Clean Energy

7 Ways Beth Goes Green – Energy

by

One of my main goals in life is to not leave a legacy of pollution behind after my brief existence on this earth. If we don’t want to be part of the problem, then we have to be part of the solution. Nature, as monitored by scientists, is showing us the effects of elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere from our use of fossil fuels. So, here are a few ways I try to reduce my impact on the planet by reducing energy use. Can you do some of these too?

  1. For my house, I did a free home energy audit (by GreenTeamLI) and ended up putting in insulation throughout the attic and walls, and getting a 95% efficient natural gas heater that also heats water on demand. Bills are much lower, and house more comfortable.
  2. I buy energy star appliances including the fridge, dishwasher, clothes washer, and TV.
  3. I do community solar—I signed up through a local solar company, and now most of the electric usage in my house is covered by a “share” of the energy produced by a solar farm in Shelter Island, NY.
  4. I drive an electric vehicle, and had a hybrid Prius before that for 17 years that averaged between 40-50mpg, saving gas and money. Electric vehicles produce fewer emissions than regular combustion engines.
  5. All the light bulbs in the house are either LED or flourescent. These useless energy to produce the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs.
  6. I have a controllable thermostat to set the temperature a little higher in summer (78° and the heat lower in winter 70°, though 68° is the recommended ideal.)
  7. I buy carbon offsets when I travel, through the CarbonFund.org.

For more energy saving tips, see nyserda.ny.gov.

GreenTeamLI is a paid sponsor of the Green Inside and Out Podcast.

This article is the first of a larger series, 75 Ways Beth Goes Green — more to come!

10 Ways The Current U.S. Administration Has Undone Environmental Policy

by

Photo by Ella Ivanescu on Unsplash

Since the election is coming up, here are some important facts about changes to federal environmental laws and policies that the mainstream press does not typically cover. A 2018 analysis  published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the Trump administration’s rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely “cost the lives of over 80,000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people.”[1] Since then, the Executive Branch has taken further actions to undo environmental protections despite scientific evidence, favoring industry over human health.

The NY Times has been tracking a list of exactly 100 rollbacks of environmental laws that are either completed or in the works right now. There are 68 completed and 32 in progress.[2] We will focus today on just 12 of the actions the current administration has taken since entering office:

  • Abandoning The Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement is a non-binding framework for global climate action, (non-binding meaning countries cannot be penalized for not following it). It includes the mitigation of and adaptation to climate changes, extra support for developing nations, and the strengthening and transparent reporting of climate goals including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, by member countries. As of 2020, 190 of 197 countries, representing more than 97% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or agreed to the Agreement, including China, the United States and India. When the Trump administration withdraws the US, it will join Iran, Iraq Libya, Yemen and Turkey as the only major countries that have not ratified the agreement.

  • Naming of Andrew Wheeler as Secretary of the US EPA in 2018

Andrew Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist who has expressed doubt regarding climate change and has questioned the legitimacy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is commissioned by the UN and made up of thousands of scientists from around the world. The IPCC issues a status report on global climate science every 5 years, and is considered the leading documentation of current climate science.

  • Overhauling the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

President Trump announced in July 2020 an overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act, a fundamental environmental protection law established in 1970 that requires environmental impact statements to be developed for all major projects. The administration’s new rule speeds up construction permitting for freeways, power plants and pipelines, no longer requiring federal reviews of their environmental impact. The new rules shorten the time frame for completing environmental studies, limit the types of projects subject to review, and no longer require federal agencies to account for a project’s cumulative effects on the environment.

  • Weakening Key Parts of the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act was established in 1973 by President Nixon, and has prevented the vast majority of listed species from going completely extinct. The Trump administration has changed how the Act is applied, weakening effective protections for threatened species of animals and plants, discouraging the designation of critical habitats, and allowing for economic factors when evaluating species-listing decisions, rather than basing those decisions solely on ecosystem science.

  • Replacing the Clean Power Plan

The current administration is replacing previous policy with the “Affordable Clean Energy (ACE)” rule,[3] allowing states more power to determine how emissions are regulated, instead of establishing a set target for each state. This now allows for uneven regulation of emissions from state to state. It also determined that heat rate improvement (HRI) measures are the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for existing coal-fired generating units rather than actual carbon capture and storage technology. This was challenged by New York and 21 other States with the concern that ACE does not truly reduce emissions. It is estimated that this change could lead to as many as 1,400 additional air pollution deaths a year by 20302

At the announcement, the then acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney for the White House said that US emissions are “flat or down.” That is actually incorrect . In fact, prior to the covid pandemic, energy-related greenhouse gas emissions were rising, reversing a previous three-year decline—for example they rose in 2018 by 3.4 percent, the second-largest margin in 20 years.[4]

On a related note: In 2019, the Trump administration Repealed Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Light bulbs. This means withdrawing standards that were to be put in place to make commonly used bulbs more efficient. The original standards were included in energy legislation implemented under President George W. Bush and finalized under the Obama administration. They were set to go into effect in January 2020 and gradually phase out incandescent and halogen bulbs, replacing them with highly energy-efficient, LED versions. Critics of the reversal say it will mean higher energy bills and more pollution.

  • Rolling back safeguards to limit methane leaks in the transmission and storage of natural gas

Methane very effectively traps heat in the atmosphere, making it one of the most potent greenhouse gases. A change to EPA rules has reduced the frequency by which oil and gas companies must detect and repair methane leaks. Scientists say that the scale of methane pollution could be driving the planet toward a climate crisis faster than expected.

The move was justified by citing E.P.A. data showing that leaks from domestic oil and gas wells have remained steady over the past decade. However an earth systems scientist at Cornell University says that numerous recent studies show that methane emissions from drilling sites in the United States are two to three times higher than the E.P.A.’s estimates.[5]

  • Pesticides

This year 2020, the Trump administration’s EPA Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children. Meanwhile several states have already banned the use of Chlorpyrifos because it is a brain-damaging chemical that can cause reduced IQ, loss of memory, & ADD.

In December 2019 the EPA and Justice Department filed a brief supporting the company Bayer’s argument that Roundup weed killer didn’t require cancer warning. (Bayer has acquired the chemical’s manufacturer Monsanto.) Meanwhile, the World Health Organization, declared the active ingredient glyphosate to be a ‘probable human carcinogen’ in 2015. Besides causing tumors in animal trials, glyphosate exposure has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system.

  • The Trump administration repealed the “Waters of the U.S. “ Rule (also known as “WOTUS”) in September 2019.

The law was established to protect wetlands which are the best natural barriers to storm surges and flooding, and they also help keep agricultural pollution out of our waterways. Instead the rule was replaced with replaced by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the new rule will remove federal protections for 18 percent of stream and river miles and 51 percent of wetlands in the United States putting protections at their lowest levels since the Reagan administration in the 1980s and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water. The Trump administration also revoked a rule that prevented coal and fracking companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.

  • In March 2020, the administration’s EPA Issued new Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (or CAFE) standards for vehicles.

It requires automakers to increase fuel economy across their fleets by 1.5% a year, with a goal of achieving an average of about 40 miles per gallon by 2026. However, that’s a major departure from previous rules, which mandated annual efficiency increases of 5%, reaching an average of 54 mpg by 2025. One report stated that this is projected to result in an additional billion tons of carbon dioxide, increasing annual U.S. emissions by about one-fifth.

Also, California wants to require automakers to be held to higher emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.  The Trump Administration, however is attempting to revoke California’s right to do so. In the agreement between CA and manufacturers on fuel economy standards, automakers pledged to produce passenger vehicles averaging 50 miles per gallon by model year 2026, which is in line with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards set by the Obama administration. However, as mentioned, the White House wanted to roll back the requirements with a single, federal guideline that sets mileage standards at 40 mpg from 2020 to 2026, or 10 miles per gallon less.

  • Drilling for fossil fuels on Public Lands

In 2018, the US Dept. of Interior announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters, the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed. This Included plans for opening the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is an iconic American natural ecosystem Established in 1960 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, which sustains a diverse wildlife population — including caribou, peregrine falcons, snowy owls, and polar bears. If the Arctic Refuge is opened to drilling, the projected extraction through 2050 would release the equivalent of the annual carbon emissions from over 50 coal plants.[6]

Related, a study published in the journal Science in 2019 noted that in 2017, the Trump administration enacted two of the largest downsizes of protected lands in US history; Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah lost 51% of its protected land, and 85% of Bears Ears national monument, also in Utah lost its protections. With those actions, land twice the size of Rhode Island came out of federal protection. These decisions are currently under litigation. The US government has identified nine other National Monuments in the United States for downgrading or downsizing. In 2019, Trump signed an Executive Order Calling for an increase of Logging on Public Lands.

 

Also see National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment

[1] Cutler D, Dominici F. A Breath of Bad Air: Cost of the Trump Environmental Agenda May Lead to 80 000 Extra Deaths per Decade. JAMA. 2018;319(22):2261–2262. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7351

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

[3] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf

[4] https://www.vox.com/2019/1/8/18174082/us-carbon-emissions-2018

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/climate/trump-methane.html

[6] https://www.ran.org/the-understory/arctic-under-threat

Vote for the Environment on Election Day

by

 

The 2018 November midterm election is Tuesday, November 6th and is crucial as we vote for congressional leaders that that can either strengthen or weaken national environmental laws. As voters, we should be aware that our votes have far-reaching consequences. Though not well reported by mainstream media, the current federal leadership has been actively rolling back multiple environmental policies within the United States established by prior administrations over the last 2 years. The Trump administration has been responsible for changes through the following acts, including, but not exclusive to:

  • EPA: Cutting major departmental funding to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 31% (a roughly $2.5 Billion decrease), resulting in the loss of about 50 government-issue programs and 3,200 jobs that protect our air, water and endangered species;
  • Energy: Trump removed the United States from an International Climate Agreement that had taken decades to develop, leaving the U.S. as the only major nation not to participate in agreed upon greenhouse gas reductions; and also removed the Clean Power Plan which would have lowered the carbon dioxide emitted by electric power generators. This administration is emphasizing more resilience on coal, which is a high soot and carbon emitting fuel, rather than investing in cleaner renewable methods of energy sources, despite documented economic growth in the clean energy sector;
  • Water: enacted an executive order to allow the Administrator of the EPA to revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule, a section of the Clean Water Act offering protections for streams and wetlands;
  • Climate Change: Refusal of recognizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body on the subject, and other authoritative scientific research in energy policy creation. Instead The administration relies on a partisan non-for-profit organization, the Institute for Energy Research, as their informational basis. Trump’s first pick for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has since resigned due to an ethics related controversy, had a history of supporting pro-fossil-fuel interests;
  • Parks & National Monument Lands: Reduction in protected acreage, and opening up public lands and bodies of water (including breaching Native reservations) to access coal and oil reserves;
  • Vehicle Fuel standards: rolling back the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency and emissions standards for passenger and light duty vehicles which would have increased the average fuel economy of manufacturers’ fleets to 50MPG by 2025.
  • Lead paint: though experts agree lead regulations need to be made stricter, Pruitt asked for a waiver to delay revising current regulations for 6 more years;
  • Pesticides: Pruitt denied a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide, though research has shown that even small amounts of chlorpyrifos can disrupt the development of fetuses and infants;
  • Endangered Species: Cut funding to States for protections of endangered species;
  • Plastics: However, on one good note, in October, Trump signed Save Our Seas Act targeting plastic marine waste. More of this would be welcome;

Voters should hold our elected officials accountable for policies that pose a threat to human health and the sustainability of our water, air, land, and wildlife. We have the power to choose nominees that help create positive dialogues in Congress towards a cleaner environment. Please share this information and be sure to vote at your designated polling place on November 6, 2018. (Green Inside and Out is a non-partisan organization.)

Scientists: There is No More “Life as Usual” in Averting Climate Change

by

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commissioned by the United Nations and made up of thousands of scientists from around the world, releases its climate assessment reports every 5 years. A new report was issued last week stating that the earth is likely to reach 1.5C (2.7™F) warming sometime between 2030 and 2052. It would be worse again at 2C and higher temperature rises.[1] One of the report’s key messages is that we are already seeing effects through increased extreme weather, rising sea levels, coral reef bleaching and shrinking Arctic sea ice. However, effects of further warming will be noticeably different from today.

To limit warming to 1.5C we need to cut global emissions by about 45% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels. This would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air via Afforestation (planting new trees) and reforestation (replanting trees where they previously existed). Examples of needed actions include:

  • Shifting to low- or zero-emission power generation, such as renewables;
  • Changing food systems, such as diet changes away from land-intensive animal products (meat);
  • Electrifying transport
  • Developing ‘green infrastructure’, such as green roofs, and improving energy efficiency by smart urban planning, which will change the layout of many cities.
  • Switching from fossil fuels such as coal and oil could avoid 100 million premature deaths through this century.

A ‘whole systems’ approach would be needed, meaning that all relevant companies, industries and stakeholders would need to be involved. While transitions towards lower greenhouse gas emissions are underway in some cities, regions, countries, there are few that are currently consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Meeting this challenge would require a rapid escalation in the current scale and pace of change. It is all-hands-on-deck time!

For the full report, a summary, FAQs, and more information, see http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

[1] For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70–90% with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all would be lost with 2°C.

A Historic Moment for U.S. Clean Energy

by

Middelgrunden Wind Turbine Cooperative, Denmark - CREDIT: KIM HANSEN (FLICKR)
Middelgrunden Wind Turbine Cooperative, Denmark CREDIT: KIM HANSEN (FLICKR)

I got the best birthday present this year I could ever ask for. On Monday July 27, 2015, construction broke ground on the first ever off-shore wind park in the United States. It will be a small 30 mw wind park made up of 5 turbines off of Block Island, which is between Rhode Island and the tip of Long Island. It will supply enough energy to power about 17,000 homes mostly on Block Island, without use of fossil fuels. Many congratulations are due to Deepwater Wind for all their work in securing the proper location, approvals, and financing to achieve this major accomplishment.

While there are wind farms on land in the U.S., and there have been several other offshore projects in the works in other states such as Massachusetts and Maryland (plus a failed attempt off L.I.), this is the first project to actually begin construction offshore. This project follows in a long line of offshore wind farms in other countries such as Denmark (which I wrote about visiting four years ago on this blog), England, and China. Proposed in 2009, there is still an offshore wind farm in the works closer to the New York City area by the NY Power Authority. Let’s hope it happens soon, so we can continue to create electricity while achieving reductions in greenhouse gases and protecting our climate.

To hear my interview with Clint Plummer of Deepwater Wind last summer, go the “Listen to Past Shows” section of this website’s radio show page.

Pipelines and Fracking Not Needed for Jobs

by

Commentary Published in LI Business News pipeline
February 18, 2015
By Beth Fiteni

A major Keystone pipeline proposed by TransCanada would go from Alberta through the Midwest. The fuel would be pumped to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined for international sale, not necessarily to be used within the United States.
Aside from intensifying greenhouse gas emissions, one main concern is leakage. Leaks have occurred with various pipelines more than 300 times since 2000.
This is not the only pipeline proposed, so even if this one doesn’t get built, others may. Thankfully, Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently decided to ban hydrofracking in New York State. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, and extensive leakage during extraction cuts into its “cleaner-than-oil” benefits.
People favoring these projects see local jobs being lost. In Pennsylvania, out-of-state crews were brought in to do work, so money earned locally doesn’t always stay local. The argument also fails to recognize that fossil fuels are finite and will eventually run out. And do we actually think that fossil fuel prices will remain low as they become rarer? Sorry, SUV drivers.
If you want to create local energy jobs, hire an energy auditor to assess your home or business and then carry out the suggested efficiency measures. Consider getting solar panels if your house is suitable. There are financing options available to pay for both of these. You’ll save money in the long run, do your part to protect our air and be providing jobs to local contractors. It is said that, for each dollar spent at a local business, 45 cents are reinvested locally. Not only does this minimize the need for pipelines and hydrofracking for fuel here in the United States, but you can begin to minimize the amount of money spent on fuel coming from abroad – which is polluting somewhere else.
TransCanada claims that 13,000 direct jobs would be created by the pipeline construction. However, the solar industry alone reports 25,000 jobs created in the sector since 2010, which is 10 times the national average job growth rate. If we can have energy that’s clean and creates jobs, why would we prefer energy that’s dirty and finite to create jobs?

Fiteni, a Long Island-based environ­mentalist, owns Green Inside & Out Consulting.

Fiteni: Fracking not needed for jobs