Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A balanced view on fracking?
Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, and the President of the Environmental Defense Fund, have a more or less pro-fracking piece in today's NYT. They acknowledge some problems but argue that they are solvable, and that on balance natural gas is a step in the right direction. This seems a pretty common-sensical position, which in today's world probably means that no one will support it at all, alas....
Monday, April 28, 2014
Taxing Solar in Oklahoma
Last week the Governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, signed SB 1456, which “sets up a mechanism for electric utilities to levy a tariff on customers with distributed generation- that is, electricity from on-site wind or solar generation” (Krehbeil). The purpose of the bill is to make sure that customers with distributed generation aren’t subsidized by customers of the same utility that do not have solar or wind power. The utility companies will have to pay customers with distributed generation for excess power entering the grid, but the industry argues that these customers should be charged for this because it doesn’t take in account of the cost of up keeping of the grid: costs that will get passed onto the customers of that utility. This bill will not apply to the 350 utility customers that already have alternative energy generation on site.
There is also controversy with the passing of a bill like this one. “MSNBC and others have dubbed the possible tariff a 'sun tax' and a crude attack on alternative energy” (Krehbeil). “Monopoly utilities want to extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in America to protect their socialist control of how we get our electricity” according to the website of Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed (Voorhees). There are multiple claims such as the ones above that are bashing the major electricity companies for trying to stop alternative energy.
I think this bill may be a little much, but I also understand why a bill like this was passed. With a large amount of Oklahoma's economy based on the oil and natural gas markets, as well as being mostly energy independent, there is always some fear of alternate energy markets taking money from the oil and natural gas markets. With this bill it helps keep the money in the utility industry and helps Oklahoma to become closer to having its own power grid. I myself have intentions of actually moving to Oklahoma after I graduate, and I really don’t view this much different than the “rain tax” we have here in Maryland; the “rain tax” wouldn’t prevent me from adding a paved driveway to my home or business. I think the idea of putting solar panels on one’s house or business is a beneficial investment; I don’t think this tariff imposed on private wind or solar energy generation would stop me from putting solar panels on my house if I ever choose to do so.
There is also controversy with the passing of a bill like this one. “MSNBC and others have dubbed the possible tariff a 'sun tax' and a crude attack on alternative energy” (Krehbeil). “Monopoly utilities want to extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in America to protect their socialist control of how we get our electricity” according to the website of Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed (Voorhees). There are multiple claims such as the ones above that are bashing the major electricity companies for trying to stop alternative energy.
I think this bill may be a little much, but I also understand why a bill like this was passed. With a large amount of Oklahoma's economy based on the oil and natural gas markets, as well as being mostly energy independent, there is always some fear of alternate energy markets taking money from the oil and natural gas markets. With this bill it helps keep the money in the utility industry and helps Oklahoma to become closer to having its own power grid. I myself have intentions of actually moving to Oklahoma after I graduate, and I really don’t view this much different than the “rain tax” we have here in Maryland; the “rain tax” wouldn’t prevent me from adding a paved driveway to my home or business. I think the idea of putting solar panels on one’s house or business is a beneficial investment; I don’t think this tariff imposed on private wind or solar energy generation would stop me from putting solar panels on my house if I ever choose to do so.
--Eric Caswell
Friday, April 25, 2014
Good News for Migrant Workers
It's Florida, not Maryland, but hey: it's nice to have a success story to report on. For the past few years, tomato pickers in Florida have been agitating for large corporations to pay a little extra- a penny per pound of tomatoes- to ensure better conditions for the migrant workers who pick there. After getting a few large corporations to sign on, they finally landed a real whopper (more of a whopper than Burger King, which had already signed on): Walmart is in. The corporations buying the tomatoes are spending a total of about $4 million more per year, and a lot of that is going to cover costs such as providing tents where growers can get out of the sun, Spanish-speaking telephone hotlines over which workers can report sexual harassment, and wages for the time pickers spend waiting. Much of the rest is going to higher wages for the pickers.
Since I just finished reading your Hands of Harvest essays, I've got Maryland's migrant workers on the mind. One step toward getting the crab pickers more money might be to get buyers paying a premium for Maryland crabs. That's a start, not a complete solution, because then someone needs to oversee implementation of worker safety, the phone hotline, etc., but it might help!
Thursday, April 24, 2014
True Blue Maryland Crabs
Kinda seems like it should be true "red yellow black and white" or something (I still don't know what to make of the Maryland flag!) but I wanted to point you to a website that one of you referred to in responding to the Hands of Harvest movie. True Blue Maryland Seafood shows where to get real locally produced crabs.
Also, let me be sure you don't misunderstand: the idea of "local food" creates problems when it's overemphasized, but that doesn't mean I'm against eating local crabs, for instance! In fact, we should enjoy our local specialty as much as possible since our state is well-situated to produce them.
Also, let me be sure you don't misunderstand: the idea of "local food" creates problems when it's overemphasized, but that doesn't mean I'm against eating local crabs, for instance! In fact, we should enjoy our local specialty as much as possible since our state is well-situated to produce them.
Monday, April 21, 2014
A Setback for Cellulosic biofuels
Everyone knows that corn ethanol isn't a great way to produce fuel, and the hope has long been that we could do something like take the unused parts of the corn plant (stalks, leaves, etc.) and turn that into fuel. Well, that vision suffered a setback today when an in-depth study found that the process is not as productive as hoped: in fact, it may be counter-productive, according to a professor at the University of Nebraska. That's unfortunate: it would sure be great if we could get that technology rolling!
Marijuana Decriminalization: A Recipe for Environmental Destruction?
Marijuana, grass, reefer, pot, herb, ganja, whichever nickname you prefer, Maryland’s general assembly recently passed a bill to decriminalize (not legalize) possession of less than 10 grams of it. Governor O’ Malley signed the bill and it will take effect in the beginning of October. Although this bill does not condone marijuana growing operations in the state of Maryland, its outcome is likely to increase demand for one of America’s favorite recreational drugs (surpassed only by alcohol and tobacco).
Approximating illegal drug consumption is quite tricky, let alone determining black market value; however, over 14 million Americans regularly consume marijuana in a market worth an estimated $2.34 billion. But before you rush out to buy the finest bag to celebrate this momentous occasion in Maryland’s history, I’d like to reveal some of the clouded side effects of marijuana.
According to The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, prohibition of marijuana costs tax-payers $12 billion annually for eradicating crops, prosecution and incarceration, law enforcement and other anti-marijuana-related programs (http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/economics-reports ). Meanwhile, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado brought in over $3.5 million in taxes, licenses, and fees in January alone. Compared with last year’s revenue of a $256,856 for medicinal marijuana only, legalization obviously has the potential to generate a substantial amount of money. Many Marylanders see decriminalization as the first step to full-on, tax-generating, marijuana legalization.
However, in addition to public health concerns, marijuana poses significant risks to our environment and requires the same resources as any other crop. In 2013, California authorities seized 119,000 pounds of trash, 17,000 pounds of fertilizers, 244 propane tanks, 89 illegal dams, 61 car batteries, and 40 gallons of pesticides from illegal marijuana growing operations! In addition to pollution, outdoor operations in California alone use nearly 60 million gallons of water a day during the growing season, which is 50 percent more than the consumption of San Francisco residents. Nationally, enough electricity is used by indoor marijuana growing operations to power 1.7 million homes. And for every pound of pot grown indoors, 4,600 pounds of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the production and distribution of marijuana emits as much carbon as 3 million cars. Marijuana also caused over two dozen streams to stop flowing and is considered to be the number one threat to salmon in northern California. Perhaps marijuana isn’t as green as the plant or the money it produces.
Although growing operations pose serious risks, federal legalization would enable states to enact legislation and restrictions to prevent many of these detrimental impacts to the environment. Not only does the current bureaucratic dichotomy prevent federal and state authorities from creating and enforcing growing regulations, it increases the demand for black market marijuana, which only serves to exacerbate environmental negligence. The economic benefits of the marijuana industry, illustrated by Colorado, need to be removed from drug dealers and placed into the hands of local governments where they can be spent on education, prevention, and support services. With Baltimore City schools facing a $31 million budget shortfall next year, this policy has the potential to upgrade facilities, hire teachers, and result in an overall improvement for Maryland’s education system. Federal legalization would also create jobs and enable marijuana to be harvested locally; currently 80 percent of the estimated 22 million pounds produced annually, come from only 5 states.
Finally, regardless of your stance on marijuana use and abuse, people are going continue to smoke, eat, vaporize, or otherwise ingest the drug. Keeping harmful substances out of the hands of our children should be the number one concern, but the fact remains that prohibition doesn’t resolve this issue. Channeling income into educational resources—for drug and conventional schooling—is a much better use of public money than spending it on jailing, prosecuting, and sentencing citizens for possessing such a widely used drug. Maryland’s move to decriminalize will produce revenue in the form of fines: first offense: $100, second offense: $250, subsequent offenses: up to $500, but it’s unlikely to equal the amount generated in taxes, fees, and licenses from lawful businesses. Therefore, legalization should be Maryland’s next course of action in order to save our schools and the environment.
Approximating illegal drug consumption is quite tricky, let alone determining black market value; however, over 14 million Americans regularly consume marijuana in a market worth an estimated $2.34 billion. But before you rush out to buy the finest bag to celebrate this momentous occasion in Maryland’s history, I’d like to reveal some of the clouded side effects of marijuana.
According to The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, prohibition of marijuana costs tax-payers $12 billion annually for eradicating crops, prosecution and incarceration, law enforcement and other anti-marijuana-related programs (http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/economics-reports ). Meanwhile, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado brought in over $3.5 million in taxes, licenses, and fees in January alone. Compared with last year’s revenue of a $256,856 for medicinal marijuana only, legalization obviously has the potential to generate a substantial amount of money. Many Marylanders see decriminalization as the first step to full-on, tax-generating, marijuana legalization.
However, in addition to public health concerns, marijuana poses significant risks to our environment and requires the same resources as any other crop. In 2013, California authorities seized 119,000 pounds of trash, 17,000 pounds of fertilizers, 244 propane tanks, 89 illegal dams, 61 car batteries, and 40 gallons of pesticides from illegal marijuana growing operations! In addition to pollution, outdoor operations in California alone use nearly 60 million gallons of water a day during the growing season, which is 50 percent more than the consumption of San Francisco residents. Nationally, enough electricity is used by indoor marijuana growing operations to power 1.7 million homes. And for every pound of pot grown indoors, 4,600 pounds of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the production and distribution of marijuana emits as much carbon as 3 million cars. Marijuana also caused over two dozen streams to stop flowing and is considered to be the number one threat to salmon in northern California. Perhaps marijuana isn’t as green as the plant or the money it produces.
Although growing operations pose serious risks, federal legalization would enable states to enact legislation and restrictions to prevent many of these detrimental impacts to the environment. Not only does the current bureaucratic dichotomy prevent federal and state authorities from creating and enforcing growing regulations, it increases the demand for black market marijuana, which only serves to exacerbate environmental negligence. The economic benefits of the marijuana industry, illustrated by Colorado, need to be removed from drug dealers and placed into the hands of local governments where they can be spent on education, prevention, and support services. With Baltimore City schools facing a $31 million budget shortfall next year, this policy has the potential to upgrade facilities, hire teachers, and result in an overall improvement for Maryland’s education system. Federal legalization would also create jobs and enable marijuana to be harvested locally; currently 80 percent of the estimated 22 million pounds produced annually, come from only 5 states.
Finally, regardless of your stance on marijuana use and abuse, people are going continue to smoke, eat, vaporize, or otherwise ingest the drug. Keeping harmful substances out of the hands of our children should be the number one concern, but the fact remains that prohibition doesn’t resolve this issue. Channeling income into educational resources—for drug and conventional schooling—is a much better use of public money than spending it on jailing, prosecuting, and sentencing citizens for possessing such a widely used drug. Maryland’s move to decriminalize will produce revenue in the form of fines: first offense: $100, second offense: $250, subsequent offenses: up to $500, but it’s unlikely to equal the amount generated in taxes, fees, and licenses from lawful businesses. Therefore, legalization should be Maryland’s next course of action in order to save our schools and the environment.
--Nick Healy
Toilet to Tap?
Residents of California are experiencing a record setting drought, the worst in 500 years, “so bad it can clearly be seen from space,” (Resnick 2014). This has caused many problems, for residents and especially farmers. The most current proposition is: toilet water. Recycled water has been used in California before, as Orange County recycles some water and puts it back into aquifers (Sangree 2014). Orange County is one of the only places in California able to use recycled wastewater. Past attempts at implementing a wastewater recycling program to make said water potable, once in 1997 and then again in 2000, have been shut down due to public outcry (Resnick 2014). People can’t get past the “yuck factor,” (Sangree 2014). The main problem people have with drinking recycled wastewater is psychological (Resnick 2014). But the benefits of using this system would far outweigh any psychological concerns.
Over “a billion gallons of treated wastewater are pumped into the Pacific Ocean each year,” (Sangree 2014). In the midst of a severe drought, Californians should start warming to the idea of using recycled wastewater for more than irrigation, and should realize the necessity of using it as drinking water. Particularly with climate change and the risk of droughts persisting, California should seriously put more effort into treating their water to make it potable. Regardless of the “yuck factor,” it remains true that with the amount of treatment the wastewater would go through, the treated water would be “on par with distilled water,” (Sangree 2014).
Some investments have recently been made to start getting more recycled water into the California water supply (Resnick 2014). The city of Escondido has also approved a plan of $285 million to “turn all of its sewage into irrigation water over the next 15 years,” (Resnick 2014).
Over “a billion gallons of treated wastewater are pumped into the Pacific Ocean each year,” (Sangree 2014). In the midst of a severe drought, Californians should start warming to the idea of using recycled wastewater for more than irrigation, and should realize the necessity of using it as drinking water. Particularly with climate change and the risk of droughts persisting, California should seriously put more effort into treating their water to make it potable. Regardless of the “yuck factor,” it remains true that with the amount of treatment the wastewater would go through, the treated water would be “on par with distilled water,” (Sangree 2014).
Some investments have recently been made to start getting more recycled water into the California water supply (Resnick 2014). The city of Escondido has also approved a plan of $285 million to “turn all of its sewage into irrigation water over the next 15 years,” (Resnick 2014).
--Claire Fremuth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)