C. Elizabeth Smith

Currently, there is legislation on the table in congress to repair, increase, and expand a pipeline that will transfer Alberta Tar Sands (also called Oil Sands) to the gulf of Mexico. Already built, is a pipeline that transfers oil sands of crude, somewhat solid, bitumen to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma and soon, perhaps, Huston Texas and the Gulf of Mexico.

The new expanded pipeline is expected to cost 7 billion dollars, consist of 5 percent of US oil needs, while replacing 9 percent of our current oil imports. Interesting numbers; however, why isn’t it approved yet?

Environmentalist everywhere have been protesting this issue for a while and have actually succeeded in stalling the topic’s progression in Congress. The National Resource Defense Council actually spoke up on the issue saying that it plays against the US commitment to a clean energy economy and members of Congress actually wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton to  push against the pipeline, as well. The EPA has been in on the action and played its role by drafting an environmental assessment to the state department saying the expansion plan had to be mended due to a lack of preparation in case of oil spill occurrences. After it was mended, the EPA responded saying that it wouldn’t pose a threat as long as environmental measures were followed.

Uh-huh, Well, we all know how well environmental regulations work on oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

It doesn’t help that the current pipeline had to be shut down due to leaking at a pump station, in Kansas; it was reported by a Canadian News source. Everything is now running smoothly after extensive cleanup occurred in the surrounding areas of the Kansas pumping station.

Perhaps the 7 billion could be spent better elsewhere? Crude tar sand costs more oil and money to refine once it is delivered all the while depositing greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere through the extensive refinement it needs, and again through our cars.

Electric never looked so good, when being compared to tar from Alberta.

Lindsey Williams for EmPivot

Not everyone is convinced that our nation needs to turn its traditional ways of power and productivity into green and clean, efficient machines. In fact, some would argue that we don’t need to adopt cleaner fuel, or expand the ways in which we power our nation. Oh, but I’d beg to differ. Quick and dirty: here are some key points as to why this green movement needs to catch and maintain the attention of political dignitaries, not just your beloved tree huggers:

#1) providing energy security and #2) capitalizing on our global competitiveness.

The most significant way that the US can establish energy security is to diversify the ways in which we power our nation. In doing so, we will ween away from our traditional dependency on fossil fuels, curtailing the far-too common crutch on foreign oil. The US also needs to understand that the key in winning this green battle requires us to recognize our need to both reinform an d redirect our traditional dependency on just one way of retrieving power; in time, doing so will elevate this knowledge to a place that clearly sees the various ways of energy and supply.

Bottom Line: Not putting all of our energy eggs into one basket allows for safety in the long run; something the US has had to learn the hard way.

In terms of global competitiveness, we need to invest in stronger energy policies for utilities, as well as renewable energy. Why? Because everyone else is doing it, and doing it right. (Here, the age-old adage that says, “If everyone jumps off of a cliff, should you?”, does not apply). In this case, because everyone is jumping right into the safe and lucrative -might I add- space of renewable energy, we need to adapt to the playing field. The United States needs to acknowledge how the game is currently being played, and adopt these energy principles.

A direct result of not veering right on ‘Renewable Energy Lane‘ is encouraging a dangerous and lonesome trek on the road of irrelevance in global markets.

Long term investments in this country will leave if we do not get our green act together.

Lindsey Williams for Ecofusion

Renewable energy sources have found success and acceptance across the board due to a few key elements: Businesses have concern over remaining fossil fuel reserves, dependency on importing particular fossil fuels, as well as the stability of the supply. There is also the clear concern of polluting the environment. Lastly, there is, of course, tactical government support and the presence of financial incentives to ensure the success of renewable energy.  

But the obstacles and hoops that businesses must jump through in order to get their product to the market are many. Why might this be? Financial backing that it takes to bring these products and initiatives into full fruition could be to blame.  Businesses already require proper capital to stay afloat the marketplace.

Even in a time when businesses look down the barrel of sustainable and environmental matters, the pressure to cave in and go the “green” route is put at an immediate halt at the onset of financial issues.

Surprise surprise, it takes money to power the new avenues our globe takes to power our every move. Whether it is hydro power that we use, wind, solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal or ocean- these new explorations that we take for sustainable energy require money to build, research, and produce. Is this to say that we should cease and desist any endeavor taken towards implementing within the marketplace renewable energy solutions? No. It is merely a fact that needs to be understood and not skirted around. We are in need of infiltrating corporate sectors, government policy, educational realms, and civil society with standard and consistent answers to the energy debate swallowing common and academic dialogue.  With regards solidifying renewable energy solutions, we need to be realistic, honest and brave.

C. Elizabeth Smith for Ecofusion

Today, humanity has many things that are considered ‘smarter’ than our old-time household electronics. We have SMART cars, smart phones, even now a slowly unveiling plan for something called a Smart Grid to handle our ever growing electrical load. Now a new development: households are slowing catching onto something called a SmartMeter.

A SmartMeter is just like a traditional household electrical meter; however it is, well, smarter. It can communicate with the electrical grid to do a number of things, such as estimating highs and lows in energy demand, as well as inform electrical authorities that the storm has taken down power lines without involving the consumer. This is all a great convenient, but it gets even better:

a SmartMeter can save the consumer money all the while saving the utility energy.

When consumers don’t pay there bills or move from one home to another, free unaccounted for energy is provided, a cost that is then passed over to the adjacent consumer. With a SmartMeter the electrical utility can remotely turn on and off electricity to homes thus shrinking the gap of wasted energy or energy theft. This alone can save up to 2.8 billion dollars over 20 years.

However, the savings don’t end there. A consumer who has a SmartMeter can actually operate there SmartMeter over the phone and monitor there energy costs remotely, just like the utility. The electrical utility can even text the consumer when electrical demand is high, and if the consumer lowers there thermostat, they could be rewarded with a rebate from the utility thus saving money through efficiency.

The SmartMeter is something that may become worldwide in the next few years as the electrical grid becomes updated. This will allow the consumer to monitor there energy consumption and costs, as well as communicate with the utility for more accurate service. With electrical plug-in cars well on there way to American homes, this just may be something that is needed to better understand our energy trends, consumption and dependence.

Lindsey Williams for Ecofusion

Would it take money to conquer the bureaucratic red tape that eco-conscience organizations must go through in order to claim any kind of mediocre victory? Does it take a grand line of mobilization and logistics, streamlining from policy initiative and grass roots efforts to insure some form of effectiveness? OR, perhaps it takes a large sponsor of the right affluence, the right influence.

One question continues to plague me regarding sustainable issues, as well as the race to effective change: How do we conquer the great divide?

The ‘divide’ being the gap between this message simply being a popular and interesting way a small percentage of citizens see our world, and it becoming the only way in which we view our world.

It’s not a matter of translating greener issues and the vernacular that goes along with the subject in terms that make the topic more suitable and palatable to the general public; rather, the real issue comes at the challenge of transforming mini victories into a much grander one. This idea, of course, mirroring the need for the idea of green living becoming more than the ‘cool’ thing to fit into one aspect of our lives; instead, this being the very way in which we lead our lives.

Perhaps, a word from a sponsor.

The green movement needs a big-name sponsor from various sectors, masterfully operating to push forward the same specified green issue in a synchronized fashion. 

Is it really money that makes or breaks this issue? Money can be a means to sway in a convincing way; particularly those that only see the bottom-dollar as the bottom line. In order to reach those that view increased profit as the only means to win, we must present the direct correlation between monetary green stakes and the positive influence that sustainably green initiatives will make.

Just green food for thought.

C. Elizabeth Smith for Ecofusion

Three years ago, Steven Chu, George Bush’s Secretary of Energy, pulled all the funding for the research and development of the hydrogen fuel cell car. We have also all heard that the miracle energy sources, biodiesel and ethanol, are not the solutions to the energy sources requirements our automobiles as we had hoped or expected. So, what’s next?

Electrically powered cars have already had quite a lengthy period of time on the roads in the form of Hybrids. They still use gasoline, just less of it. 

More recently the all-electric care has joined the hybrid as “alternatively fueled” automobiles. It has no tailpipe from which noxious emissions are emitted. There are no loud engine noises and, better still, no need to pump gasoline.

I can’t help but think, however, about how electric cars aren’t exactly the fix to all the problems concerning our transportation issues. Electric cars are powered by  batteries that require charging stations either in the home or in special stations peppered all over the country and cities. In a sense, we would need to reproduce the same fueling infrastructure as we have with gasoline fueling centers. These stations would be powered by the electric grid that uses one or all of the “big three” energy sources, Coal (45%), Natural Gas (22%) and Nuclear (19%). No matter how you cut it, our ‘clean’ electric cars are being powered by dirty sources, some dirtier than others. All of these energy sources have waste disposal and air/water pollution issues… Your electric car may not be emitting harmful gasses but the grid where your energy comes from, does.

My main question is this: Are electric cars still the answer to our personal transportation needs, even if we change the energy source for our electric grid?

When discussing the grid, we must center it around, not just the sources of the energy, but how that energy is transferred from place to place. Efficiency in production of energy, types of travel and choice of vehicle are the big issues that need consideration before the United States looks at taking our entire transportation energy structure and puts it on the already stressed electric grid.

Lindsey Williams for Ecofusion

Loss of biodiversity, climate change, as well as economic and social instability are just a few challenges regarding interconnected sustainability that have increasingly become more serious. What does interconnected sustainability even mean, really? How does this play into the efforts put invested into improving business and environmental relations?

Interconnected sustainability literally involves the interconnected issues of sustainability that affect each other, as each issue is solved and addressed, either on a global or national level. Why am I bringing this issue to our attention? Simply because it behooves us to remember how connected each topic is to the entirety of this green movement.

The solidification of sustainability as a generally accepted idea has only spurred action amongst various pockets across the globe, lacking the complete united effort that movers of this movement seek. What is one way to curtail this incremental expansion and transform it into a radically growing expansion?

Bridging the gap of learning, collaborative research and problem solving amongst corporate sectors, government and society- which will serve as key ingredients in bringing the science of sustainability into practice

Realms where sustainability continue to surface include education, corporate sustainability, global sustainability, politics, biodiversity, innovation and socio-technological change. The interconnectedness of each field should not only be recognized, it be should be leveraged.

We need to learn and share what’s working across each sector. Solving broader issues of interconnected sustainability will take interconnected, collaborative efforts; creating action that is proven effective. Particularly with energy use- with regards to our national grid- leveraging interconnected efforts is the only clear way to successfully move forward.

Lindsey Williams for Ecofusion

Would it surprise you to find that more green initiatives are proposed than those that actually take flight? What does this statistic even mean to us, and how do we- as active proponents in the green push- successfully acquire tools for change?

Focus our efforts- tighten our concerted efforts into more specific projects: instead of casting a broad net, cast a much narrower one. Instead of biting off more than we can humanly chew- with regards to mobilizing sustainable efforts that stick within policy and legislation- we need to remember realistic outcomes versus idealistic outcomes.

5 Quick Tips:

1. Specify the exact area of ‘green’ that you and/or your company will manage. For example: You want to improve recycling in your community- what exact areas of waste management do you want to tackle? Improving and encouraging businesses in your community to tighten their recycling efforts?  That is much more specific.
2. Determine what key role you and your organization can play in the areas already specified by you from Tip #1.
3. Identify all strengths that your organization posseses in order to both mobilize and accomplish your green goals.
4. Craft your organization’s skill sets into MEASURABLE tactics.
5. Continue to exchange and dialogue: Exchange ideas amongst other organizations with similar ideals; Dialogue, consistently, with peers within academia and professional sectors- out of this, key connections for action can be made.

Remember, the more specific your goals, the simpler (relatively simpler) your efforts will be. Tighten-up your focus: when walking on this green tight rope, your focus must be narrow, steady and clear.

Vern Turn for Ecofusion

As with most ideas for change there are positive and negative points that must be weighed in order to implement part or all of that idea.  Biodiesel, fuel made from oils derived from plants, algae, fungi and bacteria, is one of those topics that requires careful analysis.  At first glance, one might assume that biodiesel could be a major player in helping the United States become more independent on foreign oil.  It may yet be, but there are important and costly things requiring consideration.

There are many types of plants that produce oils capable of being used as fuel in diesel engines of all types, jet engines and gas turbines.  Yes, it is easier and more ecologically beneficial to make this fuel from plants than it is making ethanol from corn.  The processing of biomass for biodiesel also produces a fuel that contains much more energy per volume than ethanol.  BUT, pure biodiesel tends to destroy the gaskets and seals in traditional diesel engines.  There are modern materials that are compatible with biodiesel, and most new diesel engines include these materials in their manufacture.  Older engines would have to be re-fitted at some cost.  Diluting biodiesel with ethanol and petro-diesel also ameliorates this problem.

The amount of arable land or seashore required to produce sufficient biodiesel to replace other, traditional motor fuels is enormous.  State-sized rapeseed fields, for example, would be needed to produce enough biodiesel to replace just the amounts we use in our truck-based transportation of goods.  

As with any major change involving new technology or innovation, cost-benefit studies determine the direction and pace of change.  Right now, it costs about the same to create a gallon of biodiesel as it does petro-diesel.  This does not include the environmental impact cost differences between the two fuel types because there is insufficient data.  The data there is shows that fewer harmful chemicals of combustion are produced by biodiesel than from petro-diesel combustion due to the nature of the molecules in the two fuels.

The best conclusion today is that biodiesel is absolutely worth pursuing for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is creating production technologies that are more cost-effective than petro-diesel at different consumption levels.  What I mean is that clearly we cannot use vast tracks of our land (plants) or seashores (algae) to generate enough biodiesel to replace all petro-diesel use, never mind gasoline fuels.  We can, however, consider certain areas for petro-diesel replacement, like ocean-going ships, home heating fuel, trains and local transportation like mail trucks.  We simply use too much jet fuel and motor fuel (gasoline) right now for biodiesel to be a practical and economic replacement for all our fossil fuel needs.

There will come a time, however, when the cost curves will cross into the positive ranges due increasing scarcity of petroleum, so we need to be ready to implement an intelligent plan of technology and production when biodiesel’s turn comes.

C. Elizabeth Smith for Ecofusion

Energy is something that is as precious to us as food and water. However, the average American understands that we don’t really have much of a say in our national energy choices; for example, how we create our energy and from what energy sources. The American life of today revolves around the bureaucratic atmosphere surrounding Washington. Some may carry the opinion that there are a few good souls in Washington fighting for various environmental issues such as energy policy and natural resource management; however, these issues continually take a back seat to many other pressing problems like the health of our economy.

What can the average American do to have a say?

For starters, the voter can have a say by simply supporting environmental causes. It is discouraging at times, yet always for the best. Have a clear understanding of an actual environmental problem and attempt to be knowledgeable about what is being done to solve that problem in Washington ,and in the respective states.

Other ways one can understand and contribute to decreasing energy consumption is to look into their own energy portfolio. This can be done by simply using less through efficiency or turning out the lights. Another easy way to invest into energy efficient practices? Simple Internet research can tell anyone how to easily reduce his or her energy consumption and actually save money in doing so.

Continued research and sprouting ideas can put the average American on a path to reduce not just their own energy consumption, but an entire country’s energy consumption. In turn, this will help the United States and the world decrease its environmental impact.