piece detailing the conservation efforts of the Tejon Ranch development deal in California that secured easements on 240,000 acres of uniquely biodiverse land.

''This is the Holy Grail of conservation in California,'' Reynolds said.

The paper concludes by saying that Reynolds “also noted that public access to the ranch, from the grasslands to the gnarled Joshua trees, would be guaranteed, and that a 49,000-acre park would most likely be created."

More on Tejon Ranch deal

***

In Women's Health, NRDC's Kim Knowlton plugged NRDC.org while drawing reader’s attention to the connection between global warming, smog, allergies and asthma.

More on allergies, asthma, and climate change

***

In another health magazine – surprisingly titled Health – NRDC’s Jen Sass told readers about integrated pest management and advised caution when dealing with toxic pesticides, which, she warns, "aren't selective killers" and may increase cancer risk or neurological maladies such as Parkinson's disease.

More on alternatives to toxic pesticides

***

NRDC also maintains a strong presence in Canadian media with analyst Susan Casey-Lefkowitz telling the Vancouver Sun about the Alberta tar sands' dubious future in US energy policy. “We want our energy,” she said, “but not at all costs.” To this end, the Sun reports, "The Natural Resources Defense Council and 26 other US and Canadian environmental groups sent a letter to members of the US Congress" to maintain a section of our energy bill that prohibits use of tainted energy sources like Canada's oil sands.

More on Alberta’s tar sands

***

Press Clips is a new feature on Switchboard that will provide a highly selective view of the world as seen through the eyes of NRDC staff quoted by mainstream media outlets. Roundups will appear daily, Monday through Friday.

RSS / subscribe to Switchboard's Press Clips

Wyoming Legislators Might Not Like Wolves…Or Foreigners…Or Tourists…

2008-05-09T20:46:06Z

NRDC has been shining a bright light on the ugliness in the Northern Rockies since grey wolves were delisted last month. To date the animals are being shot down at the rate of one a day in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. We are extremely concerned about how the actions of some in the region could quickly undo all one of the Endangered Species Act’s greatest success stories---Sylvia Fallon’s recent posting does a good job of explaining the science behind the need for relisting.

It has been fascinating to watch how the debate has played out in the media around the country---but especially in those states. The voices are vehement on both sides of the issue. Our members and e-activists have certainly been a part of that discussion, joining the chorus who have made their feelings known all over the place, including letters to state and federal legislators.

Some of the exchanges between wolf supporters and lawmakers have not been pretty. I wonder what the folks at Wyoming Travel and Tourism would think about this letter sent by state Senator Doug Samuelson to Dieter, a wolf watcher from Germany:

Thanks for staying in Germany, you stay there and I will stay here. Also stay out of our politics. You are very misinformed about wildlife management in our state and country. Everyone agreed that wolves would be delisted when the population was only 20% of what it is today. We were tricked by your ilk. We manage wildlife extremely well here, unlike your country which has no free ranging populations. Hunting of elk, moose and bighorn sheep is much more important to our small towns than casual tourists like you. Hunters spend real money and wolves have wiped out thousands of elk and moose. When wolves destroy ranches those ranches don't become parks, they become subdivisions where no wildlife lives. So quite frankly my constituents live in Wyoming and not in Germany so your comments have absolutely no influence on us, just as your politicians should care much more about you than they do about me. Sincerely,Doug Samuelson

Probably not the image the tourism folks are looking to project....but it does not stop there. Poor Dieter, he also got this insulting letter from a state representative:

Dieter:

No wolves are being killed in Yellowstone. The very few wolves (12) that have been killed have trespassed on private property and have been eating privately owned cattle and sheep. We have such a thing as private property rights here in Wyoming - what a concept for you Germans. You have gotten incorrect information.

Thank you very much for your promise to never visit here again. We have a very very serious surplus of tourists here it they are threating the ecological balance we have strived to maintain.

M. Madden
MICHAEL K. MADDEN Wyoming State Representative

Legislators in Wyoming must be getting sick of letters, because they aren’t just unloading on foreign nationals. A professor from Gonzaga University posted an ugly exchange she had with Representative Madden, that included this email:

In a follow up, he also implores her, “However, please don't overestimate you and your kind's your importance to our economy and future.”

Now, let me be clear. NRDC has not advocated for any sort of tourism boycott on this issue. We feel that a solution to the wolf issue in this region must take the needs of many into account; hunters and ranchers, as well as wildlife advocates. We believe that we can find new and creative ways to coexist with wildlife and achieve longterm recovery of the wolves of the Northern Rockies through an open and fair democratic process. But that process cannot move forward with this sort of charged and one-sided communication from the very folks who will need to help fix the problem. NRDC and the other environmental groups want to find a real solution to this issue---and we hope that other adults will come to the table to help work this thing out.

For the Love of Veggies

2008-05-09T20:19:49Z

For years, when faced with the "are you vegetarian" question I’ve responded with "no, but I am veggie-friendly." This of course always leads to raised eyebrows and more questions. It's quite simple actually: I eat (and enjoy) vegetarian food, I just also happen to eat meat.

Ten years ago, vegetarian restaurants weren't quite so trendy but I would join my veggie friends out of respect and, lets face it, sheer curiosity. I won't deny that I rolled my eyes at the menu a few times, but coached by some very patient people I eventually moved beyond the veggie burger. What really surprised me though, was that I discovered I LOVED vegetables. This was such an eye-opener because I've never been fond of salads. Sorry lettuce, leafy greens left raw on my plate just doesn't appeal to me. But lo, here was an entire cuisine focused on cooking vegetables in new and exciting ways. Doubt and suspicion eventually turned to fascination and eagerness -- so much so that vegetarian food is now among my favorite cuisines. What's not to love? The food is usually fresh, flavorful, light, and quite innovative. Even in non-veggie restaurants, I will consider the veggie entrees just as thoroughly as the rest of the menu. Who needs pork chops when you can get stuffed squash or cherry-glazed asparagus?

My adventures with veggie cuisine also extend into the kitchen. An avid hostess and amateur cook, I enjoy having friends over for tea parties and dinners. Being mindful of my guests, I've learned to always keep vegetarian and vegan recipes on hand. Last summer, my partner and I invited another couple to dinner: a Texan carnivore and a vegan activist who's among the organizers for the Veggie Pride Parade on May 18th. (Opposites really DO attract!) To top it off, my partner was eager to get the outdoor grill going. Not one to shy away from a challenge, I announced that we'd have a vegan barbeque, an announcement that my partner greeted with an incredulous: “so what are we going to eat??"

Undaunted I sorted all our sauces and marinades according to their ingredients and proved that most of our pantry was in fact fair game. Ok, so we got the flavorings covered; now what? I consulted Vegan Planet by Robin Robertson; a very informative cookbook which actually has a chapter devoted to grilling. I already had portabellas and veggie-kabobs in mind, but the cookbook guided me with the grilled tofu, sweet potato samosas, and couscous salad. Voila- I had the makings of a vegan feast!

Our vegan friend was elated with our preparations, and brought her own yummy fruit cobbler for desert. She described how she usually carries her own food to events to make up for the lack of options, and was touched that I had taken her diet into such consideration. But the best part of the evening was after the meal, when both of our meat-craving partners acknowledged (with a little shock) that they had thoroughly enjoyed the barbeque despite the absence of meat. The whip cream did come out toward the end -- some habits are just too hard to break -- but overall our vegan experiment was a success.

Truth is, I highly respect vegetarians and vegans. In my experience they are usually extremely caring individuals who are socially and environmentally responsible. They've chosen their lifestyles for a number of reasons – many of which I support, especially when it comes to decreasing our carbon footprint.

Just because I don't restrict my diet to their level does not mean I don't understand or agree with their motivations. Now I'm sure some militant person will criticize my stance as the hypocritical whining of one who refuses to give up that last slice of bacon. Yes, I've had my fair share of angry glares from people who can't believe I went for the beef. But unless you're a hermit who lives completely off the grid and won't even kill a mosquito, you've had to make your own compromises. Well I compromise every day, in my own way. I alternate veggie days w/ meat days, just like I alternate between walking and cabs, or open windows and air conditioning.

Will I eat meat forever? Probably not, but that decision will come when I'm ready for it. One thing is for sure: no filet mignon can stand up to handmade pumpkin ravioli in a fresh pesto sauce. Waiter!!

Press Clips: spin from Detroit, restoring the San Joaquin, stopping sewage overflows, more

2008-05-09T02:12:37Z

NRDC in the News (May 8, 2008)

NRDC's Roland Hwang shares an irritating tale with NPR's Marketplace [listen] about how -- despite spending millions to fight higher CAFE standards in Congress -- Ford has had fuel-efficient technology all along. A bit of the transcript:

The auto industry's main argument against higher fuel economy standards was that meeting them would be too costly and would harm the already struggling US auto industry. Roland Hwang, with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says Ford's actions prove they've been crying wolf.
“They know how to do this,” Hwang says, “but of course a lot of these technologies have been used for higher performance, higher acceleration and making the vehicle fleet bigger.”
Hwang says with the era of the gas-guzzling SUV coming to an end, automakers can now apply these technologies to lighter and smaller cars, adding up to more savings at the pump.

More on fuel economy

***

Whatever the questionable behavior of corporate America, we should all be able to agree that government should make our lives less stinky. NRDC's Nancy Stoner tells USA Today how the government needs to better police and prevent sewage overflows. As the paper reports, her analysis of EPA data found "since 2003, hundreds of municipal sewer authorities have been fined for violations, including spills that make people sick, threaten local drinking water and kill aquatic animals and plants.

Local governments will be making improvements over the next 10 to 20 years, Stoner said, but the 1.2 million miles of underground sewers across the country present quite a challenge. Still, Stoner says, "When people flush their toilets, they think the sewage is going to the treatment plant, and that's where they deserve to have it go."

More on sewage overflows

***

That sort of common sense so often reflects the environmental point-of-view so it’s fair to ask why we always seem to be fighting against the political current? Imagine that quintessentially western tableau of salmon conquering bear-bordered waterfalls. Sometimes environmental advocacy can feel equally challenging.

Thankfully, as the Associated Press writes, both salmon and environmentalists breached the allegorical falls Wednesday with a US Senate settlement to restore salmon populations in the San Joaquin Delta, California. This case has raged since NRDC and other groups sued the Department of the Interior over the Friant Dam in 1988, which had dried up California's second-longest river (and a major salmon habitat) since the 50s. Hal Candee, lead negotiator for the NRDC, explains, "Today's vote is about reversing that trend [against salmon and salmon fishermen]."

More on restoring the San Joaquin River

***

Also in California, another negotiated success hit this morning’s front page of the LA Times in a report on a historic conservation land deal that will preserve a huge parcel “eight times the size of San Francisco... [at] the juncture of four ecosystems: Mojave Desert grasslands, San Joaquin Valley oak woodlands, Tehachapi pine forests and coastal mountain ranges."

"We've come a long way from where we started," Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of the NRDC’s Southern California Program, told the Times. "This was an extremely complicated deal, but also a once-in-a-lifetime conservation opportunity."

In the negotiated settlement, NRDC and others won the conservation of 240,000 acres while agreeing to not oppose development plans on another 30,000 acres nearby; this development must proceed under environmental guidelines, including the capability to be retrofitted as future green opportunities emerge.

More on the Tejon Ranch deal

***

Other conservation efforts have not yet come to fruition. As the Jackson Hole Star Tribune reports, NRDC and others have petitioned the federal government for more aggressive gray wolf conservation goals in Yellowstone. As NRDC geneticist Sylvia Fallon explains, current conservation levels leave a population too small to produce long-term genetic viability.

"[Original] recovery goals of 300 wolves across these three states were established over 20 years ago, and there's been a lot of developing science since that time,” Fallon told the Star Tribune. “The Fish and Wildlife Service has not incorporated any of this evolving science into its decision [to list the wolves as 'recovered']."

Fallon challenges, "Fish and Wildlife has not achieved a self-sustaining, recovered population of wolves." She offers a better solution: "Getting the wolves in Yellowstone connected naturally to large numbers of other wolves, so that they can naturally exchange genetic materials."

More on protecting Yellowstone’s wolves

***

For another trip to the bottom of the allegorical falls, we return to San Joaquin Delta. Though we may have helped the salmon upstream, the Contra Costa Times reports that a planned diversion of 20 percent more water from the Delta might cause problems for declining salmon runs while also threatening the overall balance of the Delta as a whole.

Though a state paper touts fish that have been saved in other areas, NRDC water policy analyst Barry Nelson rebuts the state report, "The [study] is biased in a way that disguises the potential impacts of the scenarios they analyze." Nelson continues, "There's absolutely no discussion here of what the Delta can accommodate and remain healthy."

***

Further north, Canada's Globe and Mail reports how NRDC senior attorney Susan Casey-Lefkowitz has opposed Canada's high-carbon-emitting tar sands, urging the US Senate to maintain a ban keeping the "tainted" fuel out of our energy portfolio.

The Mail reports that, in anticipation of attempts this week to rescind the fuel ban, a "letter [to Congress] was written by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an influential New-York-based environmental group, and endorsed by 26 other organizations."

The NRDC letter told the government it "will make the job of reducing global warming emissions even more difficult if it chooses to subsidize the development of high-carbon fuels through long term contracts."

Casey-Lefkowitz told the Mail, "The tar sands oil is very dirty." Beyond its dirty emissions, the paper explains that she notes "both the large amount of energy needed to process sticky bitumen from which petroleum is extracted and the dangers these massive mining projects pose to wildlife.”

More on Alberta’s tar sands

***

RSS / subscribe to Switchboard's Press Clips

Survey shows rising honey bee losses

2008-05-08T19:32:48Z

A national survey released this week shows honey bee losses on the rise this year, prompting the state of Pennsylvania to pump money into colony collapse disorder (CCD) research.

The Apiary Inspectors of America's annual survey indicated 36.1 percent of commercial bees were lost this year, compared to 32 percent last year. According to the group, 29 percent of the losses were from CCD. In response, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is contributing an additional $20,000 to Pennsylvania State University's CCD research efforts.

Apiary Inspectors president Dennis vanEngelsdorp says these bee losses are unsustainable.

"For two years in a row, we've sustained a substantial loss," he said. "That's an astonishing number. Imagine if one out of every three cows, or one out of every three chickens, were dying. That would raise a lot of alarm."

And if one of every three cows were simply disappearing off the face of the earth, as is often the case with bees affected by CCD, you can bet the federal government would be looking into it. The small but ever-so-important commercial honey bee could use some sustained, federal support for research into CCD.

Cool New Car Sticker Shows Which Are Cleanest

2008-05-08T18:08:59Z

Car shopping? Coming very soon in California is a handy new window sticker that makes it easy to choose the cleanest vehicles. It’s terrific in its simplicity; each car, SUV, minivan or pickup will get a 1-10 score on the basis of global warming and smog pollution. Go for the high score (this isn’t golf) and you’ll be driving home in a clean vehicle.

The new Environmental Performance label, which will be on new vehicles starting in January, shows the Global Warming Score and Smog Score side-by-side. No tricky math for you do since the California Air Resources Board, which designed the label, breaks down technical emissions data into simple blocks. Also shown is the average score for all vehicles of that new model year, so you’ll know how each car in a showroom compares to the overall new vehicle fleet. Want to comparison shop before visiting showrooms? The Environmental Performance label points you to www.DriveClean.ca.gov, which will list the scores of all new vehicles for sale.

I like that the label is also a money-saver. Choosing a high Global Warming Score saves money at the pump because high-scoring vehicles are typically the most fuel efficient.

Not in California? Other states, like Pennsylvania, have already said they will adopt the Environmental Performance label. Until your state adopts the label, you should check out US EPA website www.fueleconomy.gov; it allows you to compare new and used vehicles side-by-side in terms of carbon footprint and smog pollution.

Happy shopping.

Press Clips: corporate green, safe sushi, energy diet, more

2008-05-08T02:40:38Z

NRDC in the News (May 7, 2008)

Going green may be all the rage in corporate America, but some are starting to question what it all means. Linda Greer, Director of NRDC’s Health and Toxics Program, tells the Christian Science Monitor that "true sustainability requires independent certification, extensive consumer-education campaigns, and a desire and ability to review entire supply chains."

Sometimes this supply-chain analysis is beyond consumers' capacity.

"How do I know if a garment is 'green'?,” Greer explains. “The answer is: there's no way to know that. Even if you buy a T-shirt that's organic, you don't know the factories and the chemicals that went into dyeing it, or how much carbon they emitted into the air."

More on green business

***

Similarly, Fox Business News.com carries a piece on oil juggernauts’ “green” PR programs and turns to NRDC advocate Deron Lovaas for analysis of campaigns by the likes of Exxon Mobil. "Presumably, these companies are following up on their promises to invest a part of these profits in alternative energy, but the amount they are investing at this point is unclear at best,” Lovaas said. “Exxon does some work with lithium ion batteries and BP some work with biofuels. But we need a clearer plan for the future."

More on moving beyond oil

***

So you bike to work and shop at the Salvation Army? Well, you're still not off the hook – pun intended – when it comes to your choice of fish. O, The Oprah Magazine recommends NRDC's guide to sushi for the safest scales for your body and world.

More on mercury contamination in fish

***

Even if you squirm at the sight of sushi, we all eat electricity in hefty helpings. Putting New Yorkers on a more responsible energy diet, the energy utility National Grid has proposed a sweeping efficiency initiative. In an article in the Syracuse Post Standard, NRDC's air and energy policy director Ashok Gupta applauded National Grid's “leadership in advancing this cost-effective energy efficiency program."

"The proposal presents a model for aligning company and customer interests in reducing New York's energy consumption,” Gupta told the newspaper.

More on reducing your energy consumption

***

One questionable use of national energy devotes our tax dollars to predator eradication programs across the country. In a recent article in High Country News by NRDC wildlife advocate Lisa Upson, we learn that "the federal agency euphemistically known as Wildlife Services" provides "a taxpayer handout to the livestock industry" by spending over "80 percent of its mostly public funding as a political favor to agribusiness."

According to Upson, Wildlife Services often uses unsafe and inhumane tactics, including "gas cartridges to asphyxiate pups in dens" and "Compound 1080, a poison so lethal it's been banned in several states and countries." Upson identifies Wildlife Services as "a major force in eliminating wolf and grizzly bear populations in the early 20th century, [which] today spends over $100 million each year...to kill more than a million animals." Upson also reports, "Wildlife Services has killed an increasing number of endangered species... between 1996 and 2006."

More on wildlife conservation

***

Finally, NRDC senior lawyer Ann Alexander has won recognition on a Crain's Chicago Business list of the city's "Women to Watch," rubbing shoulders with Michelle Obama and, in the process, offering a nice plug for NRDC. Crain's writes, "[A] love of nature and concern over humans' impact on it are at the core of her work as an environmental lawyer in the Chicago office of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group with 350 lawyers, scientists and policy experts in five national offices plus a new outpost in Beijing."

The article describes how Alexander worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley last summer to fight a BP's proposal to increase it's pollution of Lake Michigan and Chicago's drinking source. The mayor's director of external affairs, Joe Deal, praises, "She's the kind of person you want in the room when you tackle a complicated issue."

Alexander graciously shares the credit. "I am working for an organization that could actually turn this country around on climate change," she says.

***

Press Clips is a new feature on Switchboard that will provide a highly selective view of the world as seen through the eyes of NRDC staff quoted by mainstream media outlets. Roundups will appear daily, Monday through Friday.

RSS / subscribe to Switchboard's Press Clips

In hand wringing over biofuels mandate, safeguards at risk

2008-05-08T01:47:20Z

The Hill was alive with the sound of finger pointing and hand-wringing yesterday when I testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality about the RFS. (All the testimony including mine is available on the Subcommittee's web site. Mine is also available here, on NRDC's site, and my oral statement, which I basically read, is here if you want the 600 word version.) The hearing was ostensibly an EPA oversight hearing to learn about implementation of the RFS, but it was really mostly a platform for two groups of legislators: 1) those that want to reduce or eliminate the RFS and replace it with more domestic oil, liquid coal or both and 2) those that want to gut the safeguards in the RFS.

Any number of oil and coal patch republicans or dems would probably vie for the leadership of the first group, but the ranking member of Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton (R-Texas) would get my vote. He has a bill to repeal the recent RFS and reinstate the 2005 RFS. This would cut the corn ethanol mandate in half and entirely eliminate the advanced biofuels requirements and all of the minimum lifecycle GHG standards and land and wildlife safeguards.

The leader of the second group is Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) who has a bill (H.R. 5236) to replace the current definition of eligible woody biomass, which includes the safeguards, with the version that passed in the Senate last year, which effectively allows in all wood.

Now the politics here are really strange because of course the anti-biofuels fossil fuel group was more than happy to support the anti-safeguard crowd, but many of the anti-safeguard are strongly pro-corn. So when Rep. Herseth Sandlin testified about her bill she had to spend half her time talking about how great corn ethanol is and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) basically yelled at his colleagues. "This is very frustrating, how short-sighted we are to walk away [from corn ethanol]," he boomed, and then at the end, he added that what we really needed to do was pass the Herseth Sandlin bill and add liquid coal to the mix.

Adding to the array of strange bedfellows, four environmental groups sent a letter to the Subcommittee's chair adding their voice to that of the Governor of Texas, and a bunch of Senate Republicans calling for a waiver of the current RFS.

A voice of reason came in a statement from the Chair of Energy and Commerce, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). As the first line of a comprehensive article in the E&E Daily (subscrip) by Alex Kaplum put it: "House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) threw cold water yesterday on the growing cry to scale back the federal ethanol mandate Congress approved last year."

Among other things in his statement, he says the following:

I would observe that the ink had hardly dried on this new law when the clamoring began to alter the RFS, and these requests for Congressional intervention continue. In my view, amendments to the law at this time would be unwise and could lead to unintended consequences.
I believe that all stakeholders would be well-advised to consult with the EPA as it develops the rule and try to address any concerns within that forum. If unresolved issues still remain after the rule is finalized, there may be need for Congressional action. To act in advance of that date, however, undermines important processes.

Another good article in E&E Daily on Monday by Ben Geman got my perspective on these various efforts right:

Nathanael Greene, a biofuels expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said biofuels are among the many factors that are contributing to increased food costs. But he does not see altering the biofuels mandate as the answer.
Instead, he argues that lawmakers should "build on top" of the mandate by altering biofuels tax credit and tariff policy. Lawmakers should encourage biofuels that fare best in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and other environmental factors, he said, which would thereby steer production toward cleaner fuels that do not compete with food.
"The solution to a lot of the global warming concerns, particularly the land-use emissions concerns, and the solution to getting biofuels out of the food price equation are the same thing," he said.
Greene is also concerned that reopening the mandate would allow for "mischief," such as a push to weaken environmental restrictions in last year's energy bill.

The Herseth Sandlin bill certainly qualifies as mischief in my book. While my testimony provides a full explanation of why we think the RFS got the definition of renewable biomass and woody biomass specifically right, I'll summarize our points here:

First it's important to understand that our wild landscapes and federal lands are only becoming more critical to wildlife and for their ecosystem services and as stores of carbon as global warming puts increased pressure on our lands. So the need for safeguards is greater than every. Still the new RFS allows the vast majority of woody feedstock that is likely to ever be economically viable for biofuels. It only excludes: old growth, few remaining grasslands, our most sensitive landscapes, federal lands, and the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations.

In other words, all the material from a forest plantation can be used, as can the material from a naturally managed forest (one that uses natural regeneration). But you can't convert a natural forest to a forest plantation. Plantations may look like forests but they're deserts from the perspective of biodiversity.

The federal land exclusion is a big sticking point for Herseth Sandlin, who has a number of interests that want to harvest the Black Hills for energy. But "preventative thinning" from a forest is ostensibly to restore the forest health and reduce the risk of fires. This means that you don't want the material to grow back, which makes it an open loop source of carbon not unlike the carbon from coal. Furthermore, the evidence that thinning helps reduce the risk of fire is uncertain at best and there are studies that suggest that it actually makes fires worse. And finally, for that material that is already being cut and left in the forests, there are better more local and more appropriately scaled options such as producing heat and power for local communities.

The only thing that I would add to Ben's E&E Daily article is that I actually offered three steps that Congress should take to build on the RFS:

Adopt a low-carbon fuel standard, as California and Massachusetts are planning to do.
Pass comprehensive climate legislation built around a mandatory, economy-wide carbon cap and a carbon credit trading system.
Reform the various existing biofuels tax credits and import tariffs to be a single technology-neutral, performance-based credit to encourage water efficiency, reduced water pollution, better soil management, and enhanced wildlife management.

Smart growth improves air quality, says new research

2008-05-07T18:41:13Z

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has released important new research detailing the benefits of smart growth on transportation emissions and air quality.

In particular, the report reviews the effects on traffic and pollution that would occur if new growth and land development were encouraged to take place on vacant parcels and redevelopment sites within established cities and suburbs, instead of sprawling out onto sites that are now farmland or forests. The report also examines the potential benefits of developing near public transportation and on obsolete industrial "brownfield" sites.

Written by EPA’s Smart Growth Program, Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development concludes:

“Fundamentally, well designed neighborhoods in more accessible places make walking, biking and transit more convenient options. Therefore, policies that increase the amount of urban and suburban infill development can help more people meet their everyday needs with less driving. In turn, this can reduce traffic and contribute to better regional air quality . . .

“This study illustrates how regions can calculate these benefits. The basic approach relies upon standard transportation forecasting models currently used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations across the country. The results suggest that strong support for infill development can be one of the most effective transportation and emission reduction investments regions can pursue . . .

“Across the three case studies, redirecting jobs and households to brownfield and other infill sites reduces overall travel, congestion and emissions from cars. For example, if just 8 percent of Denver’s jobs and households were shifted over time toward 10 regional centers, congestion would be reduced by over 6 percent and emissions would be reduced by about 4 percent. This would be equivalent to removing nearly half a million trips per day from the region’s roads, a significant share of the daily average (12.7 million miles). If the same amount of development was concentrated in 31 locations, the reduction in emissions would be somewhat smaller (3 percent).

“The Charlotte case study evaluated the impact of increased infill development in a single corridor. Although a much smaller number of jobs and homes were relocated to infill sites, the analysis demonstrates the benefits of focused development around transit. While the new rail service alone did reduce congestion in the corridor, it had a minimal impact on the region’s emissions. However, when 16,000 households and 10,000 jobs are relocated near the South Corridor stations, the reduction in emissions was 10 times greater and transit ridership increased by more than 6,000 trips each day.

“In Boston, the analysis considered redevelopment in just 13 suburban towns along the I-495 Corridor. Redirecting new development to brownfield sites in these towns reduced vehicle travel by 154,000 miles during the evening rush hour. Given the corridor’s average car trip of 15 miles, this reduction is equivalent to eliminating more than 10,000 trips.”

The full, 77-page report may be found here. It confirms and expands a growing body of research on land use and transportation, including last month's release of a major study documenting how smart growth reduces global warming emissions.