NewsTaco

By Elizabeth Shope

With just two months before World Water Day on March 22, NRDC, CARE & WaterAid in America have published our annual report about how the United States is doing in implementing the recommendations we made last year to improve water and sanitation delivery for developing countries.

We made four key recommendations, and while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done. We are hopeful that World Water Day 2012 will not only be a time for educating the public and key decision-makers about global water, sanitation, and hygiene issues, but also that it will serve as a motivator for the U.S. government to take major actions to deliver clean water and sanitation services more efficiently and to the people who need it most. Specifically, we recommended that the United States should:

• Develop a comprehensive water strategy. The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 called for such a strategy within 180 days from passage of the legislation, but now, over six years later, this strategy has still not been completed. This strategy is critical for enabling the U.S. to set priorities and be efficient in its work to bring water and sanitation to the developing world – and do so coordinated with and integrated into programs and strategies for food security, global health, education, environment, climate change and more. My colleague Lisa Schectman at WaterAid in America has written more about the importance of this water strategyhere.
• Take a comprehensive view of water, sanitation, and hygiene, by integrating planning and budgeting meaningfully with a wider water strategy, including water productivity and water resources management, food security, health, and climate change. There have been some positive steps on this front. For example, the “Zero Draft” of the outcome document for the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development includes important provisions about safe drinking water and sanitation. However, we can do better: political will for comprehensive integration still needs to be demonstrated in a formal water strategy and project implementation.
• Strive to make global progress through U.S. leadership. Several key elements that would facilitate U.S. leadership are elevating and solidifying the senior water advisor positions within USAID and the State Department; increasing expertise and capacity of those working on the ground; and improving funding for clean water and sanitation – which currently amounts to less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the federal budget. Read more about U.S. leadership on water in my colleague Heather Allen’s blog here.
• Deliver water, sanitation and hygiene to those who need it most. It is important to prioritize funding for countries that have the greatest need for increased access to safe water and sanitation, and those in which assistance can be expected to make the greatest difference. However, only 33 percent of USAID funding for water, sanitation and hygiene went to low income countries in 2010 based on the most recent State Department report to Congress.

The goal of World Water Day is to raise awareness and call for stronger commitments and more robust action to ensure universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Nearly a billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and two out of every five people lack adequate sanitation. While World Water Day is instrumental in educating the public and decision makers about global water issues, training advocates, and setting goals, we should also use the two months leading up to World Water Day as a time to focus on making progress towards achieving these goals. It’s time to get serious about ending this injustice, and doing so in a way that is efficient and sustainable – economically, for the longevity of the projects, and for the environment.

[Photo By Diganta Talukdar]

Though its name might be a little misleading, the Colorado River flows through seven states, running over 1,400 miles through the U.S. Southwest before emptying out into the Gulf of California. According to Nuestro Rio, the river provides drinking water for millions of people, irrigates 15% of the nation’s crops, and feeds 13% of the nation’s livestock.

Considered to be a lifeline for many in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, the river has been affected in recent years by continuous drought, development and climate change. Half of the water now in reservoirs has been used up, threatening to disrupt the lives and livelihoods of those who depend on the river’s supply.

Nuestro Rio, a network of Latinos focused on preserving the Colorado River, began a campaign to raise awareness about its supply and demand problem, and is urging people in the Southwest to contact elected officials and take action to help preserve the river. In late November, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation announced that it would be taking suggestions from the general public regarding how to address the problem of the shortage of water in the Colorado River.

According to a recent press release from Nuestro Rio, the Bureau of Reclamation aims to:

[C]ollect and analyze proposals for tactics to deal with the supply and demand challenge on the river. Any individual or organization can submit a proposal by January 13th. These proposals will inform the broader strategy to deal with this challenge that will ultimately recommended by the study, scheduled to conclude in July of 2012.

Acting in the interests of those that depend on the water supply, Nuestro Rio will be urging decision makers to to take steps to support such priorities as:

• More Jobs. Policy changes should protect and promote jobs in the recreation and tourism industry, which is a pillar of the Western economy.
• Common Sense. There is no money or political will available for multi-billion dollar pipe dreams. New policy must focus on common sense solutions.
• A Better Way of Life. Fishing, boating, hiking and other recreational opportunities keep people coming West, and the solutions produced by the Basin Study need to support this economic and cultural advantage.

By Jacob Scherr

I awoke today to the sad news that Wangari Maathai, environmental leader and Nobel Prize winner, had died at age 71.   I first had contact with her in the days running up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro almost 20 years ago.  I was finishing up an unprecedented report with Human Rights Watch entitled Defending the Earth: Abuses of Human Rights and the Environment.  

We had gathered case studies of the harassment and suppression of environmental advocates around the world.  The most compelling of them was Wangari’s confrontation with the Kenyan government over plans to build an office building in Uhuru Park in Nairobi.  She was labeled a “subversive”, arrested and jailed, and then along with other protesters gassed and clubbed by the police.  We had invited Wangari to join us at a press conference to release ­Defending the Earth at the June 1992 Earth Summit, but were uncertain whether she would be permitted to leave the Kenya where she had been scheduled to go on trial just days before the start of the Rio Summit.

She was finally permitted to travel to Brazil.   As she spoke at the press event for our report, I was so impressed by her quiet dignity and  immense courage.  She was not afraid to speak out about her own struggle with the Kenyan Government – although not at all sure what would happen to her when she returned home.   She did not hesitate for a moment to link her plight to environmental advocates from other nations whose rights were also being abused.

Over the next two decades, Wangari became a spokesperson not only for environmentalists in Kenya, but for all of us who are working to protect and preserve the Earth.  In her 2004 Nobel Prize Lecture, Wangari said:

Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life, with which we have shared our evolutionary process.

In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other.

That time is now.

It is disappointing that Wangari will not be with us at the next Earth Summit also to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, but I hope her words and actions will continue to inspire and motivate us.  The work we did together in Rio twenty years ago to build cooperation between environmental and human rights groups continues to be as important as ever, and I blogged last June about Returning to Rio to Protect and Empower Environmental Advocates.  Finally I could not agree more as we approach Rio+20 that the time is now to answer Wangari’s call for new ways of thinking to address our planetary challenges and to give real hope to each other for a sustainable future.

[Photo by Global Crop Diversity Trust]

By Kristin Eberhard

Moments ago the Air Resources Board voted 9-0 to re-adopt and move ahead with the AB32 Scoping Plan — California’s blueprint for transitioning to a clean energy economy. The new analysis will supersede the original study that the San Francisco County Superior Court found lacking earlier this year.

In today’s monthly Board meeting, the ARB considered the findings of its evaluation of alternatives to the Scoping Plan for achieving the goals of AB32. The Revised Alternatives Analysis evaluated possible options for reaching the clean energy goals established under AB 32. The plan that ARB staff put forward reflects years of work with input from business, labor, and environmental groups to design a program that meets environmental concerns while it provides business the confidence that they can invest in the clean energy future of California.

What the expanded alternatives analysis confirms is that the Scoping Plan – the blueprint ARB put forward in 2008 – provides California’s best way to ensure pollution reductions at least cost and spur economic growth. In a nutshell, the Scoping Plan recognizes that there is no single “silver bullet” to solve the climate crisis – it requires an interlocking set of policies.  Despite this comprehensive approach that includes over 70 different policies, much has been made of the inclusion of one particular policy in the Scoping Plan, ARB’s proposed cap and trade regulation.  From all the press coverage one would think, incorrectly, that the cap and trade regulation is the only (or at least predominant) policy ARB is pursuing under the Scoping Plan.

Cap and trade is just one part of the AB 32 program

The cap-and-trade program is projected to account for less than one fifth of the emission reductions required to meet the AB 32 target.  The vast majority of emission reductions will come from a suite of direct regulations, which are targeted at California’s largest sources of emissions:

A well-designed cap and trade program is critical to ensuring pollution reductions and spurring innovation

As part of the larger AB 32 package of policies, however, the cap and trade program is critical for a number of reasons:

• It provides absolute emission limits on polluters,
• It is enforceable against individual emitters,
• It sends a stable market signal to drive innovation and investment in low carbon solutions (secured by ARB’s firm commitment to establish an escalating auction reserve price that begins at $10/tonne), and
• It provides a backstop for all the other intensity-based regulations under the Scoping Plan (i.e., in case the reductions from other direct measures do not fully materialize as ARB expects, the cap and trade program will pick up the slack).

Without this hard limit on pollution as a backstop, the state will be less likely to achieve all the required reductions by 2020, and less likely to stimulate the innovation and investment needed to achieve even greater reductions by 2050.

The cap is necessary, but not sufficient

What the cap and trade program will not do is dictate where emission reductions occur within capped sectors (roughly 85% of the economy).  By design, cap and trade will look to achieve emission reductions at least-cost, wherever they are available, but will not guarantee that emissions reductions occur in certain sectors or regions.  For this reason, NRDC has never supported relying exclusively on a cap and trade program to comply with AB 32. Indeed, we argued against the alternative in ARB’s revised alternative analysis that relies exclusively on cap and trade.  Instead we continue to advocate and support the Scoping Plan because it encompasses a comprehensive package of targeted direct measures backed up with a hard cap.

For instance, NRDC’s top priority for building on the success of AB 32 has been to secure additional direct reduction measures from the industrial sector, which accounts for roughly one fifth of California’s total GHG emissions but is not currently subject to any mandatory reduction requirements.   In June, ARB announced that it would close this gap by building on an existing regulation (the Industrial Audit Measure) to require California’s 60 largest industrial polluters to implement all cost-effective and feasible reduction measures identified through an energy efficiency audit.   ARB’s commitment to revamp the rule will simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality in local communities already adversely impacted by air pollution, furthering a key objective of AB 32.

ARB should move forward with an AB 32 program that includes direct regulations and a hard cap on pollution

In short, if the question is how can California best achieve the goals set out in AB 32, the choice is not between direct regulations and a market-based solution – the answer is that we need both.  As designed, the Scoping Plan strikes this balance appropriately, and the Board must keep California on track to achieve full and timely implementation of all of the policies outlined in the Scoping Plan.

[Photo By  jvh33]

By Max Baumhefner

There are thousands of Americans waiting and wanting to be a part of the technological evolution of the electric car industry, like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt. This desire has not been seen since the start of the industrial revolution, when humans changed their steam engines for electric motors. The people who began to utilize the most innovative technology are rapidly on the road to a future with clean air and a reduced dependence on the petroleum industry. They are investing their technological resources at a critical time in history and all of us benefit from their actions.

It isn’t a secret that the first generation of new technology is extremely costly. My uncle, a true engineer, took over one of the first basic calculators in 1971—the Busicom Handy-LE—and confirmed that emerging technologies come with precious components: the actual cost of the calculator was well over $2,000. Today, these mini-calculators are given away at promotional events.

I am not suggesting that the future will bring free electric cars for everyone, but rather that they will improve in automotive performance while diminishing in cost. What’s more, we are already witnesses to some of this progress. The example mentioned below shows the performance of lithium-ion batteries from 1991 to 2001 (the blue line represents the EMF of watt per liter), which power electric cars today—and how they multiply in quantity—while their respective prices dropped ten-fold (the green line represents the price in dollars per each watt-hour)

The Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt go for US$35,000 and $40,000, respectively. They aren’t cheap but they are affordable considering they are first-generation electric cars. The price can be further lowered if you take into account the federal rebate of $7,500 in tax credits among other governmental support.

Many of us, including me, aren’t able to acquire a new electric car at these prices but I am grateful that there are people who are buying them already because they are supporting a clean future for all of us. The drivers of electric cars are helping the rest of us. The decision to drive with electricity means that they emit—on average—four times less carbon dioxide than traditional cars. The benefits increase when more electric cars are bought and more renewable electricity is added to the network.

Electric cars also reduce smog and contamination around roads and highways that contribute to dirty air.

Drivers of electric cars today are not simply altruistic. Many are motivated by convenience in that they are able to charge their cars in front of their homes and the fact that driving these cars costs approximately $1 per gallon. It is what it is, and this motivation is creating an extremely interesting market. Between 35 and 40 electric models will be introduced in the coming years. While electric cars have many benefits, they are not a cure-all. We need a comprehensive plan in policy and technology that will maintain a competetive market in the United States, reduce the need for petroleum, and protect the environment. This past week, President Obama announced an agreement for 2025 that enforces standards for carbon levels and fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and trucks.

My colleague Roland Hwang determined the importance of the presidential decree: “We all win with this new agreement–not just the drivers and the auto industry workers, but rather the whole society: men, women, children, and all people can breath clean air.” As this document here explains, the health benefits according to previous standards have exceeded the costs of controlling emissions by 100 to 1. Our work does not end here.

We still need investment in public transit, as my colleague Deron Lovaas explained. Moreover, we need to plan–intelligently–urban spaces and regions to be able to foster sustainable communities according to the suggestions of my colleagues, Kaid Benfield y Amanda Eaken.

There is not a single solution but electric cars make up one critical element of a future where societies depend less on petroleum. Now friends, thanks for your collaboration and for helping us create a clean future for everyone!

[Photo By shannonkringen]

Don’t forget the basics. This simple stuff will save energy — and money — right now.

Unplug

• Unplug seldom-used appliances, like an extra refrigerator in the basement or garage that contains just a few items. You may save around $10 every month on your utility bill.
• Unplug your chargers when you’re not charging. Every house is full of little plastic power supplies to charge cell phones, PDA’s, digital cameras, cordless tools and other personal gadgets. Keep them unplugged until you need them.
• Use power strips to switch off televisions, home theater equipment, and stereos when you’re not using them. Even when you think these products are off, together, their “standby” consumption can be equivalent to that of a 75 or 100 watt light bulb running continuously.

Set Computers to Sleep and Hibernate

• Enable the “sleep mode” feature on your computer, allowing it to use less power during periods of inactivity. In Windows, the power management settings are found on your control panel. Mac users, look for energy saving settings under system preferences in the apple menu.
• Configure your computer to “hibernate” automatically after 30 minutes or so of inactivity. The “hibernate mode” turns the computer off in a way that doesn’t require you to reload everything when you switch it back on. Allowing your computer to hibernate saves energy and is more time-efficient than shutting down and restarting your computer from scratch. When you’re done for the day, shut down.

Take Control of Temperature

• Set your thermostat in winter to 68 degrees or less during the daytime, and 55 degrees before going to sleep (or when you’re away for the day). During the summer, set thermostats to 78 degrees or more.
• Use sunlight wisely. During the heating season, leave shades and blinds open on sunny days, but close them at night to reduce the amount of heat lost through windows. Close shades and blinds during the summer or when the air conditioner is in use or will be in use later in the day.
• Set the thermostat on your water heater between 120 and 130 degrees. Lower temperatures can save more energy, but you might run out of hot water or end up using extra electricity to boost the hot water temperature in your dishwasher.

Use Appliances Efficiently

• Set your refrigerator temperature at 38 to 42 degrees Fahrenheit; your freezer should be set between 0 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Use the power-save switch if your fridge has one, and make sure the door seals tightly. You can check this by making sure that a dollar bill closed in between the door gaskets is difficult to pull out. If it slides easily between the gaskets, replace them.
• Don’t preheat or “peek” inside the oven more than necessary. Check the seal on the oven door, and use a microwave oven for cooking or reheating small items.

• Wash only full loads in your dishwasher, using short cycles for all but the dirtiest dishes. This saves water and the energy used to pump and heat it. Air-drying, if you have the time, can also reduce energy use.
• In your clothes washer, set the appropriate water level for the size of the load; wash in cold water when practical, and always rinse in cold.
• Clean the lint filter in the dryer after each use. Dry heavy and light fabrics separately and don’t add wet items to a load that’s already partly dry. If available, use the moisture sensor setting. (A clothesline is the most energy-efficient clothes dryer of all!)

Turn Out the Lights

• Don’t forget to flick the switch when you leave a room.
• Remember this at the office, too. Turn out or dim the lights in unused conference rooms, and when you step out for lunch. Work by daylight when possible. A typical commercial building uses more energy for lighting than anything else.

[Photo By Horia Varlan]

By Noah Horowitz

This week the cable TV industry is having their big annual meeting in Chicago. The meeting includes three days worth of in-depth technical sessions and it looks like not a single one covers the energy use or environmental impact of the ubiquitous set-top box (otherwise known as a cable, satellite or DVR box) that the cable companies install in your home when you sign up for their service. This is a pity as the set-top boxes in the field today act like vampires by sucking up huge amounts of electricity all night long even though the user has turned off their box. A fact to get your blood boiling (vampire inspired pun intended) and interested in reading further:  Due to outdated designs, today’s cable and satellite set-top boxes consume a whopping $2 billion per year of electricity when they are turned “off”.

Now that I have your attention, I’d like to highlight the findings of a report NRDC released today on the energy use of the set-top boxes including the DVRs installed by the cable, satellite and telephone companies that enable you to access pay-TV.  NRDC and its consultant Ecos recently went into the field and monitored the power used by basic set-top boxes and DVRs that were connected to a wide range of service providers including Time Warner, Comcast, Dish Network, Direct TV, AT&T and Verizon.

The biggest finding from our field work was that the only way to really turn these boxes off is to unplug them – not an attractive option. For almost all the boxes we tested, hitting the power button simply dims the clock or display. For a typical DVR, instead of consuming 30 Watts when on, the box used 29 Watts, only the difference of one Watt.  When you add it all up, this means it’s costing our nation $2 billion per year in electric bills to power devices when we are NOT using them. That’s money and energy we simply don’t have to spare these days.

Here are some of the key findings of our research:

• More than 80% of US home subscribe to some form of pay-TV.  There are more than 160 million set-top boxes installed in US homes, or roughly one box for every two Americans.
• On a national level set-top boxes are consuming 27 billion kilowatt-watt hours per year.  That’s equivalent to the annual electricity use of the entire state of Maryland.
• It takes the equivalent of nine coal burning power plants (500 MW) to operate these devices.

For those of you that are more visually oriented, take a look:

To put set-top box energy use into perspective for the average consumer, we developed the bar chart shown below. Some of the things to note:

• Many DVRs consume more electricity each year than the big screen TV they are connected to.
• A household with one DVR and one basic HD set top box uses roughly 450 kwh/yr or the equivalent annual electricity use of one new ENERGY STAR qualified refrigerator.

So now that we’ve identified the problem, what can we do about it?  The challenge is finding a way to have box go into a significantly lower power state when not in use AND maintain network connection, security and be able to resume functionality in short order.

But solutions already exist. In Europe they’re making progress. For example, Sky TV now has three power levels on its DVR boxes:

–        22.5W On

–        13.2W Sleep

–        0.65W Deep Sleep

They’re programmed to auto power down at 11 p.m. to 0.65 Watts – but for those who tape late night shows, the boxes wake-up automatically to record programs. Sky’s boxes also wake-up every ½ hour to check for new program recording requests entered by subscribers using smart phones.

If we switched to better boxes, we could dramatically cut our energy costs. We hope these findings help inform US service providers and settop box manufacturers and lead them to develop and deploy more efficient boxes.

And for consumers, help is on the way. You can call your pay-TV service provider and request a set-top box that meets ENERGY STAR Version 4.0.  That means you’ll have the most efficient box on the market, keeping the vampires on your screen, not next to it.

[Photo By elycefeliz; Graphics By NRDC]