Comment from Stephen Zendt
November 18th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

The President Elect is clearly aware of the urgency and necessity of a huge shift in values and priorities for the USA. We have been for far too long the problem rather than the innovator.
Now, we have run out of time. We must have a way to carry urgency into the nation, without frightening people, but awakening them, instead. We need a national movement to get this done, and done well, and done now.
It must be more than Al Gore. The old cliche was "people-power."

Comment from sally montgomery
November 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Will President Obama reinstate the Environmental Protection Agency and will he reinstate the Endangered Species Protection agency...will he fight in those directions too. Will he stop some of the rape of the whole darn western united states...Will he sign off on NOT shooting wolves from helicopters, not killing all the buffaloe who wander over the invisible line of ranchers in Montana? There is so much damage that has been done by the bush thugs that anything that can be regained must be and it has to happen soon. Big order. Will he? Will he recognize the preciousness of ANWR? Will he? If things need to happen in this country it has to be done with full knowledge of the inept democratic congress...and with sensible people making the decisions. WE need to realize that some things do need to happen, but not wholesale, not in the middle of the night, not under the cloak of darkness and not by a vindictive, sullen, paranoid, person like bush. Will it happen. Can it happen. How soon can it happen. I appreciate so much all that the environmental groups do to counteract what is taking and has taken place in 8 years. You work hard, are ethical and committed. Thank you.

Comment from Ann Schneider
November 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Hi:

Does ED transition report include using municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source. I, as well as the recycling world are completely against incineration, plasma arc or other forms of gasification to take mixed solid waste and create energy. We are also against landfill gas (methane) from being used as an alternative energy as we believe that the technology to get the methane in the concentrated needed to create a reliable fuel source will actually increase the amount of fugitive methane and other VOCs released from landfills.

We are open to source separated parts of the waste stream being digested and possibly fermented to create fuel and still leave a compostable material at the end.

The 2008 energy legislation continued to provide tax credits and incentives for the waste-to-energy industry and for landfill gas. This is in direct competition with reuse, recycling and composting.

Where is ED on this and based on the answer is whether or not I can forward ED's Transition Paper.

Sincerely,

Ann Schneider
22 years in the recycling field.
California

Comment from Andy
November 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

We need a New Deal 2009! A major governmnet works project to create millions of jobs, but also greatly reduce our oil use and C02 emissions. Here is the plan for a new green transportation system for America:
http://www.UrbanDesign.org/newdeal2009.html

We can do it... Yes we can!

Comment from sandy lewis
November 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

HE HAS NO COMMITTMENT TO US: America-where are all the reporters?-How long did it take Islam & their money to find a canadiate for Pres of the US It took them about as long as it did for them to place a senator from Illinois & Minnesota! Where were the reporters recalling THEIR statements that they wanted to destroy our nation? It took radical Islam about the same amount of time to find a canadiate for Pres. as it did to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit!It took them about the same amount of time to find a Pres. canadiate as it did to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as chaplins! Where were all our reporters that should have been warning us of the radical intentions toward our country by Muslims? The idea was to find a candiate that could get away with lying about his father being a "freedom fighter" when his father was actually part of the most corrupt & violent gov. in Kenya, Africa's history.The idea was to find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam & the violent overthrow of goverments in Africa, a candiate who is educated amount the white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial smile.Islam wanted to find a who changed his name from Barry to the Muslim name Barack Hussein Obama, & dares anyone to question his true ties to Islam under the banner of "racism". Nuture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers is the goal. You then provide him with a bitter, anti-white, anti-american wife, who said she was never proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the Presidency as a Democrat, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections & Islamic money. Allow the candidate to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpapers dollars to the Muslim/Communist controlled United Nations for use in Africa. Where were all the reporters to revel these important item's to the American people? And you think this "man" cares about clean air? THINK AGAIN!

Comment from willy
November 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

do you really believe that bull that's being feed what's he have a magic button? if you believe that then I am king of toons he'll say any thing to sucker every one in his regime
wake up!

What will he do to stop japan from killing whales or dumping waste in the ocean supply them with septic cans,or recycle poop? he thinks he can and will rule this and other countries, next he'll rewrite the Constitution!the globe warming is not only cause of pollution it also the constant building and removing of trees and subsoil ,plus it's those rich people do more damage then the poor ;

this character is brain washing most people to believe this crap.

Comment from Joseline
November 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

We haven't won yet but we will. All together we'll become so strong that everything will stop, global warming and polution. We just have to think positive and fight against it.
I know president-elect Obama will make a change, all his country trusts him so he won't let us down. =)

Comment from mercury
November 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

For prevention of global warming and energy independence ALL of the following will be needed:

Portugal has led the way to the future in which we will need no fossil fuels, coal (whether dirty clean coal or dirty dirty coal), gas, or nuclear power.

THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!

The following needs to be more widely known:

The MOST important actions on prevention of global warming are STILL NOT being done:

1. Research into TIDAL POWER stations: America's Eastern and Western seaboards offer almost unlimited tidal power over 6000 miles.
The only such station in the Western Hemisphere is in Nova Scotia and that province already produces 12% of its electric power from renewable sources.
Hardly anything is being done in this direction in the USA.

2. Portugal has pioneered the way toward complete freedom from fossil fuels, using a combination of dams for hydro-electric power, solar farms, wind farms and harnessing wave power with "sea snakes" (Pelamis). These ingenious scavengers of wave power, invented in Scotland, measure 150 metres in length and 3.5 metres in diameter. They each produce enough power to supply about 1500 homes, generating electricity by movement of their 4 sections about hinges. A cable along the seabed carries the energy to a substation on the shore.

Portugal had a goal to produce 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Two years ahead of schedule it is at 42% !
[CBC news.ca Oct.22,2008. - Also reported in UN Wire of Oct. 24th.]

America needs to catch up, and to catch up fast !

We need to change the mantra from "Drill baby Drill" to "Snake baby Snake".

3. Research into low cost electric cars and high speed rechargeable batteries. Tesla has already an excellent vehicle, but at too high a cost. We need cheap electric cars and these could easily be made, and would TOTALLY eliminate greenhouse gases from cars.
Any bail out or better, a loan, should be only for the manufacture of electric cars - Now is the time!

4. Prepare for recharge stations at service stations and consider an electric pickup through a groove in the main streets of cities. (Like the old trams).

5. Put an immediate ban on all new coal powered power stations, and phase out all of the old ones. Put an immediate ban on all mountain top blast mining for coal and on all industrial river pollution.

6. Put an immediate ban on any new nuclear power stations, and nuclear weapons.
Start to research better ways of disposing of nuclear waste The cost needed for nuclear power construction is staggering and far exceeds the cost of creating wind power and tidal power.
We certainly do not need any more Chernobyls or Five Mile Islands, and nuclear waste will not go away because we want it to.

7. Start the construction of large wind farms and solar farms. (The latter are best located in the southern desert states).
Denmark has shown the feasibility of building wind farms over the sea with turbines supported by pylons driven into the seabed. Even now, very little is being done in this direction in the USA.

8. Careful construction of dams for hydro power using technology to prevent a harmful impact on wildlife and drinkable water supply.

9. Accelerating the date requiring increased mileage rules for gas powered vehicles.

10.Planting new forests and cutting back on lumber industry deforestation.

11.Aid to foreign nations in need to achieve the above goals.

Cap and trade has done nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, and is merely an easy way out for the coal and fossil fuel industries.

We need action now! Global warming is here and now! The threat of inadequate water supplies is here and now!

Do not let as much as a single attempt at drilling to take place. The Republicans know how to obstruct and block. It is time for Democrats to take up the cudgel, and accuse, accuse, accuse!.

Big Oil is holding us back and dragging us down! We have lost our power of innovation!

Can we do this? Yes we can! Si se puede!

How think you?

Sincerely,

Ian Campbell Cree, MB(Hons.), MS, FRCS(Eng. & C.), FACS, LRCP

Comment from Donald Scherer
November 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

1. A cap-and-trade system needs to include methane and ammonia as global warming gases that are, molecule for molecule, much more dangerous that CO2. 2. A system that recognized estuary hypoxia as the same kind of systemic problem as global warming would be superior to one exclusively about global warming. 3. Focused research to demonstrate the best technologies for using CO2 to grow useful plants (algae, duck weed, whatever) may well prove more cost effective in the long run than carbon sequestration. 4. It would be useful for EPA at the national level to establish ecologically enlightened standards for treating human wastes as raw materials for useful products, rather than simply as a sanitation problem to be neutralized.

Comment from James Sells
November 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

How is Obama going to establish more jobs for Americans if he is going to allow all the illegals to stay in the USA and grab these jobs. Sure makes no sense to me or all my friends. I backed him but will no longer back him if he is able to accomplish this. AMERICAN JOBS FOR AMERICANS

Comment from Mike
November 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

10 solutions to solve global warming and peak oil:

1. A permanent moratorium on all new major road construction and expansions. Every additional dollar spent building and widening roads digs us deeper into our dangerous oil / auto addiction, and increases global warming

2. A huge increase in funding for Amtrak, and the rapid construction of a new nationwide train network. This should connect every city, town, and neighborhood with an efficient, state-of-the-art electric train network comparable to what is currently operating all across Europe and Japan. This should be built to transport both passengers and all the cargo now moved inefficiently by trucks. Trains are by far the most energy efficient form of transportation that greatly reduces global warming, saves lives, and encourages compact, walkable communities.

3. A permanent moratorium on the building of any additional sprawl. Sprawl is probably the single largest contributor to oil addiction and global warming due to it's very design (or lack of). Sprawl forces everyone to drive many miles daily for everything, which in turn requires constant road expansions, encouraging more cars and driving, and more sprawl. Its a vicious cycle consuming ever more oil, and spewing out more pollution, making global warming continually worse.

4. A major focus of federal, state, and local governments on New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Transit Oriented Development - the revitalization and densification of all existing cities and towns across America into walkable, mixed-use communities, with pedestrians and bicycles given top priority over automobiles, and a serious focus on bicycles and trains as the major forms of transportation.

The installation of Paris style (Velib), city-wide bicycle rental programs in the 200 largest cities in America. In addition, the placement of small neighborhood schools located so children can walk or bike to them, and the provision of millions of affordable housing units within walking distance of train stations. A big part of this is the construction of LEED Certified green buildings, and the retrofitting of existing buildings to similar standards

5. The tripling of minimum vehicle miles per gallon standards for all vehicles produced in America - accomplished by a quick and complete conversion of all automobile manufacturing facilities to the building of only hybrid, solar, and fully electric vehicles.

Government and institutional car purchases made each year should be switched to buying only hybrids and fully electric cars. It is estimated that the entire U.S. government purchases well over 7 million new vehicles each year - the sum total of Federal, State, & Local Government agencies, municipalities, counties, universities, the US Postal Service, highway patrol, sheriff, police and fire departments, etc. - more than enough demand to change entire assembly lines at car factories.

The real solution is to stop making cars altogether by a phased retooling of the auto industry into manufacturing trains, wind turbines, and solar panels (much like during the second world war when they switched to building military equipment).

6. A moratorium on new airport construction and expansions, as well as an end to aviation subsidies.

7. A moratorium on the construction of any new coal fired or nuclear power generating plants. Contrary to industry proponents who say nuclear is a "clean energy" solution to global warming - nuclear power is far from clean. The waste it produces is the most toxic substance known to humankind, remaining deadly radioactive for many thousands of years, with no safe way to store or dispose of it, and no way of preventing it from being made into weapons

8. The rapid construction of new solar and wind power generating capacity all across America, from large-scale installations to smaller neighborhood and roof-top units. Also, the immediate installation of new hydropower generating capacity in the form of coastal wave and tidal energy capture

9. The installation of full roof solar panels on every building in America.

10. The installation of hundreds of acres of organic farms throughout every city and town in America. In addition to this, the planting of millions of trees across America

Read more here: http://www.newurbanism.org/

Comment from John Smajda
November 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I see all these future dates being spoken of, but, we can just push for my idea, the results will be much faster. However, everybody having anything to do with the oil industry will become worthless. Picture that, no more reason to go to war, and the world becomes a clean place again. But what! Oh my God! For every reason that we have gone to war, and want to rule the whole world, starting with controlling the mid east, for there oil, will no longer exist. The greedy humans on the other side of the ocean will have only sand and worthless oil in the ground. Can you picture that awakening. Sounds like it's time for the rich to start jumping out of windows again, as they did during the great depression.
Well, it is very simple. What will come out of the exhaust pipes will be vaporized water. Yeh that's right! Simple solution, car manufacturers know how to do it, but they are being stopped by the lobbyists, and strong powers all over the world. We already see Americans buying manuals on how to convert their own vehicles to run on part water, giving them up to 50% more efficiency. It is done through electrolysis, taking the Hydrogen out of water and using it as a powerful and clean fuel. With our technology, you know that we can build engines and motors to run 100% on this type of fuel.
I have already sent this idea to the Obama email site. We need some people to take a stance, and insist on this. It is the quickest way to resolve our global warming and pollution problems, and stop the march to Globalization.

Comment from Travis
November 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

I DO NOT support or believe in Baraka Obama or his promises and I believe in my heart he will hurt this country worse than Clinton and Bush combined. He picked Rahm Emanuel for his chief of staff! Why not just turn the entire white house over to Israel? This two party system has got to go. Just another puppet as you all shall see. peace

Comment from Zoe
November 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

I tend to be in SANDY LEWIS' CAMP. HEY, Sandy! I know that our positions/opinions probably wont make us too popular, but I think I can safely speak for her as well in saying that popularity isn't all that important to us - we're more impressed with HONESTY, HONOR, SINCERITY, RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY......Right Sandy?
WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA. WE DON'T REALLY TRUST HIM. And before y'all scream "racist", I MUST BE SAID THAT THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN HAS FUnK-ALL TO DO WITH OUR POLITICAL OPINIONS!
Personally, I can't help but LIKE the guy. I like alot of people! That doesn't mean that all the people I like should necessarily be in charge of America!
I have DOUBTS. Honest to God, I wish I didn't. I really want to believe in this guy, whether I voted for him or not because HE'S IN THE HOUSE NOW!
Ciao!

Comment from alan
November 18th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Yes generally we need to do something about our evironment.

I truly believe for the Mother Earth to really be able to go green today requires the participation of the people of the Earth and not belie ourselves that the current Industrial giants or Industry supported governments are going to do much about it.

It is the people of the world.. the billions of people will make a significant difference while the rest of the world try to change the way we polute the environment.

I have started this idea of mine by getting students of the world to be the first ambassadors of Mother Earth. It requires very little compulsion too to go green unlike some of us who pride ourselves that we would walk to work to go green (just wonder how long would we do that).

We do this by getting schools around the world to go as much paperless as possible because students and schools are among the most prolific users of paper with the result we lessen the chopping down of trees, energy and chemicals needed to produce paper not to mention the contribution to landfills.

If one child is to save paper this way , it would be insignificant. But if 1 billion children around the world do it, it would be very significant.

Most important, we inculcate into our children the values of going green. These children then have multirole to play. FFirst as advisors to their poluting parents and peers and then would grow up as advocates action oriented ambassadors of green.

The beauty about our system is that this benefit is actually the by product of our actually initiative to close the digital divides of the world which currently major bodies like UNESCO is trying to bridge.

The children actually benefit greatly by going green by being able to have better education , knows the good and bad of say...smoking, and save lots of money better spent in the canteen than buying papers for school homework.

Sadly it has been reported that UNESCO's education for All is heading for failure to meet the 2015 deadline. This is because of the wrong use of kind of technology not the money nor the abilities of the men in the fields.
One cannot use a rich man's tool to reach the poor man.
see www.paperlesshomework.com/surf

We have created a poor man's tools and contents for the poor man which automatically the rich man would be able to access them too. This immediate created an equitable education system all developing nations can adopt almost for free. It is an initiative that would bring developing nations with ICT penetration almost equal to developed countries.

Our solution allows , without major investment in existing infra structures , rural schools to get multimedia contents in seconds through normal slow dialups through telephones. Telecenters do not need satellite links ...only a handphone is enough. No need to power Satellite links and lots of computers in telecenters.

Have a look at our initiative.

Currently we are on a drive to provide our tools and contents free of charge to all schools in the world who cares to use them in their school libraries and for a teacher's laptop to be used in class.

We hope through this effort a global initiative would arise to share their works among other teachers of the world.

We are only a small team which was funded(just completed) by our Malaysian Government and recognised as a solution to reach the rural poor since we qualified as one of the finalists in the prestigious Stockholm Challenge 2008. We were even sponsored by Microsoft.

Any NGOs, UNESCO, world bank or any company private or public, for-profit or non-profit, charities or non charities wishing to collaborate with us to push our idea in their countries are invited to communicate with us.

we can be contacted at www.paperlesshomework.com

Regards
Alan
skype?call paperlesshomework

Comment from gcamp38
November 18th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

I believe that instead of a cap and trade system, we should institute a cap or fine system. Trade offs for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are as effective as mitigation banks for environmental damage. They don't work. Put a cap on your emissions or face a stiff fine and a daily surcharge if the cap isn't established within a reasonable time frame.

Comment from Traci
November 18th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Good ideas posters! Here is the crux. If we do not educate the masses, then the sea change we need, will not occur quickly enough. This education starts in our schools. In many regions, environmental education is being cut (or has never been offered), to prioritize math, reading and writing (i.e. NCLB and state testing)and while these are very important, our envionment is in crises. We need to teach kids why ecosystems are collapsing, global warming is happening, what their individual choices have to do with it and what they can do about it! Lets empower the youth. There is good curriculum out there, we just have to make it a national prioity for a sea change to occur. Until people understand why they are doing something, they are less likely to do it. Local governments need to get tough on sustainability. I think, unfortunately, that people are going to have to be hit in the wallet for them to do something - like stores charging a fee for paper or plastic bags.

Comment from mercury
November 18th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

The comments of Sandy Lewis merit a reply since her entire
blog reads like a fairy tale with injected drama and fictitious beliefs.
This is a tragic illustration of how easy it is to feed the gullible with political campaign lies, and have those lies believed. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans were not fooled and that is the very reason that Barack Obama was elected.

However, repetition of such lies is extremely dangerous since they lead to ignorant prejudice and irrational hatred
and they tend to be repeated ad infinitum.

Sandy is obviously not aware that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world and many thousands in the USA.
The number of Muslim terrorists in the USA is probably zero. We have not had any Muslim attacks since 9/11 inside the USA apart from a couple of shootings in which the culprits were caught and arrested.

By contrast there have been many shootings in schools and colleges in which many people have been killed by non Muslims. A recent murder of a white woman by the KuKluxKlan shows the extent to which prejudice and false beliefs can lead.

President elect Obama, who is a religious christian and not a Muslim, and whose father was not involved in any violence in Kenya, has declared his intent to hunt down and kill or capture Osama Bin Laden who master minded the 9/11 attacks.

His association with Ayres was as a member of a committee which was involved in providing funding for the education of poor people's children. Ayres and his weatherman group were blowing up buildings to try to stop the VietNam war. Later a large majority of Americans joined in the protest and brought the war to an end. These acts occured when Obama was 8 years old. If any guilt is to be applied to Obama for being on that committee, then it must apply to every other member of that committee, and Sandy is responsible for the views and past actions of any members of any group with whom she has ever sat down.

As far as the remarks of Michelle Obama, along with all African and other races are concerned, none of them should have been proud of a white man's America which was keeping them down as 4th class citizens, and even beating them up if they sat down a restaurant or bus reserved for "Whites only". We have made a lot of progress since those days and African Americans and other races are treated much better, but some prejudice still exists and Sandy is just such an example. What Michelle meant was that she is very proud of America, not because her husband was being chosen, but because it indicated that in the America of today all races are finally equal.

So Sandy, you can relax, because you will be much safer with your next president than you were with the last.
I believe that president Obama will be one of the best, if not THE best presidents which America has ever had!

Comment from John J Burton
November 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Europe's experience with cap and trade shows what is likely tomhappen with it here.
And how long will it take Congress to agree on whch indutries and which firms wll get what caps?
A reveue-neutral carbon tax with all receipts returned to those most suffering from it is the beat answer.

Comment from Mickael V.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I can't help to ask myself why in the world would we want to resuscitate nuclear power in the United States after such a disastrous accident. The Bush Administration did not think that way! And I would like the American people to make sure that our next president will not resuscitate the Nuclear Power Program. Here are some things we need to remember:

Even our most advanced technology today can’t guarantee safe nuclear power: the risks are still too high. One of the major issues with Nuclear Power is of course the leaking of radioactive material into our environment. Radioactive material contaminates everything it comes in contact with and remains (in most cases) radioactive for many many years. As a result, it accumulates in our environment and into the plants, animals we eat, and into our body (mainly the thyroid gland and the bones) AND it is INVISIBLE! Unlike pollution from petroleum and other man made chemicals: It cannot be filtered.

Radiation leaking from a Nuclear Power plant does not smell, does not have any color, does not irritate your eyes, does not taste bad... it just destroys your DNA and your cells slowly as it accumulates in your body. It eventually kills you from some horrible cancer.

Just because you can't smell it or you can't see it does NOT mean it is not dangerous my friends! FYI: we have the largest nuclear power plant in America sitting right in our backyard, 60 miles west of Phoenix.

Another issue is the transporting of the nuclear fuel to the power plants and the transporting of the nuclear wastes to storage or even a recycling facility. Anything can happen in that process: a traffic accident, a terrorist attack, or just a leaking container.

Then, when a Nuclear Power plant becomes too old and unsafe to operate it needs to be shut down and dismantled: not only does it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to do this but it may contaminate our environment even more. Where do you store the concrete, steal beams etc… that made the power plant structure? They are radioactive. How do you safely transport it, how do you guarantee it won’t leak into our ground water like the many old nuclear power plants have already been found in America? For example: a nuclear power plant was being demolished in Southern California a few years ago and they found contaminated water had accumulated under the concrete slab of the plant. To resolve this problem, a team of experts has decided that the safest way to dispose of the water if to flush it into the Pacific Ocean with a mile long pipe… I am sure the people and marine life of San Diego loved it...

Let's be smart and responsible citizens. We need to demand that our presidential candidates make a pledge to never go back to Nuclear Power. There are many other renewable energies we can develop to replace ALL our fossil fueled power plants in America. Nuclear power is NOT one of them! We just need to convince the greedy corporations to develop those new energies: The US government is going to have to force them to make that change or they never will! Just like the federal government gave tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies to the Nuclear Power Plant Industry, we need to do the same with solar energy. Look at the speed and technological revolution we've had in the computer industry, look at Silicon Valley: Don't tell me we are not capable as a country to do the same progress in the research and development or cheap and clean alternative energies! I believe the old dinosaur like industries such as the coal, petroleum, and nuclear power industry is blocking it. They are willing to destroy our environment and the future of our children just to remain in power. We cannot let them do this to us: We are America! I have built a website to start up things: freeandcleanenergyfortheworld.8m.com

Come on America, we can do this!

Comment from Veronika
November 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I have had the pleasure of working with the Senator,and I am very pleased that he has been elected. His track record for environmental issues has been impressive during the time he has served the Senate. The info is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate

He has accomplished more on environmental issues than several senators combined. We actually have a chance to make a difference!

Comment from Jacqueline Sena
November 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

People! Make some noise! We just cannot let an ex-agribusiness exec be appointed head of USDA...which deals with your air, your food and your water..I am assuming people on this site are aware of the issues here...genetically engineered food and lawsuits if you happen to catch some of that pollen, CAFOs allowed to pollute water tables and aquifers with no consequences...etc....

Sadly, Prez-elect Obama is considering such an appointment. Let him know this would be a violation of the trust we have placed in him.

Comment from John Weaver MD
November 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Sam
I like your comment "These words, while encouraging, won't mean a thing if we can't move legislation through both the House and the Senate starting January 20th." I would add another condition for "really meaning something".

The legislation passed must be elegant enough to encourage and enable only solutions that pay for themselves. For example an LED light for home and business that dramatically outperforms the Edison incandescent and problematic and toxic compact florescent AND pays for itself in electricity savings over a guaranteed life. Another might be to pay for an effective factory (up to given amount,say $10million) that can produce a durable wind-turbine that will pay for itself in 5yrs in money saved over utility costs for same watt hours. It would encourage a lot of effort and reward what works. Once the fuse is lit, everyone know what to do.

If left to legislation as usual we will be forcing the public to pay for products and services that are not cost effective (don't solve the problem and are not sustainable except by use of legal governmental force.) Such as much of current solar, wind and bio-fuel legislation).

I am naive enough to believe that "change" means that subsidy rules will change. For example they will no longer be a way for stakeholders in unprofitable solutions to humans needs to use government to sustain them by force.

Comment from Kris B.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:35 am

Where does this spate of hatred come from? We just delivered ourselves from a gang of criminals. Give the president-elect a chance to prove himself!

In any case, why don't you invite Bracken Hendricks as a guest to your green room? He was one of the earliest proponents of clean energy as a means to rescue the economy, create good jobs doing it, enhance our standing (and increase our national security) in the global community by doing our share - since we have been such a greedy and destructive influence - and to save our very, very sick planet. He makes good suggestions, states his positions clearly without a lot of fuss and feathers, and was able to get the Teamsters and the Sierra Club people to sit at the same table and make common cause, and to realize that they were not the enemies they thought, after all.

I believe he is also close to the Transition Team and might be able to help readers make sense of the complexity and sensitive nature of the transition process, as well. Cynicism gets nobody anywhere!

How about giving him a buzz?

Comment from Randy
November 19th, 2008 at 12:53 am

It sounds like you are planning the final and complete destruction of what is left of the U.S. economy... It is unbelievable that so much effort could be put into the demise of the engine that has brought the prosperity and quality of life that we all now enjoy. Oil and the internal combustion engine has brought more advances to us in 100 years than was developed in the previous thousand. Do you think sailing ships were replaced via government mandate? Do you think horse drawn wagons were legislated out of existence? You are willing to cause chaotic change in the name of a theory that has been disproved as often as it been proposed. Climate change has been occuring for millions of years without the assistance of man. What happened to the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes? It is totally preposterous to, even think about, giving the type of control that is being advocated to the government. It will erode our national sovereignty! It will end our individual freedoms. Are you willing to give control of your lives to ANY government!? And, the bottom line is that man made global warming is only a theory, possibly a hoax, perpetuated by people receiving their govt. grants to prove a conclusion before they have the facts. What will be next? Forcing individual people to stop breathing because of their CO2 emissions? Forced reduction of birth rates to curtail energy use? You had better be very careful before you start abdicating your freedoms. Any entity given that much power will eventually be oppresive and corrupt. Read Your history books!!

Comment from kenny
November 19th, 2008 at 1:10 am

http://www.carbontax.org/

Can you say elegant solution?

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 19th, 2008 at 2:44 am

Unttil people including the President-Elect realize that there IS NOW a 35% and growing overload of GHGs, mainly carbon dioxide, causing much more environmental damage NOW than melting of glaciers, we go nowhere. No program of energy conservation, biofuels or even windmills will actually remove one molecule of carbon dioxide from the overload. All those programs do is slow the addition of more GHGs.
But one source of natural emissions can be cut off in large part by using a pyrolysis process on the massive amounts of organic wastes and sewage that we now allow to biodegrade to reemit carbon dioxide trapped by nature in plants thru photosynthesis. Pyrolysis would convert much of those messes to inert charcoal, a remaking of coal, and destroy all the germs, drugs and most toxics in the messes to greatly reduce costs of new dumps. With EPA announcing a conference on drugs in drinking water, present handling operations for those messes are not keeping those hazards from getting into water supplies, Consequently, ED and its members ought to alert Obama to the problems with these messes and to the pyrolysis solution, unless you do not mind having synthetic hormones or carcinogenes in your drinking water. If any one wants more details on the pyrolysis process, I can e-mail them. Dr. James Singmaster

Comment from hussein ragheb khawaja
November 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am

I encourage you and my oldest you in your fight against global warming apparent, and I'm ready for any help to you in my country of Palestine.

Thank you

Hussein Ragheb Khawaja

Comment from LAMIRI
November 19th, 2008 at 6:03 am

BRAVO

The president elected American Barack Obama promised yesterday on Tuesday " to make a commitment energetically " in discussions about the climate change, bend in 180 degrees with the politics(policy) on the subject of the government of George W. Bush.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/2/20081118/tsc-rechauffement-climatique-obama-prome-c2ff8aa.html

Comment from Roger Rankin, US Ambassador, World Animal Day
November 19th, 2008 at 7:22 am

"What the mind of man can believe, can achieve!"

There are way too many of us, on the same page, and our strength is in our convictions and our numbers. Every small action by each and every one of us, will build our pyramids of change for the good of mankind.

Bravo to all of those who BELIEVE!

Comment from hawkeye
November 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am

I see some pretty negative comments on this blog and wonder just how constructive that can be. I am a newbie and would like to know how to answer another poster directly, but until then let me comment on what Ann Scheibler is saying about methane competing with recycling etc.

She makes some good points but we need to look at the big picture. I think it is better to sequester and use methane captured from land fills than it is to keep on driling for new natural gas deposits. NG is the lesser of the evils in the petroleum based energies and we need to make better use of this relatively clean burning fuel.

If the interest is in reducing CO2 production then the emphasis should also be on utilizing energy forms that do not involve combustion, such as solar power, windpower, and hydroelectric power. No doubt we can find objections to any form of energy or its usage, but I don't relish the alternative of living in a third world swamp like cavemen.

I like the cap and trade concept but will it really get the job done? It is a step in the right direction but there is so much more that can be done that involves little more than using common sense. If there is a way to accomplish the same end result by doing less or expending less energy then it seems that is an approach that is worth looking at.

In saying this I am not spamming or wanting to sell copies, but I invite you folks to read my book entitled "Fort Hickok A Green Community". The book is about conservation and about being self sufficent at the local and regional level for many of the things we now haul half across the country, and those 18 wheelers and locomotives don't run on air my friends. The book is available thru amazon.com at a reduced price and from other online bookstores. I have based my ideas on life experiences of living and working in a small rural community in central Kansas, and if I were younger and richer I would be personally investing in the efforts I advocate. I think it is a win-win deal and invite you folks to give it some thought.

I realize that the EDF is essentially a special interest or lobby group, if you will pardon the expression, but we don't need new legislation to do many of the things we can do to improve our lot, and it's for sure we can ill afford punitive legislation right now except in the extreme cases where people are going hog wild with their rape of the land and air we need to survive.

Have a good day and I hope I can learn by coming here.

Comment from legacyhms
November 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am

President-elect Obama's proposal to reduce GHG to 1990 levels by 2020 is a major step in the right direction, but it falls far short of the UN climate scientists' findings of November 2007: THE WORLD MUST REDUCE GHG 25-40% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY 2020 IF WE ARE TO KEEP GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE BELOW 2 DEGREES CELSIUS, WHICH IS WIDELY CONSIDERED AN IMPORTANT TIPPING POINT IN PLANETARY SUSTAINABILITY. AT 2 DEGREES C TEMP RISE, THERE IS STILL WIDESPREAD DESTRUCTION OF THE CORAL REEFS.

IN OTHER WORDS, OBAMA'S 2020 GOAL IS STILL 25-40% SHORT OF THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR PLANETARY SUSTAINABILTY.

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Pursuant to my comment above, I now point to the lack of action on developing hydrogen as a fuel due to sixth different catalyst just reported for using sunlight energy to split water. Why is no environmental group making noise to have the National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL) stop wasting time and money on biofuels research and get investigating these catalysts?
I also point out that the reemitting of GHGs is being allowed to occur by our present handling of the messes of organic wastes and sewage. Using the pyrolysis process, we might get a sizable reduction in emissions as no one has figured how many millions of tons of GHGs come from the natural biodegrading of those messes as presently handled. And then the problems of the hazards mentioned will be controlled from getting into water supplies, if the messes get pyrolyzed.
So let ED know where you members stand on getting control of more than just global warming. Dr. James Singmaster

Comment from david
November 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

WE need to Think outside the BOX, only give money to the auto industry to retool and they can make wind mills. The people are there, the factories are there and the will is there. They did it during WWII

Comment from B B Bunting
November 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I think I already sent this for you to see. The idea works, only carmakers wouldn't like it

NO OIL ? NO WORRIES !

Here is the clue to getting rid of oil-wasting lifestyles. The idea could supplement cars, replace them, or be
another kind of railroad (but MUCH better). This is the fictionalized version.
Amcars use renewable energy, travel anywhere, and can be faster than plane travel. Try the idea at :
eloquentbooks.com/ThePowerPlayToEndTheCar.html

* The ideas in the story are factual, with a prologue explaining them, and a bibliography covering some of the work done in the field. It offers a major solution to the most polluting problem in the world – the traffic system.

* As a long-time activist with an MS degree in Environmental Engineering, the author worked in the Aircraft Industry, the EPA, as an Engineering magazine editor and as a Consultant. Had short stories and articles published in local publications, and has spent years noting the problems associated with cars, greenhouse effects and pollution world-wide. The manuscript published as The Power Play to end the car offers a mostly fictional, yet practical, solution to the most notable of those problems.

* Set on a Moslem island, this poignant 70,000 word manuscript depicts the tumultuous experiences of a male protagonist whose ultimate mission is eliminate a country’s need for cars.

* The story commences as readers are introduced to Gretton, the story’s protagonist and narrator, who tells his life story with outlandish situations and humor. His dream, to build a system consisting of a country that doesn’t need cars, comes to fruition with the help of an important character he meets in college. This, however, leads to trouble with the Establishment, to invasion, and to his ouster and imprisonment.

* As Gretton’s health ultimately fades, a dissertation on ocean pollution takes his adopted daughter and wife back to the Americas while his son John in Canada re-starts Amcars, thus taking up the vision of transportation.

* Available at: www.eloquentbooks.com/ThePowerPlayToEndThe.htmlCar

Or as a printed book through : bbbuntingauthor@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

B.B. Bunting

Comment from Robert Schreib
November 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Dear People, If you are fighting global warming, please google "The Global 50/50 Lottery" and "A New CO2 Elimination Tactic" and "Power Pipeline and Goff's Hair" and scan these ideas in the Techrex (me) blog on the 11thHourAction.com website, because they coincide with your objectives, as well. Thank you.

Comment from Margaret Eisenberger
November 20th, 2008 at 10:53 am

Read Ian McEwen's article in The Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/19/global-climate-change-policy-obama My immediate concern is that climate has to be the driver behind very many of the choices that must be made. Instead of bailing out car companies, the govt should provide support for public mass transit companies around the country that need capital for expansion. Jobs lost in Detroit can be replaced with jobs in alternative energy projects and mass transit construction projects. The hydrogen car is a red herring - electric plug-in hybrids are the immediate, affordable, effective solution, especially as more and more of our electricity is generated by wind or other clean alternatives. Coal plants must not be allowed to be permitted without a carbon capture system built-in. Any assistance to car makers should be targeted to developing fuel efficient vehicles that exceed our inadequate CAFE standards. I love the idea of having them retool to make windmills instead. I think a part of the energy solution should be to have more local generation, with solar panels on buildings, windmills in neighborhoods, and so on.

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

To add to my comment above about hydrogen, a sixth catalyst for splitting water to hydrogen has just been announced. Yet no environmental group has been harping at all about why the government is not underwriting research on hydrogen instead of wasting huge amounts in underwriting the useless biofuels program. Dr. J. Singmaster

Comment from Heather Shelby
November 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Mercury,

Thanks for posting! I just wanted to reply to a couple of your points.

First, tidal power. A lot of research is actually being done into the use of tidal power in the U.S. In Earth: The Sequel, EDF President Fred Krupp dedicates a chapter to possible uses of ocean energy, and a large part discusses tidal power. Companies are currently considering using tidal generators in the Gulf Stream, as well as in Alaska and New York City. However, the technology is still being refined and tested, and there are concerns about the possible impact and damage to marine ecosystems that are vital to the planet's future.

Second, cap and trade. The idea that cap and trade has done nothing to reduce emissions is not true - it has proven extremely successful abroad. Under cap and trade, it makes financial sense for corporations to invest in research into alternative energy. The more efficient they become, the more excess carbon allowances they'll have to sell, and the more their income will increase. In addition, the cap lowers over time, so not only does it completely limit the amount of carbon emissions, it continues to reduce them.

I hope that helps to clarify our views on these two extremely important subjects.

Thanks,

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Heather: Tidal power runs into several problems especially compared to windmills. Much tougher metals and framing have to be used to withstand corrosion and much more powerful impacts of water from rogue waves, tsunamis and mystery subsurface waves(One was claimed to have been generated in a Gulf Alaska storm in early 2006 that several days later resulted in a large iceberg near Antarctica shaking and breaking up in what was called calm seas.) These problems also apply to windmills built in the oceans.
I again note that ED seems to be silent on the developing of hydrogen. Why?
Cap and trade reduces emissions but does not remove one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35% and still growing overload of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. That overload is already causing serious effects such as cutting phytoplankton growth in warmer than normal oceans and destroying coral. The cutting and destroying will be reducing the uptake of that gas by those natural systems further aggravating the effects.
Where we need action on emissions is in stopping the needless reemitting of GHGs occurring by natural biodegradation arising from our present handling of the messes of organic wastes and sewage. A pyrolysis process mentioned in several of my comments will convert much of the carbon biochemicals in the wastes to inert charcoal and will destroy all the germs, toxics and drugs. Heather: I urge you and any readers to get ED alerted to using the pyrolysis process on those messes. Dr. J. Singmaster

Comment from Heather Shelby
November 21st, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Dr. J. Singmaster,

Firstly, we at EDF do understand the problems with tidal power - which is why I explained that the technology is still being refined. My point was simply that there is research on the subject being done in the U.S., and we support research into all forms of alternative energy - including hydrogen.

However, there are problems with hydrogen that are going to take much longer to fix. For example, on-board fuel storage is a huge problem, since at room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up 3,000 times more space than an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline. There are also serious safety issues with hydrogen, as it's among the most flammable substances known. Thirdly, producing hydrogen is expensive and energy-intensive [PDF]. The same energy used to create electricity would be used to create hydrogen, and today this mostly involves the use of fossil fuels. Finally, there is currently no fueling station infrastructure for hydrogen, and a National Renewable Energy Laboratory report estimates the cost at $837 million, while others say it could be tens of billions of dollars. All of these problems can be solved, but it will take approximately 20 years. The world cannot wait until 2030 to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles. It is worth researching long-term, but not as an immediate solution.

In one final note, EDF does also support the use of algae in reducing carbon, as well as some other solutions to pull existing carbon and greenhouse gases from the air. However, we see cap and trade as the best possible solution to reducing future emissions.

Thanks,

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

Comment from Randall Hartman
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 am

"Cap and Trade" programs to reduce carbon emission is for the most part a scam. It will do little to reduce those emissions. What we need is regulation and enforcement of those regulations. We also need to stop all subsidies to polluting industries, and reward those who do the right thing.

One very simple thing we could do is require that all new refrigerators have their motors installed on top. This, and adding more insulation you could increase the efficiency about 75%. It doesn't take rocket science.

Comment from Grace Mulei
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am

Dear Sam Parry,

Thank you very much for Obama Global Warming Action Plan, for States America.

The key factor is to rebuild economies through combat Global Warming Action Plan.

The developing countries are greatly affected by climate change. Yet they emit only 7% of greenhouse gas, while the industrialized countries emit 93%.

The effect of climate change include extreme and prolonged drought,severe winds, Tsunami, floods,and spread of avoidable deceases.

We are proud of Obama conquest for we believe he is our son from Kenya.Africans rely on their sons in many aspects.

We would wish for programs that work on the effects of global warming.They include environment conservation projects, campaigns, global warming advocacy, and green jobs creation for building economies. Thus contribute to the achievement of the MDGs.

We can revert Relief Food Dependency to Foo Security and sustainability. All this starts in schools, that produce communities every year, without sustainable development.

This needs a change. We can make this much required change.

Grace.

Comment from maha
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am

good luck to win . i support president-elect obama.i think it is very important to establish strong all level green .ecosytm . global warming,pollotion eduction .escpecialy public program more than just televsion and internet.may be at the malls , groceries trains ,subways and parks

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Heather: Thank you for responding as I hope a real dialog can get started to shift ED thinking.
In my first comment above I pointed out that EPA has a conference coming up on risks of drugs in drinking water, and now I ask you: do you like the idea of drugs in drinking water and don't you think that ED ought to be calling for action using the pyrolysis program that I outlined in my e-mail to you about the UGLY in water. The pyrolysis program applied to the ever-expanding massive messes of organic wastes and sewage would destroy germs, drugs and most toxics in them while converting 50% or more of the carbon to inert charcoal. That process would greatly reduce the chances for spreading of those mentioned hazards, and would greatly reduce the costs for new dumps free of the hazards. Also adding to the need for action on those messes is the NAS report calling for major steps to control pollution from storm drain discharges.
Concerning hydrogen, adsorptive materials have been developed to take up many volumes of hydrogen. One is being used in some hydrogen driven Hondas that are being tested in S. California at several car rental operations. One scientist said that because of hydrogen's lightness, it would drift away from a leakage site and likely be less of an explosive hazard than with vehicles using heavier-than-air natural gas, of which many thousands are already on the road. I am not sure why you mentioned electrolysis process for hydrogen as I said six different catalyst have been reported all using sunlight energy to split water to get hydrogen, so no fuel is burned.
Any biofuel concept with algae or trees simply does not face the basic biological fact that if you burn the fuel, you are recycling carbon dioxide without removing on balance one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35% and growing overload of that gas. Planting anything in mass, such as trees being claimed to remove that gas by some groups, may remove a little extra carbon dioxide over a few years, but they slough off leaves, flowers, wind broken branches, and finally die and decay reemitting in time all trapped carbon. Bulk composting now being done is just a speeding up of the recycling and reemitting natural biodegrading process that could be stopped by using pyrolysis.
I hope that I have gotten you concerned enough to get ED thinking on how to control more than just the global warming crisis as we have several others. The massive messes of organic wastes and sewage may soon be what starts taking people's lives and ruins our descendants' futures if we do not act now. Dr. James Singmaster

Comment from Mark Holland
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Destroy fifty million jobs, create fifty - sounds good to me!!!

Comment from neosapiens
November 25th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

It's true that addressing global warming will change the economic winners and losers, and people will have to change from jobs in dirty industries to jobs in clean ones. I'm deeply frustrated with the half-truths and distortions being promoted by far-right think-tanks and ossified business interests. Businesses have to change the way they operate all the time, and changing jobs and even changing careers is totally normal and to be expected in the modern world. The truth is that nimble and creative businesses will embrace new opportunities. To advocate doing nothing about global warming just because we're afraid of change is ridiculous! The claim that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will hurt the economy and destroy jobs is simply fearmongering. Done right, addressing global warming will renew our prosperity and enrich our quality of life. The real result of doing nothing will be economic collapse and vastly reduced quality of life and much shorter lifespans. We can't afford NOT to go green.

Comment from The Quadfather
November 25th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

I default to the fact that there is no golbal warming. It isn't happening. And the so called link to carbon dioxide has never been proven, in fact it has never even undergone scientific scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with change, but as witless Obama supporters don't understand, there are two kinds of change, there is good change and there is bad change. Forcing prices high just to affect change that otherwise wouldn't happen because the change is too expensive is bad change. If someone invents a car that's cheap and runs on cheap fuel that doesn't pollute and it's so competitive it forces other automakers to follow suit, just to compete, then that's a good change. This idea of getting rid of combustion is a bit rediculous. Just exactly do you propose to do that? Combustion is how the energy is released. Carbon dioxide is released, plants pick it up and turn it into oxygen. If you can do it, fine. Build the car that doesn't pollute. But until you do, don't blame me for wanting to drive a V8. And if I want to, I'll just take it on a cruise for absolutely no particular reason, just a joy ride. Because that is what freedom is about. That is my right. My vehicle, my fuel, my right. But the new administration isn't about freedom, they're about centralization and control. This I do not like. This is evil.

Comment from Ann Schneider
December 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Hi To All and specifically to Hawkeye and Dr. Singmaster

Re: Pyrolysis and other Conversion Technologies and Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE), and pharmaceutical waste (Pharms).

Sorry if I sound a bit like lecturing, please accept my apologies in advance. I am a zero waste, extended producer responsibility advocate. I’ve worked in the solid waste field a bit over 22 years. And I Chair the Sierra Club’s Zero Waste Committee. http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/garbage/

In a Zero Waste World producers are assigned responsibility for waste they generate from cradle to grave. When this happens they have to internalize the costs and that includes disposal whether that means landfilling, recycling/composting/reuse, or energy recovery. When they have to internalize the costs and figure out the way products/materials are handled at end of life, they will in time develop products that operate on a closed loop system (or as closed looped as possible). In time, less and less material is sent to disposal whether that is landfill or incinerators (or other conversion technology).

We also accept that materials that enter the marketplace have embodied energy (energy used during extraction of raw materials, all levels of processing, all transportation and all assembly and sale). While any part of the waste stream can be used to recover energy, generally only the available BTUs of that material are recovered and almost all the embodied energy is lost. And new raw materials must be extracted and processed to replace the materials that are “converted using pyrolsis, plasma arc or old fashion burning”. That is one reason why those of us who have worked to create markets for recyclables are leery of getting energy from waste. And especially from mixed solid waste. There are others concerns like the fact that burn plants generally need a contracted waste stream with then locks out recycling options using a mechanism called “put or pay” contracts with waste generators (local governments for residents and businesses). They also usually require public financing.

Another reason is extraction industries receive very large federal, state and often local subsidies for virgin materials and for landfilling and incineration operations. Recycling operators do not get these subsidies or if they do the subsidies are very small in comparison. If all subsidies are removed, leveling the playing field on conversion “burn” plants and landfills as well as virgin material extractors (like oil companies and metal miners) help the public see the true costs of these activities. In addition, it allows recyclables and composting operations to complete against them.

All that said, given local conditions like air quality, local energy supply options, climate, recycling markets, there may be places where “source separated waste streams” may be potential sources for energy generation. Local examples might be restaurant cooking oil and grease traps that are trucked hundreds of miles a way vs. sending them to the local sewage plant where they can be, in a separate biodigester, turned into biodiesel. I say separate as if this material is mixed with sewage sludge, it will get all the chemicals that people flush down the toilet and sink including pharmaceuticals (ingested or poured down the sewer). Other possible source separated waste streams are clean wood waste, compostables (greenwaste, foodwaste and food contaminated paper) where energy can be recovered AND the end product is still useful as some kind of soil amendment. The key, the critical key, is source separation.

Dr. Singmaster talks about pyrolysis for sewage sludge. My committee would agree completely that most sewage sludge is full of contaminants. We are discussing the possibility of recovering energy from sludge before the final residue is landfilled (not land applied). Here is a link to our ZW Policy and our Land Application of Sewage Sludge Guidance http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/policies/

As for collecting landfill gas to energy, the Sierra Club is in the draft stage of a policy on this issue but it is some months away before I can quote from it. It sounds like a great idea to collect methane from landfills. Most landfills are engineered to be “dry tombs” in other words, keep the water out. To maximize methane generation for energy, water needs to be added and most dry tomb landfills are not designed for that. Second, for anaerobic digestion to occur in landfills, oxygen needs to be absent. To create a vacuum to recover methane and other organic gases, pulls oxygen in, too much oxygen creates underground landfill fires. Garbage is not uniform, landfills will have leaks so we are working under a theory that as landfill piping systems are modified to collect methane for energy recovery, not flaring or on site co-generation, more leaks will be created in the landfill increasing the amount of methane leaking into the atmosphere. And since water was added the rate of methane generation has been increased by decades, so rather than slow methane leaks over 100 years, much greater concentrations of methane will leak over a much shorter time period. Sorry, I am still learning how to explain this simply. Soon we hope to role out information on this topic.

The US EPA said they think man can recover up to 90% of methane from landfills. We believe that the figure will be more like 20% of methane can ever be recovered from landfills over real time, say 100 years. End result, moving quickly toward landfill collection of methane for energy COULD cause huge increases of fugitive anthropogenic methane at the very time we need to slow this source of greenhouse gases. Precautionary Principle would encourage all of us to move slowly on this.

We advocate the removal of all compostable materials from landfills, and if energy recovery can happen at the same time as composting. Then for now that seems like a win for the planet. Far better to capture methane in an in-vessel anaerobic digestion composting system than to hope we can collect methane from a big hole in the ground or a pile in the sky.

As for pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in our sewage system, we hope in time EPR mechanisms like making pharmaceutical companies take back expired medications, can help reduce the toxicity of sludge and water effluent. But it will take time and all of us working toward a goal of reducing the toxic materials we’ve come to expect are part of the products we buy.

It is on my work plan to check with all the big national environmental groups like ED to see where they stand on garbage to energy whether in the form of LFGTE or other forms of conversion technology. And if they are trying to show a willingness to help the planet find energy solutions by being open to energy from waste, are they, and is ED, being specific about source separated waste streams. I hope Heather can respond.

Respectfully,

Ann Schneider

Comment from Heather Shelby
December 8th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Ann,

I wanted to write back and include a few links that should give you a better idea of EDF's recent policy towards LFGTE solutions.

First, here is a link to a press release about a law suit we filed a few months ago with the EPA, related to landfills and LFGTE. http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8714 If you have further questions about that release, there is a list of contacts.

Also, here is the letter we sent the EPA announcing our intent to sue: http://www.edf.org/documents/8713_NOILandfillNSPSOct2008.pdf

I hope this gives you a better idea about our recent actions to promote LFGTE.

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund