Earth Island Institute

Earth Island Journal editor Jason Mark is the co-author, with Kevin Danaher and Shannon Biggs, of Building the Green Economy: Success Stories from the Grassroots.

Is NIMBY-ism Fueling Climate Change? – June 16, 2008

The bi-weekly newsmagazine High Country News has long been one of my favorite publications. A journal “for people who care about the West,” as its tagline says, the News carries the kinds of stories you don’t find many other places — articles about, say, the importance of maintaining the Cowboy Myth, or a detailed piece about uranium contamination in Navajo country. As an Arizona native and a longtime California resident, I appreciate the News’ affection for the unique Western sensibility; as a reporter, I value its commitment to in-depth, long form journalism.

A great example is a recent article by Judith Lewis about the controversy surrounding a proposal to build new power lines to run renewable energy from the Mojave Desert to the LA region.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is eager to build an electricity transmission line from planned geothermal generators near the Salton Sea to its 4 million customers, who currently get about half of their energy from coal burning power plants.

Desert residents are vehemently opposed to the proposal. They say the construction of the transmission lines — which will run from 160-foot-tall steel towers, occupying a footprint 330 feet wide — will destroy the surrounding wilderness and threaten marginalized species such as the fringe-toed lizard and the endangered peninsular bighorn sheep. Mojave dwellers also say the plan is a throwback to age of Mulholland, when Los Angeles brazenly scoured the region for resources (especially water) to fuel its growth.

Lewis captures the nuances of the face-off brilliantly when she writes:

“Come out against a project that brings wind energy down from Wyoming … or moves electricity from large-scale solar installations to coal-dependent cities, and you come out against polar bears and in favor of cataclysmic drought, all to prevent a localized disturbance in your backyard. No matter how pristine that backyard, or how many rare species it contains, saving it can’t possibly trump saving the coasts from rising seas.”

Well said. Of course, the city, state, and federal agencies overseeing the project should do everything in their power not to send lines through Anza-Borrego State Park. And environmentalists should be on the lookout for any efforts to use the transmission lines, dubbed the “Green Path North” by LADWP officials, to carry electrons generated from coal, nukes, or natural gas. If the power lines are supposed to be green, then they should be carrying renewable energy.

But it’s hard not to think that some local activists have their priorities misplaced. One conservationist told Lewis, "No opening of any wilderness areas in this state to any energy corridors ever. Absolutely not."

According to Amy Atwood, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity: "It’s hard to see which Western constituency could possibly support this.”

Well, how about a constituency that recognizes that climate change is already dangerously altering Western ecosystems, contributing to droughts, wildfires, and shrinking and shifting habitats?

There’s no question it’s important to try to protect the lizards and the sheep. But if we decide that keeping power lines out of the desert is more important than shutting down coal plants, there may be no lizards or sheep to protect. Some opponents of the power lines, it appears, are missing the forest for the (Joshua) trees.

The transmission lines hullabaloo carries echoes of the debate a few years ago over whether to build wind turbines off of the Martha’s Vineyard coast.

I suppose that windmills might interrupt an ocean view. And I guess that some power lines could disrupt delicate desert ecosystems.

But the view of an acidic ocean and sight of a scorched desert landscape — both caused by climate change — will be a whole lot worse.

(10) Comments

Same Planet, Different Worlds – June 10, 2008

On June 5, communities around the world marked the 36th annual UN-sponsored World Environment Day. This year’s slogan, “CO2:Kick the Habit” was underscored by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon who in a prepared statement said: “Our world is in a grip of a dangerous carbon habit. Addiction is a terrible thing. It consumes and controls us, makes us deny important truths and blinds us to the consequences of our action.”

The next day, the US Senate demonstrated just how blind it is by scrapping the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, the most serious piece of climate change legislation yet to reach Congress.

As the world burns, you have to wonder what planet these folks are living on.

Others have pointed out that the bill was a flawed piece of legislation that needed to be fixed or ditched. Still, the fact that Senators voted to close debate after only a few days is a disappointment: Climate change needs greater attention from political leaders, not less.  But far more disturbing are the arguments that were used to fight the bill.

As Eric Pooley writes at Time.com the most common critique of the Lieberman-Warner proposal was that it would wreck the economy.

According to Pooley:

“The Republican leadership spent last week trying to create not just a new litmus test for climate action but a new third rail for American politics: It wants any climate bill that causes the slightest increase in energy prices to be seen as a non-starter. … That's an impossible standard to meet, and if the Republicans succeed in establishing it, Congress may never get this done.”

To head off this price line of attack, climate justice activists need to do a better job of marshalling evidence — studies, reports, graphs and pie charts — showing that addressing climate change will be far cheaper than inaction.

Yes, tackling climate change will entail government investment, and that investment will likely be paid for through some mechanism for pricing carbon emissions. Transitioning to a low carbon economy will cost money to build a clean energy infrastructure. It will cost money to rebuild our long-distance trainline and revitalize our mass transit system. It will cost money to give homeowners an incentive to weatherize their homes and buy energy efficient appliances.

All of which, in the long run, will save money … and, hopefully, the planet on which we depend.

(5) Comments

Rockefellers and Royals Go Green – May 30, 2008

The environmental movement is often caricatured as the domain of the limousine liberal. Yes, organic foods are better for the Earth, hybrid cars are wonderful, and passive solar panels on your rooftops help cut down on CO₂ emissions. But who can afford the grocery bill at Whole Foods, the costs of a brand new Prius, or the contractor’s bill for the solar array? You have to have bucks to save the planet – or so the conventional thinking goes.

That cartoonish depiction of the movement likely got a boost recently when some well-heeled folks decided to put their (substantial) money where they say their beliefs are.

The office of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II just announced that the monarch is investing in the world’s largest offshore wind turbine. The giant windmill, which is to be built on the northeast coast of England, will be operational by 2010 and will sell all of its electricity to the national grid. The queen, who is worth about $420 million, is also using her property company, the Crown Estate, to develop wind farms off the Scottish coast.

The announcement of the Queen’s investment came as the heirs of John D. Rockefeller sought to use their influence to compel ExxonMobil – the world’s largest publicly traded oil company and the progeny of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil – to start investing more in renewable energy sources. A resolution under consideration at the oil company’s annual meeting called for establishing an independent chairman position to guide investment in energy technologies other than oil and gas. The shareholders’ resolution was similar to those proposed in the past – only this time it had the public support of descendants of the Exxon founder. The resolution failed to pass, but it did garner 39 percent of shareholders’ votes.

Of course, you don’t have to be a millionaire to make a meaningful contribution to saving the ecosystems on which we depend. As Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center passionately points out, the only way to successfully create a sustainable society is through ensuring that everyone – regardless of income or ethnicity – is provided a way to transition to the green economy. If we rely on the Royals and the Rockefellers, we just end up with green apartheid … and then that limousine liberal caricature will ring true.

Still, the news is good news. After all, someone has to put up the money to get the green economy up and rolling. 

(9) Comments

Biofuels = Methadone – May 23, 2008

America, as even President Bush acknowledges, is addicted to oil. If so, then biofuels are little better than methadone.

Our addiction to oil is quite obviously dangerous. It is one of the primary sources of the unchecked carbon emissions that are altering the Earth’s atmosphere. It contributes to the pollution of our air and water. It has badly skewed US foreign policy and helps explain why more than 150,000 soldiers are fighting in Iraq. Like junkies, we are oblivious to the damage we inflict on ourselves.

In an attempt to deal with the consequences of our oil addiction, politicians and corporate leaders have trumpeted the promise of biofuels — energy sources made from plant matter.

But as a raft of studies has shown, biofuels carry their own costs. The rush for biofuel production is driving deforestation as companies raze rainforests to plant sugarcane or palm plantations. US farmers are compromising agricultural conservation practices to plant as much corn as possible; increased plowing may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, the competition between using grains for food or fuel is contributing to skyrocketing prices for staple goods. Biofuels may, for a time, help transition some percentage of vehicles away from petroleum, but they are not a long-term answer. Methadone indeed.

Evidently, the US Congress didn’t get the memo. The recently approved Farm Bill actually increases the amount of government investment in biofuels. As a growing chorus of critics warns about the downsides of biofuels, lawmakers are delivering $1 billion in new government funding to the industry. This give myopia a bad name.

There is no question that we need better ways of transporting products and people. The twin tests of global climate change and peak oil mean we have little time left to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. With oil at $135 a barrel and global temperatures climbing, the clock is ticking fast.

But we won’t discover a single “killer application” that will resolve our fuel crisis. The short-sighted focus on biofuels reveals the folly of thinking we will find some silver bullet solution to our energy challenges. Building a sustainable transportation system will require a technological sophistication that recognizes that the only real solution lies in embracing a range of solutions.

There is no single road to sustainable future. Rather, there are many different ways to approach the green economy: While some people take the train, others may bike, or walk, or decide to carpool in a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

This multiplicity of solutions is all part of the fun. And good reason to finally break the habit.

(12) Comments

NY Times: Most people a “small band of skeptics” – May 2, 2008

Ever careful to echo conventional wisdom, a recent New York Times story about increasing oil prices was cautious when it came to mentioning Peak Oil. After noting that crude oil has hit $116/barrel and that global demand is showing no sign of slumping, reporter Jad Mouawad confidently proclaimed that “petroleum ... will remain the top energy source ... and that is not likely to change much in the next 30 years.

Mouawad went on:

“A small band of skeptics view today’s record prices as evidence that oil supplies have peaked — that half the globe’s oil supply has already been used up. But most experts believe that there are still enough oil reserves, both discovered and undiscovered, to last at least through the middle of the century.”

First of all, this statement betrays a poor understanding of peak oil. Yes, we may have enough oil to last through the middle of the century, AND that means we may be quickly approaching peak oil. The peak isn’t the point when petroleum runs out, but when demand begins to exceed supply as production starts to drop off.

More disturbing is the writer’s lofty condescension. The “small band of skeptics,” according to a Reuters story that appeared just a day later, includes, well, most of the world.

A global poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that on average, 70 percent of respondents in 15 countries and the Palestinian territories said they thought oil supplies had peaked.

Reuters reported:

“In the United States, the world’s biggest oil consumer and among the biggest emitters of climate-warming pollution from fossil fuel use, 76 percent of respondents said oil is running out, but most believed the US government mistakenly assumes there would be enough to keep oil a main source of fuel.

“Americans perceive that the government is not facing reality,” said Steven Kull, who directed the poll.

The US government ‘not facing reality’ is about par for the course. What’s especially disappointing the country’s newspaper of record is also failing to face facts.

A quick glimpse at prices at the gasoline pump should tell any reasonably aware observer that gas costs are skyrocketing. But the Times, it seems, would rather trust in the opinion of experts who are very likely to be proven wrong soon. 

(4) Comments

Older →