Archive for the 'solutions and outreach' Category

Billboard in Peru creates drinking water from humidity: 15,000 litres produced

Published on 05/15/2013 in solutions and outreach and water technology. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Retrieved from: The Drum

“A billboard in Bujama, Peru, which creates drinking water from humidity in the air, has produced 15,000 litres of water in six months.

Co-produced by outdoor advertising owner ClearChannel Peru and researchers at UTEC, University of Engineering and Technology in Lima, the billboard cost US $32,600 to set-up.

William Eccleshare, CEO of ClearChannel Outdoor, said: “This is outdoor advertising at its most inspiring: embracing new technology, working in partnership with a host of agencies and delivering a lasting benefit to the people of Bujama.”

On average, 15 to 18 families arrive at the billboard to access the water every day, which is stored in tanks at the top of the structure, and then filtered before flowing down a pipe to a tap that is accessible to all who walk past.”

Read more: The Drum

sammykayed

De-silvering the Mirror: Mining for Film in the Owens Valley

Published on 04/25/2013 in contaminated water, solutions and outreach and water shortage. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

liminal camera through silo cams lens.

“It is a little-known and poignant fact that some of the silver and chemicals to produce the films that made Hollywood the global center of the movie industry were extracted from the Owens Valley and environs. As if it weren’t enough that Los Angeles drained water from the Eastern Sierra to expand into the San Fernando Valley, its major industry and part of the reason for the city’s growth were also being supported through mining in the same region, an ecological double jeopardy. Los Angeles artist Lauren Bon and her Metabolic Studio are using this set of entwined histories to make visible the effects of the historic resource extraction on both the Owens Valley and the city to the south.

“The snow-fed waters that flow down the Eastern Sierra and into the Owens Valley once watered its substantial agriculture before terminating in Owens Lake. After William Mulholland opened the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913 to capture and transport those waters to the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the valley’s agriculture became unsustainable and the 108-square-mile lake began to dry up. By 1924, Owens Lake no longer held water year-round. In 2006, Los Angeles was forced by a dust-mitigation lawsuit to begin re-watering 60 miles of the river, with the result that approximately 27 square miles of the lakebed are now flooded, a ghost of the lake that was.”

Read more: KCET

sammykayed

Communicating water science to policymakers: are we missing the point?

Published on 04/20/2013 in management and solutions and outreach. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Retrieved from: CDPF

“A recent article from The Guardian Higher Education Network blog entitled “How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for a better conversation” provided ideas to help scholars better convey research to policymakers. It explained appropriate times for sharing academic information, how to communicate with policy officials, and how to create relationships with policymakers. This article exemplifies the dominant science and policy discourse of the day – scientists have a hard time communicating their research to policymakers who need this information to make important decisions.

“Sheila Jasanoff from Harvard described, as stated by Eva Lövbrand in “Pure Science or Policy Involvement“, co-production as “a dynamic process by which science and society continually shape, constitute, and validate one another”. Mike Hulme further delineated Jasanoff’s perspective in “What Sorts of Knowledge for what sort of politics?” saying she would argue for “deliberation and participation across all relevant questions”. Charis Thompson from UC Berkeley said co-production processes for science and technology knowledge creation in society occur through “developments around representation, identity, discourse, and institutions”.

“So what does this mean for the lay person trying to understand the creation of water science knowledge in society? It means there is always societal influence on knowledge rooted in science and policy. Or in simpler terms, science is never fully insulated from policy. And societal influence can be varied depending on the type of science conducted.”

Read more:

sammykayed

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

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

The California Public Goods Charge- A Tantalising First Glimpse of Policy Success?

Published on 02/07/2013 in climate change, drought, energy, management, peak water, policy, solutions and outreach, water conservation, water rights and water technology. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Water.ca.gov

 

The California Public Goods Charge- A Tantalising First Glimpse of Policy Success?

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

Today, I’ll be writing about a fascinating Nexus case-study I’ve recently come across in my research. That is, of the California policy programme around a Public Goods Charge (PGC). Basically this is a charge added to consumer utility bills which both potentially serves as a price signal for conservation and provides funding for public interest projects related to that utility (there’s a more technical and perhaps more accurate definition but that’s the main gist of it).

Currently there is no PGC in California, but there was one previously and the potential for one specifically built around the Water-Energy Nexus. From about 1996-2011, California had a PGC on electricity but the state legislature failed to renew it and so the policy ended 1st January 2012. There are however efforts to reinstate the kWh PGC, and perhaps even more interestingly to implement a new water PGC.

In this entry I’m going to lay out the basics- how the CA PGC regime came about and what it entails. Later on I’ll cover who’s involved and what’s been done (some details on the policy mechanisms). After that, a longer-form entry making an initial policy analysis.

The original PGC was born out of an era in California policymaking history I’m not all that keen for but which has shaped the very face of its contemporary development- deregulation and market liberalisation during the mid 90s into the early 2000s. A PGC is indelibly a market mechanism, an approach which over the past 40 years has come to dominate policy thinking around the world (to my estimation, especially in the US and UK). Much has been written about the market liberalisation of western economies since the 70s, of the Thatcherite years in the UK and US Reagonomics among  many other examples. California, especially its energy sector, was heavily shaped over this period of largely neoliberal governance.

In my early, and yes I very well may not only revise but entirely reverse my position as I learn more, estimation however the 1996-2011 PGC is actually a successful mixed command-and-control/market mechanism instrument (and the same is probably true of those proposed PGCs). For better or worse, its been described as a green tax, with consumers bearing the cost. In a subsequent entry I’ll delve more into the political economics, but it seems thus far that it was not (and likely will not be) an undue burden with public benefit far outweighing costs. This is arguably so even for the consumers paying it. So far as I’ve read through the grey literature (fun catchall term for governmental, regulatory, policy analysis and media coverage of policies) I’m liking what I see.

An energy and/or water PGC increases the cost of consumption and can provide funding for nexus public interest programs. When the kWh one was still around it brought money to the state’s energy efficiency, renewables generation, renewables R&D and low-income assistance efforts with a prioritisation of energy efficiency and low-income assistance. It was relatively low-cost. A water PGC would most likely help to fund Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) primarily for water conservation and efficiency. The great potential utility of linking this into IRWMPs is the principles of subsidiarity and localism- that you should govern at the most effective scale for the issue and that in the case of water resource management this is at the regional and local levels.

Really this all comes back to down to climate change, and California’s mitigation legislation AB 32 and the Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan. That is, to achieve a reduction by 2050 of 80% 1990 level emissions and by 2020 of 30% 1990 level emissions. One of the state’s primary strategies towards achieving this is energy and water efficiency, of explicitly thinking about the Nexus.  From desalinisation to water treatment and simply pumping the resource from place to place water is very energy intensive.  At the same time, from petrol to power stations the energy system too consumes a lot of water. The destructive impacts not only can be minimised but must be, for the general socio-natural welfare and not just emissions targets. The PGC regime has the potential to play a very important and dynamic role in ensuring the coalition of actors engaged in this endeavour come through successfully.

More to come on this fascinating subject, stay tuned!

~ Miles on Water

milesonwater

EU falls short on Africa water projects

Published on 09/28/2012 in solutions and outreach and water shortage. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Retrieved from: The post

“More than half of the European Union’s projects to provide safe drinking water
in sub-Saharan Africa failed to deliver, the EU’s audit watchdog said in a
report on Friday.

“The report by the European Court of Auditors examined 23 projects co-funded
by the EU in six African countries between 2001 and 2010. The audit found that
the projects, at a total cost of 400 million euros ($514 million), often lacked
sufficient supervision and that checks were not always carried out to ensure
that water was fit for human consumption.

“The authors said that while equipment was usually installed properly, local
communities did not receive enough support to manage the projects long
term.

“Fewer than half of the projects examined delivered results meeting the beneficiaries’ needs,” the auditors said in a 43-page report.

“In one case in Nigeria, boreholes and pumps relied on an unreliable electricity grid, with diesel generators installed as back-ups. But the high cost of diesel meant that the back-ups were largely unused and towns returned to using unsafe sources of water.

“The EU spent 1.01 billion euros ($1.3 billion) on water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa from 2001 to 2010, but the World Bank and the United Nations say that between $8 billion and $11.8 billion would be required each year until 2015 to reach the millennium goal on water and sanitation. ($1 = 0.7775 euros)”

read more: Reuters

sammykayed

Beyond Big Dams: Turning to Grass Roots Solutions on Water

Published on 09/14/2012 in agriculture, climate change, dams, drought, hydrology, hydropower, peak water, policy, rivers, solutions and outreach, tar sands, water conservation, water diversions, water shortage, water technology, water wars and world water supply. 0 Comments

Photo retrieved from: www.360.yale.edu

“Cheap pumps and new ways of powering them are transforming farming and boosting income all over Africa and Asia,” says Meredith Giordano, lead author of a three-year research project looking at how smallholder farmers are turning their backs on governments and finding their own solutions to water problems.

“We were amazed at the scale of what is going on,” Giordano says. Indian farmers have an estimated 20 million pumps at work watering their fields. As many as 200 million Africans benefit from the crops they water. And in addition to pumps, she notes, “simple tools for drilling wells and capturing rainwater have enabled many farmers to produce more crops in the dry season, hugely boosting their incomes.”

Read more: Yale Environment 360

lily victoria

A 12 Step Program to Stopping Drought and Desertification

Published on 08/03/2012 in agriculture, desertification, drought, erosion, groundwater, management, peak water, solutions and outreach, water conservation, water shortage and world water supply. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.greenprophet.com

“Soaring temperatures and low precipitation could not occur at a worse time for many farmers in the United States, and around the world. Intensifying drought conditions are affecting corn and soybean crops throughout the Midwest, raising grain prices as well as concerns about future food prices.

The US Drought Monitor reports that 88 percent of this year’s corn crop and 77 percent of the soybean crop are now affected by the most severe drought since 1988. In response the Worldwatch Institutelaunched a 12 step guide to combatting drought and desertification. These tips can be used by policy makers around the world and in dry climates in the Middle East. Read on for the list.

1. Agroforestry: Planting trees in and around farms reduces soil erosion by providing a natural barrier against strong winds and rainfall. Tree roots also stabilize and nourish soils. The 1990 Farm Bill established the USDA National Agroforestry Center with the expressed aim of encouraging farmers to grow trees as windbreaks or as part of combined forage and livestock production, among other uses. See Green Prophet’s feature on the Nabateans to see how this idea can be applied in the Middle East.

2. Soil management: Alternating crop species allows soil periods of rest, restores nutrients, and also controls pests. Soil amendments, such as biochar, help soils retain moisture near the surface by providing a direct source of water and nutrients to plant roots, even in times of drought.”

Read more: Green Prophet

 

lily victoria

Rainwater Harvesting Must For New Buildings, Houses

Published on 08/01/2012 in groundwater, hydrology, management, policy, solutions and outreach, tap water and water conservation. 0 Comments Tags: .

Photo retrieved from: www.twri.tamu.edu

“It was observed that one of the solutions for replenishing the ground water resources is rain water harvesting by capturing the run off. In areas where there is inadequate groundwater supply or surface resources are either lacking or insufficient rainwater harvesting offers an ideal solution.

“If the ground water is exploited without being recharged then it will also affect the fresh water. One viable solution would be to go for recharging through rain water harvesting,” it said. In its effort to conserve ground water, the Delhi Government has made it mandatory for all newly-constructed structures in the city to have a rain water harvesting system. For this, civic agencies have been directed to collect an affidavit from property owners stating that they will make provision for rainwater harvesting system.”

Read more: The Pioneer

 

lily victoria