NEWSLETTER: October 2007
Barbara Bell reminded us in her HOT AIR column Changing Places, that climate experts are saying by the end of the century, Connecticut is headed towards matching Virginia’s temperatures and weather. With these hot and humid evenings in October, it now feels like we are headed more towards Mississippi or Florida.
RE: our ECC Meeting:
We will present the Freedom Lawn winners their prizes, and Christine Rodriguez, our Web Master, will give us instructions on how to blog at the ECC’s website. We also invite suggestions from our members for our web page.
Our meeting will then proceed to be an organizational meeting with Roger Smith, from Clean Water Action, acting as facilitator. The purpose is to help prioritize our goals, define our desires and to brainstorm. Meanwhile, we will be seeking members to take more leadership roles for those issues/committees that will best serve our community and the state (through legislative means), all in the name of environmental initiatives and under the auspices of the ECC. We need you all to attend, to give your voice and support and, if possible, a commitment to help.
The importance of this meeting feels the urgency of our time in history for protecting our home planet. It is also being driven, more than usual, by current events, one, very recently published in the New York Times, October 2, entitled: “Artic Melt Unnerves the Experts.” Another article, “Only a Generation Left,” which just came into my hands, is from the Milford Citizen, published 12/05/71, and written by my friend and neighbor, Grace Helm, who was, then, a reporter for the Milford Citizen. It is prophetically timely and I do request that you stop here and read it before continuing with this newsletter. (See below, printed at end of the newsletter.)
The National Conversation on Climate Action was not well attended, but it was successful in that those who did attend contributed much to the process. We thank all those who attended as well as our speakers: Alan Brewster, Ross Spiegel, Lee
Grannis, and Rev. Paige Besse-Rankin who gave us a very inspirational talk on the environment. Let me tell you about Rev. Paige’s powerful beginning. As she stood, she was holding this beautiful gift-wrapped package, sporting a big bow on top. She prefaced it by saying that this is how
she begins her talks with children, and then she said, “This gift appeared without a note,” then threw it onto the floor and proceeded to stomp on it. She picked it up and ripped it open to expose a squashed and split globe of the EARTH. “We have been given this gift, beautiful PLANET EARTH, look at how we are desecrating it.”
Below is a synopsis, written by Barbara Bell of the National Conversation on Climate Action, which, I believe, will be helpful for our ECC meeting and could become part of the foundation of our goals for the coming year.
General evaluation
The event was structured well, the speakers were excellent, and the discussions in the breakout groups were productive. Participants were enthusiastic about the event. In these senses, the conversation met and even exceeded our expectations. Attendance was lower than the 40-50 we had planned for however, which was disappointing. This was probably due to inadequate publicity, though possibly also due to the event being scheduled on a weeknight. We thank everyone involved, from fellow organizers to participants.
National Conversation on Climate Action
October 4, 2007
--Synopsis of breakout group discussions generated by speakers on 3 topics--
Ideas to be investigated or implemented by city
via Milford Clean Energy Task Force or other agencies
- Carbon Footprint (Alan Brewster)
--Most important, general need is to change attitudes and provide info through diversified communication
- Organize small group discussions, neighborhood talks
- Involve new organizations: e.g. churches, service clubs, school boards, PTA’s, etc.
- Provide forums for educational films
- Work with UI to improve promotion for clean energy options program
--Advertise PV panels at Lisman Landing that community earned via clean energy options program
--Report tonight’s discussion to the community via public report and to country via national conversation website
--Improve transportation options in Milford
- Expand schedule, routes for bus service
- Increase number of bike trails and bike parking options
- Explore whether Milford has sufficient population density for use of zip cars
--Evaluate and publicize carbon-offset programs to centralize information for Milford citizens
--Start a municipal carbon offset program specifically for Milford citizens
2. Buildings (Ross Spiegel)
--Educate contractors about:
- Green building materials renewable energy installations (e.g. Solar roofs, micro wind)
- International energy conservation code
- Various “green” building standards such as “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” (LEED) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, and “build green,” a standard from the National Association of Homebuilders
--Educate/encourage homeowners to invest in energy efficiency improvements and use green materials
--Create a resource library in the city for energy conservation and building product selection
--Legislate that all municipal building projects should be LEED certified and/or meet performance standards that exceed basic codes, using a life-cycle justification.
3. Transportation (Lee Grannis)
--Use B-20 biodiesel in transit buses
--Adapt the city’s heavy vehicle fleet to use alternative fuels
--Create an intermodal transit center in downtown Milford (bus-to-train, smaller buses)
--Encourage citizens to use slow-speed vehicles locally
- Gain cooperation of police to support this practice
- Adapt traffic control systems to this practice, using CMAC funding
Some very helpful hints: Joe Lamp’l in the Register reminds us that autumn leaves make the best compost for your garden and lawn. We suggest that you let the lawn mower mulch them onto the lawn. To quote Joe, “Returning this raw leaf material is a nutrient-rich form which acts more efficiently and effectively than anything man has ever created.” He is requesting that people bring their leaves to him and as he says, “It is an organic fertilizer, a multivitamin and a soil conditioner all-in-one; it’s plentiful and it’s free. It doesn’t get any better.”
Leonardo DiCaprio says his main point in the film “11 Hour” is to shop smart. Every time you put money down to pay for something, you’re advocating the way that company does business. “If they have a terrible environmental practice, you’re then contributing to that in some way.” The second point he makes is, “It’s really just about creating public awareness to the point where we demand tangible change from the powers that be.”
Click and Clack, Tom and Ray Magliozzi from NPR’s CAR TALK and published in the Register say, “Don’t buy into automakers’ power trips.” They think this year’s cars, that have 4-cylinder engines, have enough get-up and go while the 6-cylinder cost more and use more gasoline. My Prius, for instance, has plenty of get-up and go and can get up to a high speed if I should need it in an emergency. The Prius can do 90 plus, but who needs to be driving at the unsafe speed of 95 miles an hour?
Tips for your fridge/freezer. 1. Keep the freezer mostly full, as Tom Natan, research director of National Environmental Trust says, “When you open the door, they will be less affected by incoming warm air, thus requiring less power to keep itself cold.” 2. To test the fridge’s temperature, place a thermometer in a glass of water in the middle of the refrigerator or in the freezer between your frozen foods, overnight. Your fridge should be between 37 and 40 degrees F, freezer between 0 and 5 degrees. “Adjust the setting, since keeping them just 10 degrees colder than necessary can boost your energy consumption by up to 25 percent.” * 3. Keep
the refrigerator out of direct sunlight and away from the range as this forces the refrigerator to use up more energy. It will use up to 2.5 percent more power for each degree the surrounding temperature is above 70 degrees, which could cost you up to $70 more per year. 4. Place a dollar bill between the door and frame, on all four sides, both the freezer and fridge, if it slips out easily or with little resistance when you pull on it, it means you are leaking air. Suggest you call the manufacturer’s service to find out how to replace the gasket.* 5. One last thing, get rid of any old freezer or fridge, this could save you more than $200 dollars a year, especially if it very old and inefficient.*
Dishwasher: An Energy Star dishwasher uses 4 gallons of water verses approximately 24 gallons to doing them in the sink. Thus, using a dishwasher saves 5,000 gallons of water, $40 in utility costs and 230 hours of your time each year. Also, not to mention, this is less water going into the water treatment plant, which saves on their energy—our taxes.
Toilet: Add vegetable dye to your toilet tank, keep in 2 hours and check to see if it is leaking. A leak can waste up to a gallon of water per minute. That’s more than 43,000 gallons a month. *
Shower and hot water heater: Reduce your hot water temperature to 120 degrees, also check for leaks by putting a pail below for a period of time.*
NOTE: UI will install a meter, free of charge, for your hot water heater to go on at night during off peak hours.
*From THIS OLD HOUSE magazine, Oct. ’07.
In case you missed Barbara Bell’s Hot Air issue on Green Light, here are directions on how you can dispose of a broken, energy-saving compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). First, here is a site with information on how to figure out your energy savings by using these CFL’s vs. incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
“The draw back with the CFL bulbs is that they contain mercury, which is very minute, but very toxic. If you should break it in your home, first, open a window and leave, ventilating the room for about 15 minutes. The rest is like handling animal waste. Scrape up the fragments with cardboard or some other tool, even sticky tape. Wipe the floor/rug with a wet towel. Put all the fragments and the cleaning items into a plastic bag and seal it. (Try not to use a broom or a vacuum, but if you have to vacuum, put the vacuum bag into the sealed plastic bag, too.)
Keep the bag someplace safe for later disposal. Wash your hands. Remind yourself that cleaning up an old mercury thermometer is worse, since it contains 500 milligrams of mercury, compared to CFL’s five. Next, it needs to be disposed of at the HazMat Collection Center in New Haven on scheduled dates. Other state recyclers are listed on a DEP website you can access through www.lamprecycle.org. For more information from the DEP, go to:
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/p2/newsletter/p2viewfall07.pdf. This is their newsletter with news on everything from organic land care, cleaning with green products, recycling to conservation and energy rebates. See also this suggested site about rebates: www.ctclimatechange.com/WhatCanIDo.html
diane Vasseur and I attended a talk at the DEP. The speaker was Nancy Cole who represented the Union of Concerned Scientists. Her talk was a report which says, “The new state-of-the-art research shows that if global warming emissions continue to grow unabated, Connecticut can expect dramatic changes in climate over the course of this century, with substantial impacts on the state’s economy and character.” This, however, could be changed with the lowering of emissions.
It was demonstrated by contrasting the two different emissions scenarios. The higher-emissions, assuming continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels and rising CO2 and temperatures for the rest of the century versus lower-emissions scenario assuming a shift away from fossil fuels in favor of clean energy technologies, thus lowering them by mid-century.
The higher scenario predictions show that by the end of the century, the CO2 count will go from today’s level of 280 ppm (parts per million) to 990, and the temperatures from 1970 to 2000 will show a 4 degree rise with predicted 8-12 degree rise for winter and a 6-14 degree rise for summers by the end of the century. Along with this higher scenario, is sea level rise to two feet—a conservative estimate. The lower scenario predictions: CO2 to rise to 550 ppm, temperature rise to 6 degrees and sea level rise from 7 to 14 inches by end of century. These figures are contingent on there being no major surprises, though the acceleration of the melting on Greenland and the permafrost in Siberia does cause concern.
The report notes that in the higher scenario, the number of 100-year storms would happen every two years, while the lower scenario, it would occur every 17 years. This would certainly affect us in Milford. We can expect more changes affecting agriculture, fishing, recreation, forestry, climate and health, etc. There are also many suggestions of how we can affect more positive changes. For this report go to: www.climatechoices.org.
Ann Berman, Chair of ECC
CITIZEN COMMENTARY
Only A generation leFT
By Grace Helm
Citizen Staff Writer
A cartoon some years back depicted a dike in Holland with a dozen or so pantaloomed Dutch men, each with his thumb stuck in a hole in the dike. The caption read: “We need a new dike.”
Something like this philosophy might be useful when thinking about pollution.
Scientists and researchers are telling us that unless pollution is stopped, all life in the oceans will be dead in a generation. A generation is calculated as about 35 years.
What is the source of all this sludge?
To begin with, the automobile industry, which accounts for about one sixth of the national economy, generates almost half of the nation’s air pollution.
It’s associate, the oil industry, is responsible for much ocean pollution. Oil in the ocean never goes away, and each year, millions of tons of petroleum are flushed from ships, spilled at fueling ports, and poured into the sea from leaking or runaway offshore wells and wrecked tankers.
These crimes go unpunished. The oil tankers sail away, get patched up here and there, and are free to sin again.
Apart from that, the United States alone, in one recent year, dumped at least ten million tons of waste at sea, plus forty million tons of dredging spoils. Included in the waste was sewage sludge and trash as well as nerve gas and radioactive wastes.
Long lasting pesticides and chemical fertilizers are carried into streams, lakes, rivers and oceans. There they poison life, and find their way up the food chain to people, eagles and ospreys.
The death of ocean life will affect the supply of oxygen for breathing on land.
Beyond that, detergents pollute (and produce twice the profits that non-polluting soaps do.) Plastics pollute more than glass and synthetics pollute more than natural fibers. Plastics and synthetics also produce bigger profits than glass and natural fibers.
New technologies are producing higher profits and creating vast new pollution problems. There are no curbs on this production.
Nuclear power plants don’t create as much air pollution as oil and coal fired ones do—but nuclear power plants do create more thermal pollution in the water used for cooling.
How to Approach the Problem
A song popular in the depression years of the 1930’s went, “What to do about it?”—Let’s put out the lights and go to sleep.”
This might have been easier to do in the face of economic depression than it is under the threat of pollution annihilation.
Attacking the situation on the individual level may actually do more harm than good, since it tends to distract attention
long time to work with, and only solutions on a scale equal to
It is all very well to ask people to use soap, but if detergents are polluting, then why is their production legal?
Controls should be instituted to limit and sometimes prohibit production of goods that pollute. Technologies that add to the problem should be discouraged. In reality, they are often subsidized, if not paid for outright by the government—as in the case of supersonic transport.
It is fine to ask people to commute by bike, but if combustion engines are responsible for half the nation’s air pollution, then their production will have to be sharply limited. Private cars will have to run on electricity or some other device. Mass transport will have to be developed instead of more and more federal highways—which actually amount to a subsidy of the automobile industry.
If the gas and oil-consuming automobile is killing us, then why encourage its unrestricted proliferation? Strict auto controls are deadlined for 1976, but many say that final solution to the problem is still quite far away.
If oil is killing the ocean life, and therefore threatening human life, then why not scale down the national dependence on oil?
If the U.S. government dumps lethal nerve gas in the ocean to get rid of it, then why produce lethal nerve gas in the first place?
Why do all these things continue to happen? Because there are no laws to prevent their happening.
After all, how many people would pay income tax, if there were no law requiring them to? In the same way, how many industries can be expected to cut their profits and stop producing pollution until the law requires this.
Before legislation can be enacted that will head directly into the problem, legislators must be elected who will serve the common good, and not be influenced by specific business interests or industries.
Actually, the American people, if adequately informed on—and adequately afraid of--the pollution problem, could be counted on to elect legislators who would attack that problem—if only for survival’s sake.
The problem is that elections come after nominations. And nominations for the most part do not involve the great majority of American voters. It is at this point the special interests can get in with their big favors.
Legislators and executives are much too beholden to the big money that supports their political efforts.
How to get the American voter in between the big money and the government is the problem that must be solved before adequate measures will ever be enacted to reverse pollution.
It doesn’t sound all that revolutionary or even exciting, but possibly nation-wide direct primaries would be the first step in building a new dike.
(This has been retyped for clarity.)
|
