Blog For Arizona

bag it: Free screening at the loft, Sat., Feb 18

by David Safier

A layman's rebuttal of Al Melvin's "Nuclear waste recycling is wonderful" argument

by David Safier

I'm not an expert on nuclear waste reprocessing, nor to I play one on BfA. But I've spoken with some experts and done a reasonable amount of research on the web. I know enough to read Atomic Al Melvin's recent op ed, Arizona could benefit from nuclear recycling, with a healthy dose of skepticism and concern.

Before I go into the op ed, a bit of background. Melvin has said in the past he wants 6 new nuclear power plants in Arizona. That's right, he wants to put 6 nuclear plants, which demand plentiful supplies of water for cooling and safety (remember what happened when the cooling system cracked at Fukushima?), in water-starved Arizona. Melvin never met a Nuke he didn't like.

Now, to the op ed. Melvin cites the wonders of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) near Carlsbad, N.M. The nuclear waste is stored in a salt basin, and it brings in nothing but money and jobs, he says. That, for Melvin, is the model for the nuclear waste dump and reprocessing facility he wants here.

It didn't take long to dig up information on the WIPP site. The studies of the Carlsbad site began in 1973, and the actual site of the storage had to be moved a number of times because the conditions weren't absolutely perfect. But they are using it now -- not, by the way, to reprocess nuclear waste, but just to store "transuranic waste." Here's what that means.

Transuranic waste consists primarily of protective clothing, tools, glassware, equipment, soils, and sludges that have been contaminated with trace amounts of manmade radioactive elements, such as plutonium.

They're storing the lowest of the low level radioactive waste at Carlsbad -- not the kind of waste which would be generated by Melvin's proposed nuke reprocessing plant -- and even that is causing considerable worry about the present and the future. The future, by the way, is the 10,000 years it takes for the materials to cool down. To put 10,000 years in context, the first pyramids were built in Egypt less than 5,000 years ago. Scientists are trying to figure out how to mark this site in a way that humans will stay away from it for twice the pyramids-to-present time span.

Oh, and all those jobs Melvin talks about? First, many of them are the result of Obama's stimulus which, Melvin loves to remind us, has never created a single job. And articles from 2011 say anywhere from dozens to hundreds of jobs will be lost if more money can't be found.

Melvin also refers to the French-government-run Areva nuclear reprocessing operation. When you read about it, though, you realize, it produces a phenomenal amount of waste: four to seven times the amount of the original nuclear material-- in some cases, considerably more than that. Some quotes after the jump.

Global warming is real? Who knew?

by David Safier

The Star has a very short print excerpt from a longer AP article about physicist Richard Muller's discovery that global warming is for real. This should be about as earth shattering a news story as an 1850 piece like, "Astronomer discovers Earth revolves around Sun." But Muller was the global deniers' scientific ace in the hole. "See, here's a guy who's not a nutjob or a corporate hack like the rest of us, and he thinks the numbers have been cooked just like we do."

Indeed he did, because he didn't trust the methodology used by climate change scientists. So, non-nutjob that he is, he decided to start over and do the analysis right, funded in large part -- I love this -- by the Daddy Warbucks of deniers, the Koch Brothers.

What Muller found was, the difference between his findings and that of the climate change scientists basically amounted to a rounding error. They were right! he decided.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

Muller still maintains a touch of skepticism, but he's clearly changed sides.

So, deniers. Your one credible witness has turned on you, not because he doesn't like you (after all, he'd have an endless source of funding if he came stayed in Denier Land), but because he's an honest man who believes in good science and good data.

Now it's your move. I know what you're going to say, but it's gonna be fun to watch you say it.

U.S. Forest Service: Rosemont is a terrible idea, so we should go ahead with it

by David Safier

The U.S. Forest Service says in a draft Environmental Impact Statement the Rosemont mine would cause all kinds of problems with ground water and air quality along with a host of other problems. But a mining law dating from 1872 -- which might as well have been the Time When Dinosaurs Roamed The Earth when you consider the changes in mining technology and environmental understanding over the past 140 years -- says mining on federal lands needs to be encouraged.

So the Forest Service came up with what it calls the Barrel Alternative which isn't quite as bad as the other options for dealing with the tailings and waste rock.

This is the beginning of a longer process:

The document's release kicks off a three-month public comment period, including six public meetings in Tucson and surrounding suburban and rural areas. The Forest Service will then release a final impact statement and make a decision.

Needless to say, Rosemont opponents are very unhappy with the Forest Service conclusions. Rosemont is keeping quiet for now.

Here's the Star's summary of the negative impacts of the mine.

• Air quality: Construction, mining and reclamation activities would increase dust and airborne chemicals. "Air quality standards could be compromised."
• Groundwater: Water needed to run the facility could reduce groundwater availability to private and public wells in the Santa Cruz Valley, specifically in Sahuarita and Green Valley. Household water availability may be reduced. Also, "construction and operation of the mine pit, waste rock, and leach facilities may result in exceedances of Arizona Aquifer Water Quality Standards."
• Surface water: Potential impacts may include loss of riparian habitat and fragmentation of riparian habitat and corridors including Cienega Creek.
• Public safety: "Hazardous materials would be transported, which may increase the risk of a spill or other public safety impact."
• Economy: "The mine facilities and operation may result in changes over time to local employment, property values, tax base, tourism revenue, and demand and cost for road maintenance and emergency services."
• Wildlife: May result in a loss of habitat for numerous plant and animal species, and mine traffic could increase wildlife road kills.
• Astronomy: "Increased light and air particulates from mine-related facilities, equipment, vehicles and processes may diminish dark skies. Airborne sulfur or sulfur compounds are known to damage the aluminum coatings on telescope optics. The increased sky glow would reduce the visibility of all celestial objects, particularly the faint ones, which are often the subject of scientific study."
• Historic properties: "Mine construction, operations and closure would bury, remove or damage historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, archaeological sites, historical structures, districts and landscapes. ... Human remains have been discovered in previous archaeological excavations of prehistoric and historical sites in the Rosemont area."

Nuclear plants in Hurricane Irene's path

by David Safier

Here's hoping Hurricane Irene does minimal damage. And let's also hope the nuclear power plants in its path are more than prepared for a level 1, 2, 3 or 4 hurricane. Because if they can't withstand a "We had no idea this area would ever have a [fill in the catastrophe] of this magnitude" situation, lots of people will, one day or another, be in some very serious trouble.

A total of 12 nuclear power stations consisting of 20 distinct nuclear reactors in 9 states are in the direct path of the hurricane.

Here they are, mapped out.

Here is the list from Reuters.

STATE         OWNER         PLANT                 UNIT TYPE                 MWE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut   Dominion      Millstone Unit 2      Combustion Engineering    884
Connecticut   Dominion      Millstone Unit 3      WH Four-Loop            1,227
Maryland      Constellation Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Combustion Engineering    873
Maryland      Constellation Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Combustion Engineering    862
Massachusetts Entergy       Pilgrim               GE-Type 3                 685
New Hampshire Entergy       Seabrook              WH Four-Loop            1,295
New Jersey    PSEG Nuclear  Salem Unit 1          WH Four-Loop            1,174
New Jersey    PSEG Nuclear  Salem Unit 2          WH Four-Loop            1,130
New Jersey    Exelon        Oyster Creek          GE Type 2                 619
New York      Entergy       Indian Point 2        WH Four-Loop            1,020
New York      Entergy       Indian Point 3        WH Four-Loop            1,025
N. Carolina   Progress      Brunswick Unit 1      GE Type 4                 938
N. Carolina   Progress      Brunswick Unit 1      GE Type 4                 937
N. Carolina   Progress      Shearon Harris Unit 1 WH Two-Loop               900
Pennsylvania  Exelon        Limerick 1            GE Type 4               1,134
Pennsylvania  Exelon        Limerick 2            GE Type 4               1,134
Virginia      Dominion      Surry Unit 1          WH Three-Loop             799
Virginia      Dominion      Surry Unit 2          WH Three-Loop             799
Virginia      Dominion      North Anna Unit 1     WH Three-Loop             980.5
Virginia      Dominion      North Anna Unit 2     WH Three-Loop             972.9

Why doesn't this margin or error make me feel comfortable?

by David Safier

The east coast just had a 5.9 magnitude earthquake, with its epicenter in Mineral, Virginia.

Ten miles away are two nuclear power reactors at the North Anna site. They were shut down temporarily, but there was no damage. Good news.

The power plants "were designed to withstand a 5.9 to 6.1 quake." Not such good news.

What if the earthquake was a 6.2, or 6.5, or 7.0? That would be unusual for the area. Apparently, this was the biggest quake in the area since World War II. But shouldn't the safety margin be higher, so no one ends up saying, like in Fukujima, "We had no idea there could be a disaster of this intensity"?

The plants, by the way, are about 75 miles outside of Washington, D.C.

To me, being able to withstand a 6.1 magnitude earthquake is a ridiculously low bar, given the havoc a nuclear accident would cause.

More lies during the Fukushima meltdown

by David Safier

It's never a surprise when a corporation or the government lies to cover its ass. Happens all the time.That's one more reason why nuclear power plants are so dangerous. The short and long term health problems related to problems with the plant are too serious to be left to people who want to cover them up.

Latest case in point: People in Namie, a town near the Fukushima power plant, fled to the north, led by their town officials. It seemed like a good idea, since winter winds tend to blow to the south. It wasn't until two months later the town officials learned the wind was blowing toward where they fled. Bureaucrats in Tokyo knew it -- they had computer models -- but they kept the information to themselves, because, well, for a number of reasons, all of which had to do with pretending things were safer than they were.

“From the 12th to the 15th we were in a location with one of the highest levels of radiation,” said Tamotsu Baba, the mayor of Namie, which is about five miles from the nuclear plant. He and thousands from Namie now live in temporary housing in another town, Nihonmatsu. “We are extremely worried about internal exposure to radiation.”

The withholding of information, he said, was akin to “murder.”

Whenever anyone in the nuclear industry or the government tells you not to worry, nuclear plants have all kinds of redundant safety features and evacuation plans, don't believe them. Remember Fukushima.

The Nuke News cup runneth over (So does the Missouri River)

by David Safier

Where to start in today's Nuke News? How about in the good old U.S. of A.

I remember writing in a recent post, Nebraska's nuclear reactors are protected from Missouri River flooding by earthen berms and rubber walls. What could go wrong?

Here's what. The rubber wall can deflate, as it did at the Fort Calhoun Reactor.

Before dawn, a piece of heavy equipment nicked an eight-foot-high, 2,000-foot-long temporary rubber berm, and it deflated. Water also began to approach electrical equipment, which prompted operators to cut themselves off from the grid and start up diesel generators. (It returned to grid power later Sunday.)

But everything is still OK, because "the facility is designed to remain secure at a river level of up to 1,014 feet above sea level" and the water is only at 1,006.5 feet. The mighty Missouri crested 7.5 feet below danger level. (No, as satirical as this sounds, I am not making this up). It's better to be lucky than prepared, right?

At Cooper Station, another Nebraska reactor, the assistant operations manager was asked by the N.R.C. chairman, what would happen if water gets in the reactor? Here's the answer. Again, I am not making this up.

“We’ve got a sump pump over here,” said Dan Goodman, the assistant operations manager, leading him around to the other side of the giant diesel generator, which is the size of a tractor-trailer.

Why don't I feel safer knowing the reactor is one sump pump away from serious problems?

In other news, the Star has the third article in AP's excellent Aging Nukes series. It speaks of our woefully inadequate evacuation plans for the area around nuclear plants, made far worse by the increases in population in those areas since the plants were built. If a 50-mile radius evacuation were called for around the Indian Point reactor, for instance, which is 25 miles outside of New York City, 6% of the country's population would have to take to the highways and byways -- 17.3 million people. Better hope you have a helicopter parked on the roof of your condo, because you ain't gettin' anywhere by car.

Meanwhile, at Fukushima, people who live nearby have detectable levels of radiation in their urine. And the new system to remove contaminants from the radioactive water is referred to as a glitch-prone system. It gets clogged up, and water is leaking from hoses. How big a problem is the contaminated water? They're storing enough of the stuff "to fill 40 Olympic-size swimming pools." They're running out of space.

I'm hoping the U.S. doesn't have to learn the extreme dangers of nuclear power the hard way, like Japan has recently and the Soviet Union did earlier. We dodged a bullet at Three Mile Island and ignored what we should have learned. It's an antiquated, dangerous 20th century technology which is aging and deteriorating day by day and year by year. It's time to decommission these things on a timetable similar to what's already planned in Germany and Switzerland and is being considered in Japan as well.

In case what you know about Fukushima doesn't scare you enough

by David Safier

I'm plenty worried about the damage to the Fukushima nuclear power plant and the possibility of similar accidents in the U.S. and around the world. I've made that clear in multiple posts. But here's an article that takes that worry to a whole new level -- Fukushima: It's much worse than you think.

Full disclosure: The article is from Al Jazeera English. But anyone who knows about the journalistic quality of much of Al Jazeera's work knows that doesn't discount its accuracy. However, to continue the disclosure, I googled some of the experts cited, and they are indeed experts, but they're firmly in the anti-nuke camp.

Let's start with the probable reactor melt-throughs. First we were told there were no meltdowns. Then we were told there were meltdowns. Then the Japanese authorities admitted to the possibility that the radioactive materials melted through their containment vessels, something which is never supposed to happen. This has all been reported in mainstream venues.

If that is true, according to Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president who has written about the dangers of nuclear power plants:

"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

The article reports the actual radiation emitted was far more than was originally reported, which has been reported elsewhere. But it also states that "hot particles" -- "microns of caesium, strontium and plutonium isotopes" -- have been found in car air filters as far away as Tokyo. These are the kinds of particles that can make it into people's lungs and lead to cancer, even though they're too small to detect with a geiger counter.

Here's the part I hope to hell is an exaggeration. The article indicates there has been a rise in infant mortality on the U.S. west coast, based on reports from "San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise," which is 35% higher than normal. "[T]the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster." If there is any truth to the idea that the dangers have spread that far, that quickly, the health dangers in Japan, expecially for young children, must be truly frightening.

This is the worst stuff I've read so far, and I've read some pretty scary stuff in mainstream sources, which gets worse with every new revelation. I would like to hope the statements in this article are exaggerations, but I wouldn't count on it.

Yet more nuke news

by David Safier

Good for the Associated Press. Those aren't words I type often, but they're more than deserved for the AP's four part "Aging Nukes" investigative series. Also, good for the Star for giving the series prime billing on the first page of the second section.

Yesterday's story, the first in the series, was about how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gotten together with the nuke industry and weakened safety rules so aging plants, as much as a decade beyond their intended lifespans, can keep operating.

Today the story is about radioactive tritium leaks at U.S. nuclear reactors. Tritium is pretty low on the danger continuum at the nuke plants --  though it's dangerous stuff when it gets into the groundwater -- but the leaks indicate the level of corrosion in buried water pipes encased in concrete. If tritium is leaking, water is leaking, sometimes from pipes whose purpose is to supply water to cool down reactors when there's an emergency. Can we trust those pipes to do their job when they're  most needed? Also in danger are underground electrical cables, which "have been failing at high rates." When will one of those failures stop a plant from responding to an emergency?

This problem has been around for awhile, but it's accelerating, which points to the continued deterioration of these old plants from the 60s and 70s which were supposed to have a 40 year lifespan, max. Of the 38 reported leaks from 2000 to 2009, two-thirds of them have occurred in the last five years. I say "reported leaks" because the industry sometimes covers them up by patching the leaks and removing the contaminated earth.

Equally disturbing is the NRC and nuclear industry's response. They say the only problem is how to explain to people there's really no problem. Really. That's what they say.

Still, the NRC and industry consider the leaks a public relations problem, not a public health or accident threat, records and interviews show.

"The public health and safety impact of this is next to zero," said Tony Pietrangelo, chief nuclear officer of the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute. "This is a public confidence issue."

Unbelievable.

The story in the paper version of the Star is much shorter than the one online, so if you want all the details, read the story on the website.

More nuke news

by David Safier

I posted some Nuke News items earlier today but didn't mention the possibility it could once again be open season for uranium mining in the Grand Canyon area.

The good-and-bad news is, no new claims are likely to be accepted, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, but it's still possible those with existing uranium mining claims may be allowed to go forward.

Earlier uranium mining left Native Americans sickened and land spoiled. Of course, the industry tells us, they've learned from their mistakes, and this time they'll do it right. That assertion is no more believable than all the other assertions about the industry's learning curve (See my earlier post about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relaxing nuclear power plant standards so old, cracked, clogged, rusted reactors which were scheduled to be shut down a decade ago are still up, running, and primed for the next nuclear disaster which, we will be told once again, no one could have predicted).

Nuke news. Lots of nuke news.

by David Safier

Nuclear reactor news from the past few days could occupy half a dozen posts, but I'll give a snapshot instead. (1) The U.S. has loosened its standards to let aging plants stay in operation. (2) The Fukushima nuke plant hit by the tsunami is either making great progress or is bogged down by unexpected problems. (3) And in a nothin'-to-see-here moment in Nebraska, a nuke plant in the flood area is said to be just fine -- in part because levees elsewhere failed and let water out that otherwise would have risen around the plant.

Story #1: Remember how we're always hearing how nuclear power is becoming safer and safer because of all the wonderful things we've learn? Like from accidents? Well, many of the U.S. plants are operating decades beyond their expiration dates, suffering from leaking valves, cracking of steam generator tubing, and on and on.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes _ all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

So what has the Nuclear Regulatory Agency done in response to the rising danger levels? It has worked with the industry to lower standards.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative."

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.

The U.S. reactors, many of which are of the same type as the one in Fukushima, are less safe today than they were in 1979 at the time of the accident at Three Mile Island.

And if you think our workers are adequately prepared to deal with a genuine disaster, read this account of how ill prepared they were at Fukushima, even though they had a disaster drill a week earlier.

Story #2: Speaking of Fukushima, an article in Sunday's Star made things sound pretty good, or at least not too bad.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. executives expressed confidence over containing the crisis at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant as the utility released a revised timetable for stabilizing damaged reactors, but emphasized that the situation at the crippled plant remains serious.

But then you look at a Saturday story in the NY Times, and you learn, things at the plant have more of a radioactive than a rosy glow. A new filtration system was started, then stopped after five hours.

The company said that the sprawling system, which is designed to siphon oil, radioactive materials and salt from the water used to cool the reactors, was shut down because of readings that indicated one of the filters had filled up with radioactive cesium. The rapid depletion of a filter that was supposed to have lasted several weeks suggested the presence of far greater radioactive material than anticipated.

That probably means thousands of tons of "low-level contaminated water" will be going into the Pacific, after an 11,000 ton dump back in April.

Story #3: Flooding in Nebraska has put the Cooper Nuclear Power Plant at risk, but it looks like the water crested below the elevation of the plant -- 18 inches below. Why? Because "several levees in northern Missouri failed to hold back the surging waterway." Kinda lucky the levee system didn't work, huh?

The plant is protected from the flood waters by an earthen berm and "an 8-foot rubber wall outside the reactor building." That sounds safe, doesn't it? What could happen to a pile of dirt and a wall made of rubber?

But there's more to the story. There was a fire at the plant a few weeks earlier, meaning it "briefly lost the ability to cool a pool of used nuclear fuel." Of course, that was before the flooding -- whew, that was lucky! -- and anyway, the flood water didn't end up sloshing around the plant -- whew, that was lucky too! -- and, purely by chance, the plant was shut down for refueling -- whew, lucky again! I guess it's better to be lucky than prepared. Right? But during the outage, the FAA banned airplanes from flying within two miles of the plant. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

That old spiritual line, "No more water, the fire next time," didn't account for floods and nuclear fuel. Thanks to a combination of modern technology and monumental hubris, now we can get water and fire at the same time.

"water with 5 million times the legal limit of radioactivity"

by David Safier

I was more than a little disturbed when they were reporting water at 100,000 times the legal limit for radioactivity coming from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. But when you hit 5 million times the legal limit . . . words fail.

So now the government is considering restrictions on seafood. They found contaminated fish "well south of the damaged nuclear reactors."

They know there's an 8 inch wide crack -- they don't say how long -- that water is pouring out of. By way of reference, your kitchen sink drain hole is less than 4 inches. Based on their track record for accuracy, I'm willing to guess they're lowballing that 8 inch estimate. To try and plug it, they're experimenting with "what are little more than home remedies" -- newspaper (really), sawdust, concrete, now "liquid glass." Translation: they don't know what the hell they're doing.

It's BP oil spill redux, substituting radioactivity for oil. The only thing we're missing is cute terms like junk shot and top hat.

America has saved more energy than you might think. YOU are saving more energy than you might think.

By Russell Lowes

Saving Energy Comes in Many Forms
“Saving Energy Series, Part I”

In 1973, at the height of the OPEC Oil Embargo, America was coming to grips with the concept of limited oil reserves. During that year, all companies, citizens and governments in the U.S. used a total of 77 quads of energy—that is, 77 quadrillion British thermal Units (Btu).(1) 

Thirty-eight years later, the country’s annual consumption is 98 quads,(2) only 27% more than in 1973.
 

“Wait a minute,” you might ask, “our economy has expanded much more than that, right”?  You would be right. Our economy expanded from $4.93 trillion to about $13.19 trillion. These figures are in 2000 dollars with the inflation adjusted out.(3) Yet, all of the energy that we use as Americans -- living in houses, driving everywhere, producing goods and services, governing our nation, states, counties and cities -- adds up to just 96 quads, just 27% more than almost 4 decades ago.

That means that we had a 267% increase in economic output, an increase that is radically more than the 27% energy growth.  When you factor in our conversion from a medium manufacturing country in 1973 to a lighter manufacturing country today (manufacturing uses more energy than services) the energy equivalency needs to be adjusted downward. However, still, our improvement in energy consumed per dollar of economic output since 1973 is undeniably impressive.

This is illustrated by the table below.

 
 
So how did we do that? How did we increase our economic activity with so little energy expansion? We did so by saving energy. Saving energy falls into two categories: energy conservation through cutbacks in the use of energy, and what I will call energy efficiency, through improving the way goods and services are produced.  This article and the table above, address only energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency includes producing more services like delivering packages around the country for less energy. It also includes producing more goods for the same buck, like reducing the plastic and metal in a radio that performs the same function.
     
How Are YOU Saving Energy Through Energy Efficiency?

In all likelihood, you are contributing to this increased energy efficiency.  You may not even know that you are buying something that has been manufactured in a way that has improved in efficiency. 

Take the clothes you are wearing. Since 1973, that first year of increased energy awareness in the U.S., clothing has been dyed using more effective technologies, like using electrostatic adherence techniques. That has allowed manufacturers to use less dye, which means producing less dye and reducing all the energy that used to go into manufacturing. You may not have even known it.

On the other hand, if you have changed the type of light bulbs you use, you probably do know that compact florescent lights save about 75% of the energy that old-fashioned incandescent bulbs use. These CFLs have improved in recent years to give better lighting.  For example, the U.S. Government Energy Star-rated CFLs now start out with the same amount of light almost the instant you turn them on, the amount of mercury has been reduced, the light spectrum has improved, and the annoying hum has been eliminated.

Even some power plants have contributed to our energy efficiency gains.  These power plants have increased their thermal efficiency, which means that for every 100 units of heat they produce, they now convert more of that heat to electricity.  That reduces the need to produce so much heat (raw energy production) and pump so much water to cool these plants, which uses a tremendous amount of energy.

With that in mind, below is a graphic of the energy efficiency categories that will be helping America reduce its energy use per dollar of economic activity, or per average item bought. This is a projection of what might happen between now and 2020. The point of presenting this is to show the vast array of efficiency techniques that we both have been using and are still improving upon.

The improvement in energy efficiency since 1973 has saved more energy than all the additional energy expansion since that year. This will continue on into the future, and negate the need for additional power plants and oil consumption for transportation and more.

 

 
Above table: McKinsey Report finds that U.S. could save $1.2 trillion through 2020, by investing $520 billion in improvements. Kate Galbraith, “McKinsey Report Cites $1.2 Trillion in Potential Savings from Energy Efficiency,” New York Times, July 29, 2009,
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/29/business/energy-environment/Picture-3.jpg

------------

(1)    U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/.../All_25th_Anniversary.xls and http://www.eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf
(2)    Data360, http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354

Camenisch stands up to Rosemont

by David Safier

I've written two posts about a phone message left on Todd Camenisch's answering machine by Rick Grinnell, who says Rosemont Copper is a "personal client," and a follow-up phone call between the two. Grinnell's basic assertion is, don't mess with Rosemont, or your political future will be over. [Note to the Star's Kelly and/or Bodfield: To me, that sounds like corporate political intimidation, not the "ho hum" portrayed in today's Political Notebook (The Star item can't be read on line, which is why I can't provide a link to it; it's only in the print edition). You can read about the phone call in the link posted above, or call the Camenisch campaign for further information.]

Camenisch has an op ed in yesterday's Green Valley News on the topic: Another reason to make a change.

Here's a paragraph from late in the op ed which establishes Camenisch's credentials:

As a University of Arizona medical researcher, I have studied the negative effects of arsenic on the formation and development of the heart. Several mines in Arizona have been linked to arsenic water contamination and, consequently, an increased chance for serious illness in the nearby communities. As your state senator, I will oppose this project based on scientific research, not on biased representation by a lobbyist for a foreign corporation.

It's almost comical to hear Grinnell try to argue with Camenisch about the potential for environmental damage as a result of an open pit copper mine. Grinnell is a PR hack for Rosemont, and Camenisch is a scientist with expertise in the subject.

Here are a few paragraphs from earlier in Camenisch's op ed.

As a first-time candidate for Legislative District 30 State Senate, I am appalled at the type of politics that is practiced in Phoenix; that is why I am running. I want to represent Southern Arizona — not a foreign corporation or Phoenix political bosses.

Recently, I was exposed to how corrupt things are with special interests and our incumbent politicians in Phoenix. I have openly opposed the proposed Rosemont mine due to its potential impact on the environment and the community — including the long-term effect on water tables and contamination of local aquifers, which puts our children’s drinking water at risk.  As a result, I received a voice mail from Rick Grinnell, a lobbyist for Rosemont mine, which said, in part, “I am not sure if you’re putting yourself in a position that you will regret,” referencing my position on the mine.

In a follow-up phone conversation, Grinnell divulged that he has contributed financially to my opponent, Frank Antenori, who supports the Rosemont mine. This is the type of corrupt politics in Phoenix that must stop.

No amount of intimidation from a lobbyist or from the foreign corporation that hired him will keep me from speaking out on an issue as important to Southern Arizona as water. My opponent’s support of the mine is no surprise. He has received campaign donations of $300 from Jamie Sturgess, a vice president of the mine, and $300 from lawyer Michael Green, who works for a law firm that lobbies for Rosemont mine.

Camenisch's follow-up phone call about Rosemont with Rick Grinnell

by David Safier

Tuesday, Todd Camenisch held a press conference where he played a phone message he received from Rick Grinnell. In the message, Grinnell said Rosemont Copper is "a personal client," then makes this possibly threatening statement:

"I'm not sure where you got the information [about Rosemont Mine], number one, and number two I'm not sure if you're putting yourself in a position that you would regret."

Grinnell is almost certainly referring to comments Todd made about Rosemont at an October 9th forum in Vail.

Camenisch called Grinnell back, and the two had a most interesting conversation.

Grinnell claimed he was trying to do Camenisch a favor by telling him not to make too many negative statements about Rosemont. Since Grinnell has been a candidate himself, he said, he knows, you just don't want to say certain things or mess with certain folks.

"If you ever plan on staying in politics, that's not real smart."

"This isn't just about Rosemont, it's about politics. I'm really not trying to beat you up here. I'm really trying to tell you something that's sincere."

Grinnell's I'm-just-trying-to-help-you-out credibility goes south when he says in the call that he's a registered lobbyist in Arizona and Rosemont is a "personal client" -- meaning, I suppose, he doesn't lobby for Rosemont but helps the corporation in other ways. It's clear, the phone call is not one guy calling another guy with friendly advice. The message is: if you go up against Rosemont, you're going to be in political trouble forever. Rosemont is an enemy you don't want to make.

And Grinnell also freely admits,

"I've given Frank money too. I've known Frank for a long time, and I'm a Republican."

By the end of the call, Grinnell realizes he's in way over his head. He should have realized he was going to have trouble arguing about the pollution that can result from open pit minig with Camenisch who does research into the effects of pollution on the health of the region, and specifically the connection between arsenic and heart problems. Grinnell doesn't have a single fact at his disposal, and Camenisch's knowledge base is huge. It's almost embarrassing how lopsided the argument is.

So Grinnell recommends Camenisch contact someone at Rosemont and mentions Jamie Sturges, Rosemont Copper VP, as one contact. I haven't looked this up, but I have been told Sturges has given about $300 to Antenori's campaign.

Grinnell is clearly upset by a specific comment Camenisch made at the Vail forum, that if his dog jumped into water which has been made heavily acidic by pollution from an open pit mine, the dog's skin could slough off. That's the statement Rosemont never wants to hear again. The corporation is used to the dry recitation of facts and figures about potential dangers of a new open pit mine in Southern Arizona, but it understands the damage that can come from the evocative image of a dog being harmed by doing what dogs do, which is jump into a body of water to go for a swim.

Camenisch press conference to be "a doozy"

by David Safier

Todd Camenisch will be holding a press conference 1:30pm Tuesday which I have been told by his campaign will be "a doozy," with information that could be "explosive."

The press announcement is short on details, saying the topic "will NOT be divulged until the press conference occurs."

The closest thing to a hint about the topic is the statement that Todd will make "an important announcement . . . [about] a significant environmental issue of great concern to residents in LD 30."

Here are the details:

Todd Camenisch Press Conference
Tuesday, October 19, 1:30pm
El Presidio Park, 160 W Alameda (near Church)

Military throws some crude in Jesse Kelly's face

by David Safier

Remember when Jesse Kelly nailed Giffords for being so out of touch, she was lecturing Petraeus about renewable energy? The man has a war to fight, and all Gabby cares about is solar panels.

Oops.

U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels

It's the top, left hand story on the NY Times website this morning, the first thing I looked at. Here are some excerpts.

With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels.

[snip]

The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment.

[snip]

After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer.

[snip]

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the huge truck convoys that haul fuel to bases have been sitting ducks for enemy fighters — in the latest attack, oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops in Afghanistan were set on fire in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, early Monday. In Iraq and Afghanistan, one Army study found, for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. In the past three months, six Marines have been wounded guarding fuel runs in Afghanistan.

And so on.

It sounds to me like Jesse Kelly doesn't care enough about the troops to help protect their safety by promoting the use of alternative energy on the battlefield, don't it?

LD-30 Senate candidate Todd Camenisch researching connections between mining, arsenic and health

by David Safier

With Arizona mining, and Rosemont in particular, so much in the news, Democratic LD-30 Senate candidate Todd Camenisch's work on the connection between arsenic and heart problems takes on added significance.

Camenisch is leading a team  at the UA College of Pharmacy researching the issue.

A research team led by Todd D. Camenisch, associate professor at the UA College of Pharmacy, is seeking to discover how exposure to arsenic contributes both to congenital heart malformations and adult heart disease. Heart malformations are the most common birth defects in the U.S., and heart disease remains the No. 1 killer of American adults.

"Other studies have shown a link between arsenic exposure and the incidence of heart disease," Camenisch said. "Through understanding better how arsenic affects fetal development and cardiovascular disease, we may be able to make a major improvement in the health of people here in the desert Southwest."

Much of the arsenic in the Arizona desert dust is a result of mining.

"Since the 1990s, we've been especially concerned about the effects of residual arsenic in these [mining] tailings," Gandolfi said. "Our newest research is focused on finding out what happens when arsenic particles from the tailings get into our air, are blown around and we breathe them in. We are the first scientists in the country asking these questions."

This is one of a number of Superfund studies looking into various aspects of the health effects associated with hazardous wastes in Arizona.

Dems zeroing in on Republican support of BP

by David Safier

It looks like the DNC doesn't plan to let this issue go away. Joe Barton's apology to BP for the Obama "shakedown" that led to setting up a $20 billion escrow account wasn't a "gaffe." It was a follow up on the Republican assertion that by standing up to BP, Obama was pulling a "Chicago style shakedown."

The Rs may have overplayed their hand on this one.

Here's the latest DNC ad.

It's time to start talking about ballot questions

Posted by Craig McDermott

Lost in the excitement over the races for various offices on this fall's ballot have been the large number of important questions being placed before the voters in November.

The Arizona Legislature's Legislative Council (basically a group of lawyers who take legislative bill proposals and write them into "legalese) will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in House Hearing Room 4 (HHR4) to consider, possibly amend, and adopt some draft analyses of the various questions scheduled to go before the voters, including two active initiatives that haven't turned in their petitions yet.

The short version of my take on the questions:

Other than the Medical Marijuana question, they're all crap. Pretty much everything proposed by the legislature is aimed at destroying any parts of Arizona's social safety net that have previously been approved by the voters. The other two, which may not make it on the ballot, are part of the same extremist, anti-government/anti-society, ideology.

However, this post isn't about my visceral reaction, it's about the Lege Council's analyses of the questions. Analyses that appear to be, and are supposed to be, impartial.

The Secretary of State's list of current ballot questions is here.

Note: all analyses linked to are drafts and are subject to change.

In the order of the SOS' list, not the Lege Council's list of analyses, because that is the order that the questions will appear on the ballot -

Question 106 (full text here) - an anti-health care reform amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Proposed in 2009, even before HCR passed. Referred to the ballot by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 107 (full text here) - an anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 108 (full text here) - an anti-"card check"/anti-labor amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the Senate and House on party-line votes.

These three questions are more about the Republican legislative majority's staunch pro-business/anti-minority and working class ideology than about good government.

Question 109 (full text here) - the first "pro" question of this year's ballot, this one would make the "right" to hunt, fish, or otherwise "harvest wildlife" a right protected under the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Ensuring that Arizona continues as the punchline to political jokes nationwide. Referred by the House and Senate with all Rs and a few rural Ds supporting.

Question 110 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the sale of state trust lands. Lege Council analysis here. This measure includes a provision allowing for the sale or lease of state trust lands without "advertising or auction." In a ballot chock full o' stinkiness, this one may quietly be the most rancid proposal of all. It will be worthy of a full post of its own as the summer drags on and the November election looms ever closer. Referred by the House and Senate unanimously. Something tells me that a lot of the D members of the lege were snookered by the "protect military installations from development" language in the measure.

Question 111 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would change the job title of the Arizona Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." Lege Council analysis here. Nothing about the measure changes the functions of the job, so the current job title is more descriptive of the job function than the proposed title. Referred by the Senate unanimously and by the House with a few Rs opposing.

Question 112 (full text here) - an amendment to the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions to allow more time to verify the petitions. Lege Council analysis here. Possibly the least bad measure up for consideration, but since the source is the legislature... Referred by the House and Senate with a few Rs (and one D) opposing.

Question 203 (full text here) - the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Lege Council analysis here. This is a good measure, so not surprisingly, this one is a citizen-based initiative, not a legislative-based one.

Question 301 (full text here) - zeroing out the Land Conservation Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why conserve land when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 302 (full text here) - repealing the Early Childhood Development and Health Fund and sweeping the money in the Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why work to ensure that Arizona's child get a healthy start to life when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate with all Ds and a couple of Rs opposing.

Not on the ballot as yet, and may not qualify for the ballot, but ones that the Lege Council has draft analyses for are -

- the End Photo Radar Initiative, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. What it sounds like.

- Prop 13 Arizona, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. Would institute strict limits on property taxes, hikes to property taxes, and increases to valuations of property.

Later...

Is the fix in to put brakes on AZ solar?

by David Safier

I'm out of my area of expertise here, but this is worth discussing. I hope others will chime in.

HB2701 would include nuclear energy as a renewable energy resource. This seems ridiculous to me on its face, since the source of nuclear power has to be mined and refined. It's definitely a finite, non-renewable resource.

But apparently the legislation is more insidious than ridiculous. If nuclear power is legally considered renewable, that takes away the incentive to add solar and wind power in Arizona. According to the Phoenix Sun,

Under current law, the Arizona Corporation Commission’s RES mandates that utilities must generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025. Since the state’s largest utility, APS, already gets approximately 27 percent of its electricity from a nuclear power plant outside of Phoenix, HB 2701 would allow the company to stop adding any new renewable power sources.

Sean Seitz, president of American Solar Electric, one of the largest solar installers in the valley, agreed with Mayes’ assessment of HB 2701. “If this bill passed in its current form,” predicted Seitz, “the current program…would be a skeleton of itself.”

The bill would make Arizona the only state that includes existing nuclear power plants in an RES.

The Arizona Corporation Commission chair, Kris Mayes said HB2701 "would surely be the death knell for advancing solar energy in the state.”

HB2701 has, by my count, 52 sponsors. Included, not surprisingly, are southern Arizona's own Al Melvin, Vic Williams, Frank Antenori, David Gowan, David Stevens and Jonathan Paton. (Does Paton want to pick a fight with Giffords on solar energy? That could be worth watching.)

Just a thought

by David Safier

Until a few years ago, reusable shopping bags were for weird old ladies. It seemed like a pretty strange idea to me, I have to say. I certainly wouldn't use bags like that when paper was so much easier.

Then reusable bags became a craze for people who were dedicated environmentalists. It was all right for them, because they were willing to devote themselves to the cause, but for the rest of us . . . I mean, who could remember to take those bags with you to the store, and where are you going to put them after you put away the groceries?

Tonight I lifted three heavy, reusable shopping bags filled with Trader Joes groceries out of my car with ease. I picked them up by their sturdy handles, unafraid the bags would rip or the bottoms would fall out. What would have taken me two careful trips into the house with paper was managed in one easy tote. I emptied the bags and threw them back in my car (Sometimes I hang them on the garage door until I'm ready to take the car out again).

Reusable bags, which seemed weird-old-ladyish, then environmentally holier-than-thou, turn out to be eminently practical and hassle free. My life is slightly better because of them.

How many other little changes like this, which can actually make an environmental difference if they're multiplied by millions of people, are we foolishly resisting? It wasn't too long ago when the idea that people would actually separate recyclable items and put them out in plastic bins seemed like a pipe dream.

We (and by "we," I mean "I") can be idiots sometimes.

Pro-Coal and Pro-Nuclear Congressional Energy Bills on Crash Course with Environment, U.S. Economy and the Public

This may seem like blasphemy: the House Bill on energy known as The American Clean Energy Act is the most detrimental bill the House has passed since the Patriot Act. Like the Patriot Act, it is not what it says it is. It should never become law.

        It is not a clean energy bill.
        It is not a pro-solution climate bill.
        It is not a pro-American bill.

        It is an energy giveaway bill.
        It is a bill that deletes Clean Air Act authority for the Environmental Protection Agency over nearly 50 coal plants.
        It is a bill that sets up an unfair energy tax system called cap & trade tax (CTT).
        It is a bill that sets up CTT, that doubles as a financial derivative, which would be responsible for economic deterioration of U.S. economy, just like the CDOs and CDSs that helped cause the current economic downturn. 

Further, the Senate bill versions are just as bad or worse.

At issue is a battle that has a huge bearing on the United States and world’s environment, economy and social order. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACESA, has passed the U.S. House and is now in a number of different forms before the Senate.  With the change in the administration and increased majorities in Congress, we had all hoped that the 111th Congress would act fast to implement a new climate bill to start controlling our pollution output like carbon dioxide.

The House Bill (HR 2454), however, is replete with problems, as are the Senate versions currently being drafted. While it is significant that a house of Congress has, for the first time, passed a climate bill, it is also important that the bill that Congress ultimately enacts imposes a tax on energy in a way that will discourage excess energy use.  That is because energy use analysis indicates that price increases are the most effective way to curtail energy use, improve the way we use energy and decrease pollution.

THE PROBLEMS WITH ACESA IN ITS CURRENT FORM

There are numerous problems with the 1428-page House Bill,(1) so I do not attempt to address all of them.  Rather, I will highlight three main areas that need to be corrected in a final bill if it is to be effective: 

– ACESA implements cap & trade tax and financial derivative system instead of a simple carbon tax.

Emissions trading, also known as “cap &trade” is a way of controlling pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.  Under “cap & trade” the government sets a limit, or “cap” on the total amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.  Companies or other groups are issued permits that give them the right to emit a certain percentage of that amount of pollutant (“credits” or “allowances”).  The total amount of credits or allowances cannot exceed the cap. 

Companies that need to increase their emission allowance can buy credits from other companies who don’t need all of their credit because they pollute less.  This transfer is the “trade.”  Thus, companies have a financial incentive to reduce the amount of pollution they emit and a disincentive to exceed their set allowance.

While cap & trade is a tax in that the U.S. Government will be collecting auction fees/taxes, it is also a financial derivative, in that the certificates issued through auction will derive their value from the sold “right” to pollute.

ACESA includes a cap & trade system where the certificates would be issued through an auction.  By requiring companies to buy their certificates, the government forces them to pay for the “right” to pollute.  When he was campaigning for the presidency, candidate Obama promised that under his cap and trade plan, 100% of the certificates would be auctioned—in other words, no one would get a free ride to pollute. 

Unfortunately, the house bill only requires 15% of the emissions certificates to be auctioned,  or paid for,  during the first year.  That figure will increase to over 70% by 2030.  Obviously, this reduced auction amount is a major disappointment to those of us who want to see polluters, not the public, bear the financial burden of their pollution.  

The reduced auction amount isn’t the only problem with the cap & trade provision in the bill.  Although cap and trade systems can be effective they are also susceptible to abuse.  Opportunists are able to take advantage of the complexity of the mechanism to “game the system.”  To curb this potential problem, the House Bill sets up an oversight committee under the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate hedge fund and other derivative-related aspects of cap & trade.  However, it is only a cursory oversight arrangement and there is legitimate concern that it would not prevent market manipulation , which in turn could lead to a new economic bubble in this new speculative market and ultimately hurt the U.S. economy. Cap & trade tax schemes have already been exposed in Europe.(2)

All of these problems with the cap & trade approach could be eliminated by implementing a simple carbon tax.(3)

ACESA Eliminates EPA Clean Air Act Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

The House Bill is also problematic because it proposes to strip EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.(4)  This authority was only recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and EPA is only now moving toward exercising it; however, the House Bill would reverse that progress. 

At least one analysis of the House Bill indicates that this proposed de-authorization of the EPA would mean that 47 coal plants will be able to be built without EPA regulation.  Clearly, that outcome is contrary to any meaningful goal to reduce carbon emissions. 

ACESA Funds Coal and Nuclear Energy More Heavily than Increased Efficiency and Renewables

Finally, the proposed funding under the bill for new technologies has misplaced priorities and incentives.  Under the House Bill, $60 billion would be allocated for “clean coal” carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. CCS is a technology that would capture the carbon coming out of the coal stack and then sequester it so that it does not get into the atmosphere.

There are a number of different possibilities in the process of being developed, but none has been demonstrated on a commercial scale, and it is not clear that CCS will be economically practical.  Yet, this is the largest chunk of money directly listed in the bill for any one technology. While energy efficiency and renewable energies get $90 billion by 2025, or $6 billion a year or so, that is only a fraction of the amount that coal and nuclear energy will get.

One of the Senate bills includes loan incentives that would give nuclear and coal CCS hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.  The decision to disproportionately encourage these two technologies with financial aid and incentives in a “clean energy” bill is simply baffling.  Keep in mind that nuclear has been shown to be an uneconomical technology, and that coal CCS, even if it works, will lead to much more coal mining. The truth is, there is no clean coal, nor would any reasonable person consider nuclear energy a “clean” fuel given its significant waste problem. 

Yet the bill’s definition of clean energy is so loose, under it coal CCS and nuclear energy will be considered “clean.”  And here’s the kicker. These two technologies, coal CCS and nuclear, are so expensive (in the range of 25-35 cents per kilowatt-hour for new units) that if we put our dollars into them, they will suck so many dollars away from energy efficiency and renewables (in the range of 2-25 cents per kilowatt-hour) that there would not be enough money to solve the climate solutions we desperately need.

In summary, here is what needs to happen to make these bills a positive force: 1) restructure cap & trade tax or replace it with a simple carbon tax; 2) do not remove the Clean Air Act authority from the EPA; and 3) re-design this bill to fund the technologies that are truly clean.

You can call your senators and stress how irresponsible the cap & trade system is. If the energy giveaway bill passes the Senate, you can then call your Representatives and Senators to ask them to block the reconciliation of these two bills.

-----------------
Note: An earlier version of this article appeared in the Sierra Club Rincon Group newsletter, under my new appointment as Energy Subcommittee Chair for this Group.

1Available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090701/hr2454_house.pdf
2See http://carbontax.org
3Associated Press article in Arizona Daily Star (AP), Fight Against Global Warming Spawning New Type of Crime: Carbon-Permit Fraud, 8/22/09, p. A12, http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/news/305938.php
4See analysis at http://www.psr.org/take-action/senate-letter-climate-legislation.html

Water and Arizona's Future

By Karl Reiner

The water level in the Colorado River’s storage lakes has been steadily dropping, leading to the possibility that Tucson will face a water shortage in the future.  As consumers of local ground water and supplies from the Colorado, we need to start paying attention to the problem.  The combined effects of population growth, drought and global warming trends are turning the region’s water future murky.

 

A recent government report on climate change states that global warming has already brought about some climate modifications.  Man-made pollution composed of greenhouse gas emissions was found to be the main cause behind higher average temperatures in the Midwest.  The increased warming has extended the growing season by a week. It also caused more frequent heavy rain storms.

 

The report warns that these changes are only the beginning.  We will face more serious consequences if emissions are not restricted.  If the warming trend is allowed to continue, temperatures across the U.S. are projected to rise by 4 to 11 degrees by 2100.  As the temperature rises, some areas such as Arizona will become drier. 

 

In the United Kingdom, worried scientists want to undertake research to find ways to reverse the global warming process. If the world’s governments can’t agree on programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they want to start developing technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reflect sunlight back into space.

 

A normal summer monsoon delivers about six inches of rain to the Tucson area.  As has often been the case in recent years, this year’s monsoon rains fell short.  Rainfall was about half of the amount that should have fallen during the June to September season.  At the end of September, precipitation in most of the metropolitan area was three inches below normal.   

 

This year’s failed monsoon may be a continuation of the drought that has been plaguing Tucson for 10 years.  Some weather observers believe the drought could drag on for another 20 years. They see evidence linking the current dry period to a reoccurring drought pattern that has come and gone for the past 1,000 years. It is believed that the warming trend brought by climate change could worsen the drought pattern. 

 

Drought has upended societies in the past.  It was a factor contributing to the decline of the Hohokam culture in the early 1400’s.  Prior to its demise, Hohokam society had developed fairly sophisticated irrigation and farming techniques.  The structural ruins that remained after the Hohokam disappeared impressed and puzzled the early Spanish explorers as they traversed the region.

 

The $3.6 billion Central Arizona Project (CAP) is designed to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year from Lake Havasu to Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties. (An acre-foot of water equates to 325,851 gallons.)  Water travels a distance of 336 miles through a system terminating 14 miles south of Tucson. 

 

When the Colorado’s water was liberally allocated to the using states, very little was known about reoccurring drought patterns and the effects of climate change.  If runoff in the Colorado River’s watershed continues to decline, water deliveries will have to be reduced.  Depending on the severity of the drop in runoff, planners believe deliveries to Phoenix and Tucson might have to be reduced by a third or half in the future. 

 

While there is disagreement among the experts as to the causes, timing and severity of the looming water shortage, there is a general consensus that Colorado River water will be increasingly in short supply as time goes by.  Some scientists believe that if the current trend holds, the Colorado could be running extremely low by 2050.   

 

Due to the lack of recharging rains, Tucson’s groundwater supplies will also diminish.  As overall water availability declines, we will have to start looking to the costly solutions other nations have implemented.  One country that has been dealing with water problems for years is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

 

About the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, Saudi Arabia is home to one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.  The ample store of oil ensures that the Kingdom will remain among the world’s top oil exporters for the foreseeable future.  Although the country can be said to be floating in oil, it is short of water.  Being more arid than Arizona, securing a stable water supply has always been a concern.

 

To meet the country’s needs, Saudi Arabia has been seriously investing in desalination technology since the late 1970s.  Over time, it has become the world’s largest producer of desalinated water, accounting for 26% of world production.  There are 30 desalination plants in operation on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea and Persian Gulf coasts.  To meet future demand, Saudi Arabia is expected to invest $90 billion in water and sewage systems over the next 20 years.

 

One of the world’s largest desalination plants is located at Jubail on Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast. The massive complex produces 50% of the nation’s drinking water.  The plant supplies two pipelines that move desalinated water 290 miles inland to Riyadh, the capital.

 

The Jubail-Riyadh system of pipelines and pumping stations delivers 210 million gallons of water per day.  Since Riyadh, with a population of approximately six million, suffers severely from declining ground water sources, the water from Jubail has become vital to the city’s ability to function.

 

If the dire predictions of a water shortage come true in southern Arizona, our closest source of ocean water is less than 200 miles away, along the coast of the Gulf of California in Mexico’s state of Sonora.  If we have to start scrambling to get salt water processed and delivered to Tucson’s taps, our water utilities will be rushing to participate in joint ventures in Mexico to build the desalination plants and pipelines needed to serve Sonora and Arizona.

 

With the cost of desalinated water running about 10 times the cost of current supplies, our water use habits will drastically change.  We will stop taking water for granted and have to treat it as a finite resource.  The massive increase in price will focus attention on conserving and reclaiming every available drop. 

 

Unlike the Hohokam, we will have access to technology that can help prevent a disaster.  While expensive desalination technology can provide for urban needs, it cannot support much agriculture.  As a consequence, a drying climate will bring massive changes to Arizona’s economy.  Regrettably, much of the change will not be good. 

Self parody alive and well in AZ Republican legislature

by David Safier

Remember how R Sen. Sylvia Allen declared the earth is 6000 years old on the Senate floor? (The priceless video is below.) It turns out she's chairing an Ad Hoc Committee on Climate Initiatives.

From the AZ Guardian piece, written by their snarkist-in-residence, the Guardian Angel:

. . . according to a press release, the Senator from Snowflake thinks federal proposals to reduce global warming are moving forward "without consideration for scientific evidence" (ha) and that "we are going after problems that do not exist."

[snip]

Still, the GA gets a kick out of the fact that Allen pretends to be attempting to uncover scientific evidence while stacking the panel with industry execs (utilities, oil companies) and someone from a Tempe global warming think tank that has been derided for its view that, hey, the globe isn't really warming. Tell that to the polar bears. This is Allen's second meeting of the committee and she's still shown no interest in hearing from other scientists or experts who represent the other side. (Which happens to be the prevailing view, by the way.)

Here's that trip down memory lane, of Allen on the Senate floor.

Bad bill

by David Safier

This information is from an email blast by Rep. Nancy Young Wright, using text written by Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club.

Please help stop this very bad bill by emailing or calling your legislators today:
 
HB2088 NOW:  public conservation monies; transfer; parks (Nichols) diverts $20 million from the Public Conservation Account in the Land Conservation Fund established by the voters in 1998 when they approved the Growing Smarter Act referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature.  The dollars are diverted to a variety of purposes – everything from water banking to parks to workshops.  This amendment is clearly unconstitutional as it in no way furthers the purposes of the Growing Smarter measure that went before the voters in 1998.  By diverting dollars from this fund, the Legislature hurts both conservation efforts and education – dollars from the Land Conservation Fund go into the Trust to benefit the Trust beneficiaries.  The primary beneficiary is public education. Providing adequate funding for parks and other programs is important, but this is not the appropriate way to do so.  The best avenue is to restore those funds directly and to establish a more stable funding source for our state parks.  The voters approved the Voter Protection Act, because they were fed up with the Legislature undercutting, repealing, and diverting dollars from voter-approved measures.   This bill demonstrates why it is needed more than ever.

You mean Obama is planning to put in regulators?

by David Safier

Here's my  nominee for today's best quote in a daily newspaper. The Washington Post has an article about Obama's three top picks for environmental posts.

Many environmentalists are happy with the picks, while some think they're a bit too moderate. That tells me they're probably excellent choices.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn't sure if they like the people Obama has chosen.

Industry groups were more cautious. At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Vice President William Kovacs said the group worried that the new officials would use their power to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and impose painful new costs on energy use.

"I think that they could be aggressive, and we're hoping that they're really going to look at the circumstances" of the economic downturn, Kovacs said. "That is our biggest single concern, because literally all three of them have a regulatory bent." [bold/italics mine]

All three have a regulatory bent. I suppose industry groups were hoping at least one of them would say, "Just keep doing what you're doing. It's been great for the environment so far."

On a totally different subject

by David Safier

Watch the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?, available on Netflix.

Then ask yourself, if GM created a reliable electric car in the 90s with something like a 90 mile range before needing a charge, leased them in California to ecstatic drivers, then took them back from the drivers (who begged to keep them), shipped them to Phoenix and crushed them so GM and the oil companies wouldn't have to worry about making any more of the frustratingly successful vehicles that used no gas and needed few repairs, . . . 

Why can't the car be brought back from the dead and improved with the technological gains we've made in the past ten years as an answer to the prayers of the American auto industry and our drivers?

It's a very well made documentary, by the way, enjoyable and informative, like a 90 minute expansion of an excellent piece of "60 Minutes" investigative journalism. And "as current as today's headlines," as they say in Coming Attraction Land.

Department of Environmental Irony

by David Safier

I was playing tennis this morning at Fort Lowell Park, well away from the street. I noticed a heavy smell of car exhaust wafting over the court and turned toward the parking lot. A large government vehicle -- enclosed, about twice the size of a pickup -- was sitting there, idling.

Five minutes later, the vehicle was still there, still idling, still sending exhaust fumes onto the court. One of the players went over and asked the driver, who was sitting in the cab, if he would either turn off the engine or move away from the courts. He said OK. Another man climbed into the passenger seat, and the two of them drove away.

As they were leaving, I noticed the letters on the drivers' door: AZDEQ.

Note: I hate to ruin my own story, but I was told by one of the players that the truck probably ran on diesel, and it takes more fuel to turn the engine off and on than to leave it running for a few minutes. But I'm not about to let a questionable fact like that stop me from reveling in the irony of the moment.

Post-Mortem for a Pseudo-Climate Security Act

By Russell J. Lowes

The Senators from Connecticut and Virginia thought they could pull a fast one. They thought they could play the game the Bush Administration is so into, the mis-naming game. Heathy Forests runs down our forests. No Child Left Behind leaves an underfunded ill-conceived program putting our public school system at risk. So why not call this the Climate Security Act?

Security is the opposite of what this act was intended to bolster. This Senate bill was intended to instead increase the profit of the few at the expense of the many. The names of the authors/sponsors of the bill could have been a warning clue. The Lieberman-Warner bill had numerous problems in it.

However, there were two problems of epic proportions.  One was promotion of a massive nuclear energy system for the U.S. This bill would have had the effect of promoting the nationalization of financing for nuclear energy.    

The other was the promotion of an inherently unaccountable cap & trade pollution-“rights” trading system. This proposal is so non-transparent and complex that headlines of the future would have been declaring fraud after fraud, corruption after corruption.

Funny thing is, there was no mention of “nuclear energy” in the bill. The bill just mentioned that there would be funding for low-carbon technologies and then it defined low carbon in such a way that didn’t include life cycle. It defined it so that nuclear energy would be an easy recipient, without counting the life cycle energy inputs.

On a life cycle basis, nuclear energy produces massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. On a standalone reactor basis, nuclear energy does not produce very much. Even while a reactor is running, it sometimes requires grid electricity or backup diesel generators to be assisting while power calibration between the reactor and the grid is occurring, for example.

However, this minimal on-site power requirement is dwarfed by the twenty steps of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to enrichment, from milling to construction of waste facilities, from fuel fabrication to environmental cleanup of nuclear energy and waste accidents, nuclear energy is a CO2 hog, just like coal.

The authors of this bill knew that nuclear energy would be the recipient of the endowment. Karl Grossman pointed this out in his article, “Half-Trillion Dollars for Nukes!” (See http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman05312008.html ).

Let’s just run some simple numbers about how the vast nuclear program of this bill would hurt America and you, the taxpayer. This program is just the beginning of what some would like to see become of a beefed-up nuclear energy “solution.” In the early days of this decade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that in order for nuclear energy to have a significant impact on our energy strategy, it would take 1,000 reactors. Another major study since then put a range at 1,000 to 2,500 reactors. Our average size reactor in the U.S. is, coincidently, 1000 megawatts, or 1,000,000 kilowatts. Here’s the scoop on costs for such a program.
– Number of reactors:                  1,000
– Size per reactor average:         1,000,000 kilowatts of capacity
– Cost per kilowatt, approx.        $9,000
– Multiplying the above figures:   $9,000,000,000,000 (9 trillion dollars)

Simple enough? Well the payback on that $9 trillion is about 15% per year for a thirty-year loan schedule in a free enterprise system. That would equate to $1.35 trillion per year. If citizens in the U.S. average 350 million over that 30-year period, the amount paid per year in the U.S. would average $3857 per person! This is just simple math. This $1.35 trillion for loan repayment  compares with the total $900 billion or so that the U.S. spent in 2007 on ALL energy costs (electricity, gas for vehicles, heating oil, etc.). There is no getting around it – nuclear energy is a 20th Century technology that keeps rearing its ugly head.

The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute shows how nuclear energy is about 7 times the price of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency combined with a solid renewable energy program is the centerpiece of any sound energy policy. Nuclear energy is now about 3 times the cost of wind energy, and a little higher than what concentrated solar power is going for.

On the issue of cap & trade/pollution-rights trading, and the much more effective program called “carbon tax.” there is a great website called www.carbontax.org

Quoting from this website:

Why revenue-neutral carbon taxes are essential,

The next Administration and Congress will be called upon to address 21st Century climate realities. In a carbon-constrained world, a permanent, essential feature of U.S. policy must be a carbon tax that reduces the emissions that are driving global warming.

            * A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).
            * A carbon tax is the most economically efficient means to convey crucial price   
              signals and spur carbon-reducing investment and low-carbon behavior.
            * Carbon taxes should be phased in so businesses and households have time to
              adapt.
            * A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral: government can soften the impacts of
              added costs through rebates or by reducing other taxes ("tax-shifting").
            * Support for a carbon tax is growing steadily among public officials; economists;
               scientists; policy experts; leading business, religious, and environmental
               figures; and on the opinion pages of leading publications.

                                                   

                                                                                 --from carbontax.org

 

The next climate act should be a real climate security act. Let’s make it well-known that nuclear and fossil energies need to be phased out, and that energy efficiencies and renewables need to be the centerpiece of any effective legislation.

No Child Left Inside

by David Safier

Type the phrase, "No Child Left Inside" in Google, and you'll find what appears to be a national movement to get our children in touch with the natural world.

• The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has a No Child Left Inside site devoted to EE (Environmental Education). The Arizona Association for Environmental Education and Arizona Parks & Recreation Association are coalition members.
• Congress is considering (or has considered and passed over) a national No Child Left Inside Act --H.R. 3036 (sponsor: John Sarbanes, D-MD) and S.1981 (sponsor: John Reed, D-RI) -- amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to include more emphasis on Environmental Ed.
• The North American Association of Environmental Education (NAAEE) is pushing both the bill and the EE agenda.
• Connecticut's Governor M. Jodi Rell created a special No Child Left Inside initiative "to encourage Connecticut families and visitors alike to enjoy all the recreational resources and outdoor activities available in Connecticut's state parks, forests and waterways."
• At amazon.com, the term brings up a list of 23 books on linking children with nature.

We're encircled by open spaces and natural wonders here in Tucson. "No Child Left Inside" is a fine slogan for the worthy idea of promoting more feet-on-the-dirt Environmental Education and Recreation in our area and around the country.

The Star Fosters Discussion on Tucson's Future Growth

The Arizona Daily Star has recently filled a real vacuum in local civil society by encouraging Tucsonans to take a closer look at what kind of place they want to live in the future. I have quibbles, of course, but they are to be commended for acting as a catalyst and resource for a community faced with some serious choices. There are deep divisions about our future course between those who seek to manage growth (either more or less) and those who believe the facts indicate that we are far past their point where we can just grow smarter, we need to stop growing.

The Star certainly provided some interesting raw data to chew on from their survey earlier this month. Admittedly, some of the questions were intolerably leading and biased, or just plain dopey. But there is some gold in there. I found some insights into Tucsonans' attitudes toward water, transportation, and development.

Read more about what I see—and failed to see—in the data...

Picacho Peak in Bloom

by David Safier

I spent Friday morning at Picacho Peak. It was lovely. The wildflowers in clumps amid the cactus were a treat. Poppies are plentiful, lupines (the blue flowers) less so, and the small yellow brittlebush flowers were not open yet. They say that the flower show will fade soon if we don't get another rain, so if you want to go, do it in the next few weeks. Picacho is only 30-some miles north of Tucson. Check out the Arizona State Park Ranger Cam for photos of Picacho and other parks.

If you haven't been, you have two very different trail choices. Hunter Trail is steep and goes to the top of the peak, well above the wildflowers. A walking stick is a good idea. Calloway trail is a gentle uphill trail that ends in an overlook. For wildflower viewing, it's the better choice. That's where I took this photo, with my camera almost on the ground to get the flowers and the mountain in the picture. The more adventurous should take Hunter.

Wildflowers are Busting Out All Over

by David Safier

It's wildflower time, and if you want to know where they're blooming, as well as why and how, first go to the Arizona State Parks' Ranger Cam page, then to the Parks' Wildflower Information page. The photo of wildflowers at Picacho Peak was taken Monday, February 18.

Some information tidbits: The fall rains determine how abundant the wildflowers will be. February and March are the prime viewing times. Some of the featured flowers in nature's display are the Mexican gold poppy, the purple Coulter's lupine, yellow brittlebush, yellow creosote and orange globemallow.

The Rosemont Mine's Rose-Colored Polling

Augusta Resource Corporation commissioned a survey by Market Intelligence of Tucsonans about their proposed Rosemont Mine. Surprise! The survey, the results of which were quickly - and uncritically - reported by Inside Tucson Business, shows that about two-thirds of Tucsonans are in favor of the mine.

Or at least it does until you peek under the hood and look beyond the headlines. Take a look for yourself: Download rosemont_mine_survey1130.pdf.

The bottom line is that the survey does not report how Tucsonans feel about the proposed mine; it reports how they feel if everything Augusta says about the mine is assumed to be true.

"[I]t was determined that many area residents are likely to have a favorable opinion of the Rosemont Copper Mine if they could be assured that their collective concerns were addressed, including that the mining company will:

1. Return the mining site to its current productive uses after mining operations have ceased by revegetating throughout the life of the mine.
2. Ensure that the mining site is minimally visible from Highway 83, and is not visible from Tucson or Green Valley.
3. Will use modern mining technology that is much more environmentally friendly and safer for miners than that used by previous mines.
4. Will protect the local water and air supply from pollutants.
5. Will purchase enough CAP water to guarantee a surplus of water to the area.
6. Will minimize the effects to wildlife and recreation areas.
7. Invest in local community projects and organizations unrelated to the mining project."

Those items I have highlighted in red are assertions that many area residents have serious reservations about concerning the proposed mine. If those issues are taken off the table, of course most people are in favor of the mine. Why wouldn't one be? The surprising thing is that anyone is still opposed to the mine under such conditions, not that the majority favors it.

This "poll" is not an opinion poll at all, it is the basis for a marketing strategy to manufacture consent for the mine. Much of the poll is devoted to determining what sources of information people would find to be credible sources of information for Augusta's claims about the mine. Now I wonder why they want to know that?..

The script used during the survey emphasizes Augusta's approach to nullifying any of the valid concerns of residents, which are creating resistance to the mine, prior to getting an answer (i.e. the answer they want):

"For the first question, I am going to present a situation to you and I would like you to tell me how you would respond to it. The question contains a series of factors pertaining to a proposed local mining project and I am going to ask you to suppose that all of them are true. I am not asking whether or not you think they are believable, but rather – if you could be assured that everything I am telling you is true, how would you react.

(Ask the respondent if they are clear on the instructions, and clarify if necessary)

Q1. The Rosemont Copper mine is a project that is being explored on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountain Range that has a very large mineral deposit, which may result in an open pit mine. Are you familiar with this process?

If I were to tell you that the mining operators will (1) return the mining site to its current productive uses after mining operations have ceased by revegetating throughout the life of the mine, (2) ensure that the mining site is minimally visible from Highway 83, and is not visible from Tucson or Green Valley (3) will use modern mining technology that is much more environmentally friendly and safer for miners than that used by previous mines, (4) will protect the local water and air supply from pollutants, (5) will purchase enough CAP water to guarantee a surplus of water to the area, (6) will minimize the effects to wildlife and recreation areas and (7) invest in local community projects and organizations unrelated to the mining project.

Just to ensure you understand the question, I am not asking whether or not you believe what I have just told you. But if you could be assured that everything I told you was true, how favorable would you be of the mining project?"

That, my friends, is how you shape consensus where none exists, and create polling data that you can sell as a true picture of community sentiment, when it is nothing but a fantasy.

I can't say that I'm surprised at the use of such an ethically-questionable tactic by Augusta to get their billions out of Tucson's mountains, but I am quite surprised by the cupidity (or stupidity, take your pick) of Inside Tucson Business in publishing such a misleading poll without giving such counter-intuitive results a critical look - or worse, shoving the true nature of the poll under the rug to serve their own agenda.

Even after all that effort to damp down any concerns about the mine and to astro-turf their poll, there remains a great deal of skepticism about the mine. You will note that the reporting of the poll indicates 64% approval, but doesn't bother to differentiate between strong approval and weak approval. Only 31.2% are strongly in favor, even when all controversial issues are taken off the table. 33.2% are only somewhat favorable even when Augusta warps reality to suit themselves.

Another piece of interesting data is that less than half of respondents (47%) from southeast Tucson, who would be most affected by the mine, are at all favorable toward the mine, even in the fantasy-land scenario drawn by Augusta.

Makes you wonder how many would be favorable if Augusta's assertions were all assumed false?

Flush Tucson's 'Toilet to Tap' Proposition 200

There are a lot of people lining up to tell you to vote NO on Prop 200. Just about the entire economic and political elite of Pima County have come down against it. Personally, I can't think of a better reason to vote for it.

Literally.

I really can't think of any better reason to vote for it. And that's just not enough of a reason for me.

Having read the thing carefully, what struck me was not how restrictive it is - which is what most are moaning about - but how full of loopholes it is. Basically, the reason I suggest you vote against it is not that it's a disaster waiting to happen, but because it won't accomplish squat... other than unintended consequences that is.

This is something of unique perspective on the initiative, so far as I can tell. And that decided me that I would go ahead and write something about it.

The first hole in the prop, which is big enough to swallow the most important provision whole, is that voters get the option of indefinitely delaying the cut-off of new connections. That's right. City voters get to kick the day of reckoning down the road by four years every time we get within two years of a the dreaded new connection moratorium.

The thing is drafted so that any first year law student can reasonably argue to construe it to allow not just one such delay, but an unspecified, indeed unlimited, number of delaying elections. Frankly, I'm not really sure that isn't the actual intent of the drafters.

A lot of junkies will agree to give up the junk when they've got a regular supply, but once they start jonesing, well-intentioned resolutions to reform go right out the window. Tucson is a junky for water, when it comes down to brass tacks and we are staring at cut-offs of new connections (even on infill development, I suppose), they can come up with plenty of reasons to delay just a couple more years. My prediction: the cut-off would never arrive.

The next major problem I have with the Prop is one that most won't admit: I want the city to have the new revenue from the trash tax. I think what Mike Hein and the Council have done to create an investment plan to repair roads and fund city fire and police services is critically important. Cutting the $23 million generated by the trash tax would imperil the continuance of that investment.

Further, there's just no good goddamn reason to restrict the City from raising revenue for environmental services through taxes. I don't think fee for service and the sort of enterprise fund revenue silo the framers of this prop apparently desire is necessarily the only or best way to deliver those services. I don't think it is wise to place such micro-managing restrictions in our Charter.

The restrictions on effluent use are just stupid. It would have been a stronger prop if they had just stopped at "No effluent or reclaimed sewer water shall ever be added to, or blended with, the drinking water supply." Great! I can live with that. But then they gotta get all overbearingly controlling again. The prop mandates only two possible uses for effluent: Santa Cruz release or irrigation. That leaves out dozens of perfectly safe and reasonable uses for that water, including any industrial uses. This over-control of effluent use has no point at all and actually wastes our water.

Finally, the big whammy is that the whole prop has one over-riding and unstated effect: to break the monopoly of Tucson Water. The market incentives created by this prop all lead to one conclusion: when Tucson Water finds itself unable to respond to market demands because of these restrictions on new connections or effluent uses, someone else will respond. That places Tucson's water future in the hands of a multiplicity of private, solely profit-driven hands. Nothing could be worse for Tucson's future.

We have a precious asset in the public control we are able to exert over Tucson Water, Prop 200 would inexorably chip away at that public control. New water companies would start trading water, sinking wells, recharging, and delivering where Tucson Water can't. Water flows toward money, and Prop 200 ensures that there will be plenty of money calling for it outside of the control of Tucson Water.

Prop 200 is well-intentioned. But it suffers from those lacks that so often drag down a citizen initiative: lack of expertise, lack of truly critical input, lack of public scrutiny and participation outside of a small, ideologically inspired core group. The result is largely ineffective, overly specified, ideologically compromised, and short-sighted legislation. I think some of the goals of the prop are admirable, but the issues are really just too complex and nuanced to be addressed with a page or two of changes to the Charter.

I never expect our elected officials to accomplish much on their own, but rather hope that with sufficient public interest and participation that they be forced to adopt wise policy. I have hope that the new City Council will be forced to begin to really address water sustainability when the election results on this prop are tallied. I fully expect it will lose, but I think it may be closer than anyone expects. Prop 200 will get votes not because it is good plan - it's manifestly not - but because it is the only plan on the table.

People are frustrated, fed up, and deeply concerned, and our City Council has provided little leadership on this issue. This election may demonstrate that this is an issue with legs that people will vote on. This election may make citizens aware that we staring down the barrel of a dry pipeline at a bleak future, and that they have to demand our water future be addressed with wise and far-sighted policies.

No, it is unreasonable to hope that even with a Democratic lock on the Council that they will adopt wise, honest, and sustainable water policy for Tucson; we must force them to do it. And Prop 200, for all it faults, might just be the beginning of better way forward for our no-so-little desert oasis.

Nuclear Power: Global Warming Savior or False Hope?

There is a good deal of controversy in the environmental movement regarding how to continue generating energy to maintain our economic well-being while cutting or eliminating the energy industry's heavy carbon footprint (roughly 40% of carbon emissions are related to energy generation). There are some in the environmental movement, not to mention those in the nuclear industry, who point to nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon emission from the energy sector.

It is true that nuclear generation of electricity itself is not a significant source of carbon emissions, but there are serious economic feasibility, safety, and environmental issues, in addition to carbon emissions associated with the entire life-cycles of nuclear fuels and generation plants.

Southern Arizona is blessed with a number of experts on the industry and its environmental impacts. MyCommentary, records the viewpoints of local activists and concerned citizens. The project brings us the video commentaries of two local nuclear activists, Russell Lowes, and Jack Cohen-Joppa. I share those commentaries with you here:

Commentary by Mr. Cohen-Joppa

Commentary by Mr. Lowes

In addition, the local public affairs program, Political Perspectives with Cynthia Dickstein, covered the nuclear issue recently with Jack Cohen-Joppa and Russell Lowes as her guests. They were joined by Arizona environmental justice advocate Steve Brittle for a panel discussion that constitutes an excellent primer on this topic.

More after the click...

Guest Action by Steve Brittle: Hayden and the Superfund

Hayden, Arizona is a small company town with one industry – the ASARCO copper smelter. This is one of the nation’s top polluters. ASARCO has admitted in public reports its releases into Hayden’s air of thousands of tons of arsenic, lead, barium, copper, zinc, and sulfuric acid over the years. It is now proposed that Hayden be declared an EPA Superfund site, but the company, and elements of the town and county government, are determined to resist.

ASARCO has left a trail of environmental contamination with over $1 billion in environmental cleanup liability around the country. When faced with the costs of these cleanups, the company instead filed for bankruptcy.

Governor Napolitano has to concur with the decision to list Hayden as a Superfund site and will decide by September 20th. But given the actions of ADEQ, obviously intended to sell out the community, she needs to hear from everyone that she should concur with the EPA’s proposal to designate the area a Superfund site. The people of Hayden need everyone’s help to prevent them from their continuing toxic nightmare.

Please contact Governor Janet Napolitano by mail, phone, and/or fax, and urge her to concur with the EPA’s proposal to list the town of Hayden as a Superfund site.

Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

More about the story of ASARCO's history in Hayden and the effort to clean up ASARCO's mess after the click...

Taking the LEED in energy efficiency

HB2496 schools; energy and water savings (Mason, J. Burns, Aboud, et al.), having passed the House 56-3, now awaits action by the Senate Committee of the Whole. Every citizen concerned with the environment and energy independence should encourage its passage. The bill creates an incentive for installing energy and water saving systems and techniques.

Schools will be allowed to borrow the estimated cost savings from more efficient systems over a ten year horizon to invest in the new energy or water saving measures that make those savings possible. Financing from utility companies and system vendors will pay for the water and energy saving systems, with performance guarantees that ensure taxpayers don't pay if the vendors' estimates are inaccurate. This mechanism provides an opportunity for schools to invest in cost-effective measures that save money, energy, and water with no additional expenditures by tax-payers.

The bill is a creative financing mechanism for existing schools that could save the state millions over the next decade without costing taxpayers a dime. The next measure that should be instituted in this area is life-cycle costing of new construction of schools and other public buildings. Instead of measuring the cost of a building by looking only at the cost of construction in isolation, public projects should be costed to include a reasonable period of operational costs.

For a public building, that period of operation is at least 20 years, and often considerably longer. But even at a 20 year operational horizon, the cost effectiveness of environmentally-friendly high energy and water efficient system become economically compelling. Structures using LEED guidelines for energy use and sustainability outperform less expensive (and less efficient) designs due to greatly lowered operational costs.

By folding in at least a portion of the building's total operational costs into the design parameters, state and local governments can achieve significant long-term cost efficiencies that benefit taxpayers. A very good in-depth discussion of the cost efficiencies of green buildings is provided by the report of California's Sustainable Building Task Force (PDF).

In 2005, our Governor mandated by executive order (PDF) that all new buildings within the executive department be constructed using at minimum Silver LEED standards. It is time for the rest of our constitutional branches and local governments to follow suit in seizing the long-term cost savings such LEED rating provides.

It is time to recognize that energy and water efficiency and sustainable development make better economic sense than ignoring future operational costs when planning for a new public structure. In fact, many high-efficiency features make economic sense over a time horizon of as little as 4-5 years, making them cost effective even for residential homes, whose average term of occupancy is about that length.

Sustainable building is cost effective; the challenge is now to get our public and financial institutions to recognize and act on that fact. Heck, it makes so much economic sense that even WalMart is now building green. If a bottom-line obsessed company like WalMart can see the befits, why can't our governments?

Nuclear Power in American Energy Strategy

The following is a posting by Guest Author Russell Lowes:

The media the Southeastern U.S. is pushing the resurgence of nuclear power as the solution to America's energy future quite uncritically. That may be because the epicenter for the new nuclear power industry is the old south, stretching from the Carolinas to Florida and Texas. The "new" vision for a nuclear-powered America is a re-hash of President Nixon’s plan for 1000 nuclear power plants, demonstrated by the promotional mantra the Bushies have rolled out:

"We need a thousand nukes."

While the media is hopping in Dixie, the media here in Arizona are nearly mute on this issue. Why? It could be because Arizona's only commercial nuclear plant has the worst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety record in the country. It may be that John McCain wants to make it a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and major media outlets here aren't willing to piss in his well. Or it could be because the conglomerates who own our media are giving Arizona Public Service, the manager of Palo Verde, the largest nuke in the nation (The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has three reactors, with a total of 3810 megawatts output), time to get its financial house in order.

There is a lot of money at stake in reawakening the atomic power industry. Trillions, to be somewhat exact. Tens of them, to be still more exact. The industrial giants who stand to profit from a revivified nuclear power industry are seeking to bring the industry back from the economic grave it has mouldered in since the 1980s. Their aspirations indicate that, just as the planners of Iraq failed to internalize the lessons of Vietnam, nuclear industry boosters have failed to understand the reasons why the industry died the first time.

Let's examine the push for reawakening the nuclear industry through a very personal analysis. What might it do to you and I for nuclear energy to once again become a significant part of America's energy infrastructure?

Mortgage Tax Credit? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Mortgage Credit...

The Bush Administration wants the U.S. to build 1000 reactors. The last program, which built only 100 reactors, turned out to be an economic disaster, with billions and billions of dollars worth of nuclear plants canceled and more operating at steep subsidies. That orgy of reactor building left the ratepayers in those service areas, and taxpayers throughout America, under a heavy debt load to pay for the excesses of the power companies.

The atomic energy industry and the federal government are up to their old tricks again, but are even more audacious since they can count on the acquiescence and cooperation of an Administration that could care less about the public good. The industry and their enablers in this Administration are promising that it will be less expensive to build plants in the future than it was in the 1980s, knowing full well that construction cost overruns in the industry will once again be on the order of hundreds of percent, just as they were in the 1970s and 1980s.

Their scheme to pocket trillions in publicly subsidized construction costs threatens to cost you more than you save as a consequence of the tax credit for interest payments on your mortgage. Assuming you own, or are going to own a house, and your interest payments are a very modest $800 per month, or $9600 per year, the cost to you personally as a taxpayer to underwrite this nuclear building boom will far outstrip the tax savings homeownership affords you. If your mortgage is costing you $9600 per year in interest, the tax savings would likely be 20% of that, or $1920: call it $2,000 for simplicity.

One thousand atomic energy plants would cost you, and every other taxpayer, well over $2,000 per year. Those 1000 reactors would cost $5 trillion, conservatively. There is no way that ratepayers are going to be able to afford to finance this capital outlay through bonds or rate hikes, so the U.S. Government will have to step in to underwrite the program. When you add to the $5 trillion construction all the interest cost, taxes, insurance, the construction capital of these plants will cost well over $22.5 trillion over the next 40 years. If America’s average population during this time is 350 million people, the cost per person per year will be at least $2,143 per person per year. This is just for capital payback.Throw in the fuel cost, operation and maintenance and waste costs and you have trillions more to give away to the nuclear industry. Say goodbye to your home mortgage tax credit. With $2,143 per person per year going toward an outdated nuclear energy program, there may not be much money left for mortgage interest write-offs, or for sane energy options. And perhaps we can also forget any hope to afford national health care, serious investments in our educational system, public transportation, or any badly needed new government initiatives. Medicare, Social Security, and benefits for our armed services personnel could even be on the block to make room in the budget for such a big ticket item as Bush's 1000 new nukes.

We can't afford this Administration's pipe-dream to line the pockets of another favored industry. The alternative to such lightheaded thinking is to invest in the proven technologies of energy efficiencies, renewable power sources, while reducing our use of fossil fuels. Only one sixth of the power supplied in this country is supplied as electricity. The rest is supplied by car engines, space heating with gas, combined cycle heat production, etc. With only one sixth of our energy in electricity, and $750 billion per year going to supply less than one half of that sixth (i.e., less than one twelfth), how will we be able to afford development of other energy resources? We simply won’t. America's current total energy costs, including electrical generation and every other form of energy use, are about $900 billion per year. These “public servants” want to us to spend another $750 billion per year for 30 years, just to supply less than 8% of our total energy needs. Obviously, it will impossible for ratepayers to finance these sorts of outlays, to imagine that such a thing is even possible without a full-scale consumer revolt is absurd. Looked at in this bottom line fashion, the idea of supplying America's future energy needs with nukes just doesn't pencil out.

As you might guess, the backers of this multi-trillion dollar plan have a massive misinformation campaign. Pollution on the web is frequently found. So where do you go for decent information on nuclear energy? Here are some high-quality website addresses to browse, for starters:

http://www.nirs.org/
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Introduction.pdf (PDF Download)

Just What is the Value of $750 Billion Per Year?

-- The total annual energy budget of the U.S. is about 7% of GDP, or roughly $900 Billion per year.

-- This $750 billion is equal to 6% of the total $13 trillion 2006 Gross Domestic Product.

-- 128% of $586 billion Social Security budget for 2006

-- 179% of the $419 billion U.S. Department of Defense budget for 2006

-- 13 times of the $56 billion U.S. Department of Education budget for 2006

-- The war in Iraq is expected by some to cost $1.5 trillion by the time it is completed, IF it is completed relatively soon. This is two years of construction capital payback for 1000 nukes. If these figures pan out, building 1000 nukes will be like funding 15 Iraq wars over 30 years.

On a final note, if each 8% of our energy cost $750 billion per year (not to mention the extras like fuel cost), the dollars for energy in America would be roughly $9.4 TRILLION per year, instead of the current $900 billion we spend on energy.

Russell J. Lowes, a financial management consultant and the Research Director for Power Plant Analysts, is the primary author of a book on the nation’s largest nuclear plant upwind of Phoenix, “Energy Options for the Southwest, Part I, Nuclear and Coal Power." The book played a principal part in the cancellation of two additional reactors at the Palo Verde plant. He can be reached at russ3lowes@netscape.net

With how energy needs are changing learning about Earth's ecology as a child is becoming as important as doing some math worksheets to learn Algebra or even just coloring and having fun with coloring pages to keep the learning process going.

League of Conservation Voters National Environmental Scorecard for the Arizona Congressional Delegation

Link: League of Conservation Voters National Environmental Scorecard.

The Arizona Congressional delegation is mostly out of step with Arizona voters on environmental protection. How many Arizonans really want a Representative with a 0% or 8% voting record on the environment? With House Republican Delegates that's all that's on offer - and remember that Renzi is a marginal district GOPer who gets let off the leash to vote against the party now and then, and he still only scores 8%. Flake is the golden boy of the "Goldwater" Institute, and he still only scores 8%.

And McCain? The global warming maverick reformer of the GOP? Same as the doctrinaire Kyl: 29%. How pitiful.

Contrast those scores with the 100% scored by my favorite Arizona Delegate, Raul Grijalva, and the 92% of the moderate Ed Pastor.

Arizona needs to reclaim its legacy of bi-partisan environmental stewardship left by the Udall brothers and Barry Goldwater. This election cycle that means voting Democratic, because there is no one on the GOP side of aisle following Goldwater's example.