April 16, 2007
Global Warming Rural Areas Too
The Center for Rural Affairs has begun to question whether anyone has really given full consideration for the way that global warming will affect Rural America. In an essay printed in their most recent newsletter, the Center focuses on three effects from Global Warming.
- .
- Higher temperatures increase moisture stress and make us more vulnerable to drought.
- Global warming is prompting an increase in extreme weather events – from downpours to drought. Neither is good.
- Climate change has the potential to shift weather patterns. Agricultural communities have made investments based on current weather patterns. If the rain shifts elsewhere, the effect may be neutral for the world, but it will be devastating for those communities.
This will not come cheaply; not for the rural America, not for America at all.
Most economists believe that combating the problem will cost roughly one percent of gross domestic product, according to The New York Times, comparable to the spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.There is another part of the problem that is inherent in too many proposed solutions. There is a tendency to seek solutions as if they were the Pill of Murti-Bing. There is not such magic. Solutions are complex. Electric Cars may not even transport high school students to class in Burns, OR where the one way trip could be 90 minutes or more. Solutions are coplex and require more than simplistic solutions. But, we need a dedication to supplying solutions in the first place. That is not what I see in most political rhetoric.
Solutions for rural America may include a role for sequestering carbon as the Center suggests. However, rural solutions have ot go far beyond that. For example, we need to look at the controllable contributions to greenhouse gas from the massive, factory scale dairy and hog raising operations. It is known that these contribute over 25% of the air pollution in California's San Joaquin Valley.
This is one are where the Rural Caucus of the Green Party needs to make it self heard at the national level; Even though we are not officially recognized, we can demand that the next Green Party Presidential Candidate be competent to speak on the questions Global Warming and how it affects all of America.
Posted by Wes at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 25, 2005
Energy policy in production
I think that there are many good examples of technologies that could be used for energy reduction / production along with farm operations. The following is just one example. If you have a good example, send it to me (wrolley@charter.net) and I will post it.
___
When farmers are willing to think seriously about the energy costs of their operation they can often find creative ways to produce their own energy while reducing the polluting effects of their operation. One very good example comes from the small dairy operation of Marin County, CA, dairy operator Albert Straus. Strauss has installed a methane digester system at his 270 cow dairy farm. The methane produced is used to power, among other things, a 75 kilowatt electric generator.
This story was originally publised in the San Francisco Chronicle. This story was recently updated by San Francisco's CBS affiliate KPIX Ch. 5 this week. Straus Farms has saved over half of their initial investment in the 18 months that they have been in operation. I am trying to get access to a video of that segment and will place the link here if successful.
Note: there are two things that make this viable: net metering and some offset of the original capital cost. The most important is the California net metering law, a subject that has been discussed on ruralgreen email list, especially as it relates to Michigan and their utilities.
Posted by Wes at 05:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 01, 2005
Energy Proposal
I propose that the Rural Greens work for decentralization of the power grid, and that we:
- advocate placing wind farms in industrial parks close to places of high
demand;
- encourage urban planners to incorporate rooftop solar panels;
- oppose the use of rural or wild land for mega-energy projects, including the unhealthy and unsightly giant power lines that already scar parts of the West, Mid-West, and Old Northwest;
- demand rural electrification grids be local and built to appropriate scale to serve only the area's rural needs;
- promote the idea of an energy-luxury-use tax, which will put the burden of higher energy prices on those using energy in wasteful, high-consumption ways (example: SUVs, large motor boats, electrified grass whips, toothbrushes, toys, etc.);
- advocate for simpler, truly earth-gentle lifestyles and building and zoning codes that foster such living rather than make it impossible.
Posted by Wes at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 09, 2005
The natural gas problem
Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the US, the general media has been making a major issue about the effect on natural gas prices and what that means for heating homes this winter. All of this is true except for the fact that they are probably guessing about the cost. I have heard estimates of 30 to 70% increases. I will tell you that in California, Pacific Gas & Electric raised natural gas rates this month from 0.99 per therm to 1.68. That is the 70% increase they were talking about.
What they are not talking about is the fact that a significant amount of the nitrogen fertilizer used in North America is sourced from natural gas.
Prowling around the internet today, I found this statement in testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
My purpose today is to discuss the devastating impact that the sharp rise in natural gas prices is having on both the fertilizer industry and on the American farmer. -- Mr. Glen Buckley Chief Economist, CF Industries.
The problem with Mr. Buckley's testimony is the fact that this was in 2001. However, he was right. In the production of Ammonia fertilizers, natural gas is 75 to 90% of the total cost of production. The cost to farm is going up again, as is the cost of everything we buy at the supermarket.
The news is not telling us that. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is not even looking at it. All that the House is doing is fighting over who gets a new refinery. Anyone want to bet on Texas? The Committee Chair is Joe Barton.
This is another case where politicsians and the media just don't believe that rural people vote, or that they know which way they will vote (red state?). So, they figure that they can ignore it, which they will, until the prices of corn, wheat, cotton and everything we eat go up next year or more family farms are lost. Then they will wonder how it happened when they were not looking.
Posted by Wes at 06:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack