Durban Result... sort of

Hello Readers,

I am traveling this week, so I don't have the opportunity to do a proper post. However, I thought it was important to note the minor progress made at the end of the Durban conference.

The New York Times reported:

"Then, in an early-morning huddle on Sunday on the floor of the conference, the American team came up with the language that finally persuaded India to accept the legal character of any future agreement, simply by rearranging a few words."

...

"The delegates agreed only to begin negotiations with a deadline of 2015 to produce a new agreement to take effect in 2020. There is no certainty about what will be in such an agreement, and no confidence that the United States Senate will ratify it. But those are problems for another day."

Check out the information on the articles: Climate Talks in Durban Yield Limited Agreement and U.S. Envoy Relieved by Climate Talks’ Outcome.

I'll try to catch up with more information prior to the end of the year.

~Sean Diamond

Movie Review: A Crude Awakening

Hello Readers,

Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.

Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.



A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.

While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.

The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.

Best of Luck,

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania Solar Jobs put in perspective

Hello Readers,

The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).

Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?

In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.

In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!

Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)

Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?

Frustratedly yours,

Sean Diamond

Movie Review: Forks Over Knives

Hello Readers,

Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.



As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.

Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).

Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.

In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.

Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.

For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:

• 'The Truth About the China Study' from cholestoral-and-health.com
• 'The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response' from rawfoodsos.com

While I cannot vouch for the authors of the criticisms or their conclusions myself, the criticisms should give you a good basis to discover the counterpoints to the arguments raised by the film.

I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.

Apartment Gardening

Hello Readers (or in this case Watchers),

Please enjoy this TED talk about apartment gardening.

Sustainably yours,

Sean Diamond

Really skeptics? Again?

Hello Readers,

As you may recall 2 years ago, just before the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, a professor at UEA had his email account hacked. Hundreds of misleading excerpts from his email account were posted online and 'climategate' was born.

Fast forward to now:

• Three independent commissions have cleared the professor of any fraud or wrongdoing.
• The climate science is still indicating that climate change is occurring (with a better understanding than before).
• Most people have forgotten that climategate occurred (if they even noticed it the first time).
• 'More' emails from UEA are being released.

Wait, what? No, that last part is not accurate. As it turns out, the hackers have reposted many of the same hacked emails in an attempt to recreate climategate. Fortunately, as a BBC article points out, we aren't buying the skeptical hype.

Skeptics of climate change, please stop trying to smokescreen the issue of climate change with fake scandals. It is pathetic, and as George W. Bush once put it: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."

Happy Thanksgiving,

Sean Diamond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

When, America? When?

Hello Readers,

The world (and many Americans) are asking 'When, America? When? When are you going to address your greenhouse gas emissions? When are you going to think about what climate change is going to do to your economy over the next two decades?" This past weekend the New York Times published an interesting article about the lack of climate change legislation and programs in the United States: "Where did Global Warming Go?".

The US Falls Behind

The article points out that the United States has now fallen behind every other major economic power in the world (including the E.U., China, India, Brazil, Australia) when it comes to addressing climate change. A decade ago, the U.S. and Australia were the only two nations notably absent from the Kyoto Protocol. Two years ago, I wrote about how there might be a question of forcing China's hand to level the economic playing field for the US to consider climate change legislation.

Well, instead, China has begun to implement its own programs, and Australia is in the process of passing cap-and-trade legislation. We are losing! The United States is falling behind in the drive to address climate change.

This is problematic in that the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. However, it may also start to negatively affect the US economy not only through a lack of 'green jobs' but also in the lack of a coherent clean energy plan. This may become especially evident as people and businesses in other countries increase their demand for products that are not only more energy efficient but also have a lower embedded carbon footprint. Products manufactured in the United States will not be able to compete in this regard if they receive energy from the electricity grid (there is too much electricity generated from fossil fuels).

US Presidential Candidates

The article also highlights the lack of climate-conscious choices in Presidential candidates in the 2012 race.

It touches upon how very little President Obama has done to truly address climate change despite his proactive stances on the issue during his campaign. His administration has had a few 'victories' here and there but has put strikingly little effort into addressing the issue. As a result, few truly notable steps have been taken by his administration.

The article also mentions the fact that every candidate in the Republican party race (with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman) either denies that climate change is occurring (or effectively does so by hiding behind the guise of 'unsettled' science).

Jon Huntsman has made multiple comments (including twitter posts) indicating that he believes what the scientists are saying about climate change. However, his campaign website makes it clear that his stance on climate change is ambiguous at best. The website states that "Governor Huntsman’s regulatory reform consists of three objectives: ... (2) reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s job-killing regulations..." and the Energy Independence section has eight points only one of which mentions renewable energies and does not mention any policy measures to encourage them (in fact most of the points discuss policies that promote the use of Canadian tar sands and natural gas fracking).

Thus, citizens demanding action on climate change are left with almost no options at the Federal level. However, to help you along, an organization called Live Oaks Media has put together a profile of Republican candidates and their stances on climate change.

Good Luck, America ... it looks like we're going to need it!

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Bill Introduced

Hello Readers,

Pennsylvania House Bill 1580 (to fix the SREC Market) has finally been formally introduced as legislation. It had a majority of the representatives in the General Assembly of the House as co-sponsors (publicly declared they will vote for the bill).

However, the bill needs to get passed from the Consumer Affairs committee before it can be voted upon in the House. Then, it must be passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill is extremely time sensitive, so if it is delayed in committee the negative financial consequences maybe almost as bad as if the bill does not pass.

Here is a set of links to more information about the bill and the issue:

• Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (to be amended by PA HB 1580)
• Text and voting history of the bill
• Original explanation of the SREC market issue (May 2011)
• Response to inaction on bill (September 2011)
• Updated explanation of the SREC market issue (October 2011)
• PA House Consumer Affairs Committee (in control of sending the bill to the floor of the House of the General Assembly)
• Find your legislator to tell them about your support for the bill!
• Pennsylvania Solar Advocacy Day on Monday, October 24th in Harrisburg

Please make sure to tell you legislators that you support this bill and encourage them to act as quickly as possible.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Rolling Stone on Obama's Environmental Policy

Hello Readers,

I am in the process of researching the issue of US agricultural subsidies and their impact on the economy and the environment as part of my The Times Are A-Changin' series. I plan to start posting my findings in October.

In the meantime, I though I would share this with you... Last week, Rolling Stone magazine published an interesting piece on the things Obama can do without congressional approval to improve the US impact on climate change and the environment.

Check it out:
 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/environment-ten-things-obama-must-do-20110914

Enjoy,

Sean

Response to Inaction on PA HB 1580

Hello Readers,

Tuesday, I woke up two hours earlier than normal to attend and speak at a breakfast-time discussion at Bucks County Community College about promoting solar energy jobs in Pennsylvania. The discussion took place in a warehouse-like room that is typically used to train clean energy professionals and students. There were two- to three-dozen people in attendance, and I was among the 8 or 9 speakers who represented a variety of solar jobs stakeholders, including several solar photovoltaic installers, a photovoltaic system owner, and a man from a veteran’s clean energy jobs training organization.

After all of the speakers had their opportunity to talk about the recent legislatively-induced turmoil in the Pennsylvania solar renewable energy credit (commonly SREC or officially SAEC) market, General Assemblywoman Tina M. Davis of Bucks County stood to respond to the speakers’ comments and take questions from the attendees.

The conversation that followed was quite lengthy and at times heated (and hopefully informative to the assemblywoman and the legislative aides of others who were in the room). Two points stuck with me as I drove back to my office in West Chester that morning.

The first point was brought up by one of the attendees, who indicated that Representative Chris Ross’ House Bill 1580 had 80 co-sponsors (out of the 203 members of House General Assembly – roughly 40%). That means that 40% of the House (including Democrats and Republicans and urban and rural representatives) have not only said that they would vote for the bill but are interested in personally putting their names behind the bill!

However, Representative Ross has not introduced the bill to the floor because he believes it is likely to fail. This leads me to the second point, which was brought up by Rep. Davis when she asked whether or not we had hired lobbyists to promote our cause. She also told us (the attendees in general and solar photovoltaic installers and small business owners specifically) directly that we need to put more effort into getting the attention of legislators.

I personally responded to this remark by telling her that many of us (well over 50 installers) had participated in a grassroots ‘lobbying day’ in Harrisburg. She also told us that ‘lobbying days’ in Harrisburg were not enough. To clarify, more than 50 small business owners and solar photovoltaic installers took time from their workday to walk through the capitol building in Harrisburg, going into legislators’ offices talking to the legislators (and their staffers) and handing them a two-page summary of the issue and the bill. This is apparently not enough.

I recognized from the beginning this was not enough, which is why my company has sent information to all of our previous clients and urged them to contact their legislators. It is also why I have spent a week’s worth of time at work in the past three months contacting my representatives, encouraging others to do the same, and showing up at events like the breakfast that morning.

This brings me to my main point. While my company is surviving thanks in large part to our new, second office in Massachusetts and other out-of-state installations… while the typical payback time for a solar installation in Pennsylvania has gone from 4-7 years to 9-12 years even as installation prices continue to fall…while we have had to lay-off workers due in large part to the stalled Pennsylvania solar market… while all of this has happened, Pennsylvania state legislators have dragged their feet on the issue and looked the other way.

Even my own representative, the Honorable Dan Truitt, who has at least two solar installation companies and numerous photovoltaic system owners in his district has offered a lukewarm response to my multiple requests for him to support the bill. He has claimed it is a conflict of interest for him to support HB 1580. He explained that he is in the process of installing a system on his house, which will mean he will see some economic benefit from the bill passing.

I have a solution to that conundrum. Representative Truitt, please pledge to vote for HB 1580 and donate the roughly $1200 of additional annual income to a local charity. Problem solved!

The bill will help add stability to the solar photovoltaic market and save the thousands of solar energy jobs that exist in Pennsylvania. These thousands of jobs are not simply disappearing because of unfixable or intangible causes. The jobs are going to other states with more stable market regulations and more profitable SREC markets. Certainly, this benefit outweighs the benefit any lone homeowner (or state representative) will receive from a residential solar installation.

The investment money is pouring into and will continue to pour into US solar installations at least for the foreseeable future. The question is will Pennsylvania legislators act in time to bring that investment money back to PA (It has already left!) in time to save the thousands of existing solar energy jobs in the state?

Or will the legislators remain inactive leaving installers with the choice between the unemployment line and a move out-of-state? Will legislators remain inactive, leaving utilities (and utility ratepayers) in a perilous position in a few years as the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standardcreeps closer to the 0.5% solar requirement in 2021 with fewer in-state installation crews available? Will legislators remain inactive, forcing Pennsylvania utility ratepayers to continue to subsidize out-of-state solar installations (and the associated jobs)?

The slow initial rollout of the requirement for Pennsylvania SRECs was designed with the expectation that the PA solar industry would not fully develop until around 2015 (the year where the hockey stick starts to bend). It was designed before the federal government removed the $2000 cap onthe 30% tax credit for solar energy installations, which has ensured that solar photovoltaic installations will remain financially viable in the US through 2017 as PV module manufacturing ramps up to bring down prices.

The Pennsylvania solar requirement rollout was also designed before the state invested (past-tense, already paid!) millions of dollars in the form of the Sunshine Rebate Program to help ensure that the solar energy jobs and private investment money were attracted to Pennsylvania rather than elsewhere in the US. The Sunshine Rebate Program attracted attention (and monetary investment) more quickly than was expected due to the high demand for solar energy when the payback period was reasonable.

Thanks in part to the federal and state incentives over the past 2-3 years, there is now roughly 4 times more solar photovoltaic energy generated each year in Pennsylvania than is required for the 2012 fiscal year (June 2011-May 2012). However, this is still significantly less generation capacity than will be required once the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard is fully matured in 2021.

As a result, there will be a need for more solar installations in Pennsylvania before the decade is out. The Pennsylvania legislature needs to decide now (or rather 6 months ago) whether that need will be met smoothly with Pennsylvania citizens performing the installations (at a truly negligible cost to utility ratepayers and absolutely no additional cost to taxpayers) or through a rough and likely more expensive process starting in 2015 with out-of-state labor. Yes, the choice is that clear.

As I mentioned, PA House Bill 1580 works to resolve these issues but does not have enough declared legislative support to ensure its passage, which will need to overcome the long-standing and well-funded coal, oil, and natural gas lobby that understand and feel threatened by the long-term viability of the solar photovoltaic industry if it is allowed to get its wheels fully off the ground.

Legislators please take notice! Thousands of solar energy industry workers in Pennsylvania are depending on your immediate action to save their jobs. Tens of thousands of current residential and commercial photovoltaic system owners are waiting on your action to give them the financial payback they were promised. No one else is able to fix this situation. It is purely a legislative issue. It is your responsibility to fix! Act now!

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Hell and High Water: Texas Style

Hello Readers,

In case you haven't heard, Texas is on fire! According to an article on Think Progress, the amount of the state that has been burned so far this year is the size of Connecticut (3.6 million acres). Most recently, the Bastrop fire (map) "has burned approximately 600 homes and 30,000 acres, according to the Texas Forest Service. The fire has set a record for the highest number of homes lost in a single fire in Texas history."

 Of course, this is not just a standalone occurrence. It is the result of a multi-month heatwave and drought (a historic heatwave by any standard), and thanks to continuing climate change droughts and heatwaves are only going to be more and more likely over the remainder of the century.

For more details, I encourage you to read the Think Progress article: Hell and High Water Stoke Texas Blaze: “No One on the Face of This Earth has Ever Fought Fires in These Extreme Conditions”.

Stay Safe,

Sean

Alberta Tar Sands - pipeline decision

Hello Readers,

Yesterday, I came across post about Obama's current predicament about the XL Keystone Pipeline proposal. I recommend checking out the post as it offers many links to resources and provides a review of the considerations that the president must take.

Also, you can check out the author's interview about the topic below:




...it's a bit dry, but its fairly thorough.

Enjoy,

Sean

Another EV: Smart's "ED"

Hello Readers,

This is my last post for August. I plan on starting my regular posting again after Labor Day. I hope you stayed relatively dry this weekend!

A review in the New York Times of the "Smart ED"... it's a bit of mixed review, but we have to start somewhere.

~Sean

1000 Mile Electric Vehicle

Hello Readers,

I plan on returning in full force in September. However, in the meantime, check out this article from Treehugger about an electric vehicle that went 1000 miles on a single charge.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Solar Entreprenuership

Hello Readers,

This month Forbes Magazine featured the CEO of my company, MainLine Solar, in an article about young entreprenuers. Enjoy the video below and check out the company website for more information or the full article.

~Sean

Shareable Cities TED Talk

Hello Readers,

Enjoy this TED Talk about sustainable/shareable cities...

Airline Emission Editorial

Hello Readers,

As you may have noticed, I took an extended break from my blog this summer as my workload increased significantly at the solar PV installation company I am helping run. Also, I took my first vacation (holiday) since finishing grad school last year to return to England for graduation.

For all the rest of you who find occasion to fly to, from, or within the European Union, you may find some interest in an EU plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes that land or take-off in Europe. Please see this recent editorial in the New York Times for a few more details.

It is likely that my posts for the rest of the summer will be infrequent; however, you can take some small measure of solace in the fact that the US debt limit was raised this week, so it looks like the everyone owed money by the US government will be paid (at least for now).

Till later,

Sean Diamond

zero packaging grocery store

Hello Readers,

This week I am going to focus on food subsidies. As I pull my thoughts together on this matter, I wanted to point out a "new" type of grocery store that is being created in Austin, Texas. It is a grocery store that specializes in bulk foods with no disposable packaging. Check out this article about the store called In.gredients or watch the youtube video:




This is a great idea for a grocery store. In fact, it would be great if every grocery store was like this. However, I do need to point out that this idea is not new. This is exactly what open-air food markets and farmer's markets have done for hundreds of years.

Really, the question should be why did grocery stores stop offering bulk foods as their primary way to sell food? And why is every meal sold packaged individually in two or three layers of plastic?

Peripherally, I will be answering these questions and other food related questions while trying to tackle the issue of excessive food subsidies in the United States.

Stay tuned,

Sean Diamond

a non-ruling on climate change

Hello Readers,

According to a recent New York Times article, the Supreme Court has rejected (refused to entertain) a lawsuit filed by several states, New York City, and others against several major utility companies. The lawsuit sought to force these utility companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Supreme Court has (citing a 2007 ruling) declared the Environmental Protection Agency is the sole part of the government with the expertise (and authority under the Clean Air Act) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

I encourage you to read the full NYT article for all the details; however, one particular quote intrigues me:

“The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job [regulating greenhouse gas emissions] than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.” 

While I agree with Justice Ginsburg, I am worried that if there is a congressional repeal of the EPA's regulatory authority, this quote/mentality may be used to deter judges from later making a necessary ruling.

On the other hand, this quote/mentality may be a good argument against a congressional repeal. In fact, it may suggest if the EPA's current ability to regulate greenhouse gas related grievances is insufficient, a congressional improvement rather than repeal may be needed.

I will be sure to post on this topic again as it appears in the news.

Sean Diamond

Bill Ford's TED Talk

Hello Readers,

I thought you might find this interesting. Bill Ford (of Ford Motor Company) has given an interesting TED Talk. It discusses potential efficiency gains in driving and transportation technology. It also offers an interesting look into the thoughts of an automotive industry leader. He even briefly references Ford's upcoming release of an all electric vehicle (the electric Ford Focus).



I would be curious to see what you think of his suggestions. While he does focus a lot on car-based advances, I am a little surprised to here him advocating for public transportation. Just imagine that suggestion from an auto executive 10 or 20 years ago.

Happy Summer,

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

Hello Readers,

This is the second part of the discussion based on the post Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age. All of the previous posts in this series are listed at the bottom of this post.

I was asked: "But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

Simply put, no. I do not want to wait that long to retire. I do not think that anybody does. Unfortunately, if nothing changes about the current social security payout process, there will not be any such retirement benefits for my generation at any age! The system will have been bankrupted before I reach my 60s let alone my 70s.

However, I don't know that I would necessarily need to wait so long to retire if my proposal were implemented.  Other than self-funding my retirement until social security kicked in, a combination of 'early retirement' and 'semi-retirement' could be a great option.

Official 'early retirement' is already allowed under the current social security program (allowing participants to collect a lower amount of benefits over a longer period of time). I don't see why this would need to change. I would think that entering early retirement and working part-time at age 73 would be preferable to being required to work full time until my life expectancy of 81 (or longer, as it was pointed out in the comments to the proposal that life expectancy and lifespan can certainly differ).

The question was posed: "What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines?" Under my proposal, social security would remain intact. Despite having the name 'social' security, the program was designed such that individuals should not ever collect more in retirement than they contributed while working.

Aligning social security benefits more closely with individual citizen's needs (as opposed to desires for long retirements), the program should also be able to better weather inter-generational fluctuations in the ratio of workers to retirees by decreasing the length of time for which people are entitled to collect social security benefits. Eventually, this may even allow the program to be retuned to take in less and allow more people to save more money individually for retirement.

Every individual would find out what their retirement age is during the decade they turn 50 (between ages 41 and 50). Under current life expectancy conditions, everyone would have 20-30 years or more to plan out their retirement. If life expectancy declines to the point where most people are dying in their 60s or earlier, there would be less time to make plans and save money. Yet, there would also be less time for which plans and funds are required. 

Of course, if the life expectancy in the US falls below 50, my proposal would indeed run into some difficulty. However, I would posit that in such a case 'retirement' would be the least of our worries. This may sound callous, but it is extremely practical.

Finally, I must point out that this progression of posts has attempted to touch upon a topic that could take a couple of books to resolve: reforming social security in order to keep it permanently intact.

To make any progress in this matter, readers must concede that the purpose of social security is to promote the security of our citizens at the end of their lives. It cannot be to fully support multi-decade retirements. To expect a 15-25 year retirement after only working for 40-50 years is simply not sustainable at a country-wide, multi-generational level.

Furthermore, the current program structure exacerbates the problem by requiring significant political momentum to accrue on a regular basis to make the tough decision to alter the retirement age periodically. Thus, with some modifications as brought out in this discussion, my proposal still stands:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

While this will not 'save' social security as it is now, it will certainly go a long way toward making it financially sustainable.

Posts in this series:
The Times They Are 'A Changin'
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

I hope this series helps to start a lively discussion. Please look for the next series of posts related to climate change and national debt, which will discuss: reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

a plastic bag manufacturer complains, files lawsuit

Hello Readers,

You may have heard about the plastic bag islands hovering over the Pacific Gyres. You may have even seen it on TV... for example this 2004 CBS News Report (sorry about the preceding commercial... I do not necessarily agree with whatever might appear prior to the news report). Or perhaps you just understand that plastic grocery bags are an unnecessary bit of waste as the EPA has been suggesting for years.

Well, according to a recent New York Times article, a industry leading plastic bag manufacturer is now complaining that Chicobag (a reusable bag manufacturer) has been making damaging and misleading advertising claims. The NYT article points to one particular claim sited in the plastic bag manufacturer's lawsuit against Chicobag: "that ChicoBag’s Web site cites Environmental Protection Agency information that is outdated. The E.P.A. no longer endorses estimates like the one ChicoBag cited: that only 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled. Mr. Keller [Chicobag's president] said an industry site used the same figure until recently."

Perhaps there are more claims in the lawsuit, but it does seem as though this lawsuit is more likely an attempt to rack up court fees against a smaller competitor rather than right a wrong.

Reduce by Reusing!

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)

Hello Readers,

So far I have proposed the implementation of an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits and reviewed some of the comments that the proposal prompted.

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Yet before I continue, I must clarify that the proposal would not force the elderly to remain in the work place. It simply delays the age at which government-funded social security retirement benefits could be collected. Anyone who has enough personal savings to retire would still be perfectly capable of retiring. Such self-funded retirees would just have to wait for social security payments to kick in at the same age as everyone else. To my knowledge, the current system also works this way just with a much earlier retirement age.

A lot of the comments focus on the extra burden placed on each aging individual, so a majority of the discussion will have a similar focus. Retaining more seniors in the work place admittedly has the potential to pose difficulties for individuals, families, companies, and/or society. Thus, altering the legislation would need to be accompanied by a shift in corporate culture as well as society in general.

After innumerable conversations with my grandfather, who is currently in his 80s and regularly recounts his doctor's advice to stay active, I find a great deal of difficulty with assertions that encouraging a later retirement age will decrease life expectancy. To the contrary, I would suggest that allowing and/or encouraging seniors to remain active in the workplace just a little bit longer may be to their benefit.

However, as one comment pointed out, "[J]ust because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise." Unfortunately, this is largely the case. As people age past middle age, their stamina and mental acuity often decline, which could lead to frustration for seniors, coworkers, and customers.

Still, this difference between youth and age does not necessarily mean that seniors are incapable of working. Instead, it may just mean that contemporary career ladders need to be reassessed. Today, most careers (at least in theory) start off with 'entry-level' or apprenticeship work move onto some version of team leader or 'mid-level' management and then progress to an executive or 'senior-level' management position before heading into retirement.

Of course, modern career paths are often fraught with diversions, road-blocks, and side-tracks. Yet, the pattern typically remains the same: the older and more experienced a person becomes the more responsibility is placed upon them up until retirement. Perhaps this career arc needs to include a bit of socially lauded decompression.

This could take a variety of forms ranging from simply allowing for decreased working hours for more elderly employees to allowing aging workers to start to assume mentoring or less strenuous positions with lessened direct responsibility. This sort progression already takes place to some extent when seniors 'come out of retirement' to take on part-time jobs.

This discussion is continued in Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2).

Intro to USDA subsidies

Hello Readers,

In preparation for the next topic in my The Times They Are A-Changin' series, I encourage you to take a look at this Climate Progress blog post about USDA food subsidies. Here are some visuals from the Climate Progress posting:

Don't worry, the rest of the conversation about Social Security reform will continue on Wednesday and Friday this week.

Happy Tuesday,

Sean Diamond

Responses: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

Two weeks ago I posted a proposal about reforming social security. The gist of the proposal is to implement an automatically adjustable retirement age. In my proposal, retirement benefit payouts would be structured with the intention of benefits being collected for an average of 3 years. I encourage you to review the proposal before reading this post.

The point of the proposal was to offer an idea that might reduce the costs of social security retirement benefits. Ultimately, the reform may help make the social security retirement program more financially sustainable. This is especially pertinent as social security as a program is expected to start paying out more money annually than it takes in within the next decade and to be bankrupt within the next 30 years!

Here are some excerpts from responses that I received to the proposal from friends on facebook, in person, and on this blog.

"What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines? Also, what does such a plan you're proposing do for employment? Part of the idea of retirement is to free up space within the labor force to allow younger people to move up. How would your plan account for generations that are successively larger and smaller in terms of labor markets?"

"[I]f people had to work longer into old age, then perhaps that might lead to a decrease in life expectancy (i.e. continued stress, labour etc...) then over time could your algorithm cause the retirement age to settle back down again to what it was a few decades beforehand?"

"But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

"An important distinction to draw here is the difference between life expectancy and life span. A life expectancy of 58 and 62 in 1935 was impacted FAR more by infant mortality than it is today...i.e. if you lived to 5 years old, you could tack about 10-15 years more on to that number."

 "One thing that this model does not appear to consider is that the ability of people to work/support themselves in old age might not be so closely correlated to the average life expectancy as time goes by... To put it another way, just because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise."

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Please see: Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part1) and (Part 2).

Collaborative Consumption

Hello Readers,

This week I plan to respond to the comments about the proposal I made regarding social security reform. I received several on Facebook and one on the blog so far. If you have any that you haven't sent my way, please hurry.

In the meantime, I stumbled across an excellent TED talk from last year that puts a new spin on the concept of sustainable consumption: "Collaborative Consumption"...

Enjoy:

Food Supply & Climate Change in the New York Times

Hello Readers,

I don't have time to analyze this article right now, but the significance may lie more in the fact that the article was published than in how thorough it is...

A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself

...published in the New York Times.

Check back for more posts this week.

Good Night,
Sean

Patenting Plants

Hello Readers,

I was watching the movie The Future of Food, which describes the infamous Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMO crops. The Future of Food also goes into a variety of food production related topics. If you eat food, you really need to watch this movie!

I will not spoil the movie. Instead, I will point out just one of the topics that struck me: the fact that Monsanto has already (and has the ability to) patent crops and seeds that they did not develop!

According to the movie, an individual or corporation has the ability to patent the genes of any crop or seed that have not yet been patented regardless of the fact that such seeds probably occur naturally. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this straightforward quote from the movie; however, if this is true, it is a true outrage. Also, it is completely counter to 'novel' and 'non-obvious' requirement of patent law. See the quote below from the US Patent Office website:

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."

Clearly, any non-GMO seed genes must have been around and in use for more than a year before a patent was filed! Can somebody please explain how to patent something as 'new' that has been around for centuries if not millennia?

I highly recommend watching this movie. It was released in 2004, so it may seem like some of the references are out of date. Unfortunately, they are not. The issues presented are still current today!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

Cities Solution to Climate Change

Hello Readers,

This weekend, I came across an interesting New York Times article about the joint efforts of Bill Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg in combating climate change from a city level. Mayor Bloomberg's private organization has donated 3 years of funding to a Clinton Foundation initiative: C40. C40 is a group of 40 of the world's largest cities working together to combat the effects of climate change.

The mayors of all 40 of these cites will be meeting in São Paulo, Brazil this week to discuss topics such as energy efficient buildings, renewable energy in urban settings, next generation buses, and other pertinent topics. The American cities involved in C40 are New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles.

As the NYT article points out, more than half of the world's population now lives in cities. These city dwellers are now using 70% of the world's energy and are responsible for 70% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Or as Mayor Bloomberg puts it: "If you address the problems of the cities, there will be no need for China and India to sign onto some international accord. And thank God, because that’s not going to get done. It’s time to say it."

While the efforts of the C40 - a top-down approach to combating climate change at a local level - are amazing and long overdue, it seems that they could be much more successful if they are complimented by citizen actions in the Transition Town model. This compliment will be especially important in smaller towns and cities, which do not necessarily have the capital or population density to organize their own public transportation and other initiatives.

Thank a soldier today!
Sean Diamond

Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

As I indicated in my recent blog post: The Times They Are A-Changin', I am going to be exploring potential ways to improve the financial and environmental sustainability of the United States by addressing climate change and the national debt. As the first portion of this series, I am going to explore the idea of creating an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits.

According to the government's social security website, Americans only have to work 10 years in their life to receive social security. Also, for people born before 1960 the full retirement age is 66 (plus some odd months depending on the exact birth year), and for people born in 1960 or later the full retirement age is 67. The original retirement age for social security benefits was 65 as documented in the text of the Social Security Act of 1935. This means that since it's inception the social security retirement age has only increased two years.

To put this meager adjustment in retirement age into perspective, please consider that US life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women and the retirement age was 65. This means that when social security was designed the expectation was that the majority of Americans would not live long enough to collect their benefits. Compare this to today. The retirement age is 67 and the average life expectancy in the US is at least 78 according to the World Bank. This means that while the retirement age has increased 2 years over the past 80 years, life expectancy has increased by about 18 years.

A social security retirement benefits program that lacks automatic adjustments in the retirement age based on life expectancy is inherently unsustainable. Even without the additional stresses on the program presented by fluctuations in population throughout time (e.g. the baby boom generation reaching retirement age), social security will always be hard pressed to remain funded as individuals attempt to spend larger percentages of their lives in retirement.

I propose that implementing an automatic adjustment of the retirement age based on life expectancy may allow the social security retirement benefits program to remain viable indefinitely. I suggest a '3 year plan' for social security. This '3 year plan' would entail automatically adjusting the retirement age to be 3 years less than a retiree's life expectancy. This plan would not be as austere as the original draft of the Social Security Act, but it would be a significant improvement over today's model!

The chart below represents the retirement age and the time an average adult could expect to receive retirement benefits as a percentage of the time they spent working during their lifetime with the blue and orange columns representing the '3 year plan' and the current state of social security benefits respectively. As you can see the '3 year plan' would hold steady the retirement percentage around 5%.

For Americans born in the early 1900's, the percentage was less than 6%. By the time Americans born in the 1960's retire the percentage will be nearly 25%. Hypothetically, if social security were to survive into the 2070's (by the time the children born last decade reach the current retirement age) the percentage will have climbed to nearly 36%!

While it would be unwieldy to attempt to adjust the retirement age every year, I suggest that it would be possible to adjust the retirement age decade by decade during census years. Of course, it would be unpractical and unfair to adjust the retirement age immediately prior to a person's expected retirement. Instead, I recommend having the 'determination decade' (the decade in which a generation's retirement age is determined) be the decade during which they turn 50, which would allow individuals twenty years or more to plan for retirement.

The chart above estimates roughly what the retirement age would be (or would have been) for everyone born since 1900. To take myself for example, I was born in the 1980's. This means that my retirement age would be determined in the year 2030. Based on current projections, it is likely that the US life expectancy will be 81 at this time. As a result my retirement age would be 78 under the '3 year plan'.

Through the lens of today's outdated retirement age, a retirement age of 78 seems outlandish; however, at this point I can only expect that social security benefits will cease to exist by the time I turn 60. Without correction it is expected that social security will be bankrupt during the 2030's after it starts paying out more than it is taking in annually starting in 2017. With the '3 year plan' for social security, there is little reason to suspect that social security would go bankrupt as long as the US government exists.

Obviously, it would be politically impossible to take away benefits of current and soon-to-be retirees. Thus, I would advocate starting with people born in the 1960's. Even though the '3 year plan' would push back the retirement age of my parent's generation by about 8 years (to age 75), the alternative is for social security to run out of money prior to the end of their life expectancy! Furthermore, any half-measures (perhaps a '6 year plan') for Americans born in the 1950's would help to alleviate the strain on the national debt that will begin to pile on starting in the latter half of this decade.

While this is a politically complex issue, I would suggest that fixing the social security funding problem is as simple as adjusting the retirement age. I know that there must be many ways in which I am incorrect about this issue. Please tell me how!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Fixing the SREC Market

Hello Readers,

This week I attended a press conference announcing the introduction of Pennsylvania House Bill 1580. If this bill is enacted as law, it will make great strides to fixing the recent turmoil in the Pennsylvania SREC market. In recent months the price of Solar Renewable Energy Credits in Pennsylvania has dropped from $300 in 2010 down to $100 in 2011. This has left many solar photovoltaic system owners in fear of what the payback for their systems will be. For more information about this bill, please see the blog post I prepared for MainLine Solar.

Save the Solar!

Sean Diamond

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Hello Readers,

As you may have noticed, my posting has become somewhat sparse over the past few months. I have been delving deeply into my work (and I intend to continue doing so...). I am working at a fast growing "solar integration" company - MainLine Solar - that does everything possible to get solar photovoltaic installations up and running (from connecting clients and financiers to meeting with local permitting officials to overseeing the installation). I joined up with this company for two reasons. The first was to help my brother (one of the founders of the company) maintain the company during his year-long military leave of absence with the Pennsylvania National Guard to receive training as a helicopter pilot. The second is that for a long time I have relished the thought of promoting the expansion of renewable energy in America and throughout the world as a means of moving away from the use of fossil fuels, and now I am being afforded the opportunity to take an active part (perhaps the most active part possible) in ensuring that occurs.

However, as I have had ample opportunity to focus on solar, I have not taken as much time as I would have liked to look at the bigger picture. To remedy this I have decided to take a deeper look at solving two issues that I believe are of primary importance to the sustainability of America as a country, as a society, and as a world leader. These two issues touch upon the financial, social, and environmental viability of the United States. These two issues are problems that I would like to help solve by 2030 - by the time I am 45 and my as of yet unconceived children are out of high school. These two issues are issues that have been growing since my grandparents' generation was my age, and I would like these two issues to be solidly in the realm of 'American History' when my grandchildren are my age. These two issues are actually two things I would like to see eliminated - or rather that need to be eliminated in the next twenty years if America is to hold any sort of grasp on the power it has held since World War II. These two issues are climate change and the national debt.

In order to tackle these two issues, I understand that I will need to stand fully upon the third rail of contemporary politics. However, so long as I am able to hold my balance, I shall hopefully remain unharmed. I have chosen these two issues - climate change and the national debt - not purely out of passion, though some of that is to blame, but out of necessity. If the United States fails to address either of these issues adequately over the next two decades, I firmly believe that my grandchildren will not be able to understand - even remotely - the type of country in which I became an adult.

Rather than blindly lash out at any particular political party's role in either of these issues, I am going to put forward some simple ideas on how to fix the problems presented. Then, I am going to do my best to evaluate the potential impacts such 'fixes' will have. I certainly hope that any of my readers that are interested in this endeavor will help me out by pointing me in the direction of related data, articles, and experts.

So far my list of potential fixes includes:

• Ameliorating the growing need for social security entitlements by adjusting the retirement age
• Reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods
• Reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuel powered cars
• Promoting renewable sources of electricity
• Removing loop holes in the federal tax codes
• Upgrading the electric grid infrastructure with energy storage and smart metering
• Mandating a balanced federal budget

I believe that these are just a handful of possible solutions that can help America solve climate change and the national debt issues. I also hope that by addressing these two issues through these proposed solutions, the United States will reap many other benefits including a greatly improved quality of life!

Please let me know what you think about this endeavor, and keep an eye out for related posts over the next several months.

Thanks,
Sean Diamond

Frack You!

Hello Readers,

I have run across a great blog post from ClimateProgress.org. I definitely recommend checking it out:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/13/must-see-propublica-video-on-natural-gas-fracking/

The article is informative, but in case you don't have time to read through it I also suggest passing along this Flight of the Conchords-esque song:



Stay frack free!
~Sean

Hello Readers,

When I saw this new TED talk about literally growing batteries, I knew I had to share it. This is especially relevant to our ability to manufacture batteries and other energy storage systems (as discussed in my dissertation).

Please enjoy!

~Sean

Obama sets goal of 1/3 cut in oil imports

Hello Readers,

This week President Obama reaffirmed and strengthened his previous statements from the State of the Union address about moving the country toward clean energy and specifically away from the use of petroleum-based fuels in transportation. In case you missed the announcement, here is a New York Times article that covered the announcement and it's implications.

Have a good weekend!

~Sean

Movie Review: The End of Suburbia

Hello Readers,

The other night, I got the documentary The End of Suburbia in the mail from Netflix. The movie begins with an in depth history of the development of the modern US suburban culture and infrastructure. This history sets the stage for documentary's hypothesis -and the title of the movie- the coming decline in the American suburban lifestyle as a result of the unsustainable reliance on cars as the sole means of transportation among other factors.

If this movie were made during the past year, I would have thought that it were ridiculous for stating the obvious. However, since this movie was made in 2004, it appears to be prophetic from our perspective 6 years out. Also, I did not notice any statements, claims or predictions that were contrary or exaggerated in comparison to any of the other literature and news that I've read in the past few years. In fact, The End of Suburbia is a great introduction and/or review to the topic of peak oil and peak energy... just beware: it can be quite depressing if you truly understand the magnitude of the situation! I highly recommend following up this movie with a discussion about potential solutions to the issue. Hopefully, this will mitigate the potentially overwhelming message.

Keep trying!
Sean Diamond


Trailer:

High Speed Trains

Hello Readers,

I recommend checking out this parody about transportation in America from the perspective of the 1960s Mad Men (the AMC series). It's not especially informative, but it makes an interesting point.

Enjoy,

Sean Diamond

Mad Men On Trains from Rich Sommer

Transition Town 1.0 Video

Hello Readers,

Here is an interesting video about Transition Towns. It is informative, but a bit cheesy. Enjoy.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

P.S. If the video does not load immediately, try refreshing the page... vimeo appears to have some trouble embedding into blogger.


In Transition 1.0 from Transition Towns on Vimeo.

Sustainable Recipes

Hello Readers,

I have been doing a lot of cooking over the past couple years, so I have decided to start posting a few of them. Here is the first one (it doesn't have a name yet, but it is delicious).

You need:

• 2-3 potatoes (the regular brown kind)
• 1/2 cup of Arborio rice (the kind for making risotto... probably in the pasta aisle)
• 1/2 cup of lentils (I used brown, but any kind will probably work)
• 12-ish white mushrooms
• 1 small zucchini (or what the local grocery store produce section insists is a 'green squash' and British people call 'courgette')
• 1 small yellow zucchini (really it should look exactly the same as a green zucchini except for the color... whatever you call it)
• A few table spoons of olive oil
• A few cups of water
• Your favorite spices (I recommend garlic, ground peppercorn, red pepper flakes, etc.)

The directions are simple...

1. Fill a medium sized pot halfway with water and start boiling the water. Add the lentils.
2. Scrub any dirt off the potatoes. Then chop them into roughly half-inch cubes. No need to peel them or worry about the exact shape. Dump the potatoes into the boiling water once you are finished chopping them.
3. Let the potatoes and lentils continue to boil for at least 15 minutes (25 if you have time). Then start with the rest of the stuff.
4. Dump the Arborio rice into an uncovered sauce pan with water (use 3-to-1 ratio of water to rice... in this case 1.5 cups of water). Leave it to boil. (The potatoes and lentils should still be boiling that this point.)
5. Dice the mushrooms, and chop the zucchinis into disks that are less than 1/4" thick. When you are finished, the water should have just about boiled off. The sauce pan should only have fluffy Arborio rice.
6. Add the mushrooms, zucchini bits, dashes of your spices, an extra quarter cup of water, and liberal amounts of olive oil to the rice. Cook these ingredients until the mushrooms and zucchinis are soft.
7. After the potatoes and lentils have been boiling for at least 30 minutes (the longer the better), strain the water off them. Then add all the ingredients to the pot, remove from the heat, and mix them together.
8. Let it cool down just a bit.

Serve with pita bread and your favorite cheese.

Let me know if you have a name for it or if you have any changes to suggest.

Thanks,
Sean

What the Frack?

Dear Pennsylvania,

I love you. Please stop poisoning yourself to heat your house! I have to urge anyone living in Pennsylvania to take the time to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html) about natural gas wells in PA. It is terrifying.

In case you absolutely refuse to read the whole article, I have pasted some excerpts below. I promise that these excerpts are not wildly out of context. Instead they give you an idea of the gist of the article.

In case you have been living under a rock in Pennsylvania that is not made of shale, here is a general description of the fracking process:

The [natural] gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.

...

But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.

 This leads to the problem:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

...

The radioactivity in the wastewater is not necessarily dangerous to people who are near it. It can be blocked by thin barriers, including skin, so exposure is generally harmless.

Rather, E.P.A. and industry researchers say, the bigger danger of radioactive wastewater is its potential to contaminate drinking water or enter the food chain through fish or farming. Once radium enters a person’s body, by eating, drinking or breathing, it can cause cancer and other health problems, many federal studies show.

...

Under federal law, testing for radioactivity in drinking water is required only at drinking-water plants. But federal and state regulators have given nearly all drinking-water intake facilities in Pennsylvania permission to test only once every six or nine years.

 Last, but not least... in fact very importantly:

In December, the Republican governor-elect, Tom Corbett, who during his campaign took more gas industry contributions than all his competitors combined, said he would reopen state land to new drilling, reversing a decision made by his predecessor, Edward G. Rendell. The change clears the way for as many as 10,000 wells on public land, up from about 25 active wells today.

 ...

“I will direct the Department of Environmental Protection to serve as a partner with Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments,” Mr. Corbett says on his Web site. “It should return to its core mission protecting the environment based on sound science.”

Please excuse my rant, but...

While I have nothing personally against Mr. Corbett, serving as a "partner with Pennsylvania businesses" needs to have its limits! Otherwise, all of the other Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments are going to end up losing out! If you are relying on sound science you are going to need data. If you are refusing to collect or look at data, don't call it science! It is simply ignoring the problem.

I have spent a lot of time studying climate change and sustainability, which are massive, global, all-encompassing environmental issues. It is often tough to figure out a solution (and in some cases a cause). In these fields I have shown patience with people that do not quite understand or refuse to believe it.

However, in the case of fracking, I refuse to show such restraint. The whole thing is too straightforward. You are literally pumping chemicals into the groundwater! Then you are taking what comes back out (even more toxic and radioactive chemicals) and sending it through a filtration system (that is un-/under-tested for such chemicals) before dumping these chemicals into our rivers! The cause is obvious, the solution should be, too!

Pennsylvania, please help yourselves by drawing attention to this issue that is affecting every major river basin in our land-locked state!

Thank you,
Sean Diamond

Please note that all excerpts are from the recent New York Times article:

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

By IAN URBINA

Published: February 26, 2011

 

What's the worst that could happen?

Hello Readers,

I found this video a few years back, but I lost track of it for a while. Recently, someone posted it in an online discussion about climate change, and I figured I would post it before I lost it again. It is an extremely simplified version of the argument for action on climate change. However, if you understand the underlying need in the US for energy independence on top of the need to address climate change, I believe that this argument for action will hold much more weight.



In case you have trouble viewing the embedded video above, you can find the video at the original link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ.

Enjoy,

Sean Diamond

Dickinson College ORGANIC Farm

Hello Readers,

The farm run by my alma mater, Dickinson College, is now certified as USDA organic (see the original article). This certification verifies that the farm 'adheres to an approved approach of agricultural food production that involves building and enhancing the soil naturally, environmental protection and avoidance of toxic or synthetic substances such as pesticides'. The farm is run by college employees and staffed by many student volunteers and interns.

For several years the college has been growing food for the college's dining services and supporting a CSA for members of the college community including students, alumni, and employees. Additionally, the farm recently announced that the farm will now be raising cattle to be served as grass-fed beef at the college dining hall; however, official certification will not be sought for the livestock.

What is your alma mater doing to improve the sustainability of their dining services menu?

~Sean

US DOE Solar R&D Funding

Hello Reader,

I was privileged enough to attend President Obama's speech about Clean Energy Innovation at Penn State on Thursday this week. Please enjoy:




Also, in case you missed it. The DOE announced a well funded initiative to help the cost of installed solar PV reach parody with traditional grid energy sources by the end of the decade.

EERE News: DOE Pursues SunShot Initiative to Achieve Cost Competitive Solar Energy by 2020