Archive for the 'climate change' Category

New report reveals the U.S. areas facing the highest climate-related risk of water shortages

Published on 05/16/2013 in climate change and water shortage. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Retrieved from: Growing blue

“A new report from the Columbia University Water Center, in conjunction with Veolia Water and Growing Blue, reveals that businesses and cities in some of America’s most iconic regions are now under even greater risk of water scarcity.

“All cities and all businesses require water, yet in many regions, they need more water than is actually available – and that demand is growing,” said Upmanu Lall, director, Columbia Water Center. “In response, many tools have been developed to help businesses assess their water risk. But these tools actuallyunderstate the risk of climate variations. The new study reveals that certain areas face exposure to drought, which will magnify existing problems of water supply and demand.”

“Research already proves that the demands on our water systems, both urban and rural, have never been greater,” said Ed Pinero , chief sustainability officer for Veolia Water . “And in some very populated areas, this new research shows that the risk of water shortages has never been higher.”

The U.S. metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; and San Diego are of greatest concern, which could impact approximately 40 million Americans. Numerous counties in 46 states are also facing the same challenge of experiencing drought-induced shortages. Joining the metro areas on the list are the breadbasket regions of Nebraska, Illinoisand Minnesota, which produce almost 40 percent of the nation’s corn, a key ingredient in many of our foods and an essential feed source for livestock.”

Read more: PR news wire

sammykayed

Scientists Find Extensive Glacial Retreat in Mount Everest Region

Published on 05/14/2013 in climate change and glaciers. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Retrieved from: Science Daily

“Researchers taking a new look at the snow and ice covering Mount Everest and the national park that surrounds it are finding abundant evidence that the world’s tallest peak is shedding its frozen cloak. The scientists have also been studying temperature and precipitation trends in the area and found that the Everest region has been warming while snowfall has been declining since the early 1990s.

Glaciers in the Mount Everest region have shrunk by 13 percent in the last 50 years and the snowline has shifted upward by 180 meters (590 feet), according to Sudeep Thakuri, who is leading the research as part of his PhD graduate studies at the University of Milan in Italy.

The researchers suspect that the decline of snow and ice in the Everest region is from human-generated greenhouse gases altering global climate. However, they have not yet established a firm connection between the mountains’ changes and climate change, Thakuri said.

“The Himalayan glaciers and ice caps are considered a water tower for Asia since they store and supply water downstream during the dry season,” said Thakuri. “Downstream populations are dependent on the melt water for agriculture, drinking, and power production.”

Read more: Science Daily

sammykayed

400 ppm: Overcoming the Grind of Reality to Revitalise the Dream

Published on 05/12/2013 in climate change, energy, management and policy. 0 Comments

Retrieved from The Guardian

 

400 ppm: Overcoming the Grind of Reality to Revitalise the Dream

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

Well friends, its been some time since I’ve last written. So much has happened in these past few weeks, but one story in particular grabs me. I hope you forgive the near cliche of it. Take this piece as a meditation, and a call to action.

In our status quo struggle we’ve crossed the rubicon folks, and in the worst way. We’ve now reached CO2 levels of 400 ppm. That atmospheric concentration hasn’t been seen for millions of years, on a very different Earth. Measured by that cornerstone of global climate science, the Mauna Loa Observatory, this single reading has sparked a fierce debate among climate advocates and activists. The speed of change is atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide has been devastating. The fossil economy status quo marches on, its progression not even halted by economic chaos. Our focus must be on what to do about it.

What does this milestone mean for the Nexus?  A complex question, one we make take decades in attempting to answer. A question the likes of which will hopefully spark up a brilliant global conversation with countless papers, essays, books and most importantly calls to action.

To start with, here’s my easy answer: in sheer practical terms Nexus thinking will have to be increasingly recognised as not only useful but an existential necessity. In a world of increasingly complex weather systems policymakers must become much more acutely aware of the interconnections between these essential resource systems- shifting rains means shifting water consumption and agricultural planning which all shift energy systems. For those of us in the UK, just look to the fluctuations of extreme precipitation over the past few years. British farmers have struggled to keep up with droughts, the flooding and mutations of the seasons. Water crises are springing up and worsening the world over. An integrated strategic policy regime will be essential to manage not just the transition to the new realities of a 400+ ppm planet but everything that comes with it. This not only includes the complex science of feedback mechanisms and tipping points, but of the policy decisions of private and public sectors all around us. There’s more to it than even this.

The hard answer has to do with the contingencies and harsh new realities crossing the 400 ppm milestone portends. The 400 ppm is a somewhat arbitrary marker in terms of policy-having now crossed it does little to impact our current trajectory. Its a symbol, a signpost decades ago folks strove to ensure we’d avoid and one we must now come to terms with. Two thoughts struck me immediately upon first reading the news: the stakes just got orders of magnitude more severe and a numbing sense of impotence. The longer we take to stabilise and then cut emissions, the worse the cumulative and synergistic effects. Worse for me is the bitter taste of it all, that up till now the decades long fight to circumvent destructive anthropogenic climate change has failed spectacularly, devastatingly. With the industrial rise of China and India and many other states on their way it makes one wonder if in fact we should expect emissions to accelerate in the coming years. Its the kind of thing to inspire nihilism in the most passionate of dreamers. Particularly when one looks to the current state of affairs in North America and Europe. These regions and their states locked into other battles and fundamental debates or actively undermining climate, sustainable energy and environmental policy. That nexus of interconnections will in fact exacerbate the dangers.What do you with that, when the victories turn so small and stale and when the path looks irreversible?

In philosophy and fundamental introspection we can find our answers to this. Each of you must sort this in your own way; not along, together with your fellows yes, but recognising there is no universal solution. There is no hope, no meaning but that which we make for ourselves or can recognise in the world.

My personal starting point is the more nihilistic realism- recognising both the grim failures and the brilliant green shoots growing beneath them. Yes, it does not look good right now and yes as far as I can tell today we have little hope of succeeding. At the same time there is an incredible array of people and organisations around the world working on all the different dimensions of these problems every day, dedicating their lives in pursuit of real change. And they are succeeding, constantly. The problem is, that wave which is their collective has yet to crest. And much as before, even when change is achieved it is by no means permanent or always constructive. Just look to the 1992 Rio conference and its aftermath for the former and the historic approach of conservation policy to human-nature bounds for the latter. One of the few certainties I see is that the road ahead holds even more pitfalls and danger than the struggle behind. And such opportunity, such promise.

In accepting what I see as the simple lay of the land as I have to deal with it, my motivation gets much simpler. This reality touches every part of the human experience, a real problem we can fix. As big as the challenges are in climate, environmental, water, energy, etc. policy they are all based on conditions subject to change. Economies boom and bust, politics stagnates and revitalises. And that is the key of it, the world is in constant flux. Transitions of the kind i’m working towards in energy and water have happened before, and will happen again. In a complex sequence of events what once seemed impossible wrecks the incumbent momentum and replaces the establishment. The industrial revolution was fed on coal, the 20th century on oil. Grounded in a realistic understanding of present conditions, we can study and facilitate these transition elements. The energy-water Nexus in all its interconnections will play a vital role.

Revolutions don’t come easy. The cost will be high, hope for success low. To come anywhere close, we face an odyssey. A new 21st century global transition awaits at the end of that horizon.

Dare we try?

~Miles On Water

milesonwater

Safe drinking water disappearing fast in Bangladesh

Published on 05/10/2013 in climate change, contaminated water and water shortage. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Bangladesh drinking water

Retrieved from: The Guardian

“The availability of safe drinking water, particularly in Bangladesh’s hard to reach areas, is expected to worsen as the country experiences the effects of climate change, experts say.

“According to a study by the World Bank’s water and sanitation programme, about 28 million Bangladeshis, or just over 20% of the population, are living in harsh conditions in the “hard-to-reach areas” that make up a quarter of the country’s landmass. The study found that char – land that emerges from riverbeds as a result of the deposit of sediments – is among the most inaccessible, along with hilly areas, coastal regions and haors – bowl-shaped wetland areas in north-east Bangladesh.

“People living in hard-to-reach areas are often vulnerable to natural calamities like flooding, riverbank erosion and siltation,” said Rokeya Ahmed, a water and sanitation specialist at the World Bank. “As a result of climate change, salinity in Bangladesh’s coastal areas has increased [a great deal], causing a lack of sweet water. Women in coastal and haor areas need to go miles to collect a pitcher of safe drinking water.”

Read more: The Guardian

sammykayed

Desal or Not?- Big Meets Small in the Nexus with the Future Up for Grabs

Published on 03/19/2013 in climate change, desalination, drought, energy, graywater, management, policy, tap water, water conservation, water filtering, water rights and water shortage. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Centerpeace.org

 

Desal or Not?- Big Meets Small in the Nexus with the Future Up for Grabs

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

Desalinisation is a fascinating expression of the water-energy nexus, and its inherent contention. Though there are many technical approaches to actually achieving the desired results, the idea is simply to produce fresh water from salt water. Depending upon your perspective, this technology and it likely approach to water management can generally be one of two things- a brilliant technical fix or a socio-environmental nightmare.

Regardless of one’s positionality, there is a strong backing (powerful stakeholders some of whom have access to lots of capital) for desalinisation and the problem it purports to solve will only spread out and increase in intensity over time. Should it prove technically feasible at some signifiant scale, we may see more than just demonstration plants in the next ten years and increasing commercialisation by 2050. An interesting question for folks considered about more than just security of supply is the sustainability of desal technologies. One interesting prospect for instance is the potential for solar powered desalination.

This past month has been incredibly busy for me, in no small way due to progress on my pursuit of a PhD. As I’ve moved through the application process the project has been refined and my ideas polished. My focus will be on arid case studies, places with scarcity of both energy and water (a major hypothesis being that there’s cross causality there). The conditions that make desal look viable, its potential impacts and the socio-technical system itself all exemplify this. As a part of a centralised resource management plan, desal would include both energy for water (the desalinisation process itself is extremely energy intensive, and so is moving around all that water from points of production to its diffused consumption)  and water for energy (centralised power which is usually produced using large thermal electricity plants which consume fuels such as coal, gas and uranium often use water as their primary coolant). Desalinisation in many ways represents a central dualism in socio-environmental policymaking, one I hope to explore at length in my research.

That is, between two broad scales of technology and governance structures- technocratic centralisation vs. democratised dispersion (for those of you familiar with energy policy, its essentially Amory Lovin’s Road Not Taken- Hard Path vs. Soft Path, with more socio-political considerations added in). Briefly now let me tool this apart before going back to Desal and a specific case. On one hand you have the technology on a continuum of degree of centralisation (really just big vs. small). Think nuclear power plant versus solar panel. On the other you have decision making, and how it’s concentrated. In a strong technocratic system, its an unelected elite of experts making all the calls with little or no transparency and access by other stakeholders. The opposite of that would be a system with very diffuse decision-making with non-experts and regular folks having a lot of input in a very open system. Its your classic top-down versus bottom-up divide. Even with water and the Nexus itself I often relate things back to this thinking. To keep it simple lets just think of it as big vs. small (both in tech and governance).

Near the end of February, the New York Times published a piece on the development of a $1 billion desalinisation plant in Carlasbad, California which began construction in late 2012. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has agreed to purchase 48,000 acre-feet of water (one of the main units of measure in water policy, one acre-foot being equivalent to about 326,000 American gallons) per year at $2,000 an acre-foot. This will supply 7% of total water supplies for 30 years.

Beyond of the socio-environmental considerations of this reverse-osmosis plant the central debate in the area is on cost. Both the firm building the plant, Poseidon Resources and the SDCWA are betting on a continuation and acceleration of the trend in rising water demand.  In its scenario calculations the SDCWA estimates that this may be cheaper than status quo cost projections by 2024. They currently get their water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for about $1000 per acre-foot. Its a gamble, but both the agency, the firm and their backers argue that in a time of dwindling fresh water supplies and growth demand will inevitably rise. Critics, both from environmental NGOs and independent research institute argue strongly that not only will this raise consumer water bills but also electricity as more energy is needed to power the plant, and that there’s no guarantee on the development of the region’s shifting thirst. Their proposed alternative is greater investment in demand side management (DSM), that there isn’t a need for a supply-driven drive to forge a new market for desal plants to solve our water crisis.

This is a classic case of big vs. small. Right now there’s only one other commercial scale desal plant in the US- in Tampa Bay, Florida. It’s not been a dramatic success for the burgeoning industry, lots of costly mistakes. That goes with the territory, risks are always higher at the opening of a market. Over time the costs may go down and with the right governmental support there very well may be a boom. The problem is that even should one accept it as a viable and acceptable approach, desalinisation will in all likelihood dis-incentivise water conservation & reuse and investment in efficiency. Think about it, you invest all this money and sign a contract for guaranteed supply. If you can reach a point where this becomes the new cheap option, why go back to sorting out your demand?

It really does matter where you start. From a supply orientation (big) you have a shortage that needs to be plugged by any means necessary and using economies of scale. Demand orientation (little) means focusing on using what’s already available more effectively and working to change the conditions that caused the shortage to begin with. The former generally does little to curb demand growth and is resource inefficient, but the latter risks supply insecurity if DSM isn’t effective enough.

I’m going to leave you all with a rather unfair quandary now, a dichotomy (of sorts) to revisit soon. No matter what we decide, we set ourselves down a trajectory which may not be easy to change further down the line. This is infrastructure we’re talking about, decisions made at one moment will shape decades to come.

Question is, which do we bet our money on?

~ Miles on Water

 

 

milesonwater

Activism and the Nexus: Shaping Policy

Published on 02/28/2013 in climate change, coal, energy, fracking, mining, natural gas drilling, policy, solutions and outreach and tar sands. 0 Comments

Retrieved from GRIID.org

Activism & the Nexus: Shaping Policy

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

Activism is a force to be reckoned with. This simple truth is one easy to forget in the grim utilitarian realm of policy analysis. It’s a factor that depending upon your given governance structure is easy to shove off to the side as secondary. When the problems seem so big, when you’re working at a global system change the contributions of active engaged individuals can seem so small to be insignificant.

You might find yourself starting to ask brutal questions. What voice does the little guy have when the big players have such loud lobbyists? Given their diffuse and often ephemeral nature what influence can grassroots movements really have on decision makers?-So easy to do, and so damning.

Lucky for me I’ve got you folks in the Peak Water network and friends around the world constantly reminding me of this. People power can wield enormous influence, regardless of the particular creed it amplifies. In the pursuit of a truly sustainable global energy-water- climate system transition it’s these movements that give moral purpose and a groundswell of democratic legitimacy. They animate  people, engaging them in the complexities of the problem while helping them grow into change agents.

Right now across the United States there is a movement to divest public institutions from fossil fuels. In this column I’m going to highlight the efforts of the folks in the University of California pushing for such change.

As of 20 February 2013 the University of California, San Diego student government joined their fellows at the Berkeley and Santa Barbara campuses in passing a resolution to fully divest its portfolio from fossil fuel funds. Equal parts inspired by the 350.org call to action and the success of the anti-Apartheid divestments of the 80s and 90s the movement is as much about a moral revolution as climate change mitigation. The college campaign in California has largely been coordinated by the California Student Sustainability Coalition (CSSC) which coordinates environmental actions by students across the state.

At Berkeley the charge is being led by senior Katie Hoffman, her tireless efforts leading the team at Cal through their unsuccessful campaign in 2011 to divest the UC from coal companies all the way through to the current momentum of the day. That is, of UC Berkeley’s student government setting a vital new precedent by voting to divest. Katie is an old friend; we first met as transfer students to the Society & Environment B.S. programme at UC Berkeley a few years back.

I’ve watched her work, witnessed her passion and drive first hand. I have seen what she and all the other activists in the CSSC have accomplished.  I can see what they’re capable of. Expect more big things to come! To have been there at the start and to be here now is an incredible privelege, even from across the Atlantic. Katie and all the other folks on the ground across California and the whole United States pushing forward with divestment are a true and continued inspiration.

Some would scoff at the arrogant naivety of students, denying them even the pleasure of small victories. Such folks need only look at the million dollar funds at the disposal of UC student governments to see how wrong they are. This is a targeted movement, with specific and modular goals. Across the country they’re succeeding and their campaigns are growing.

All of this has profound implications for not only how we concieve of each and every sutainability nexus but the pathways we choose to realize them.  To bear witness to, even join, movements such as these opens your eyes to the possibility of a democratised and decentralised (both of technologies and governance) transition. That is, of a radical departure from the status quo and viable in a multitude of different manifestations. Yes, activism is but one complex piece but  what a vital part yet!  

The choice we face is not simply between different technical and economic structures, so too is it a resolution on how we are to conduct ourselves-a new order to things. It’s about governance, and strategic decision making. Grassroots organizing, direct action, advocacy and all the other forms must orient towards this truth. From the ground up and back down again how we choose must be reshaped. In radical, chaotic little steps we may yet solve the riddle of the sustainability nexus.

Activism is about policy, an imperfect and fragile evolution.

~ Miles on Water

milesonwater

Parting the Radioactive Water: Can the Nexus Guide Us Through Our Nuclear Legacy?

Published on 02/23/2013 in climate change, contaminated water, energy, management, nuclear power and policy. 0 Comments

Retrieved from the Guardian

 

Parting the Radioactive Water: Can the Nexus Guide Us Through Our Nuclear Legacy?

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

Not so long ago it seemed that the 21st century was going to be the era of Nuclear Renaissance. A global industry which had largely stagnated after the 80s in a post Three Miles Island and Chernobyl world found powerful resurgence in the 2000s. The argument and now is generally framed along a cost-benefit landscape dotted with divergent rhetorical flair. It reached a zenith with climate change mitigation- in electricity generation nuclear power produces negligible (or zero depending on the calculation) carbon emissions. It can replace coal to provide baseload power and drastically reduce emissions- a vision of the future (again).
Today when folks talk about low-carbon versus renewable in alternative energy debates the low-carbon means either nuclear or carbon capture and storage, but mostly nuclear (CCS hasn’t been commercialised yet as a whole socio-technical system, not even at demonstration scale yet actually). The argument has held enormous sway and is still heavily influential, particularly in the UK. I’m far from a champion of nuclear power, but theoretically this positive potential is real. Particularly in comparison to coal, depending upon your risk parameters nuclear power can almost be benign.
Along every step of the commodity chain from exploration to generating electricity coal is marked by inefficiency and negative externalities (economics’ fun euphemism for those costs to socio-natural health not included in price). Look no further than mountaintop removal and strip mining, or coal’s emission profile relative to almost any other source. Its easy to see why some folks in the environmental and climate change communities push nuclear as a real alternative.
Its my estimation however that the most accurate and holistic accounts of the life cycle costs of nuclear energy are still damning. Setting aside issues of cost, decision making  or general policy implications the problem is that the uranium still has to be mined and the waste dealt with. Both have considerable socioenvironmental impacts, potential and realised. Water for energy is exemplified by nuclear power, acting as a constant vital coolant. Its in this arena we face the Nexus full force (though of course it pervades the entire energy chain up to and including reactor coolants).
Contemporary developments in nuclear power have come to be defined by this. Yes, I’m going to start here with Fukushima. A set of reactors on the coast, dependent upon sea water and in a seismically active region. An earthquake and tsunami devastated the Japanese coastline and helped initiate one of the worst industrial disasters the world has seen.
Through sea-level rise and increased storm severity climate change poses a grave threat to this kind of nuclear system. They tend to be built on coastlines, anywhere close to readily available source of water for cooling .The threat is far from insurmountable, but considerable. the world has taken notice, and the drive for more nuclear power which had already slowed ground to a halt as the disaster unfolded. Fukushima was the inflection point for nuclear, in all likelihood the death knell of the Renaissance. Japan and Germany renounced nuclear power, expansion around the world stagnating. The industry and all its challenges continue all the same.
In Washington state six underground storage tanks are leaking radioactive waste. The threat currently seems to manageable, potentially threatening the area’s soil and groundwater but far from contaminating the Columbia river.  There are however 149 single-shell tanks at the Hanford facility filled with waste and previous leaks have damaged the soil already. The tanks are ageing, leaks are more and more likely. One tank for instance was leaking 150-300 gallons per annum of radioactive fluid. Developing the right policies to deal with this waste once its been produced is extremely difficult.
The US is a major producer of nuclear waste but doesn’t have a strategic solution. The planned national storage facility at Yucca Mountain outside of Las Vegas has been effectively shut down. Just about every major politician in Nevada has been fighting the federal government against the Yucca project for years. There’s mass opposition at all levels. Coming from that area you develop a strong aversion to any such proposal, whether or not its well informed. Not only was the potency of nuclear waste as a symbol at work, but folks just couldn’t see any benefit for them in taking in the country’s waste. When locals especially can’t find an economic benefit the legitimacy of big infrastructural projects stands on shaking ground. Much as I do personally support the opposition it makes a tough policy area all the more complex.
This adds further pressure on facilities like Hanford and exemplifies the strident NIMBYism of nuclear waste in the US and UK. The UK too has a waste problem and planned to build an underground storage centre in Cumbria. Its the site of both the world renowned Lake District and the Sellafield nuclear facilities. Last month the county council voted down the proposal, killing off for now the hopes of a central holding site. Cumbria was really the only viable place currently available, and with so many residents dependent on nuclear power for jobs and the proximity to reactors and current holding sites made it ideal.
As with Hanford, at Sellafield and nuclear sites all across the UK and US the kit is ageing and ageing rough. In the past mass dumping, such as into the Irish Sea has been acceptable and left a legacy of radioactivity, ecological destruction and socio-political strife in its wake. Historic uranium mining has shattered the land, water and people of Southwestern reservations in the US. The waste is there and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future no matter what energy choices are made. The legacy of the atomic age is inescapable.
The question is how that waste is managed, and may the Water-Energy Nexus be a guide.
~ Miles on Water

 

milesonwater

Can Jakarta ever root out the problems that cause so much destruction after every monsoon season?

Published on 02/19/2013 in climate change, contaminated water, displacement of people, floods, greenwashing, hydrology, management, policy, rivers, wastewater and waterborne diseases. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.inquirer.net

“Jakarta, Indonesia, is one of Asia’s most flood-prone cities. Every year hundreds of thousands of citizens living in the capital of Southeast Asia’s largest economy brace for the loss of business, shelter and livelihoods.

Each year, as the rainy season approaches, the authorities insist they are ready to counter the tides of brown murky water, trash, and even animals, surging downstream. But the annual city-wide submergence continues.

This year’s sustained downpour threatens to prompt the kind of flooding not seen since 2007 when 350,000 people were evacuated from water-logged areas and dozens were killed. Already, at least 100,000 people have been affected. Army personnel have been deployed to some of the city’s poorest parts to clean up – a process likely to take weeks, if not months.

Asia’s monsoon season prompts annual debate about the state of infrastructure and the fundamental mismanagement of vital systems meant to keep some of the world’s biggest cities moving. With a population of 10 million, Jakarta’s latest battle to stem the tide highlights a deeper political and social problem: The government’s inability to remove and rehabilitate low-lying slum areas; an unwillingness on part of thousands of poor people to leave dangerous areas despite the risk to themselves and their families; and the overwhelming problem of waste and dumping, often cited as the biggest hindrance to keeping Indonesia “flood-free”.

Indonesia faces a formidable challenge: The country’s economy is growing at breakneck speed, its population is rising and the pressures on its decaying systems are mounting. The World Bank has stepped in to help save what it describes as a “sinking city”, due to rising sea levels, trash and annual rain. To dig the city out of its mess, the World Bank has invested $200 million to dredge parts of Jakarta.”

Read more: Aljazeera

 

lily victoria

The Folks Behind the PGC- Coalitions, Mixed Markets and People Power

Published on 02/19/2013 in climate change, energy, management, policy, solutions and outreach and water conservation. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Water.ca.gov

 

The Folks Behind the PGC- Coalitions, Mixed Markets and People Power

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

California is a like a nation-state unto itself with particular brand of policymaking and political culture. In every major arena there is a multitude of different actors and institution contending for the greatest influence over the shape and direction of policy. Coalitions are formed and broken in a landscape sometimes defined by cooperation, sometimes competition or contention. Its a place rife with endless acronyms, inspiring the most inebriating of drinking games. Let’s delve in shall we.

There are three main groups of actors involved in historical and ongoing development of the PGC: regulatory and policy agencies, the utilities (public and private) and the governors of the state (not just the legislature and executive but the voters themselves).  That is, so far as I’ve found now.

Both the electricity and water retail markets in California have a mixed structure, between Public Owned Utilities (POUs) and Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs). Although an early pioneer in privatisation of electricity in the 90s the state has moved to a more mixed ownership and management paradigm. In fact the water and electricity markets are inverse of one another, with electricity 80%-private 20% public and water 20% private- 80% public.

Though there are many, six key agencies dominate the water-energy nexus: the Air Resources Board (ARB), Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Energy Commission (CEC), Natural Resource Agency (CNRA), Department of Water Resources (DWR)  and Water-Energy Team of the Climate Action Team (WetCat).

The first two are most important; the ARB through its regulation of air emissions in California spearheads climate change mitigation and the CPUC regulates all water and energy utilities. The next most important agencies deal directly with energy and water respectively- the CEC and DWR. All energy-water-climate change nexus policymaking, whether interconnected or in silo, flows from and through these groups. The last one is a coalition of folks from local, state and federal agencies charged  by the ARB through its 2008 Scoping Plan to develop and implement the most effective climate change policy at their disposal. WetCat itself is the cornerstone of efforts to develop truly strategic nexus policy, ensuring the smooth exchange of information and inter-agency cooperation.

The proportion that stood out most to me when I was doing my research is that 80% of water in California is public owned. Its surprisingly high in an era of ever increasing public goods privatisation. Most of the water is managed municipally, a subject I’m sure my Peak Water colleagues can speak to in great detail. My personal experience is limited to having paid the water bill to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) at my flat in Berkeley. Ideally this means that the resource is managed there in the interest of the public rather than shareholder returns while maintaining the efficiencies of a mixed market (assuming of course that state run enterprises are less efficient, which is open to contention). The key to the PGC is that it could operate as a price signal for water conservation in this semi-privatised market and provide a steady source of funding for sustainable water management.

The electricity market is dominated by three large companies which on their own account for nearly all that 80% private market share- San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE).  On a side note, the Big 3 have made interesting progress on renewables procurement  in 2012 with 20.3%, 19.3% and 20.6% of total electricity generation respectively. Though still nowhere near where it should be to avoid the worst effect of climate change, compare that to only 11.7% in the UK at the end of 2012. Food for thought, though of course comparing apples and oranges (but still, SCE is nearly double the UK!). Though this market is heavily dominated by these three firms, there are many other smaller companies and a fair share of POUs still operating. As with water, most of them are municipal.

Finally, you have the decision makers. The role of the legislature is obvious, the impact of the executive much less so. Both the current state governor, Jerry Brown, and his predecessor (Arnold Schwarzenegger) have been champions of climate change mitigation. When in 2011 the state legislature failed to renew the electricity PGC as it passed its sunset mark Governor Brown sent an official letter to the CPUC asking that it use its mandate to ensure that the vital programs funded by the PGC continue into 2012, to find new funding for the year (which the CPUC did). As is common with American politicians he framed the issue around job creation and clean energy.

The most intriguing category of actors in the state to me however has to be the electorate. Its a very imperfect system, heavily influenced by big money and special interests but the California referendum system has been and will continue to be full of promise and potential. In California if you get enough signatures and the right funding your initiative can get onto the ballot in any local or statewide election. Ideally the sheer weight of multitudinous ballot propositions will create a more informed and engaged electorate. The jury’s still out.

Democracy is messy and chaotic, no more so than when the people themselves have a direct say on how they are to be governed. When done right though, there is nothing more democratically legitimate than a policy the people themselves have voted into effect. Or in the case of 2010′s Proposition 23, when the people overwhelming vote a proposition down. Its a particularly proud moment in my career, being a part of the massive grassroots campaign to refuse a ballot initiative which would have smothered California’s climate policy in its cradle. People power is a beautiful thing.

Today you can watch another movement unfold, as around the United States students are rising up to demand that their universities divest from fossil fuels. In fact this spread across the country beyond universities to cities and a national campaign modelled on Apartheid divestment in the 80s. Its with particular pride I can point to the efforts at my alma matter, where the Cal student senate has voted to divest its $3 million investment portfolio with pressures mounting to convince the UC Regents to divest the whole UC system. Nexus policymaking will have to contend with this people power as it evolves, hopefully channelling the most constructive elements into truly sustainable resource management.

Perhaps in the near future these coalitions, mixed markets and active state residents will come together to forge a new suite of Energy-Water PGCs.

~ Miles on Water

milesonwater

Protesters Call On Obama To Reject Keystone XL Pipeline

Published on 02/18/2013 in aquatic ecosystems, climate change, groundwater, oil and policy. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.guardian.co.uk

“Tens of thousands of protesters turned out on the National Mall Sunday to encourage President Obama to make good on his commitment to act on climate change.

In his Inaugural address from outside the U.S. Capitol, the president said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Just a few weeks later, next to the Washington Monument, Paul Birkeland was one of a couple dozen people holding a long white tube above their heads.

“It’s a backbone. It’s a spine. The idea is to ask the president to have some spine and stand up to oil companies. And reject the Keystone Pipeline,” Birkeland says.

The activists are focusing on the Keystone XL pipeline because it would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. To make this oil, companies use complex extraction and processing techniques that use a lot of energy. So it has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than conventional crude.”

Read more: NPR

 

lily victoria