Energy Matters

Volunteering to help shrimpers hurting from the BP Oil Spill

On May 27^th and 28^th I volunteered in the southern Louisiana town of Port Sulphur helping fishermen and shrimpers who have lost their livelihoods due to the BP Oil Spill get food and sign up for various social services. My job was simple, record the information of the fishermen and shrimpers- name, address, family size and make up- and then give them a box of food that was prepared by Second Harvest. Most of the time I carried the box to their car and we'd chat on the way. I chatted with a lot of them about how they were doing and what they are going to do next and a few things really stuck with me in their stories.

Shrimping seems to be a lot like farming- in one short period, you make all the money you are going to make for that year and you save up during the summer to last you through the winter. But now because of the oil spill, the shrimp and fish are dying off or are toxic so you can't catch them. One of the wives of the shrimpers told me that they were expecting this year to be a good harvest with a high price on the shrimp, so they took out a big loan and got a bigger boat. But now because of the BP Oil Spill, they can't fish and are stuck with the boat payments. It seemed to be a smart investment on their part, but because of poor adherence to safety regulations on the part of BP, this family will go from being middle class to bankrupt and on foodstamps within the course of two months.

The people I spoke with told me about how they have nearly run through what they had saved up to last them through the winter and are starting to fall behind on car or mortgage payments. Their situation will only worsen as their unemployment lasts. There is no long term relief in sight for these shrimpers as it will take years for the shrimp stocks in the region to recover from the pollution and population collapse. These are fishermen and shrimpers who are not only out of a job for this year because of the spill, but next year, the year after and the year after that.

What are they going to do? What can we do to help them?

What we can do now is volunteer, donate, and spread the word.

I had a lot of difficulty finding ways to volunteer. In the end I would recommend checking out the HandsOn New Orleans volunteer response calendar and sign up for a volunteer opportunity.  You can also volunteer by registering with the LA Gulf Response Program and Volunteer Louisiana. If you don't have much time and are doing this on the fly, I recommend HandsOn New Orleans.

If you want to make a non-financial donation, the organization Matter of Trust is collecting donations of hair, fur, fleece, feathers, and nylons to make into booms to collect the oil from the spill

And of course, find your Senator and House member's address and phone number and contact them telling them that you're mad as hell and you aren't gonna take it anymore. Don't forget to tell Obama too.

California's Prop 1A

Last week Californians passed two propositions that deserve national attention: Prop 1A and Prop 8. For the passage of Prop 1A I say mazel tov, for the passage of Prop 8... well you read this blog for my thoughts on energy and the environment, not on basic civil rights and human decency.

Anyway.

The passage of Prop 1A allows the state to issue nearly $10 billion in bonds to fund a high-speed passanger rail system that'll run from Sacramento to San Diego. The train is projected to be a true high-speed rail, reaching speeds up to 220 mph (unlike certain faux high-speed rails I could mention). With this rail Sacramentans can go to San Diego in roughly 2.5 hours (instead of nearly 8 by car)....wow

I flew from San Jose to LA once and I spent a little over an hour in the air, but over an hour waiting at the airport to board and security and all that fun stuff. With this train it will take 1.5 hours in total (ok, we'll add getting to the station half an hour early to be on the safe side-2 hours). The train will be not only cost competitive but TIME competitive to flying. Throw in the added safety (or at least sense of safety) of trains over planes, and the environmental advantage  I would be shocked to see if people still flew for intercity travel in California.

The big thing for me is the time advantage. I take the train from DC to Philly or New York since it's fast, cheap enough for me, easy and eco friendly. However, it takes too long to get to Boston for a weekend visit to my sister so I will be flying that distance (and feeling lots of carbon guilt as I do it). Last weekend I went to Pittsburgh to visit my friend Jess* but carbon guilt (and financial concerns and a sense of adventure) led me to choose to take the train over the plane. So I took an 8 HOUR TRAIN RIDE TO PITTSBURGH. It's a one hour flight and only a 4 HOUR DRIVE but somehow it took 8 FRIGGIN hours on the train.

Train routes like that give trains a horrible name. I love trains, and I believe they are the future of long distance travel, but after that train ride (and the ride back) I am not too happy with the state of the rails in our nation. But Prop 1A gives me hope.

This rail line will provide an environmentally friendly way for the roughly 36 million Californians (which is more than live in our hat or in Australia) to get around their state. If Obama decides that trains are good for fighting pollution, congestion, and high gas prices the federal govenment might decide to extend the rail up to Seattle making it the West coast high-speed rail line which could serve around 45 million people (about 15% of the nation's population).

Let's just hope it gets completed on time and within the budget so it inspires we East Coasters to follow the example they set...well, the example the Europeans set...well really it was the Japanese.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*you have officially received the shout out I promised you

Carbon Guilt and Gluttony

In a time of rising sea levels, stronger floods and hurricanes, and all the other problems caused by Global Warming it is easy to feel carbon guilt about your actions. It is nearly impossible to justify buying bottled water or leaving the lights on when you are not in the room and it is getting to the point where staycations are in vogue (although that is probably a financial thing).

But life cannot be all sacrifice and worry, sometimes you have to splurge. I just got accepted to study abroad en La Universidad de Salamanca and I am going. I am going to fly across the pond and go to Europe for the first time ever.

I feel guilty for flying and releasing more CO2 on that one trip than I probably do for the rest of the year but what's the point in living if you can't do something you've always dreamed of? This is my 9th year studying Spanish (and I'm still terrible). I feel like most of my academic life has been building to this trip and I will not let carbon guilt stand in my way.

Of course I will try to minimize my guilt by offsetting the flight and continuing to try to keep my carbon footprint low by not eating meat, biking to work, reduce, reuse, recycle, work for a renewable energy company, change a lightbulb, wear a sweater, and encouraging others to do so.

Plus this will be a great chance to learn from the Europeans on living the clean and green life.

Oh and don't worry, I'm sure I'll still be able to update Energy Matters.

----
p.s. WOOOOOOOOOOO I'm going to Salamanca!

Sarah Palin, "Energy Expert"

During the entire VP debate Sarah Palin tried to make the case that she is an energy expert. But talking about the issue a lot does not make you an expert especially if your views on the subject are horribly wrong and do not mesh with many real energy experts.

I don't care how much Palin talks about energy policy, if her answer to our energy problem is "Drill Baby Drill" she is an utter fool. The facts that oil is a finite resource and Global warming is man-made means that  Drill Baby Drill will fail to result in American energy independence AND it will bring about catastrophic environmental disasters and the deaths of millions across the world.

So doggonit Palin, I know you care just so much about energy and you hear all those hockey mom's and nascar dad's talk about it all the time but your plan is a horrible one. Not only is it a bad idea but it's downright dangerous and shows that you don't care at all about future generations.

The Offshore Drilling Moratorium Has Officially Passed On

My friends, today we mourn the loss of a dear friend. Not just a steadfast friend to all Americans but a friend of the entire globe. This friend helped try to keep the world a cool place, it tried to keep our shores and seas clean, and it tried to keep our wildlife safe. But now the Offshore Drilling Moratorium has passed on, not because it failed us, but because we failed it.

Brought into this world kicking and screaming in 1981 to help keep the our coast clean, the Moratorium did a wonderful job. Recently the government ignored this and thought that by drilling offshore they could solve our energy crisis. They were and are wrong and now our beloved Moratorium is no more.

You will be missed, but as the Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, said:

This is not the last we will see of the moratorium that has protected our coasts since 1981.

The drilling ban could very well be restored by a new Congress and president who understand that more offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices or solve our energy crisis.

All the debate about drilling this year accomplished nothing other than serving as a distraction from real energy solutions.  Every time Congress tries to implement real clean energy solutions, the oil industry and its allies demand a ransom.

The lapse of the moratorium does temporarily leave the fate of our fragile coasts in the hands of the Minerals Management Service, a scandal-plagued agency that has demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is far too cozy with the oil industry.

While there are efforts underway to accelerate new coastal drilling, we are confident that we can beat back these measures. It's unlikely that any coastal state would risk its tourist economy by allowing drilling within three miles of its beaches. However, we will continue to watch vigilantly over the next few months to ensure that the Bush administration doesn't give away the store before they leave town.

Once the politically-charged election season is over we will be able to revisit this issue as part of a comprehensive energy bill that moves us away from dependence on oil and invests in clean energy solutions.

We're already suffering from years of putting our energy policy in the hands of the oil industry.

While Americans struggle to fill up their tanks, oil companies are raking in record profits. Instead of more offshore drilling, we need a comprehensive energy plan that will put Americans to work and infuse new life into our economy.

China, the US and Greenhouse Gasses

The other day I attended a lecture from my former professor Joanna Lewis who taught me some terrifying facts about China, and I learned another terrifying fact.

By 2025 China's per capita emissions will double from today's rate and still only be 1/4 of US per capita emissions.

This raises the kind of controversial issue of equality and responsibility. Per capita, the US is the highest global emittor of ghg, but we don't produce as much aggregated ghg as China (not something to be proud of though, we are the second worst polluters in the world....yay). But most ghg stay in the atmosphere for a century or so so we are responsible for about 30% of the energy realted emissions that are up there, China is only responsible for 10% of the stuff since they are late commers.

We all realize we need to fight this, but how do we regulate it? Do we say every Human is allowed to emit a  certain amount or do we say each country is allowed to emit a certain amount based on what they did historically or do we encourage efficiency by saying we can only use a certain amount of energy per dollar of GDP? Or do we want to hope that markets will work and that if set a high enough global price per emmisions that emissions will decrease enough to stop global warming?

The last one is probably the easiest to do but it is the least certain of them all which worries me.

We could just stick our fingers in our ears and go "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" which would be easy it just wouldn't be that affective. Or we can pretend that we are powerless to fix the problem and just ask someone else to clean up our mess.

Or we could make some sacrifices and try to fix this.

T. Boone Pickens

Today I went to T. Boone Pickens's talk about the Pickens Plan (and I even got to ask a question about it) and I think I am tentatively in favor of the plan if it is followed 100%. The Pickens Plan is pretty straight forward: Our nation spends about $700 Billion dollars a year on foreign oil and that's bad. He says that we are not an oil exporting nation, but we act as if we are which is very bad. Most countries (like Spain, Germany and Japan) that aren't big oil producers realize they are and thus TRY NOT TO BUILD THEIR ENTIRE FRIGGIN ECONOMY ON IT.
It would be nice to kick the foreign oil habit. Our economy is too focused on oil to just ditch it entirely but it would be more politically feasible to kick the foreign oil habit and in the process help transition to a fossil fuel-free economy.

His plan: Cars and Trucks need liquid fuels (the technology is getting there for electric cars, but as he said "A battery won't move an 18 wheeler") which means either oil, natural gas or biofuels. Well biofuels isn't the best of ideas, what with the whole food--> fuel= starvation in the third world, and oil is the habit we're trying to kick which leaves us with natural gas. In 2006 the US generated about 20% of its energy from NG (although T. Boone said now it's 22%). The Pickens Plan says we should take that NG, and use it to power our vehicles and sub in even cleaner wind and solar power to fill the vacancy left by NG. NG generates about 22% of our electricity but the same amount would be able to replace 38% of our imported oil.

This is a fine idea environmentally as NG burns cleaner than oil and renewables are cleaner than NG but the plan is only a good one if renewables replace NG and not coal.

He advocates a wind power corridor from North Dakota to west Texas and a solar belt in the South west in order to revive rural America. He says wind power will (and has) bring (and brought) jobs to rural America since wind turbines are so huge that you have to build them close to where you place them to make it less than a logistical nightmare.

He recognizes that switching from oil to natural gas won't solve our energy issue as NG is a finite resource but it will help get us out of a LOT of debt and buy us 20 years to make the full switch to a carbon-free economy
There were a few other interesting point about his talk:

• He laughed at the idea that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis since we would need to have more oil in untapped reserves than Saudi Arabia produces a day.
• We currently import about 1 million barrels from Mexico a day but in the near future Mexico will become an oil importer so we won't be able to get that from them anymore
• ANWR can't get contribute more than 2 million barrels a day as its pipeline cannot physically transport more than that
• He said that Global Warming is the next big problem but our energy crisis is the current one and that's why he and Al Gore haven't been working together all that closely. Obviously I think Global Warming is a much larger issue but the Pickens Plan can be a good large step in the right direction.
• He did not talk about offshore wind even though there are better wind resources off shore AND it's closer to major population centers thus reducing transmission losses. When someone asked about it he cited NIMBYs and terrorists (*eye roll*)
• He did not mention encouraging efficiency or conservation until I asked him about it. When I asked him whether he didn't mention it for a particular reason he went onto a very lengthy talk about how those are both very important parts of any energy solution and how it's fundamental to an energy plan. I just wished he talked more about it as energy conservation and increased efficiency has an immediate economy and environmental effect.

But as a whole it was a very good talk and as he pointed out our nation's energy situation is so bad that pretty much any energy plan (besides liquid coal) would be a vast improvement.

Car-free Dating

The other day I was at an older relative's birthday party and I was chatting with a friend of the birthday boy about college life and life in DC. In the conversation I mentioned that I don't have a car and she asked me "then how do you date in college?" At first I was surprised because I had never considered the idea that being carless could hurt my romantic life. True, as my brother said "want to hop into the backseat of my bike just doesn't have the same romantic ring to it," and not having a car makes it harder to go pick up a date and neck on lover's lane. But I do live in a city with a great public transit system so getting around the city is not a problem so you could just meet a date at a certain spot and not pick them up in the car.

We can break down the bike vs. car in a city debate while on the subject of dating into a few categories (I will exclude using cabs or carshare programs from the carfree side as the issue is with using cars not owning them)
1. Getting to/from date location
2. Getting to/from your date
3. Transit for the date
4. privacy *wink*
5. Appearance of biker/driver and physical desirability
6. Flirting while using your vehicle
-----
1. Since I don't have a car I can only go on dates to certain places. Places that are either walkable or bikable from my house or places by public transit. But since I live in DC and am an avid biker I can get to pretty much any part of the city in half an hour. So there are few date locations I cannot go to because of my car-free status. However, there are safety issues as there are many parts of DC I where I wouldn't want to bike at night or leave my bike locked up for a while (I had a bike seat stolen on a date in U street once, that was not fun). So you learn to get to those places by other means. In the end, with a little planning and creativity being carless should not alter your dating mobility and choice of locations to visit while on a date. Traffic is a huge issue in cities often making it faster to bike or take mass transit to most places than drive there (especially considering parking time) and since being perpetually late because you were stuck in traffic can seriously ruin your chances with someone, I'm going to chalk this up to to being car-free
Advantage: Bike

2. An issue in dating is "geographical desirability". You may like the guy/girl but if they live way on the other side of town (and you are lazy) it might be hard to hang out all the time. Living car-free does limit your zone of geographically desirability encouraging you to date local (and adding a whole new meaning to the word locavore).  But since I live in a city with relatively high population density, and as people tend to hang out close to their homes the odds of falling for someone geographically undesirable is low.
Advantage: Even

3. Sometimes while on a date you want to go to a certain restaurant followed by an event at a venue across town, if this is the case having a car is an advantage. Yes parking fees are annoying and traffic can be stressful and make you irritable (never good on a date) but in the end it's easiest to hope in your car to drive to the Kennedy Center from dinner in Adams Morgan than to take the Metro and walk. If you are car-free you can adapt to that and keep the date-time travel at  a minimum but that is a concession.
Advantage: Car

4. Ok, this one is going to have to go to the Car as well. You can do more intimate things in a car than on a bike (you can try but I don't think that would be very safe nor private). I'm not saying it is or is not classy to do certain things in a car, I am just saying you can do it.
Advantage: Car

5. This is the most complicated and subjective of the categories. First we'll look at appearance while using the vehicle. Is having a car a sign of wealth and power? What does it say about a guy (for this I'm going to use gender stereotypes, I know I shouldn't but I am) who drives a BMW? Are women (or other men) going to think he is wealthy and thus desirable or will they think it's silly to have a car in the city and thus not like him. Will a girl/guy see a guy in a F-350 in a city and think he's manly or will they think he's compensating? Does a guy in a helmet look dorky or does he look sexy and responsible since you know he'll always put on his helmet before he goes for a ride?
Next there is a question of physical appearance. Biking is a form of exercise and someone who bikes around all day is likely to be a little trimmer than someone who drives around all day. Yes there are fat bikers and thin drivers and yes sexiness is not a matter of fat vs. thin but their are social constructs that (etc I'm not getting into that now). There is also the sweat issue but that can be easily handled by the biker (and some people look good when they're sweaty) so that's not a big problem.  Also, some people look really good in those biking suits. Also if you are a bad driver and parker (I cannot parallel park) you can look like a grade A fool on a date.
Advantage: Bike

6. I think it is mad sketchy when some driver pulls up to someone else and tries to flirt. It doesn't work and it's super awkward (and I can imagine frightening for the pedestrian). I think it might be because it is obvious that someone is the pursuer and the other is being pursued (or you can say predator and prey if you want to make it sound worse) and the whole threat of kidnapping. On the other hand a biker can always use the excuse of taking a short rest to chat with someone and since it would be very hard to kidnap someone and make off on a bike, both parties are more relaxed when it comes to flirting on a bike. Yes this does tie back to #4, but if you are a driver and you are flirting with someone for the first time and the issue of #4 is relevant you either are the slickest person alive or money is being exchanged and that's not cool.
Advantage: Bike

So the (shocking and very unbiased) results are Biking 3, Car 2 and a tie when it comes to dating. So go ahead, ditch your car, hop on your bike and paint the town red. Just remember to always wear a helmet and try to avoid causing any accidents.

E-Z Pass

I was going up to Newark the other day in our family car which is equipped with E-Z pass and I decided that E-Z pass is a pretty nifty green device. E-Z passes eliminate the need to wear down brake pads and excessively accelerate while driving down toll roads thus helping people hypermile, saving the earth and saving some dough. After all emissions are highest when a car first starts and in stop and go traffic (that's why hybrid cars are so great) so anything that smooths the flow of traffic should be encouraged.

----
Of course that being said cars are horrible devices that pollute, contribute to our increasingly sedentary lifestyle and kill hundreds of thousands of people world wide each year. But since they seem to be sticking around until Peak Oil (and probably for a while after that) we might as well use them properly.

Massive Environmental Disaster “suspended indefinitely”

Construction of the Tata Nano factory has been “suspended indefinitely” due to protests over land rights. The Tato Nano is going to be the world's cheapest car (around $2,500) that is geared towards the world's/India's poor. It will also be one of the most fuel efficient cars (about 50 mpg) out there since it has none of the bells and whistles (and probably safety features) of most other cars and it is tiny. But this car will not replace existing cars in existing markets, it will be bought and used by people who have never owned a car before. The last thing this world needs (besides a meteor the size of Texas) is millions of new cars. It's great that the cars are designed to be extremely efficient, but it will still result in a net increase in oil use as more new car drivers buy the Nano. If people started trading in their H1 through H8s  for a Nano, that would be a different matter as it would cause oil consumption to drop. Pumping out a million 50 mpg cars is like putting a hybrid engine in an SUV, it's putting lipstick on a pig.

It'll be interesting to see how traffic fatalities spike in poorer nations after the Tata Nano eventually comes out.