hughbartling.com

Last fall Michael Pollan published an open letter to the presidential candidates listing a series of policy proposals to reform food production in the US.  The current system, of course, has a bias towards large-scale, environmentally hazardous, tasteless production that has contributed to the systematic erosion of rural economies.

One of his more low-cost, and largely symbolic proposals is to have the new president establish a farming operation on the White House grounds.  Given the renaissance in urban agriculture and consumer demand for locally-grown food, having a White House farmer could raise the visibility of the localvore movement and perhaps prompt policymakers in Washington to start asking questions about the viability of our current system of incentives.
A group of activists have started a website where you can nominate a farmer for the post.  Shortly after inauguration they will send a list of nominations to the new administration.  It is unclear how Obama will react to the suggestion–although one of his favorite Chicago chefs, Rick Bayless, is a great propoent of local food systems.  It would be a great symbolic gesture to transform the ecologically-problematic White House lawn into a space of healthy productive cultivation.

One of the big challenges for the incoming Obama administration is how they intend to deal with the issue of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA can regulate GHGs, but Bush’s EPA has basically run out the clock, failing to push along the regulatory process.

On the whole, this is probably a good thing, given the penchant the Bush administration has had to gut existing environmental regulations.  However, the Obama administration is going to be inheriting a can of worms, with interest groups of every different stripe motivated to influence the regulatory process.

Following the court ruling, the EPA began taking public comment on a possible regulatory regime.  The official, intial comment period ended in November, although the EPA is still accepting late comments and posting them in the docket.

In its initial notice for proposed rulemaking, the EPA mentioned the need to control methane–a highly potent greenhouse gas.  While CO2 is the major contributor to our total greenhouse gas emissions inventory, methane (CH4) is a serious problem and livestock enteric fermentation and manure management are among the biggest sources of methane.  The EPA’s initial notice speculated about ways to manage these emissions and suggested that we look to regulating certain high-GHG agricultural practices.

This set off alarm bells in the highly-organized agribusiness community who are now interpreting any attempts at EPA regulation of livestock operations as tantamount to a “cow tax.”  There hasn’t been much coverage of this in the big metropolitan papers.  But there are scores of outraged op-eds in smaller regional papers throughout the country: for example, see the Tonawanda NY News, the Peoria IL Journal-Star, or the Aberdeen SD American News.

The fear-mongering seems to have had some impact on politicians with influential Senators such as Chuck Schumer explicitly inveighing against a “cow tax” and Republican John Thune introducing a bill to exempt livestock operations from EPA regulations.

It would be unwise to ignore the methane problem simply because of the power of agribusiness interests to skew the debate over methane regulation–but their organizational acumen and influence on the Hill. unfortunately, might make these efforts successful.

If Henry Waxman wants to make a statement that the time has arrived for a serious debate about the country’s energy future, climate change, deregulation, and policy effectiveness, his first act as the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee should be to launch hearings into last month’s coal ash spill in eastern Tennessee.

The spill of toxic-laden coal ash was the largest such spill in US history, spewing a billion gallons into a tributary of the Tennessee River.  The Teneessee Valley Authority took days to test the water and data from the test have not been publically released.  In addition, the New York Times is reporting that the TVA tests were conducted UPSTREAM from the spill.  Today the EPA released its test results and data which indicated that levels of arsenic in the water are 100 times the maximum safety threshold.

Independent tests were conducted by scientists at Appalachian State University which indicate even higher levels of arsenic as well as troubling levels of lead and thallium.

Congress needs to take a hard look at the regulations governing fly ash waste so as to insure that the possibilities of such dramatic disasters are minimized–especially as coal state politicians like Barack Obama push the canard of “clean coal” to solve our energy and climate problems.

Trapping carbon from burning coal is a separate issue from dealing with the waste.  And the fly ash waste problem is not confined to Tennessee.  A simple google news search brings up concerns with arsenic levels in Virginia, a $54 million dollar lawsuit in Maryland against Constellation Power for contaminating ground water, and energy interests stifiling proposed regulations of fly ash in Iowa.

After eight years of little federal oversight on power company operations, the Kingston Disaster should be a serious wake-up call.  It looks like Senator Boxer is doing the right thing.  She has scheduled the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to look at the Kingston Disaster next Thursday, 8 January at 10am est.  Waxman should join in.

For more information and updates on the situation in Kingston, I would recommend monitoring the websites of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy [check out their flickr stream for first hand pictures of the disaster] and the I Love Mountains coalition.  One thing that the region has going for it is a vibrant community of dedicated environmentalists.  Their efforts need support from folks across the country [and the world] for policy reform to succeed.

This has gotten almost no attention in the US press, but two days ago in Tennessee a fly ash retention pond at a coal-fired power plant was breached causing 1.7 million cubic yards of toxic sludge to flow into a tributary of the Tennessee River.

Fly ash is a byproduct of coal incineration and contains harmful levels of mercury, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals.  Luckily the plant–in Kingston, Tennessee–is not in a highly populated area, however 12 homes were damaged and scores of others saw their property littered with dead fish.  According to the head of the TVA, the sludge pit had experienced seepage in the past.

This should give caution to coal enthusiasts like incoming President Barack Obama who intends to promote what he calls “clean coal” as a method to sequester carbon in the effort to address issues of climate change.

Even if you were able to successfully sequester carbon from coal-fired power plants (a dubious proposition), it still has a host of other hazards.  In addition to the toxic sludge issue, the process of coal extraction in Appalachia is insidious as it disrupts water quality and hydrological cycles from “mountaintop removal.”  It also is an extremely dangerous industry for workers.

Hopefully Congress and Obama’s energy team will remember the spill in Kingston as they deliberate about future energy policy.

The Guardian has a report that illustrates the issue of global equity in the climate change debate.  According to an unpublished government-led energy efficiency audit of 18,000 public buildings in England and Wales, the combined CO2 emissions level exceeds that of the entire country of Kenya.

Many buildings audited received failing grades, including the office of the minister in charge of climate change policy.  The fact that 18,000 buildings in the UK generate more CO2 emissions than a country of 39 million people should offer some perspective on the position of developing countries: namely, that per capita emissions reduction targets are the proper measure of response to climate change challenges.

Today’s Chicago Sun Times reports on an ordinance that was introduced at Wednesday’s city council meeting which would effectively institute a congestion charge for downtown Chicago.

The details are sketchy, but it appears that the scheme would be less ambitious than the congestion zone for all private vehicles that you see in London.

They seem to be proposing a charge which focuses on parking and which is variable, going up or down as conditions warrant to insure a 10-15% vacancy rate. There would also be a fee levied on trucks blocking traffic whilst making deliveries.

The promising aspect of this scheme is that the money generated from the charge would be put into a congestion relief account that would fund transit and traffic modernization projects. Conceptually, the plan is on the right track. Now, we’ll have to see how the ordinance changes as it works its way through the council.

An article in the Calgary Herald discusses the focus that Canadian cities are placing on improving public transit when the federal government approves its economic stimulus plan.

I haven’t been following the Canadian discussions too closely, but I was impressed by the report saying that half of the $33 billion bailout plan will go to municipalities. It is estimated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that Canadian cities need $23 billion to meet their current transit project needs.

It will be interesting to see compare the Canadian investment in cities with the plan being developed in the US.

After only minimal progress was made towards a post-Kyoto climate treaty in Poznan last week, the coming months are going to be marked by bursts of activity on the part of member nations seeking to establish negotiating positions. Countries are going to want to be seen as being proactive in order to influence discussions in ways that serve their interests while also maintaining engagement internationally as cooperative global citizens seeking to solve the problem of global warming.

For instance, just over the past couple of days we have seen Australia and the European Union make progress on greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. With Barack Obama set to occupy the US presidency next month, there may be progress on that end, as well.

With all of this change going on, I thought it would be useful to create an interactive wiki at http://bartling.pbwiki.com to keep track of the positions of various countries as we proceed to the Bonn meeting in June and, ultimately, Copenhagen, next year.

If you go to that page, you will see that I have developed a brief template that presents the key information on mitigation strategies in a capsule form. The idea is that it can allow casual visitors to easily comprehend the general positions and actions of the major players.

The wiki allows anyone to register and make changes to the web page. I know that readers of this page come from all over the world, so I am hoping that people from various regions can contribute the latest information from their region on the wiki.

I am not sure if I have seen a compilation of each country’s position presented in one place–if something exists, please let me know in the comments or via email [Hugh (at) hughbartling.com].

As Obama gets to the end of the list of cabinet positions to fill, there is increased speculation about who might wind up as Transportation secretary.

It might be futile to speculate on the rumor mill, but I hope The Hill’s report that former Republican Representative Ray LaHood is in the running for chief of Transportation is unfounded.

It would be a vote of confidence in his green agenda if Obama appointed a smart growth guru as Transportation Secretary.  LaHood does not fit that bill.

How about Rep. Earl Blumenauer?

After President-elect Obama made his pledge earlier this month to pass an economic stimulus package that involves “the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure” since the 1950s, I had expressed a bit of concern that he mentioned building highways and roads without saying anything about mass transit.

It seems that i wasn’t the only one with concerns. The Hill reports about accelerated efforts by environmental and smart growth groups to push a package that focuses on highway maintenance, transit, and multimodal transport instead of a simple, single-minded road expansion effort. They recognize that the highway lobby has limitless resources and are attempting to be proactive in getting a green agenda heard in Congress and with the new administration.

The coalition–called Transportation for America–has called for $100 billion of the stimulus package to be spent on repairing existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, and transit), building new public transit amenities, developing inter-city high-speed rail, and making pedestrian enhancements.

One major theme of the debate is going to be how to get the most short-term economic activity going through the stimulus package. Large infrastructure projects (both highways and transit) take months of engineering & environmental studies. However, according to the Hill article, the transit coalition has identified $33 billion worth of “shovel-ready” projects.

There will be heavy lobbying on the package from well-funded industries like trucking concerns and the Chamber of Commerce who would rather see highways get priority. If the Transportation for America coalition receives a favorable response in the final legislation, it will shed some insight on the capacity of he new Democratic agenda to embody actual change.