Sen. Warner Fighting Wind Power?

I've been trying to make sense of a strange story I just learned about today. According to a recent US News & World Report article, "2006 was supposed to be a banner year for wind power. Instead, experts say, the industry is faltering while it awaits the results of the study mandated in this year's defense authorization bill by [Virginia] Senator John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee."

Obviously no one wants to put national security at risk. But this "study" has gone beyond cautiousness to the point of blatant foot-dragging.

The Sierra Club reports Donald Rumsfeld and the Dept. of Defense have not only missed a deadline for completing a study on the issue, they've just missed a deadline for explaining why they missed the deadline for completing the study:

According to media reports, at least 15 wind farm proposals in the Midwest have been shut down so far. The list of stalled projects includes one outside Bloomington, Illinois, which would have been the nation's largest source of wind energy, generating enough electricity to power 120,000 homes in the Chicago area. Coal and natural gas will likely replace the lost wind generation, resulting in higher energy costs and increased soot, smog and global warming pollution.

No one's pretending wind power is going to replace fossil fuels as our main power source anytime soon. But at a time when Republicans are so furiously pushing "energy production" (a.k.a. drilling for oil & natural gas), I don't understand why they would block new sources of energy.

Please email Sen. Warner to ask why he's helping block important new sources of renewable energy, and forward this information to your environmentally-minded friends! Just use the little envelope thing at the bottom of this post.

More Evidence Virginia's Going from Red to Purple

A new Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll has Jim Webb and George Allen in a statistical dead heat in Virginia's US Senate race. A Survey USA poll shows the same thing.

As I've mentioned before, neither candidate takes much of a stand on environmental issues, and I don't expect that to change. Putting on my pundit hat for a minute, Allen doesn't have many options besides sticking to the I'll-cut-your-taxes-and-save-you-from-terrorists mantra that has served Republicans so well. And if Webb is smart, his Tim Russert dry-erase board will look like this:

IRAQ
IRAQ
IRAQ

Are All Organic Dairy Products Created Equally?

A new study from the Cornucopia Institute tries to answer that question, rating organic dairy products from different farms & companies.

I was eager to read it, since organic dairy products often have an especially high mark-up over their non-organic counterparts. However, the study seems to be so determined to prove its organization's points that it's not helpful to the everyday shopper.

It actually only rates smaller farms and companies, saying private-label firms refused to participate in the study. Therefore only one product I frequently buy is even rated -- Stonyfield Yogurt.

The rest are given a zero score, but grouped into types of company (store-brand, large corporation, etc.) and painted with a broad brush. Harris Teeter- and Whole Foods- brand organic milk get zero scores but "two-cow" ratings, while Horizon gets a zero score but a "zero-cow" rating. Little explanation is given other than a general bias about the type of company.

All that is fine if you're trying to make a political statement, but not terribly helpful for the average consumer. I guess I'll avoid the Horizon milk/eggs from now on? Let me know if you have any tips on buying organic!

UPDATE: The Nation devotes this week's entire issue to the politics of food

The Best Way You Can Help the Environment: Change the System

At last weekend's Arlington County Fair, several people came up to the ACE booth and asked the best way they could help improve Arlington's environment.

For me, that's always a tough question to answer. People want simple solutions, like "If your office doesn't recycle, take your empty containers home and recycle them yourself." It's easy and doesn't force anyone out of their comfort zone. If you try to challenge them to take the next step, like "Go to your facility manager and ask why your office doesn't recycle," they're often reluctant.

As helpful as it is for you to change your behavior, you can do exponentially more good by changing the system. Buying a hybrid car is good, but getting your company to change its fleet to hybrids makes a lasting impact on our air quality. Installing a rain barrel is good; organizing people in your civic association to install rain barrels can save a stream. Buying organic beer & wine is good; getting your favorite restaurant to carry organic beer exposes hundreds of people to green products.

Here are more ways to help the environment at home, on the road, and in your community!

The Shifting Winds of the Global Warming Debate

At this point, even the harshest critics of global warming (like Gregg Easterbrook) are giving up on their argument that the planet is just going through some sort of a natural cycle. The evidence is overwhelming that the planet is warming due to human actions.

The few remaining people clinging to their belief that nothing is wrong have simply stopped debating. Much like Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House, no matter the evidence, they insist all is well.

But many of those global warming critics are now trying to re-frame the terms of the debate, shifting tactics and digging new trenches in the political battle, and environmentalists need to change with the times or risk being caught off-guard.

Republicans who once argued the planet wasn't warming are now admitting that the planet is warming, but that either there's nothing to be done about it, or that the costs of doing something are so high, they're not worth doing. Instead, we should "adapt to inevitable changes."

Corporations are now trying to duck responsibility by painting themselves green. General Motors, famous for being a prime suspect in the murder of the electric car, continues to flog its hydrogen car prototype as proof that it's trying to go green, despite mountains of evidence that hydrogen cars are nothing more than a red herring. And they're still fighting higher fuel economy standards (they haven't been raised in 20 years).

But just because Wal-Mart is now stocking organic products doesn't mean it's suddenly a net benefit to the environment. It's a band-aid on the open wound Wal-Mart has inflicted.

No matter the distractions, environmentalists need to stay focused on what's important. We've played a role in the planet's warming, and we have a role to play in helping return it to balance. It will take major shifts in energy usage and major advances in techology to help that happen. But we have to try. We're already seeing signs of the consequences of inaction.

UPDATE: Another tactic -- don't deny the facts of global warming, just accuse your opponents of being hypocrites.

The Green Burial Movement

This week's edition of grist.org's Main Dish tackles an uncomfortable subject -- how to carry your environmental principles over to the afterlife. It profiles Joe Sehee, the executive director of bizarrely yet accurately named Green Burial Council.

"There's a cultural barrier to green burial in mainstream culture," says Kim Sorvig, a landscape architect at the University of New Mexico who serves as an advisor to the Green Burial Council. "We have a detachment or denial about people dying. You can go your entire life and never be confronted with the actual facts of death."

It's something we all prefer not to think about, but Sehee makes a great case that properly planning out your burial can make a real contribution to the environment, both by avoiding the toxic materials usually involved, and by directing the funds to organizations concerned with conservation.

Too creepy for a Thursday morning? OK, read this instead.

Too Many Trees?

UPDATE: The Sun-Gazette published our letter ... and apparently we're not the only ones to object!

------------------------------------------------------

This comes from the July 31st "Political Notes" column in the Sun-Gazette newspaper ...

TREES? WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TREES: Among those who joined us for dinner at the Lead Virginia field trip to Tysons Corner on July 21 was Gerald Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.We don't always agree with Connolly, but we like him. Along with Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean Connaughton, who also attended, Connolly made some valid points about the deteriorating relationship between the state government and Northern Virginia's localities.

But another thing Connolly said struck us as interesting. He noted that, in Fairfax County, there are more trees today than there were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Tree-huggers (our phrase, not his) don't believe this, but it's true.

Hmmm. Could the same thing be true in Arlington? We know that a whole lot of old-growth trees were cut down in the building of Arlington National Cemetery, but is it possible that there are more
trees today than in years gone by? If so, the county government's hysteria over preserving trees (although it does a rather shabby job of maintaining trees on its own property) would seem to be a bit misplaced.

Here's the letter to the editor Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment sent in response ...

It was surprising to see a friend of the environment, Fairfax County Board Chairman Gerry Connolly, take a jab at environmentalists in the Sun-Gazette's July 31st Political Notes column. "[Connolly] noted that, in Fairfax County, there are more trees today than there were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Tree-huggers (our phrase, not his) don't believe this, but it's true."

Yes, in terms of sheer numbers, there were fewer trees in our region's agricultural economy than there are today in our high-tech age, and yes, there are probably some tree lovers who feel no tree should ever be cut down for any reason. But it's disappointing to hear Chairman Connolly using the low point of Fairfax's arboreal history as his frame of reference, and using the views of a few extremists to represent all environmentalists.

The need for trees is not about a numbers game. We need to find sustainable solutions to our region's prolonged pollution problems, and a comprehensive tree management plan is a part of the answer. The US Environmental Protection Agency has designated the Washington region (including Fairfax and Arlington Counties) as a nonattainment area for both ground-level ozone and fine particles. According to the International Society of Arboriculture, trees can help absorb that ozone and filter out those particulates. Trees also reduce water pollution by absorbing stormwater runoff, offer shade and cool urban heat islands, and provide habitat for wildlife.

Beyond the technical talk, trees are fun for climbing, picnicking, and yes, for providing the paper to print our favorite local newspapers. Let's work together to make sure they're around for generations to come!

Miles Grant
Board Chair
Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment
http://www.arlingtonenvironment.org/

Rubber Sidewalks: A Win-Win Policy

According to the AP, the District has invested $60,000 in buying sidewalks made from recycled tire rubber.

"The rubber squares are up to three times more expensive than concrete slabs but last longer, because tree roots and freezing weather won't crack them. That, in turn, could reduce the number of slip-and-fall lawsuits filed over uneven pavement.

"The shock-absorbing surface also happens to be easier on the joints of joggers, and more forgiving when someone takes a spill.

"And the rubber sidewalks are considered more environmentally friendly: They offer a way to recycle some of the estimated 290 million tires thrown out each year in the U.S., and they do not constrict tree roots the way concrete slabs do."

Has Arlington looked into rubber sidewalks? Here's a link to Rubbersidewalks.com.

An Environmentalist's Secret Shame: I Don't Love Metro

As an environmentalist, I love the benefits public transportation brings to a community. Primarily, public transportation gets cars off the road, leading to reduced air pollution.

There are other benefits, too. Riding a bus is 79 times safer than driving a car. And public transportation saves 855 million gallons of gasoline a year, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

And beyond that, riding Metro certainly can be a more civilized experience than driving. I see a lot more of my neighbors & neighborhood than I did when I drove. I get to read the paper in the morning and a book on the way home. I probably had read two books for pleasure in the two years prior to Metroing to work. I've read four in the last three months (right now I'm working on JFK's Profiles in Courage). I also get a lot more exercise, walking about 45 minutes a day to & from Metro stations.

But even with all those benefits ... I don't love Metro.

Oh, those environmental benefits are so tantalizing! Much like Eminem repeatedly marrying Kim Mathers or George Steinbrenner repeatedly hiring Billy Martin, I keep coming back no matter how many times I get burned.

But trains slow to a crawl in severe weather -- high temperatures, heavy rain, or any kind of snow. Even routine train breakdowns send shockwaves through the system, turning station platforms into mosh pits. When it comes to homeland security in DC, the elephant in the room is that if Metro ever suffered a terrorist attack against its infrastructure, the city would grind to a halt for weeks, if not months.

The Metro station workers are surly, one even accusing my 64-year-old mom of being a turnstyle-jumper.

The longest, eight-car trains are unwieldy, lurching through tunnels and often making jarring stops in stations. It's not quite the rollercoaster at the county fair, but it's not pleasant.

Even when I'm not commuting, I often end up wondering if I'd have been better off driving. On late nights and weekends, waits can run up to 20 minutes. After a while, you start to feel like the grailkeeper in Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade. You chose ... poorly. And late weekend nights are miserable. It once took me an hour and a half to get from U Street to Virginia Square, making a $20 cab ride seem like a bargain.

On balance, I suppose a little waiting here and there is a small price to pay for improving our environment. But I wish it didn't have to be a tradeoff. Can't we clean the air and get a smooth ride at the same time?

Everyone seems to agree Interim Metro General Manager Dan Tangherlini has taken steps to improve service. But unfortunately, our region's elected officials have shown little stomach for taking tough political stands to provide sustainable funding for the serious, long-term upgrades Metro needs.

If you're interested in learning more about working to improve Metro, you can visit the Metro riders' lobbying group.

Looking Ahead to November

Even though there won't be a presidential or gubernatorial race on the ballot this November, 2006 stands as an especially important election year for environmentalists in Virginia. (Virginians can register to vote here.)

Sen. George Allen has one of the Senate's worst environmental records. So far in the 109th Congress, Allen has earned a 5% rating on the League of Conservation Voters' environmental scorecard -- astonishingly, his highest ever. He'd scored a 0% rating the two prior sessions. He's been one of the Senate's most vocal supporters of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a terrible idea on several fronts, while opposing efforts to make cars more fuel-efficient. Allen also voted against including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.

Unfortunately, Allen's opponent isn't exactly Ranger Rick himself. Jim Webb doesn't even list the environment on the issues section of his website (Allen doesn't either). However, considering Allen is one of the most anti-environment members of Congress, just about anyone would be an improvement. And without getting too much into politics, a Webb victory would bring the Senate one step closer to Democratic control, and a Democratic Senate would be more friendly to environmental interests.

Mourning Trees

Quick post ...

We had a huge thunderstorm come through Arlington on the 4th of July, knocking down trees all over the neighborhood. A huge, healthy pine tree snapped off like a matchstick, leaving a 10-foot stump behind. An old tree split down the middle, bringing down power lines and closing an entire 4-lane street. Another came down right over a car, miraculously propped up by one branch, sparing the car any damage.

What I noticed most was how neighbors came out to look at the trees, almost in mourning -- walking around in stunned silence, hands over their mouths.

Invasive Plants: Good Intentions, Destructive Results

Arlington County Board Member Jay Fisette often tells the story of how as an adult, he looked for a home with English ivy on it, because it reminded him of his childhood home. Only after he'd bought the house did he learn that English ivy is an invasive species not native to the area, and it was with a heavy heart that he cut the vines down.

And that's the story of invasive plants in Northern Virginia -- the best of intentions. Homeowners are just trying to make their property look nice, and don't realize the damage invasive plants do to our environment. Big garden centers are just trying to sell lots of plants and turn a profit.

But the bill for these bad choices is coming due in some of our region's most beautiful places. Invasive plants have spread incredibly fast from backyards to local parks, quickly overtaking them. According to Arlington environmental expert Steve Young, "Our parks here in Arlington have some of the most severe invasive problems you're going to find anywhere in the country." At Potomac Overlook Regional Park, 60 percent of the acreage is now covered by invasive plants. Naturalists there warn that number will only grow. As old oaks and poplars fall, young trees can't sprout up through the tangled mat of ivy and other invasives covering the forest floor.

Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment chose Roosevelt Island as the site of our 3rd Annual Hike & Happy Hour to draw attention to the invasive plant problem there, and to raise funds for invasive removals and education. Environmental volunteer Steve Campbell has spent the last couple of years battling invasives on Roosevelt Island, and estimates that more than 80 percent of the Island's arable land is covered by invasives like garlic mustard, Japanese honeysuckle, porcelain berry, and English ivy. He says, "Some parts of the island look like a bomb went off, with trees falling all over."

And science is starting to back up Mr. Campell's anecdotal evidence. The New York Times reported last month scientists now believe garlic mustard kills off beneficial fungi in soil, stunting the growth of young trees. A recent study estimated the economic cost of invasive species damage and control efforts nationwide at more than $138 billion every year.

You can learn more about invasive plants and native plants at The Virginia Native Plant Society's website. You may notice some of those same plants in front of your home or office. And if you do, we hope you're willing to change your own assumptions as Jay Fisette did, and take one step towards reclaiming Northern Virginia's green spaces for native wildlife.

Moving Virginia Backward

In case you missed it, Virginia is taking away one of the benefits of driving a hybrid, ending the HOV exemption. Critics of the exemption blame hybrids for clogging the HOV lanes on I395, but there are more HOV violators than hybrids. According to the Washington Post, "Virginia officials estimate that 22 percent of the 35,250 people who used the I-95/395 HOV lanes on a typical morning in 2004 were violators. Officials said hybrid use was as high as 17 percent. "

It's a major step backward in a region that's long been in violation of federal clean air standards. According to The Sierra Club, 30 years after passage of the Clean Air Act, the Washington area still fails to meet health standards for smog. We should be encouraging people to buy more hybrids, more electric cars, and take more public transportation.

It's been disappointing to see the lack of leadership Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has shown on environmental issues. The Democrat got elected in part on an anti-sprawl agenda, but he barely mentioned any of those initiatives this year. Instead, he's encouraging people to live in the outer suburbs by supporting I66 expansion, and discouraging people from driving hybrid cars by taking away the HOV exemption. Go to Kaine's "Moving Virginia Forward" website, and you'll see plenty of talk of expanding roads and cutting taxes, but no mention of the environment or sprawl.

As the Washington Post detailed back in March, environmentalists are trying to give Kaine a chance. Kaine certainly says all the right things, so we're hoping as term goes on, he's able to get more accomplished. But considering as many as 80 percent of Americans consider themselves environmentalists, you'd think Kaine would be using his environmental beliefs to appeal to Virginia voters of both parties.

Arlington's Transit Future: Green or Lean?

Arlington County has just released a draft version of its Master Transportation plan, and from an environmental perspective, there's an awful lot to like about it.

The plan emphasizes complete streets, environmental sustainability, and reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Arlington is one of the few communities in the region to recognize you can't pave your way out of transportation problems. New roads fill up just as quickly as they're built, because especially in a fast-growing area like DC, traffic is like a gas -- it expands to fill all available space.

Arlington has committed to smart growth, centering development around Metro stations. Communites like Loudoun and Fairfax Counties have let single-occupant vehicles drive their development, and now find themselves trying to come up with more money to build ever-wider roads. But in Arlington, despite a massive increase in population along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, traffic on Wilson Blvd. isn't much worse than it was 20 years ago.

However, the plan has its drawbacks. While it calls for bringing Arlington into compliance with federal air quality standards, it's only a brief mention. Such a huge problem is going to take years of work and a lot of tough choices to solve. And with Maryland planning to build the Intercounty Connector and Virginia planning to expand the Beltway and I66, it doesn't look like our region's leaders have the stomach to take stands they perceive as politically unpopular.

Then there's the elephant in the room, saved for the last two paragraphs of the 24-page overview: "Identifying funding sources for the wide array of projects and programs recommended in the MTP will also be a challenge. ... The next steps in the MTP process will include prioritizing the recommendations provided in the plan and its supporting elements and the determination of short, mid and long term priorities given current and future funding limitations."

Those two little sentences threaten to undo all that came before them. As the Arlington Connection has reported, lack of funding already threatens to bring pedestrian- and bike-friendly improvements to a screeching halt. With Virginia's House Republicans refusing to raise taxes for transportation improvements, available funds are going to finish already-strarted projects and to maintain existing roads. And when budget priorities are assigned in this transportation plan, environmental projects and alternative transportation could be the first thing to go.

For more details, you can visit Arlington Master Transportation Plan's website, or just read the overview.

UPDATE: I'm quoted in the DC Examiner's article on the plan (note the misspelled name).

"An Inconvenient Truth": When Spin Wins

My first piece of advice on Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth": Don't go expecting to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Super Size Me." This isn't a typical Hollywood documentary with high production values, one-liners, and an emotional ending. It's a sobering look at the inconvenient facts of global warming that politicians of both parties have chosen to overlook.

You don't get a sense of anger from Gore that you do from a Michael Moore. Rather, Gore comes across as a frustrated man realizing his lifelong crusade against air pollution and global warming is winding down, and as Gore himself admits, we're no better off now than we were when he started.

Gore rationally lays out the facts of climate change, making the same PowerPoint presentation that he has hundreds of times across the country and around the world. Carbon dioxide levels spiked two or three times as high as they've been in the last 650,000 years. Global temperatures shattering records year after year. And disturbingly, reports of polar bears drowning in the Arctic Sea, despite their ability to swim up to 60 miles, due to the lack of sea ice. (For more details, click here.)

And for all this, Gore blames ... us. Well, not directly. He says despite broad -- maybe even unanimous -- scientific consensus, we've allowed spin to win the argument over science. Because the mainstream media focuses so much on balance of opinion -- "supporters say this, while opponents say that" -- the truth is blurred, and we're given the mistaken impression that just because conservatives don't want global warming to be happening, that in fact there's some question about it.

But there's no doubt temperatures are going up, local climates are changing, and glaciers are disappearing. The only question is whether we'll allow those disasters to continue, or make the hard personal and political choices to slow or reverse the process. So I hope you choose to see this movie, and to bring a friend!