The Dernogalizer

July 20, 2009

Samsung Investing $4.2 billion to go Green

Filed under: Energy/Climate — Matt Dernoga @ 8:40 pm
Tags:

I always like to see major companies such as Microsoft taking steps to reduce emissions and go green.  Now Samsung is following suit by investing $4.2 billion into cutting emissions and producing more environmentally friendly products.  Kudos to them.

Samsung’s 4.2 bln dlrs “green” initiative

SEOUL (AFP) – South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Mondayannounced a 4.29 billion dollar plan to develop eco-friendly products and cut emissions from its manufacturing plants by 2013.

The “PlanetFirst” project focuses on achieving low-carbon growth, the company said in a statement.

It involves cutting greenhouse gas emissions from plants by 50 percent and reducing total indirect emissions from all products by 84 million tons through 2013, as well as ensuring all products exceed global eco-mark standards.

Some 5.4 trillion won will be invested in eco-management initiatives and environmental cooperation with suppliers and partners will be strengthened.

The emissions cuts will come through improving the energy efficiencyof products including TVs, refrigerators and air conditioners to the highest level in the industry, and reducing standby power consumption.

The company is “committing to becoming a truly green enterprise that places eco-management at the very heart of our business decision-making and growth,” said vice chairman and CEO Yoon-Woo Lee at a ceremony launching the initiative.

“This eco-management initiative will encompass all of our global operations, supply chain, and the complete lifecycle of Samsung products, and by achieving these goals we aim to lead the way in tackling the environmental problems that are facing our planet.”

Samsung Electronics, flagship of South Korea‘s largest business group, employs 164,600 people in 61 countries.

It is the world’s largest maker of computer memory chips and also a leading global producer of digital TVs, mobile phones and TFT LCD (Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display) screens.

Of the 5.4 trillion won, the company said it would spend 3.1 trillion developing eco-friendly products and 2.3 trillion on energy-saving technologies and greening its manufacturing plants.

Down with PATH

Filed under: Energy/Climate,environment,MD Politics — Matt Dernoga @ 8:01 pm
Tags: , , ,

I had a column opposing the Potamac Appalachian Transmission Highline(PATH) last December.  These massive transmission lines from the Midwest and Appalachia would transport coal power to Maryland and other northeast states.  Bad news when you’re trying to reduce your state’s carbon footprint.  My friend Alana Wase at the Sierra Club had a column out a couple weeks ago which echoed these sentiments and tactfully rebutted a pro-PATH column which had been published.  I’m reposting her column below.

Let’s not take the wrong path to clean, reliable energy

In response to the letter written by H. Russell Frisby in the June 4 edition of The Gazette (“PATH is the sensible, high tech solution critical to our region”):

Let’s assume it’s a hot sunny day in July.

The demand on our region’s electric transmission grid is at its peak, and it is operating at full capacity from wind generated power off the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

The air is clean and the rivers running through Frederick County and into the Chesapeake Bay are pure; safe to swim in, fish in and even eat one’s catch without worrying about mercury and other toxins.

There are no intrusive transmission line towers tainting the aesthetics of Western Maryland’s great forests and mountains to deliver dirty energy from West Virginia to Baltimore.

Instead, the energy is derived near population centers and from clean renewable energy — wind, just off the coast.

This scenario is clearly in the future, and it’s the direction we want to move in, but what is at stake is just how soon we will make the transition to clean energy.

The Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) is a proposed high-voltage transmission line intended to import coal fired power from the coal-rich Midwest and Appalachia into Maryland and other eastern states.

The line is proposed to begin near the John Amos power plant in West Virginia and terminate at a new substation in Frederick County. The Amos coal fired power plant ranks among the worst emitters of sulfur dioxide, mercury and global warming pollution in the nation.

And, as the proponents of PATH have themselves admitted, PATH would enable Amos and many other coal plants in the region to ramp up their operations to export electricity east. As these plants increase their output, they would spew even more of these harmful pollutants.

Quite the opposite of the serene scene described above.

Imagine, if PATH were built, what that would do to our chances of scaling up renewable energy production in Maryland. PATH is a multibillion dollar venture in the wrong direction. At a time when smart investors are looking toward clean energy, this investment will instead lock the region into dependence on coal-fired energy for years to come.

Maryland is doing its part in Annapolis to make clean renewable energy a reality.

With the passage of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act this year, the state must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.

In order to meet these standards, we have to get serious about wind and solar. And yet, PATH would do just the opposite. Not only would PATH lead to increased generation from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest and Appalachia, it would also discourage the development of local, renewable generation here in Maryland.

Perhaps the worst part of the lies being used to sell this deal to consumers is the fear of blackouts, suggesting PATH must be built or else we won’t have electricity.

This is contradictory to Baltimore Gas and Electric, Maryland’s largest utility company. According to the company’s 10-year plan to the Public Service Commission of Maryland, they report no increase in peak demand, and in fact show a slight decrease over the next 10 years.

Where is the need for new coal-fired power? There isn’t one.

PATH is a scheme to rake in billions of dollars for its creators by giving them access to energy markets in Baltimore where electricity rates are four times higher than in West Virginia, all while rate payers would bear the cost of construction of the line.

PATH is not the passageway to the clean energy future, but rather, a dead end — more pollution, more asthma, and more global warming.

We can and must do better.

Alana Wase, College Park

The writer is Conservation Program Coordinator for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.

40th Moon-step Anniversary

Filed under: Energy/Climate — Matt Dernoga @ 2:52 am
Tags: , ,

When I was younger I wanted to be an astronomer when I grew up.  I’ve always been fascinated with the solar system, outer space, and space travel.  If the looming threat of catastrophic global warming wasn’t in my mind, I’d just enjoy reading and watching all the specials on the first step on the moon ever 40 years ago.  But now when I check the news I might glance at this look at Neil Armstrong by the Washington Post, but my attention goes to a great column in Salon by blogger Joe Romm.  Romm compares and contrasts what we accomplished many decades ago when Kennedy declared we would go to the moon by the end of the decade, to the current climate crisis and what will be necessary to overcome it.  One of the unfortunate but probably true statements by Romm is that trips to the moon or to Mars probably will not be on the radar past 2020 since every available dollar humanity has will be diverted to dramatically slash carbon emissions.  Congressman Ed Markey also has his own column related to the anniversay.  I’m reposting the article below.

Goodnight, moon travel

It’s time to save planet Earth. And our inspiration, once again, comes from JFK

By Joseph Romm

July 20, 2009 | Forty years ago, like millions of other children, I was awestruck by Neil Armstrong’s first step on the moon. No doubt the optimistic vision of space travel from the Apollo program, and “Star Trek,” were key reasons I became a physicist.

But incredibly expensive efforts like a manned space program can be sustained only by a very rich country that doesn’t have desperate Earth-based missions for its scientific and engineering talent — and for the tens of billions of dollars such a program requires. You can reach for the stars, but only when you have everything else you need firmly in your grasp.

In 2004, President Bush announced his plan for sending humans back to the moon and eventually Mars. Last week, Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, proposed a manned mission to “Mars by the 60th anniversary year of our Apollo 11 flight,” in part to study geologic-time-scale climate change on the red planet. Long before then, however, our struggle to deal with rapid, human-caused climate change here on Earth will overwhelm even a modest effort to put humans beyond planetary orbit again.

I was too young to be directly inspired by John F. Kennedy’s 1962 speech at Rice University, in which he famously declared that the U.S. would be the first country to send a man to the moon by decade’s end. But reread or listen to the speech and you will be amazed by its prescience. Many of Kennedy’s words are as true today as they were a half-century ago:

We meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

He saw the space race through the lens of American exceptionalism — no “nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space” — but he predicted benefits for all humankind:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

President Obama made the same kind of plea the day before the House of Representatives was to vote on the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill:

We have seen our reliance on fossil fuels jeopardize our national security. We have seen it pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet. And most of all, we have seen other countries realize a critical truth: the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.

Ironically, Obama’s new mission to save planet Earth is the only hope of preserving the moral leadership of this country that Kennedy took for granted.

Imagine the next 50 generations suffering from global warming of 10°F, sea levels rising 1 or 2 inches a year, dust bowls over one-third of the habited land, loss of more than half the species and oceans turned into hot, acidic dead zones. That is now what the science says we risk if we simply keep doing what we’ve been doing — if the richest country in the world, the one responsible for the most cumulative emissions, refuses to devote a small fraction of its wealth and scientific talent to preventing this disaster. I think it’s safe to say that nobody will be writing any books about us called “The Greatest Generation.”

Kennedy ended his speech with an appeal to the universal human spirit to conquer the unknown:

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.” Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Today, we know that the most hazardous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked is the transition to a carbon-free economic and energy system that’s capable of sustaining and expanding prosperity for 9 billion people. The alternative is, as a new 6,700-page report by world leaders concludes, catastrophic climate changes whereby “billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse.”

At the same time Kennedy warned that science and technology “has no conscience of its own,” he related the accelerating rate of technological change: “This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old — new ignorance, new problems, new dangers.”

He could have been talking about the accumulation of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is also occurring at a breathtaking pace -– 10,000 times faster than it ever had in nature over the past 800,000 years. We transformed the global economy with fossil fuels in a century, creating new ills, new dangers that we are only now beginning to understand.

Humanity has only two paths forward. We voluntarily switch to a low-carbon economy over the next two decades, or the reality of catastrophic climate change and peak oil forces us to desperately start doing so by the end of the 2020s. The only difference between the two paths is that the first one spares our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, untold misery. It creates a sustainable future where activities like manned space travel can be contemplated again.

The Apollo program was a major science and engineering effort to develop and, most important, deploy a variety of technologies to achieve a very difficult mission — like climate action. But the comparison between the two only goes so far.  Kennedy said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

The hard goal of solving climate change is about more than winning a competition. Kennedy explained that the space effort “has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs.” But those new jobs were only as sustainable as the manned space program, whose benefits and interest to the public were limited and waning. The transition to a sustainable economy, on the other hand, will be bring great and increasing benefits to the public, ultimately generating millions of jobs.

Kennedy asserted: “I think that we must pay what needs to be paid.” That is most certainly true of the mission to save a livable climate. Yet for all its magnificent majesty, Apollo was a relatively small-scale government program with little direct connection to the U.S. economy. It pales in comparison to the urgent task of replacing the nation’s and world’s fossil-fuel-based energy system with low carbon sources.

In 2002 dollars, the entire Apollo program cost $185 billion over 10 years — an increase of $128 billion over the existing space budget. The stimulus bill passed by Congress this year increased short-term funding for the development and deployment of clean energy technology by $90 billion. While that is projected to sharply increase the market share of clean energy over the next several years, the public and private sector of this country alone will need an Apollo-level effort every year for the next few decades to avert climate catastrophe.

Fortunately, clean energy technologies have many other benefits, including reducing air pollution, cutting oil imports and saving Americans tens of billions of dollars in energy costs. So the net impact on the economy of even aggressive climate action like the recent climate bill approved by the House has a net cost to U.S. households of about a postage stamp a day, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

While technologically bold, the Apollo moon missions were, ultimately, a government program that Americans could gaze at and wonder from afar. The grander technological challenge today is a national effort that every American must participate in.

Kennedy said we had to go to space because “our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men.”

More than ever we need to employ our leadership in science and industry to solve the mysteries of peace and security for the good of all women and men. But not by returning to space. Our top planetary mission for the foreseeable future must be to stop destroying the one climate hospitable to the one civilization that we know of in the entire galaxy.



Blog at WordPress.com.