In 2006 i produced Austin's largest Earth Day Festival to date, "The Sustainable Shopper's Ball!". It was a grand event and an awesome team effort. The event was all dressed in pop-up tent tops, located outdoors with vendors, entertainers, speakers, food, music, activities, sculpture, lectures... Roughly 5,000 people: shopped local green businesses, learned from local green nonprofits, listened other speakers, watched jugglers and tap dancers and kid's entertainers, rocked to a solar-powered James McMurtry, walked their dogs, and more. It was six hours of inclusive, green paradise. Those of us working on the event were celebrating the dawning of a new culture, one invented by our X & Y generations and the internet, one that looked forward to the end of the G.W. Bush era, embraced the idea that global warming was urgent and actionable, and believed that the necessity of building a better world would soon win the day.
We thought light bulbs, local farmers and green architecture were most of what was needed to fix the world's enormous environmental problems. We just needed to increase enthusiasm so more people would start buying the right stuff and "preferring" a greener, sustainable world. I coined the term -- at least I thought I did because so few people seemed to understand it, "sustainable consumerism" based on the idea that consumers have more influence over business than any other force in society, and therefore, indirectly, consumers control the markets, politics, and media of our Western civilization.
So now, six years later, i ask where do we stand?
In 2006 we knew time was of the essence. We told ourselves we had just a few years before the battle to save humanity (and biology as we know it) from the impacts of a rapidly changing climate system would be lost. This kind of doomy-gloomy conversation was vindicated in a terrifying way when in November of 2007http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11... the top professional in the world of climate science, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said,
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
In this regard every influential business and politician fell short. None of the world's local, state, or national leaders stepped up to the plate or heeded the repeated calls to "act now" issued by the international climate science community. Personal politics, profit, willful & unintended ignorance, and personal fear got in the way of making 2007 our collective turning point. Fairly said, neither the leadership nor the 'public will' were there for meaningful change and creative activists like me and my team of Sustain-a-Ballers were not well enough informed or endowed to change the game. It wasn't lightbulbs and higher values we needed, it was big-scale, rapid shifts in economic policy. "Sustainable Consumerism" and all the rest was on the right track but what our planet really needed on Earth Day 2006 was a smarter, wiser perspective from the grassroots. So please allow me to share a few 2012 ideas. And allow me to first substantiate the urgency of changing the way our economy is wired.
Thank God there are still no reported deaths in the DFW area after Tuesday's tornado outbreak. (I have friends there, you probably do too.) The devastation will surely take a toll on local economics, wildlife and ecosystems, however. The questions burning in my mind, how does this link to climate change? What's the history of tornadoes in the Dallas area? What size do tornadoes in this region tend to be? Are they often close to cities? What are scientists saying about the causes of yesterday's events, which threatened the lives of more than seven million Americans?
Turns out the climate science story on this is grouped under the very broad headline, "extreme weather events will increase as our climate system warms." More about that in a moment. Historically speaking, tornadoes in the Dallas area are somewhat common (see image below). Dallas County has had 75 recorded tornadoes since 1953, with the total number of fatalities at less than 20 people. (Good news.) But these tornadoes have historically been much smaller than yesterday's, with damages generally ranging from as low as $2,000 to $5 million per event. There have of course been larger moments, a string of tornadoes in 1994 looks to have caused well over $500 million in damages for instance...
All of the above info comes from TornadoHistoryProject.com, which takes its data from the NOAA's National Weather Service. I recommend checking out TornadoHistoryProject, it'll make understanding (Dallas and other cities) tornado history effortless.
As an additional perspective, LiveScience.com reported that Tuesday's tornadoes "came 12 years after a historical bout of storms that raged through Fort Worth and Arlington March 28, 2000, injuring 80 and killing two." That would be just about the worse single event on record. But April 4 2012 will prove historic in financial losses. The Red Cross was estimating at least 650 homes damaged, another 200 destroyed. Baseball sized hail ripped from the sky before the tornado arrived, damaging rooftops, automobiles, and over 100 commercial airplanes, among other things. And you've probably seen the video of 15-ton trailers at the Schneider National Trucking Company lot flying through the air like paper debris -- if not check the link below to my blog (where the video is posted; note commentators trying to make sense of what they're seeing). The video gives a good sense of what other large scale damage might have taken place -- highways, bridges, waterways, cell towers, power lines, pipelines?...
But the bigger story here might be that just a few days before Dallas's catastrophe the world's leading international panel of climate scientists issued a report saying prepare for the worst http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_ev...
...To read the rest of this blog, see the flying trailers video and some pretty amazing photos, please visit my page: http://www.chrissearles.blogsp...
... To help victims of Dallas's disaster please visit the American Red Cross Disaster Relief or text REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation:http://www.redcross.org/
I had the distinct pleasure of playing drums with Bruce Springsteen a couple of weeks ago. Austin's local paper ran a photo of the two of us over and over again during SXSW's five days (really nice). Even more amazing, the paper ran the photo again 10 days later next to a syndicated review for Bruce's new album, Wrecking Ball.
Coincidentally, that review's description of the record's overall spirit "encapsulates" some of my own most treasured values. Excerpts:
"These first years of the millennium have been extraordinarily trying, especially for a nation that had passed a quarter century in relative peace. Then came terror. Then came wars. Then came economic meltdown. And in the last we were galled to find that what had brought us to the brink of ruin was greed, corruption, mendacity and predatory practices of giant money houses and that we were now required to save them...
"It is from the heart of this disconnection, the chasm between the America that is and the America that ought to be that Springsteen issues his report... He finds depression, lamentation, and resignation... He finds anger, too... there is also defiance... There is something quintessentially American in that. One recalls Gen. McAuliffe's one-word rejection of a Nazi demand for surrender, 'Nuts!' One recalls Franklin Roosevelt's standing up to 'fear itself...'
"That is what America is -- hope and defiance in the face of challenge -- and there is something oddly patriotic in Springsteen's evocation of that in these hard times. Not the easy patriotism of Lee Greenwood's song and children waving sparklers on July 4th, but the hard and determined patriotism of those who never stay down, never accept the gap between the America that is and the one that ought to be.
"It is Springsteen's triumph to honor anger and lamentation, but also to look beyond them. And to remind us that, though hard times come and hard times go, hope and defiance still abide and sustain.
"Bring on your wrecking ball." ~ Leonard Pitts, Jr.
Hats off to those rare celebrities committed to living their values. Actor, director, activist Mark Ruffalo has recently formed a non-profit, WaterDefense.org http://www.waterdefense.org/ which seeks to counter the media rhetoric on natural gas hydrofracking. I learned of this watching Ruffalo do a six minute interview with Stephen Colbert last week. http://grist.org/list/mark-ruf... Ruffalo gets skewered more than once -- even loses his composure, but manages to squeeze in a few points, too:
"We have hydrofracking, tar sands, mountain top removal, deep sea drilling. All of these things destroy water. In particular, hydrofracking." ~ Ruffalo
The organization's website states,
"Less than one tenth of one percent of all the water on earth is safe and available for us to use. One in five people worldwide doesn't have safe drinking water. One in two don't have water for sanitation... America has a choice between dirty fossil fuels that poison water and clean energy that rebuilds our economy. Water Defense's mission is to make sure America makes the right choice. Water Defense works to create a world where water is safe to drink, a world where the oceans don't rise and the economy is powered by clean, sustainable sources of energy like wind, water and solar."
WaterDefense frames the energy debate around what today's fossil fuel based economy is doing to water supplies. The group focuses on educating people about this perspective and halting natural gas fracking. Re: the economics of fracking -- in the Colbert interview Ruffalo claims the US Geological Survey just revised America's natural gas forecast, stating it believes we have 20 years of supply at current consumption rates. We are apparently not "the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas."
"If you just glance at it, it's a mess, isn't it?" Those wise words came from my mother Thursday, after I showed her a back of the napkin diagram depicting America's confusion over climate science, and a few of the factors Obama is balancing as commander and chief of a divided nation in that struggle.
We were discussing Obama's getting anything done on fossil fuels reform. Ma rightly pointed out that Obama's support for more domestic oil production,(1) more domestic job creation,(2) and meaningful environmental protections makes him seem duplicitous. So did a recent (passionate and well-informed) reader of my blog, who feels Obama is "bi-polar" on energy policy. My reply to him:
Thanks for your excellent input and comments - I was unaware of much of what you've shared. As far as my view, and quoting from the Forbes article you suggested http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch... I think Obama's nature is to be somewhat two-faced on all of this. (3)
The sizehttp://chrissearles.blogspot.c... and aggressiveness of the Oil&Gas Industry is daunting. Based on my research, I would go so far as to say O&G has influenced a lot of legal code, if not political, media, and social culture, and certainly they've been benefited from (if not commandeered) our military's investment in Iraq, and other wars.
... Obama keeps opening up more domestic drilling because more jobs and more domestic fuel production are popular... As a pragmatist president, quite possibly to our detriment, Obama demanding greater investment funds into a nascent clean fuels industry (a clean fuels "bail out" if you will) and shutting down the fossil fuels industries, particularly Oil&Gas, would cause political battles that perhaps his Admin can't see fighting, and perhaps the American public would not support.
So, maybe the call to end Big Oil subsidization is a chess move that tests the awareness and will of the broader American public for change? If you look into the data, it's an open and shut case -- we're subsidizing the world's wealthiest people, essentially. Maybe the Obama hope is that this $4 Billion a year change http://oilprice.com/Latest-Ene... would pave the way for broader reform - putting a price on pollution, making polluters pay, thus incentivizing the market (which in this case is worth Trillions and Trillions of dollars of global influence) to develop cleaner fuels today.
That's my hope. And my guess.
Fairly said, Obama is playing both sides for the middle. He responded to gas price increases last Saturday, during his weekly video address, by strengthening his stance against federal tax subsidies for big oil companies. See the address, entitled, "Ending Subsidies for Big Oil" here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/phot... and more of research on America's big oil company wealth here: http://chrissearles.blogspot.c...
When will solar panel systems become affordable? Apparently in San Diego and NYC they already are... With credible data and animated maps, John Farrell, blogger at http://energyselfreliantstates... is getting good cred for his ongoing efforts to answer this important question. See the report that made John famous here: http://www.newrules.org/energy...
In December John's extensive research showed that "within a decade, 100 million Americans could get cheaper electricity from rooftop solar - without subsidies." http://energyselfreliantstates... He updated that statement recently http://energyselfreliantstates... by releasing a "with government subsidies" model which assumes that the federal government's 30% solar tax credit continues after 2016, as do current state and municipal incentives for each city shown, as do current solar pricing trends.
Based on these assumptions John's calcs show:
NYC & San Diego already promote affordable solar.
Austin, Dallas, and 14 other cities will be there by 2016.
"I wonder whether it's sunk in to most Americans just how historic the changes going on right now in oil production in the United States really are," -- economist Blake Clayton in his recent blog at Council on Foreign Relations. http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012...
What's he talking about? In 2011 American oil companies suddenly started exporting more than importing. USA Today is calling the trend a "mini oil boom." http://usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1 Visit my original blog on this to see a graphic showing net petroleum imports since 1993 and the sudden flip: http://chrissearles.blogspot.c...
I have extended family in East Texas. One of the friendliest neighbors there, a 65 year old man, came out of retirement eight months ago to take a full time job. This job includes driving 2 hours each way to work five 12 hour shifts a week. What causes a 65 year old man to work 14 hours a day, five days a week? In this case he says it's money. (Think high six figures.) He's an oil refinery plant safety manger in Beaumont, the area is booming.
Actually, Texas's oil & gas refinery industry is going BONKERS. Unfortunately, the media is generally not covering the story, though I did find a real estate blog claiming "$20B in oil refinery expansion is coming to Beaumont and Port Arthur"http://www.texasgulfcoastonlin... Our East Texas neighbor says the Oil & Gas refineries in the Port Arthur area are expanding so aggressively they've got crews working around the clock, 12 on 12 hour shifts. He says there's nowhere to rent, live, or stay the night in the expansion zone and that one hour of his commute each day is spent trying to get "from one end of the parking lot to the other" at the job site.
My original blog on this includes a graphic, based on US Energy Information Admin data, which details petroleum refineries along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast area. Clearly the area surrounding Port Arthur is the refinery capital of North America: http://chrissearles.blogspot.c...
"You can either stand with the oil companies or you can stand with the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that's been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future." -- Barack Obama at an early March campaign stop http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03...
I find Obama's stance http://chrissearles.blogspot.c... against fossil fuel subsidization incredibly compelling. Reason #1 - we need a clean energy future, yesterday. (You already know that.) Reason #2 - America's big Oil & Gas companies are not hurting for cash. In fact, the top five gasoline retailers earned more than $1 trillion in profit between 2001 and 2011 http://chrissearles.blogspot.c...
Allow me to elaborate on the second point. Your gas prices are going up, but it ain't cause the Oil & Gas industry needs money http://chrissearles.blogspot.c... According to the Financial Times ongoing list of "world's wealthiest companies" the Oil & Gas industry is just about the world's most profitable, on average, year to year http://chrissearles.blogspot.c... Texas's big oil companies look great in this context, too. With minimal digging I've discovered that ExxonMobil (headquartered in Irving, TX) has been the world's #1 most profitable company most of the last 10 years, Chevron (San Ramon, CA) is consistently in the global top 10 and Conocco (Houston, TX) is generally in the top 50 most profitable companies on the world. The global top ten has an average of 3 Oil & Gas companies in the top 10 over the last 10 years.
Domestically speaking, research (by me) shows Exxon, Mobil, Gulf Oil, Amoco, Texaco, Shell Oil, ChevronTexaco, and their various cousins, competitors and mergers to have all been consistently on Fortune 500's Top 20 Wealthiest American Companies list from 1955 when the list began to the mid 1990s. The Clinton era broke oil & gas's dynastic tradition, but for about 40 consecutive years American Oil & Gas producers were bringing in +40% of the total profits attributed to America's top 20 biggest companies. Year after year after year. The profits dynasty was restored in the 2000s. President Obama says these big oil companies receive about $4B in annual tax breaks today.
One interesting point: Exxon, was America's #2 wealthiest company from 1955 to 1974, after General Motors. But in 1975 just after the "oil shock," Exxon finally made it to the #1 biggest company spot. Apparently one result of the US oil crisis (1973) was US Oil & Gas companies made a lot more money. Exxon slipped quietly into 1st place 1975 - 77, so while your parents were scouring the country for a simple tank of gas, and President Carter was telling America to "put on a sweater," the Oil & Gas Industry was purchasing bigger houses and blingier vacations.
I cannot recommend highly enough the work of rising star, Jonathan Haidt.
Haidt's 2008 TED talk, "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives," has over 100,000 views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... and his recent Bill Moyers interview, "Jonathan Haidt Explains Our Contentious Culture" is truly enlightening: http://billmoyers.com/segment/... One chestnut from the Moyers interview:
"Liberals misunderstand Conservatives more than the other way around."
After several weeks of steady rains Austin moved from "exceptional" to "severe" drought status two weeks ago. That's a good thing, "exceptional" = awful. Add in this weekend's rains and we of Central Texas can hope to move down a level to "Moderate Drought" status, which is one level above "Abnormally Dry," before the summer of 2012 begins...
If that sounds eco-negative it's because the state of TX is about as well prepared for a hot, dry summer this year as it was last and the projections are clear: we're in for another doozy. Scientists at the University of Texas Center for Integrated Earth System Science recently produced a daylong conference, "Texas Drought 2012 - Are We Prepared?" and came away with a clear answer. Are we prepared? nope.
Jorge Arrayo, engineer with the Texas Water Board might have the best summary -- "how do we move from a water plan to water?" Below are a few highlights cut & paste from state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon's report. Check out his excellent blog here: http://blog.chron.com/climatea...
Texas Water Development Board -- "The number of water suppliers with water restrictions in place continues to increase despite the recent rains."
Texas Division of Emergency Management -- "There are 100-200 systems in Texas that have surface water only and are upstream of a reservoir. The cost of trucking in water to (a small community, population 6000) would be over $60,000/day.
TDEM -- "Loss of water supplies for power generation from reservoirs that are already historically low would cause rolling blackouts at a minimum. Vulnerability of industrial and chemical plants is in the process of being assessed."
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority -- "The reconstruction of June Palmer Drought Severity Index goes back to 1500 (using bald cypress tree ring data). The worst extended drought (3-10 years) in central Texas was in 1708-1717, peaking in 1716. The 1950s drought of record shows up as the third-worst extended drought, behind the one listed above and the pre-Civil War drought. In West Texas, the 1950s drought is as bad or worse than previous tree-ring droughts."
San Antonio Water System -- "Desalinization of seawater is an expensive and energy-intensive alternative, and will be more practical for San Antonio when technology is developed to allow such plants to be started up and shut down on a seasonal basis."
City of Austin -- "Drought diminishes ecosystem services (the current term for aspects of the ecosystem that are economically or aesthetically valuable), affecting water quality (reduced dilution of pollutants, concentrated nutrients and algal blooms), quality and extent of aquatic ecosystems, fire danger along newly-dried streambeds. New natural ways of treating water are threatened as well, such as drying up of ponds and failure of liners,and marsh filtration systems losing vegetation. Taking serious action on water supplies during drought crises is not the best way of dealing with long-term problems, but it seems to be the only way serious action happens."
