I recently read that some experts think that it is too late for us to alter climate change: we’ve done too little too late.
It is never too late. At least, it is never too late to change our thinking, to come to a realization of the fragility of the world around us. An abundance of knowledge coupled with limited wisdom and the propensity of our species for belly button gazing and escalating hopelessness simply feeds more despair. Our way of thinking can cripple us.
In the early days of the American Revolution, the odds against its success were overwhelming, and yet a new nation, one based on democratic principles, was born and has inspired positive change everywhere for the past 250 years despite all the obstacles.
We now number nearly seven billion on this small planet. We, as a species, differ from the other species we share this little dot in the universe with in that we have awareness of our mortality, and never have we been more aware of the possible extinction of our species as we are at this time. We have changed this earth beyond recognition and depleted its resources with alarming and ever-accelerating speed. This realization compels us to ask what we, as a species and as individuals, can do to sustain the delicate balance and reverse the devastating consequences of our own actions.
Only three years ago Al Gore’s seminal film, An Inconvenient Truth, brought international attention to the perils of climate change. As Congress debates today the form of legislation to address this problem, the situation is growing worse minute-by-minute. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, increasing carbon emissions are the indisputable results of what we perceive to be minor changes in human lifestyle while population, and its inevitable needs and wants, continues to grow.
At the present time, we breathe more carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases than we have in the last four hundred thousand years. Fifty years from now, babies born today will have to subsist on air containing more greenhouse gases that at any time in the past three million years.
Global warming has altered the very chemistry of our oceans. The drop in ocean pH levels in the last fifty years may well exceed anything that has occurred during the previous 50 million years. Currently, nearly a third of the ocean’s corals and amphibian species, along with a quarter of all mammals, and an eighth of all bird species are threatened with extinction. And that is without counting the millions of species that are already extinct: it is impossible to quantify the disappearance of life forms already lost to collapsing ecosystems.
Not only has our population more than doubled in the last fifty years, but also our global economy has doubled every 10 years for the past few years. Between 2003 and 2007, average income worldwide grew at a faster rate than ever recorded in history. Our global economy has grown from $31 trillion in 1999 to $62 trillion in 2008. All you have to do is look at our run-away use of coal and oil—natural resources that required millions of years to form—supplies in the last century to get an idea of the rapidity with which we are killing our planet.
We are barely recovering from a worldwide financial meltdown caused by unbridled human greed. This economic disaster is distracting us from the ominous ecological disaster before us. The shallowness and lack of public debate and dialogue with regard to cap and trade vs. carbon emissions taxation clearly illustrates the general disregard for these fundamental, and infinitely more critical, issues.
In addition to the current economic worries, Americans are faced with a broken healthcare system. This too is an issue of enormous societal implications that diverts our attention from any debate or actions concerning climate change even though, ironically, our health is directly related to our environment.
Yes we live in very complex, stressful and desperate times. Nevertheless, each of us does have a choice as to how we deal with these challenges. A feeble ray of hope perhaps: people of all walks of life everywhere around the world are awakening to our interconnectivity to one another and to every aspect of life on this planet—a fine thread to which our very survival is attached.
It seems at times that our species should be called “bozo sapiens” to reflect our monumental egocentricity and ability to delude ourselves. We are truly on the edge of a precipice. Can we make the right choices? Can we act responsibly and with respect for all? Can we ensure a world for future generations? Or will we doggedly continue to self-destruct? This is our greatest challenge, and each of us must unblinkingly face it with purpose as well as with humility.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Hope While Our Climate Worsens
The Associate Press today reported today of the harmful effects from global warming are already here and worsening. This marks first climate report from Barack Obama's presidency in the strongest language on climate change ever to come out of the White House. According to the document released June 16th by the White House science adviser and other top officials global warming has already caused more heavy downpours, the rise of temperatures and sea levels, rapidly retreating glaciers and altered river flows,
The White House document presents a comprehensive and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies and brief updates during the Bush years.
Weeks ago Thomas Berry passed away. This visionary left us with a legacy of earth wisdom. Thomas wrote in “The New Story" from his book The Dream of the Earth, “The basic mood of the future might well be one of confidence in the continuing revelation that takes place in and through the Earth.
This year Paul Hawken provided profound insights in his commencement address to the University of Portland Class of 2009. He inspired the graduates by saying:
“YOU ARE BRILLIANT, AND THE EARTH IS HIRING. The earth couldn’t afford to send any recruiters or limos to your school. It sent you rain, sunsets, ripe cherries, night blooming jasmine, and that unbelievably cute person you are dating. Take the hint. And here’s the deal: Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done…
When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse. What I see everywhere in the world are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world.
Paul urges that the youth connect instead of control and act in a type of Mercy Corps behind the scenes to heal this wounded planet. Hopefully we can form a global movement to defend the rights of yet born. As we plant seeds for the future we can transform our economy. New enterprises will sprout based on healing for our future instead of stealing it. Mr. Hawkins comments that we can either create assets for the future or take its assets: restore instead of exploit. By working for the earth it is a way to be rich not a way to get rich.
Paul’s May 3rd, 2009 final lines in his speech says it all.
Hopefulness only makes sense when it doesn’t make sense to be hopeful. This is your century. Take it and run as if your life depends on it.
Let’s pray that all of us can awaken and feel so inspired!
The White House document presents a comprehensive and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies and brief updates during the Bush years.
Weeks ago Thomas Berry passed away. This visionary left us with a legacy of earth wisdom. Thomas wrote in “The New Story" from his book The Dream of the Earth, “The basic mood of the future might well be one of confidence in the continuing revelation that takes place in and through the Earth.
This year Paul Hawken provided profound insights in his commencement address to the University of Portland Class of 2009. He inspired the graduates by saying:
“YOU ARE BRILLIANT, AND THE EARTH IS HIRING. The earth couldn’t afford to send any recruiters or limos to your school. It sent you rain, sunsets, ripe cherries, night blooming jasmine, and that unbelievably cute person you are dating. Take the hint. And here’s the deal: Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done…
When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse. What I see everywhere in the world are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world.
Paul urges that the youth connect instead of control and act in a type of Mercy Corps behind the scenes to heal this wounded planet. Hopefully we can form a global movement to defend the rights of yet born. As we plant seeds for the future we can transform our economy. New enterprises will sprout based on healing for our future instead of stealing it. Mr. Hawkins comments that we can either create assets for the future or take its assets: restore instead of exploit. By working for the earth it is a way to be rich not a way to get rich.
Paul’s May 3rd, 2009 final lines in his speech says it all.
Hopefulness only makes sense when it doesn’t make sense to be hopeful. This is your century. Take it and run as if your life depends on it.
Let’s pray that all of us can awaken and feel so inspired!
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Changing the Climate of People’s Minds
Over the past thirty years of my life, I have been amazed at how poorly the U.S. has addressed environmental and energy concerns, especially when it comes to how we invest in our future health and welfare.
America’s top priorities are jobs and the economy, followed by health care, terrorism, budget deficit reduction and energy, while at the bottom of this list comes climate change and environmental concerns.
This reminds of me of the study by social researchers on low income and poverty in the 60s. People were offered three dollars; most opted to get a dollar now rather than wait a day to get two dollars. It appears people have little future orientation when it comes to seriously investing in the long-term.
Over the years there has been a great deal of research addressing the implications of our choices regarding consumer goods and health, and how we spend our dollars. A recent New York Times Magazine article, “Why isn’t the Brain Green”, discusses behavior regarding climate change.
A question occurs to me. If there is a widespread consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, then will people change their behavior to attempt to cool our planet? Changing consumer behavior to lessen greenhouse emissions may become a national security issue as carbon emissions continue to climb even in this recession.
Remember when President Jimmy Carter was laughed out of office for asking Americans to turn their thermostats down? At the other extreme what about Reagan and Bush Jr. preaching to Americans to consume even more? Will Americans today make certain life style changes now, such as expend less carbon in exchange for uncertain climate benefits far off in the future?
One thing is for certain, American environmental communications have been inadequate. Improved environmental messages that engage the public to act are lacking, especially when we educate ourselves about the costs and benefits of what we do. Just take a look at how obesity is being addressed. How we react to danger is interesting if it is the result terrorist activity, but if it is a result of an irresponsible life style then this is another matter.
We prefer immediate gratification to long-term benefits. Maybe this is why McDonalds is doing so well. It is cheap, easy and fast, and in this brutal recession, the fact that it tastes good outweighs what it is doing to our health.
We want what we want now, no matter the future outcome. This represents what, in the 60s, social science termed the “culture of poverty”. If we had the choice to take $100 now to, say $200 in six months from now, most would opt for the immediate $100. Perhaps the human ancestral practice of leaving our world better for future generations may soon become extinct along with the loss of millions of our plant and animal species. Or are we likely to make lifestyle changes in order to invest in the possibility for a safer future climate?
Many of our decisions involve risk assessment. Our county is divided over two key questions: are environmental problems caused by human activity, and can we do anything about it? The majority of Americans underestimate the danger of the melting arctic ice or epic water shortages. When it comes to changing weather that we have never experienced, we have nothing to compare this with.
Certain social researchers think that there is only so much worry we can tolerate. Our loss of financial confidence coupled with increased societal pressures to live well, work hard and enjoy life all take a toll on what people can actually do and focus on. We live in overwhelming and complex times where there are just too many worries to deal with.
Also we live in times where distressing emotional circumstances are constantly being reported by the mass media. Living in a hyper-information society we are continually over stimulated with questionable information, and so, many have grown indifferent and estranged.
Biking, recycling, composting, improving insulation or purchasing more energy-efficient products are all good measures to minimize our generation of carbon. However, many are skeptical since it seems that it may not matter anyway--especially when compared with predicted future carbon emissions for China and India. Cynical?
Doubt is everywhere despite the evidence. You hear from more skeptics as to climate change than from articulate scientists. And how many politicians are willing or able to address issues of long-term change? Media focuses more on the unknown than what we know, and more on what is wrong than what is of benefit. We are becoming characters in the fictional Brave New World where “ending is better then mending”.
At Columbia University, research on group decision making focused on four key variables: uncertainty, time, potential gains, and potential losses. Researchers there are seeking to better understand how group dynamics shape decisions. Various experiments have established the ease of getting random individuals to cooperate.
Community action is activated when there is a significant shared crisis. When local support is solicited, the community itself becomes the decision-making unit. The subjects’ analytical and emotional methods of risk assessment are most interesting in these experiments. One finding was that groups could demonstrate more patience than individuals when considering delayed benefits. Group involvement can change the decision-making process and its results.
America is clearly in its adolescence with regard to understanding the dynamics of human interaction and relationship with the environment. Presently 2 percent of federal financing goes to “human dimensions” research. This is mainly for studies on how individuals and groups interact with the environment. Human-dimensions work has three categories: 1) human activities creating environmental change, 2) impacts of environmental change on people and the earth, and 3) public responses to these impacts.
98 percent of federal financing for climate-change research goes to the physical and natural sciences; this is clearly a metaphor for our present crisis—we are not emotionally comfortable with this subject. Perhaps this represents another tipping point in the acceleration of global warming.
Just how smart is it to spend billions on physical and natural scientific research, while we ignore the human dimensions of decision-making processes? What is tragic is that many Americans consider climate change to be a vastly distant problem. Do we need a 9/11-type environmental shock to realize that it is happening now? How many studies must be commissioned and carried out before we act?
I live part of the time in rural Virginia. Any awareness of the urgency of climate-change issues is rare in rural Virginia because most people see no reason whatsoever to change their behavior—they prefer the immediate gratification of doing things the way they want to do them, or at the least, as they’ve always done them. Yes, it’s the Bible Belt here, and I find it ironic that even familiarity with Genesis 2:15 does not warrant greater environmental responsibility.
It is essential to communicate, effectively and constantly, the feasible and cost-effectives benefits of lessening climate change, but in order to do so, we must become much more skilled in identifying relevant information, useful tools, innovative and responsible products, and sound policy initiatives. Even the use of language itself is critical in this endeavor. Just consider your own gut reaction to the use of the term “carbon tax” when compared to “carbon offset”—even though they both signify measures to finance cleaner energy. A simple shift in semantics can influence views even before any consideration of costs vs. benefits is brought to the table. At any rate, increased debate and dialogue are necessary in garnering public support and active engagement in the effort to address climate change. Open forums, reliable information resources, responsible media and local, regional and national leadership can guide us in the quest to meet the carbon challenge. The challenge is to encourage people to do what they believe is right without feeling they are being manipulated. We must effect a cultural revolution and encourage and enhance communal solidarity in the goal of saving our planet and leaving the world a better place for those who come after us.
There are huge psychological benefits to this: by doing the right thing, we can reduce despair, and indifference and share in a new vibrancy and sense of purpose in life. By reducing our carbon footprint through open dialogue and communal effort, we are ensuring democracy and the very future of freedom. No one can afford to wait another minute, each of us must begin to do what we can now to alleviate our carbon load and diminish climate change.
America’s top priorities are jobs and the economy, followed by health care, terrorism, budget deficit reduction and energy, while at the bottom of this list comes climate change and environmental concerns.
This reminds of me of the study by social researchers on low income and poverty in the 60s. People were offered three dollars; most opted to get a dollar now rather than wait a day to get two dollars. It appears people have little future orientation when it comes to seriously investing in the long-term.
Over the years there has been a great deal of research addressing the implications of our choices regarding consumer goods and health, and how we spend our dollars. A recent New York Times Magazine article, “Why isn’t the Brain Green”, discusses behavior regarding climate change.
A question occurs to me. If there is a widespread consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, then will people change their behavior to attempt to cool our planet? Changing consumer behavior to lessen greenhouse emissions may become a national security issue as carbon emissions continue to climb even in this recession.
Remember when President Jimmy Carter was laughed out of office for asking Americans to turn their thermostats down? At the other extreme what about Reagan and Bush Jr. preaching to Americans to consume even more? Will Americans today make certain life style changes now, such as expend less carbon in exchange for uncertain climate benefits far off in the future?
One thing is for certain, American environmental communications have been inadequate. Improved environmental messages that engage the public to act are lacking, especially when we educate ourselves about the costs and benefits of what we do. Just take a look at how obesity is being addressed. How we react to danger is interesting if it is the result terrorist activity, but if it is a result of an irresponsible life style then this is another matter.
We prefer immediate gratification to long-term benefits. Maybe this is why McDonalds is doing so well. It is cheap, easy and fast, and in this brutal recession, the fact that it tastes good outweighs what it is doing to our health.
We want what we want now, no matter the future outcome. This represents what, in the 60s, social science termed the “culture of poverty”. If we had the choice to take $100 now to, say $200 in six months from now, most would opt for the immediate $100. Perhaps the human ancestral practice of leaving our world better for future generations may soon become extinct along with the loss of millions of our plant and animal species. Or are we likely to make lifestyle changes in order to invest in the possibility for a safer future climate?
Many of our decisions involve risk assessment. Our county is divided over two key questions: are environmental problems caused by human activity, and can we do anything about it? The majority of Americans underestimate the danger of the melting arctic ice or epic water shortages. When it comes to changing weather that we have never experienced, we have nothing to compare this with.
Certain social researchers think that there is only so much worry we can tolerate. Our loss of financial confidence coupled with increased societal pressures to live well, work hard and enjoy life all take a toll on what people can actually do and focus on. We live in overwhelming and complex times where there are just too many worries to deal with.
Also we live in times where distressing emotional circumstances are constantly being reported by the mass media. Living in a hyper-information society we are continually over stimulated with questionable information, and so, many have grown indifferent and estranged.
Biking, recycling, composting, improving insulation or purchasing more energy-efficient products are all good measures to minimize our generation of carbon. However, many are skeptical since it seems that it may not matter anyway--especially when compared with predicted future carbon emissions for China and India. Cynical?
Doubt is everywhere despite the evidence. You hear from more skeptics as to climate change than from articulate scientists. And how many politicians are willing or able to address issues of long-term change? Media focuses more on the unknown than what we know, and more on what is wrong than what is of benefit. We are becoming characters in the fictional Brave New World where “ending is better then mending”.
At Columbia University, research on group decision making focused on four key variables: uncertainty, time, potential gains, and potential losses. Researchers there are seeking to better understand how group dynamics shape decisions. Various experiments have established the ease of getting random individuals to cooperate.
Community action is activated when there is a significant shared crisis. When local support is solicited, the community itself becomes the decision-making unit. The subjects’ analytical and emotional methods of risk assessment are most interesting in these experiments. One finding was that groups could demonstrate more patience than individuals when considering delayed benefits. Group involvement can change the decision-making process and its results.
America is clearly in its adolescence with regard to understanding the dynamics of human interaction and relationship with the environment. Presently 2 percent of federal financing goes to “human dimensions” research. This is mainly for studies on how individuals and groups interact with the environment. Human-dimensions work has three categories: 1) human activities creating environmental change, 2) impacts of environmental change on people and the earth, and 3) public responses to these impacts.
98 percent of federal financing for climate-change research goes to the physical and natural sciences; this is clearly a metaphor for our present crisis—we are not emotionally comfortable with this subject. Perhaps this represents another tipping point in the acceleration of global warming.
Just how smart is it to spend billions on physical and natural scientific research, while we ignore the human dimensions of decision-making processes? What is tragic is that many Americans consider climate change to be a vastly distant problem. Do we need a 9/11-type environmental shock to realize that it is happening now? How many studies must be commissioned and carried out before we act?
I live part of the time in rural Virginia. Any awareness of the urgency of climate-change issues is rare in rural Virginia because most people see no reason whatsoever to change their behavior—they prefer the immediate gratification of doing things the way they want to do them, or at the least, as they’ve always done them. Yes, it’s the Bible Belt here, and I find it ironic that even familiarity with Genesis 2:15 does not warrant greater environmental responsibility.
It is essential to communicate, effectively and constantly, the feasible and cost-effectives benefits of lessening climate change, but in order to do so, we must become much more skilled in identifying relevant information, useful tools, innovative and responsible products, and sound policy initiatives. Even the use of language itself is critical in this endeavor. Just consider your own gut reaction to the use of the term “carbon tax” when compared to “carbon offset”—even though they both signify measures to finance cleaner energy. A simple shift in semantics can influence views even before any consideration of costs vs. benefits is brought to the table. At any rate, increased debate and dialogue are necessary in garnering public support and active engagement in the effort to address climate change. Open forums, reliable information resources, responsible media and local, regional and national leadership can guide us in the quest to meet the carbon challenge. The challenge is to encourage people to do what they believe is right without feeling they are being manipulated. We must effect a cultural revolution and encourage and enhance communal solidarity in the goal of saving our planet and leaving the world a better place for those who come after us.
There are huge psychological benefits to this: by doing the right thing, we can reduce despair, and indifference and share in a new vibrancy and sense of purpose in life. By reducing our carbon footprint through open dialogue and communal effort, we are ensuring democracy and the very future of freedom. No one can afford to wait another minute, each of us must begin to do what we can now to alleviate our carbon load and diminish climate change.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Dealing with Our Excrement
A recent article "Sludge Happens: Recycling sewage into fertilizer might be making us sick. Why doesn't the EPA give a crap," in Mother Jones Magazine (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/sludge-happens) came up on my radar. This article is one of many that raises questions regarding the impacts of land application of biosolids.
Land application is the most economical avenue for getting rid of this sludge. Some experts claim that sludge is not good fertilizer and there are numerous health concerns with land application. Added to this problem is that after we invest hundreds of billions to increased biological nutrient reduction pollution controls placed on tens of thousands of wastewater plants, we greatly increase the volumes of biosolids.
EPA should explore greater pollution prevention controls to best address the land application of biosolids. This is warranted since improper sludge application has caused problems throughout the world.
Promoting best management controls for the land application of biosolids is important. Developing greater public dialogue and exploring greater best management responsibilities for safe land application of biosolids can translate into improved health and water quality.
Today over 16,000 sewage treatment facilities serve nearly 190 million Americans (the 72 percent of the U.S. population who are served by sewers not counting those with decentralized septic and wastewater systems). In addition, these facilities serve thousands of industrial and commercial establishments to treat their wastewaters. Roughly eight million dry metric tons of biosolids are produced annually or about 58 pounds per person per year. About 54 percent of the biosolids are land applied as a fertilizer or as a soil conditioner.
Sludge, or biosolids range from 70 percent to greater than 98 percent water. The dry matter in biosolids is mostly inert minerals (i.e., sand and silica) or biological materials comprised of fat, protein, fiber and carbohydrates. Biosolids also have trace amounts of heavy metals and organic chemicals. And, biosolids contain varying levels of pathogenic organisms, vector (e.g., insects and rodents) attractants and odor causing substances. These metals, organic chemicals and pathogens pose a threat to human health unless the biosolids are sufficiently processed and properly placed in the environment.
Part 503 Biosolid Rule allows land application (spreading) of sewage sludge (also known as sludge) needs to be updated. Today there are three main options (each with limitations) to dispose of sludge: landfilling, incineration, and land-spreading. Incineration requires high capital investment, and is limited because of potential air pollution and the production of toxic ash. The science for land applying biosolids is many decades olds when in 1993, the EPA published the 503 Sludge Rule setting standards for the use or disposal of sewage.
EPA’s standards have generated controversy in the scientific and agricultural communities, as well as with the general public. Although the 503 Sludge Rule establishes minimum quality standards for biosolids to be land applied many citizens question the adequacy of these standards. Land applying sludge requires more stringent standards, additional source separation and greater pretreatment of contaminants. Scientists and citizens have expressed concerns about the effects on humans from contaminants concentrated in the sludge during treatment.
Several years ago the EPA Inspector General found: “EPA does not have an effective program for ensuring compliance with the land application requirements of the 503 rules. …While EPA promotes land application, they cannot ensure the public that current land application practices are protective of human health and the environment.”
The National Academies of Sciences in 2002 released a paper called, “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices." They cited their uncertainty about the potential adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids. Essentially, there is a need to update the scientific basis of the 503 rule so to review the current. exposure and health information on exposed populations. Also the risk-assessment methods need to be updated as does the outdated characterization of sewage sludges.
Educational tools are needed to assist local citizens and local officials with the various implications of land application. This would allow users to identify environmental concerns and to give field assistance to the analysis, maintenance and accounting of sludge land applications.
Finally, what I have observed are the inadequate programs to ensure compliance with biosolids regulation and lack of resources devoted to EPA’s biosolids program. We need innovation to overcome the institutional barriers often imposed by land applying biosolids. There are many challenges including jurisdictional, political, and governmental boundaries when dealing with the hydrogeological and geographical facets of dealing with sludge. In closing I have watched in the Shenandoah Valley hundreds of millions of dollars invested in water quality improvements and very little expended to address the safe management of biosolids. It time we Americans deal with our excrement or pay for the consequences.
Land application is the most economical avenue for getting rid of this sludge. Some experts claim that sludge is not good fertilizer and there are numerous health concerns with land application. Added to this problem is that after we invest hundreds of billions to increased biological nutrient reduction pollution controls placed on tens of thousands of wastewater plants, we greatly increase the volumes of biosolids.
EPA should explore greater pollution prevention controls to best address the land application of biosolids. This is warranted since improper sludge application has caused problems throughout the world.
Promoting best management controls for the land application of biosolids is important. Developing greater public dialogue and exploring greater best management responsibilities for safe land application of biosolids can translate into improved health and water quality.
Today over 16,000 sewage treatment facilities serve nearly 190 million Americans (the 72 percent of the U.S. population who are served by sewers not counting those with decentralized septic and wastewater systems). In addition, these facilities serve thousands of industrial and commercial establishments to treat their wastewaters. Roughly eight million dry metric tons of biosolids are produced annually or about 58 pounds per person per year. About 54 percent of the biosolids are land applied as a fertilizer or as a soil conditioner.
Sludge, or biosolids range from 70 percent to greater than 98 percent water. The dry matter in biosolids is mostly inert minerals (i.e., sand and silica) or biological materials comprised of fat, protein, fiber and carbohydrates. Biosolids also have trace amounts of heavy metals and organic chemicals. And, biosolids contain varying levels of pathogenic organisms, vector (e.g., insects and rodents) attractants and odor causing substances. These metals, organic chemicals and pathogens pose a threat to human health unless the biosolids are sufficiently processed and properly placed in the environment.
Part 503 Biosolid Rule allows land application (spreading) of sewage sludge (also known as sludge) needs to be updated. Today there are three main options (each with limitations) to dispose of sludge: landfilling, incineration, and land-spreading. Incineration requires high capital investment, and is limited because of potential air pollution and the production of toxic ash. The science for land applying biosolids is many decades olds when in 1993, the EPA published the 503 Sludge Rule setting standards for the use or disposal of sewage.
EPA’s standards have generated controversy in the scientific and agricultural communities, as well as with the general public. Although the 503 Sludge Rule establishes minimum quality standards for biosolids to be land applied many citizens question the adequacy of these standards. Land applying sludge requires more stringent standards, additional source separation and greater pretreatment of contaminants. Scientists and citizens have expressed concerns about the effects on humans from contaminants concentrated in the sludge during treatment.
Several years ago the EPA Inspector General found: “EPA does not have an effective program for ensuring compliance with the land application requirements of the 503 rules. …While EPA promotes land application, they cannot ensure the public that current land application practices are protective of human health and the environment.”
The National Academies of Sciences in 2002 released a paper called, “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices." They cited their uncertainty about the potential adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids. Essentially, there is a need to update the scientific basis of the 503 rule so to review the current. exposure and health information on exposed populations. Also the risk-assessment methods need to be updated as does the outdated characterization of sewage sludges.
Educational tools are needed to assist local citizens and local officials with the various implications of land application. This would allow users to identify environmental concerns and to give field assistance to the analysis, maintenance and accounting of sludge land applications.
Finally, what I have observed are the inadequate programs to ensure compliance with biosolids regulation and lack of resources devoted to EPA’s biosolids program. We need innovation to overcome the institutional barriers often imposed by land applying biosolids. There are many challenges including jurisdictional, political, and governmental boundaries when dealing with the hydrogeological and geographical facets of dealing with sludge. In closing I have watched in the Shenandoah Valley hundreds of millions of dollars invested in water quality improvements and very little expended to address the safe management of biosolids. It time we Americans deal with our excrement or pay for the consequences.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Change the Climate Before It Changes Us
Are we supposedly responsible for destroying the planet with our high standard of living? What are the real truths about climate change and energy rationing agendas? Everyone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute to the United Nations have a different perspective. The challenge is that climate change can be caused by natural events on this fragile planet. While there are 30 different greenhouse gases including water vapor. Eighty percent comes from carbon dioxide. Before industrialization carbon levels were about 225 parts per million while today carbon levels are at 385 ppm. CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, forest fires, transportation, deforestation and other human activities.
While most scientists agree that large amounts of man-made carbon dioxide is causing problems while many Americans question are skeptical. The situation of grave concern is between what science observes and what the public perceives. We have two sides; the alarmist hard left environmental lobby opposing growth and capitalism and; the hard right preaching anti-regulation and stimulating new free markets.
According to the American Geophysical Union, 80 percent of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1700’s has occurred in the 20th and 21st centuries. Also the Pew Center on Global Climate Change cited that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 150 years.
In 2006, Winds of Change, Eugene Linden charts how public and scientific opinion diverged from 1988 to 2005. Scientific community view has gone from indifference to alarm with a general consensus while the public view has been indifferent except for a brief alarm in the late 1980’s. In a Pew Research poll in 2006 only 41 percent said this was due to human activity. In a University of California 2005 study Dr. Naomi Oreske did a random sampling of 928 peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming revealed that 100 percent agreed with the view that humans affect climate change.
Now various economist estimate costs to contain present emissions, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change determined the benefits to prevent the doubling of greenhouse gaseous between $55 billion and $140 billion dollars and that US greenhouse gas emission increased 12 percent between 1990 and 2001. In 2006, the Stern Review on the Economic Effects of Climate Change estimates stabilizing these emission would cost about half a trillion dollars.
In my life, science has documented how this earth has rapidly increased in temperature while human population has doubled in size. I have witnessed many forms of humans ecological destruction. The debate will continue whether humanity is causing some form of climate catastrophe as we Americans argue for some official policy on climate change. When will we imposed mandatory carbon standards on American emissions? Can we afford to further speculate?
The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Stevens, commented on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency;
A well documented rise is global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related.
Recent 2009 scientific studies indicate that climate change is increasing due what is called positive tipping points accelerating arctic ice loss and other warming effects. However, many Americans still oppose the ideas we are responsible for this and our global economic crisis has delayed immediate consideration of this concern.
Alternative energy is controversial, costly and takes time to be developed.
We have spent roughly a trillion on terrorism and tens of trillions of dollars on our financial crisis. Can we ignore investing in our earth’s balance? Hopefully debating climate change will make us more energy efficient and Americans rally for our international security. Are we wise enough to invest in lessening our greenhouse emissions? Future generations will be our ultimate judges whether our actions today made their life better. If we do not leave a legacy for our children then how can we look at ourselves truthfully in the mirror?
While most scientists agree that large amounts of man-made carbon dioxide is causing problems while many Americans question are skeptical. The situation of grave concern is between what science observes and what the public perceives. We have two sides; the alarmist hard left environmental lobby opposing growth and capitalism and; the hard right preaching anti-regulation and stimulating new free markets.
According to the American Geophysical Union, 80 percent of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1700’s has occurred in the 20th and 21st centuries. Also the Pew Center on Global Climate Change cited that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 150 years.
In 2006, Winds of Change, Eugene Linden charts how public and scientific opinion diverged from 1988 to 2005. Scientific community view has gone from indifference to alarm with a general consensus while the public view has been indifferent except for a brief alarm in the late 1980’s. In a Pew Research poll in 2006 only 41 percent said this was due to human activity. In a University of California 2005 study Dr. Naomi Oreske did a random sampling of 928 peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming revealed that 100 percent agreed with the view that humans affect climate change.
Now various economist estimate costs to contain present emissions, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change determined the benefits to prevent the doubling of greenhouse gaseous between $55 billion and $140 billion dollars and that US greenhouse gas emission increased 12 percent between 1990 and 2001. In 2006, the Stern Review on the Economic Effects of Climate Change estimates stabilizing these emission would cost about half a trillion dollars.
In my life, science has documented how this earth has rapidly increased in temperature while human population has doubled in size. I have witnessed many forms of humans ecological destruction. The debate will continue whether humanity is causing some form of climate catastrophe as we Americans argue for some official policy on climate change. When will we imposed mandatory carbon standards on American emissions? Can we afford to further speculate?
The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Stevens, commented on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency;
A well documented rise is global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related.
Recent 2009 scientific studies indicate that climate change is increasing due what is called positive tipping points accelerating arctic ice loss and other warming effects. However, many Americans still oppose the ideas we are responsible for this and our global economic crisis has delayed immediate consideration of this concern.
Alternative energy is controversial, costly and takes time to be developed.
We have spent roughly a trillion on terrorism and tens of trillions of dollars on our financial crisis. Can we ignore investing in our earth’s balance? Hopefully debating climate change will make us more energy efficient and Americans rally for our international security. Are we wise enough to invest in lessening our greenhouse emissions? Future generations will be our ultimate judges whether our actions today made their life better. If we do not leave a legacy for our children then how can we look at ourselves truthfully in the mirror?
Beyond the Paradox of Thrift
Is it not ironic that more we individually saved we decreased economic growth? You would think be thrifty would make things more prosperous. America is the individual largest consumer and thus the leading polluter. As we spew increasingly amount of carbon dioxide we need to face the fact that we can no longer make excuses why we can not lessen our climate changing activity. Otherwise we must accept that we are each responsible for destroying future life.
Our environmental and financial problems are linked by choice between need and greed. Unfortunately we have not evolved to the developed skillful boundaries that when we allow for certain economic activity it also impacts our future on this fragile planet.
In the last hundred years humans have pressed the pedal to the metal in the use of our fossil fuels. What has taken tens of thousands of years to become, oil, coal and natural gas. The consequences for lightening use and depletion of these natural resources upon our eco-systems are evident. We have tripled our population and caused massive lots of species and natural habitat. If the earth is an organism then we must address the various forms of cancer if we wish to survive.
The thing is that we have not valued things that matter most. Water, energy and eco-systems are all vital if we wish to have a healthy future. By allowing these vitals to become inexpensive we have borrowed against the equity on our future since this is truly our homes.
As the arctic ice melts at accelerated rates and polar bears perish we have to face the music. We spent trillions of dollars to battle terrorism and tens of trillions evaporated over financial blunders what have we invested in lessening our greenhouse gases. Just because now we have more efficient homes and cars increase use or more people create another paradox of thrift. I have seen this first hand in increasing agricultural conservation measures. We created such things as alternative watering so that cows would not drink from creeks and then farmer crowd more on limited land.
We require tough love so when we succeed in conserving it does nothing from people developing other ways to impact our earth even more. Our global recession has lessen carbon output, however if we truly are going to prosper learn to develop market based and other measures to prevent greed and promote need. A national dialogue is required if we wish to become greener. Americans are still too shortsighted and unable to face the piper.
There is a form of terror that threatens our country and world. It is a form of self delusion and culture of entitlement. Shortly we must address the most serious crisis facing us since if we can not foresee or forestall our carbon footprint we may suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs. There is much in balance and much to despair if we do not honesty address what is happening. We all will feel better once we fully explore how we can prosper from lessening climate change. Let’s transcend any paradox of thrift to deal our present of paradox of life.
Our environmental and financial problems are linked by choice between need and greed. Unfortunately we have not evolved to the developed skillful boundaries that when we allow for certain economic activity it also impacts our future on this fragile planet.
In the last hundred years humans have pressed the pedal to the metal in the use of our fossil fuels. What has taken tens of thousands of years to become, oil, coal and natural gas. The consequences for lightening use and depletion of these natural resources upon our eco-systems are evident. We have tripled our population and caused massive lots of species and natural habitat. If the earth is an organism then we must address the various forms of cancer if we wish to survive.
The thing is that we have not valued things that matter most. Water, energy and eco-systems are all vital if we wish to have a healthy future. By allowing these vitals to become inexpensive we have borrowed against the equity on our future since this is truly our homes.
As the arctic ice melts at accelerated rates and polar bears perish we have to face the music. We spent trillions of dollars to battle terrorism and tens of trillions evaporated over financial blunders what have we invested in lessening our greenhouse gases. Just because now we have more efficient homes and cars increase use or more people create another paradox of thrift. I have seen this first hand in increasing agricultural conservation measures. We created such things as alternative watering so that cows would not drink from creeks and then farmer crowd more on limited land.
We require tough love so when we succeed in conserving it does nothing from people developing other ways to impact our earth even more. Our global recession has lessen carbon output, however if we truly are going to prosper learn to develop market based and other measures to prevent greed and promote need. A national dialogue is required if we wish to become greener. Americans are still too shortsighted and unable to face the piper.
There is a form of terror that threatens our country and world. It is a form of self delusion and culture of entitlement. Shortly we must address the most serious crisis facing us since if we can not foresee or forestall our carbon footprint we may suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs. There is much in balance and much to despair if we do not honesty address what is happening. We all will feel better once we fully explore how we can prosper from lessening climate change. Let’s transcend any paradox of thrift to deal our present of paradox of life.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Allocating for Climate Change is a Future Investment
For over thirty years I have worked on various environmental endeavors always in conflict with short run economic thinking. Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Fund must be "mindful" that they are walking in a economic "minefield."
In mid January the U.S. Climate Partnership announced their plan for a cap-and-trade system for a 42 percent cut emissions by 2030. However many economists and executives are skeptical with me included. Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson called this a “stealth tax” cap-and-trade system endorsing a tax on carbon emissions that are more transparent and predictable. While there is widespread support for a cap-and-trade system, however, such measures create enormous volatility in the price of permits and ways for gaming the system according to financial experts.
This national carbon tax bill would be phased-in and revenue-neutral. Leading economists have recommended for enactment of a carbon tax as the simplest, easiest to administer and most transparent approach to carbon pricing, despite the conventional wisdom that a "cap and trade" regime is key to a political consensus. Indeed, there have been numerous cap and trade bills introduced in the Congress, including the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill that was brought to the Senate floor for a vote late last spring.
This raises the question for me, “is environmentalism failing”? The polluter has really never paid in our country for their pollution. So it is hard to profit from this prevention until we as nation wake up and smell the coffee. We the people are all guilty since we as a society have hidden some of these costs. An alarm clock of safe carbon emissions is crying out loud, “Tomorrow is today”. Simple, we can not afford to procrastinate any longer.
We are now at 385 ppm past the maximum 350 ppm. Of vital concern is how America is addressing a national climate change program. Many towns, cities, counties and states are dealing with how we develop a sustainable energy future however what Congress does is fundamental.
Ironically, how in American we have allowed massive financial market failure alter our way life and how our government is responding is case in point. Can we as a nation get practical and real in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? I challenge you to survey the existing science of today that documents how serious our world is in peril.
The key question is that if our government continues to be wasteful or boastful it will be disaster. Change can only happen by looking at the facts of this crisis and not deny that transformative action is required. We have to avert future collapse by forming new alliances, democratic processes and technologies. If this is a race not to the moon but “from a form of doom” we have to reinvent capitalism where market failure is not covered by the taxpayers but factored in as the cost of business.
We have spent trillions on a “war on terror” and now we must prevent even a great terror, future despair. Investment, innovation and entrepreneurship creating new economic prosperity for sustainable and sufficiency. Discovering how to regenerate natural capital is just another opportunity. For example resource productivity can happen once we redefined how we can profit from pollution prevention in our 60 trillion dollar ouput economy. Currently we are suffering from the trillions of dollars of toxic financial paper and derivative type instruments impacting us worldwide.
On the other extreme corporate pressure on policy makers has allowed for lax regulation, standards, and poor enforcement with little oversight. Economic growth would prevail at the expense of environmental pollution. In 2003, the Congressional Research Service estimated that U.S energy subsidies were between thirty-seven billion and sixty-four billion dollars and increased by two to three billion dollars annually by the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
Look at lobbying in Washington DC. Thirty years ago there were less than a thousand lobbyists. Today there over 35,000. Political action (PAC) spending has in this time gone from $15 million to over $250 million today. The largest is the US Chamber of Commerce, followed by trade associations and 92 corporations. To get some idea of corporate might just look at ExxonMobil which is larger than 180 nations.
Further debate and examination of by all Americas is critical to address climate change. If we wish to make bold investments in a clean energy economy wise dialogue is a vital investment for future generations.
In mid January the U.S. Climate Partnership announced their plan for a cap-and-trade system for a 42 percent cut emissions by 2030. However many economists and executives are skeptical with me included. Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson called this a “stealth tax” cap-and-trade system endorsing a tax on carbon emissions that are more transparent and predictable. While there is widespread support for a cap-and-trade system, however, such measures create enormous volatility in the price of permits and ways for gaming the system according to financial experts.
This national carbon tax bill would be phased-in and revenue-neutral. Leading economists have recommended for enactment of a carbon tax as the simplest, easiest to administer and most transparent approach to carbon pricing, despite the conventional wisdom that a "cap and trade" regime is key to a political consensus. Indeed, there have been numerous cap and trade bills introduced in the Congress, including the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill that was brought to the Senate floor for a vote late last spring.
This raises the question for me, “is environmentalism failing”? The polluter has really never paid in our country for their pollution. So it is hard to profit from this prevention until we as nation wake up and smell the coffee. We the people are all guilty since we as a society have hidden some of these costs. An alarm clock of safe carbon emissions is crying out loud, “Tomorrow is today”. Simple, we can not afford to procrastinate any longer.
We are now at 385 ppm past the maximum 350 ppm. Of vital concern is how America is addressing a national climate change program. Many towns, cities, counties and states are dealing with how we develop a sustainable energy future however what Congress does is fundamental.
Ironically, how in American we have allowed massive financial market failure alter our way life and how our government is responding is case in point. Can we as a nation get practical and real in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? I challenge you to survey the existing science of today that documents how serious our world is in peril.
The key question is that if our government continues to be wasteful or boastful it will be disaster. Change can only happen by looking at the facts of this crisis and not deny that transformative action is required. We have to avert future collapse by forming new alliances, democratic processes and technologies. If this is a race not to the moon but “from a form of doom” we have to reinvent capitalism where market failure is not covered by the taxpayers but factored in as the cost of business.
We have spent trillions on a “war on terror” and now we must prevent even a great terror, future despair. Investment, innovation and entrepreneurship creating new economic prosperity for sustainable and sufficiency. Discovering how to regenerate natural capital is just another opportunity. For example resource productivity can happen once we redefined how we can profit from pollution prevention in our 60 trillion dollar ouput economy. Currently we are suffering from the trillions of dollars of toxic financial paper and derivative type instruments impacting us worldwide.
On the other extreme corporate pressure on policy makers has allowed for lax regulation, standards, and poor enforcement with little oversight. Economic growth would prevail at the expense of environmental pollution. In 2003, the Congressional Research Service estimated that U.S energy subsidies were between thirty-seven billion and sixty-four billion dollars and increased by two to three billion dollars annually by the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
Look at lobbying in Washington DC. Thirty years ago there were less than a thousand lobbyists. Today there over 35,000. Political action (PAC) spending has in this time gone from $15 million to over $250 million today. The largest is the US Chamber of Commerce, followed by trade associations and 92 corporations. To get some idea of corporate might just look at ExxonMobil which is larger than 180 nations.
Further debate and examination of by all Americas is critical to address climate change. If we wish to make bold investments in a clean energy economy wise dialogue is a vital investment for future generations.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Energy Co-ops: People Sharing, Prospering and Conserving
When Franklin Roosevelt 75 years ago signed into law the Civilian Conservation Corps in my hometown he was challenged by his critics. FDR responded that when the unemployed started to plant trees and become vested in other environmental improvements in their communities they become shareholders in saving their land. Energy co-ops are not only saving their land, they are also creating a necessary, new paradigm for investing in local economies at a scale that functions to revitalize other aspects of community.
Fostering energy co-ops creates many, complementary economic and environmental benefits. Shareholders lessen their energy bill by investing in small-scale energy production and conservation. This, in turn, incrementally lessons our nation’s dependence on imported foreign oil and our overall carbon footprint. By investing in and lending to small, local businesses, they also contribute to the creation of new “green” jobs and re-circulate money within the community, which has been shown to benefit the local economy by a factor of 3x. When the co-op works their share goes up in value, jobs are created, energy is produced and saved and joyful human interaction result. This county will not lessen its dependence on foreign oil until this nation harnesses citizen’s involvement. We can not afford to wait to develop green infrastructure in neighborhoods, towns and region without engaging Americans of all walks. Energy co-ops also develop positive feedback loops by transforming the homeowners into more self reliant energy conservers. People who buy co-op shares become motivated to get the best return on their collective efforts by promoting the businesses they own a shares.
Today I am a member and helped start several co-ops as both my grandfathers done during the depression. With our present financial crisis I feel most secure in investing in an energy co-op.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (“EESI”) states the most important jobs for the new Congress in January will be to pass an economic stimulus bill to jump start the economy, create jobs, and revitalize American industry – a tall order, which could cost between $500 billion and $1 trillion [1]. It will be vital to includes in any new legislation innovative projects creating jobs and economic activity such as Energy Co-op(s). Energy Co-ops will strengthen our long-term economic security, and address the reality of climate change. Since the fall of Wall Street we must take strengths of private sector and integrate them with non-profit enterprises. Shareholders can be great decision makers and wise managers.
There are many efforts in the works to expand Energy Co-ops. One good example is Co-op Power (www. cooppower.coop). Co-op Power operates in the New England area as a consumer-owned cooperative to maintain an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable energy future.
Over 48,000 co-ops already operate in the United States and 120 million Americans are co-op members. Roughly 10,000 credit unions (with the total assets of over $600 billion) supply financial services to 83 million members. 36 million Americans purchase their electricity from rural electric co-ops. $80 billion of Community Health Care Providers are owned by their policy holders; and approximately 30 percent of Americas farm products are marketed through cooperatives. [2]”
The tenor of the time is to explore and experiment with new ways energy co-ops can give us local environmental and economic relief. Co-ops can plant seeds to stimulate both energy conservation and community economic development. What better way in getting people to both buy shares and reap the benefits as shareholders? Let’s share it and cooperate together to form American energy co-ops and collectively profit. Cooperation both in nature as in human life is crucial. Energy co-op equate to numerous happy returns or one triple bottom line where people share, prosper and conserve together. Energy co-ops are investments in many ways we can help preserve ourselves, our communities and our earth.
Fostering energy co-ops creates many, complementary economic and environmental benefits. Shareholders lessen their energy bill by investing in small-scale energy production and conservation. This, in turn, incrementally lessons our nation’s dependence on imported foreign oil and our overall carbon footprint. By investing in and lending to small, local businesses, they also contribute to the creation of new “green” jobs and re-circulate money within the community, which has been shown to benefit the local economy by a factor of 3x. When the co-op works their share goes up in value, jobs are created, energy is produced and saved and joyful human interaction result. This county will not lessen its dependence on foreign oil until this nation harnesses citizen’s involvement. We can not afford to wait to develop green infrastructure in neighborhoods, towns and region without engaging Americans of all walks. Energy co-ops also develop positive feedback loops by transforming the homeowners into more self reliant energy conservers. People who buy co-op shares become motivated to get the best return on their collective efforts by promoting the businesses they own a shares.
Today I am a member and helped start several co-ops as both my grandfathers done during the depression. With our present financial crisis I feel most secure in investing in an energy co-op.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (“EESI”) states the most important jobs for the new Congress in January will be to pass an economic stimulus bill to jump start the economy, create jobs, and revitalize American industry – a tall order, which could cost between $500 billion and $1 trillion [1]. It will be vital to includes in any new legislation innovative projects creating jobs and economic activity such as Energy Co-op(s). Energy Co-ops will strengthen our long-term economic security, and address the reality of climate change. Since the fall of Wall Street we must take strengths of private sector and integrate them with non-profit enterprises. Shareholders can be great decision makers and wise managers.
There are many efforts in the works to expand Energy Co-ops. One good example is Co-op Power (www. cooppower.coop). Co-op Power operates in the New England area as a consumer-owned cooperative to maintain an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable energy future.
Over 48,000 co-ops already operate in the United States and 120 million Americans are co-op members. Roughly 10,000 credit unions (with the total assets of over $600 billion) supply financial services to 83 million members. 36 million Americans purchase their electricity from rural electric co-ops. $80 billion of Community Health Care Providers are owned by their policy holders; and approximately 30 percent of Americas farm products are marketed through cooperatives. [2]”
The tenor of the time is to explore and experiment with new ways energy co-ops can give us local environmental and economic relief. Co-ops can plant seeds to stimulate both energy conservation and community economic development. What better way in getting people to both buy shares and reap the benefits as shareholders? Let’s share it and cooperate together to form American energy co-ops and collectively profit. Cooperation both in nature as in human life is crucial. Energy co-op equate to numerous happy returns or one triple bottom line where people share, prosper and conserve together. Energy co-ops are investments in many ways we can help preserve ourselves, our communities and our earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
