AvailableGreenEnergy

Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

By Mark Kimbrell. Note, this post does not necessarily represent the opinions or priorities of Focus the Nation, and instead represents the author’s sentiments alone. Last week represented defeat after defeat for the climate movement and progressive forces in American Politics. One of the most left-leaning members of the Senate (RIP) has been replaced by Republican Scott Brown, thus disrupting the Democrats’ majority and the prospects for health and climate legislation. Not that the Democrats have necessarily been honoring their campaign promises, or representing the wishes of our movement- nevertheless it’s a wound. The Supreme Court has opened the floodgates on Corporate giving, and rolled back all progress made through past campaign finance reform. A decision that will no doubt increase the already massive influence of coal and oil interests over the US government and US public . Climate Change has once again been buried in the issue dog pile under health care, military adventures, and Wall Street reform. All while the coal industry’s iron hammer – Senator Murkowski has launched an all out blitzkrieg on the EPA’s ability to regulate under the Clean Air Act. And to top it all off, wouldn’t you know it- it looks like global climate talks won’t reach a pact by year’s end . Surprise, surprise…. After last week’s bludgeoning, it’s pretty clear that the writing is on the wall. With corporate money flooding into political coffers and misinformation campaigns with more ease, and Brown’s election signaling trouble ahead for democrats, our window of opportunity to make progress on our issue seems to be prematurely closing. It raises an important question: the game has changed- have we? Taking a quick glance at the upcoming activities and priorities of the youth ranks it’s clear that we haven’t changed enough, and it seems to be time for our movement to take a long hard look in the mirror. COP15 exhibited two very clear facts for the climate movement: we need a larger and more diverse movement (at least according to Jonathan Pershing ), and we need to hone in on a strategy that will allow us to reduce US emissions without depending on weak Senate legislation or international treaty, who’s prospects seem to fade every day. In order to address both of these ominous facts, I propose the youth movement add a very important arrow to the organizing quiver- engagement and action around clean energy investment . Here it is in a nutshell- the youth climate movement should make a seismic shift towards making clean energy cheaper, rather than devoting all focus towards the difficult road of making carbon more expensive (an opinion that has been continually stated here). That’s not to say we should abandon all aspects of the pollution paradigm. Our movement should always have a legislative cap/tax of carbon as a top priority. This strategy does not represent an eviction of that principle, but instead an addition that may eventually make a significant cap on carbon accessible within the American political gauntlet. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger said it best – “…no effort to achieve deep reductions in carbon emissions, domestic or international, will succeed as long as low-carbon energy technologies cost vastly more than current fossil fuel-based energy.” They also lay out the most important fortifications that an organizing strategy devoted solely to a carbon cap/tax will have to overcome: “the political power of incumbent energy interests, low consumer tolerance for high energy prices, the economic impacts that substantially raising energy prices will have on key energy-intensive sectors of the economy, and — most importantly — the substantial price gap that continues to exist between fossil fuels and clean-energy alternatives.” It’s clear to even the most skeptical that the first step to reducing American emissions and improving the prospect for significant legislative carbon control is to reduce the price gap between clean energy and carbon, as well as the consumer crunch that will ride the coat tails of any carbon legislation. By achieving significant investment in clean energy technologies we can quickly and effectively reduce the price gap as well as the consumer crunch by making clean energy technologies cheaper and able to withstand competition with carbon. Also, by showcasing the benefits of clean energy investment in reducing emissions, we can not only improve our chances at legislative action, but also pave the road for eventual revenue generated from carbon regulation to be funneled into clean energy technology. If you dig below the surface you find multiple peripheral benefits to this strategy as well. Reducing the price of clean energy in the American marketplace will serve as a visible counter to any arguments launched by the right that portray carbon regulations as an unbearable expense on American households. There it will be- affordable clean energy- to be used as a weapon by our movement to prove the possibility of a real societal shift away from a carbon based economy. Not to mention the thousands of new jobs that will be created as the clean energy sector begins to boom. This will no doubt increase our ability to recruit new and unique American participants in our call for climate legislation that puts a real price on carbon; thus fulfilling the wish of Jonathan Pershing and eliminating one more excuse the Obama administration or Congress may invoke. A move towards prioritizing clean energy investment will give us something our movement (and most progressive movements) has never had- an industry lobby (clean tech). A whole sector of our economy, ripe for growth and in need of federal support, will join our call and aid our efforts. A new honed message around immediate clean energy investment will bring the leverage of a future economic powerhouse into our corner. So the benefits are clear, but what does clean energy investment organizing strategy look like? The first step to injecting clean energy investment into the top of our movement priority list is a change in messaging. We should reduce the emphasis on passing weak legislation and instead focus on: 1. Immediate funding of clean energy technologies in any way possible- stimulus/ jobs bill, appropriations bill, as a rider on any legislation. 2. Investment in altering our infrastructure to be able to facilitate a boom in clean energy. An easily attainable goal when you consider what we spend on our Middle East occupations or bailouts. 3. Clean energy investment as a deal breaker in any climate legislation. If the bill doesn’t work to level the playing field between carbon and clean energy it’s not a step forward. This spring’s campaigns, initiatives and actions should push clean energy investment to the forefront of asks. All civic engagement activities should push clean energy investment as an immediate need and a necessary preface to climate legislation while utilizing the leverage of actors from the clean energy sector. All communication with Congress or the White House should center on the injection of clean energy funding in any and all upcoming legislation. Regional organizing activities and conferences should push for statewide funding of local clean energy technologies and businesses as their primary purpose. Spring is the perfect time to back away from cap and trade a bit, and instead develop town halls, forums, call in/write in campaigns to target both federal and local elected officials around economic revitalization through clean energy investment. I can see the campaign slogans now- A Clean Energy New Deal; Investing in America’s Climate Future; Awakening America’s Clean Energy Giant; Clean Energy- the Common Man’s Bailout… The militant/direct action wing of the movement should move to identify the US’s largest investments- corporate bailouts/subsidies, and war, and target them with creative actions and visuals to attract the American public’s attention towards funding clean energy instead. Here come the visuals- War the life taker, Clean Energy the job maker – you choose; Corporate Bailouts= bigger yachts, Clean Energy investment= Jobs and energy security … Greenpeace will do a better job than I can. We, as a movement, must immediately change our paradigm to consider a strong political push for clean energy investment, on both the local and federal level, as a necessary table setter for any effective climate legislation. If we are willing to really consider the economic and political reality, and re-examine our paradigm and strategies – a long look in the mirror- this new model could pave our way to success. Photo courtesy of www.rudecactus.com Jesse Jenkins contributed to this post through many informative discussions and a comprehensive suggested reading list.

Or should I say, the obviously abhorrent… The incredibly destructive coal mining practice known as ” mountaintop removal ” causes “pervasive and irreversible” damage to human health and the environment, according to an authoritative scientific study released today. The comprehensive and far-reaching scientific review, entitled “Mountaintop Mining Consequences”, was conducted by members of the National Academy of Sciences and is being published in the prestigious journal Science . The study summarized dozens of pre-existing scientific papers analyzing the impacts of mountaintop removal mining, a type of surface coal mining that uses huge amounts of explosives to blast away the tops of mountains to expose coal seams. The resulting debris (aka the former mountain) are typically disposed of through a practice known as “valley fills,” where tons of mining debris are dumped into neighboring valleys, burying miles of headwater streams and valley ecosystems . According to a press release on the study: …the authors outline severe environmental degradation taking place at mining sites and downstream. The practice destroys extensive tracts of deciduous forests and buries small streams that play essential roles in the overall health of entire watersheds. Waterborne contaminants enter streams that remain below valley fills and can be transported great distances into larger bodies of water. Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America’s biodiversity hotspots, all while both the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies have allowed the destructive practice to continue . That’s left it to activists to slow these projects down and prevent their irreversible damages. The new scientific study condemned federal and state regulation of mountaintop removal mining operations, concluding that “Current attempts to regulate [mountaintop mining and associated valley fill] practices are inadequate,” and that “Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science.” Environmental and Appalachian community advocates hailed the study as a powerful indictment against mountaintop removal mining, according to Appalachian Voices , an environmental non-profit working to bring coalfield residents together to end mountain removal. Opponents of mountaintop removal expressed disappointment over the Obama Administration’s fluctuating stance on mountaintop removal , citing inconsistencies with statements made by President Obama about restoring science to a more prominent position in agency decision-making. The new study was released just days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the expansion of the largest mountaintop removal coal mine in West Virginia . Appalachian coalfield residents have long been aware of the obvious and major impacts mountaintop removal mining has on the health of local communities and verdant Appalachian ecosystems. Appalachian Voices is hopeful that the study will embolden the Obama Administration to take more decisive action to ultimately end the practice. In a recent interview the President told the political news organization, Politico, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient-especially when it’s inconvenient.” Yet last year, the Obama Administration released a multi-agency plan that called for more strict enforcement of laws regulating mountaintop removal but stopped short of prohibiting the practice “The scientific study released today comes as little surprise to us living in the Central Appalachian coal mining region,” says Nina McCoy from Martin County, Ky., site of a large coal sludge dam break that overtook the county in 2000. “This should be the evidence the Obama Administration needs to close the floodgates on new mountaintop removal permits and stop the poisoning of our people.” The EPA recently told National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show that the agency does not believe it has the authority to stop permitting mountaintop removal outright. Critics counter that there are other avenues through which the Administration could effectively end the practice. “The EPA has made commendable efforts to reduce the impacts of mountaintop removal on downstream water quality, but this study shows that mitigating and regulating the wholesale destruction of Appalachian Mountains is just not effective,” said Dr. Matthew Wasson, ecologist for Appalachian Voices and director of the campaign to end mountaintop removal on iLoveMountains.org . “The President has the power to end mountaintop removal through any number of agency actions,” Wasson added, “and he should call on Congress to pass the Clean Water Protection Act , a bill designed to end mountaintop removal-but the message from this study is that he’s out of excuses for allowing mountaintop removal to continue.” Ken Ward Jr. has more at Coal Tattoo , and David Roberts has more at Grist . See iLoveMountains.org for more resources on mountaintop removal, and to take action.

The Cleantech Group just released a ranking of the top 10 clean-tech universities in the United States for 2010, with MIT, Berkeley, UT Austin, Stanford, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor occupying the top five slots. Universities and colleges have a critical role to play in accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy and reclaiming U.S. competitiveness in the global clean-tech race. Universities perform 54 percent of the nation’s basic research, a fundamental building block of the technological innovation we need to spark the clean energy revolution. Universities and colleges are the training ground for the next generation of scientists, engineers, teachers, and leaders in government and industry. And universities are the launching ground for numerous entrepreneurial ventures to bring those innovations to the marketplace. Indeed, it’s common knowledge that universities like Stanford played a defining role in the information technology revolution, birthing companies like Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun Microsystems. However, as President Obama reminded us in a speech today at the White House, “despite the importance of education in these subjects, we have to admit we are right now being outpaced by our competitors… To continue to cede our leadership in education is to cede our position in the world.” As we found in our recent report, “ Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant ,” Asian nations like China, South Korea, and Japan are launching massive government investment projects to dominate the clean-tech sector, which promises to be one of the largest new growth sectors of the next few decades. In order to catch up, American students should work with their university and college administrators to secure greater educational resources related to clean energy technology and policy, including better curriculum, professors, classroom and laboratory resources, career development opportunities, support for student entrepreneurship, and research. Every significant institution of higher education in the country should have an energy-related institute that incubates cutting-edge education, research, and innovation. Students are flocking to schools with the best clean-tech programs , and university administrations are increasingly paying attention. And at the federal level, the United States needs a national clean-tech education strategy on par with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, similar to the National Energy Education Act we proposed back in 2008. The Obama administration’s RE-ENERGYSE proposal was a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it was rejected by Congress last year . Will the administration and Congress advance a new proposal in 2010 on the scale we need to win the clean energy race? Stay tuned. Here’s the full university ranking, cross-posted from Cleantech Group: Top 10 cleantech universities in the U.S. for 2010 January 4, 2010 by Shawn Lesser Where will the cutting edge companies that transform the industries of cleantech going to come from? Odds are that it will be from one of the top cleantech universities. While many dotcom companies were started by students out of their dorm rooms or basements, don’t look for a similar trend in the cleantech world. You need a lot more than a desktop and a good Internet-based idea. You need specialized resources that you usually can find at a university. Venture capital firms now have to keep tabs on chemical and engineering labs at some of the best U.S. universities as potential sources of new companies. A few months ago, I ranked the best U.S. states for cleantech, as well as the top 10 cleantech countries (see The top 10 U.S. states for cleantech in 2009 and The top 10 cleantech countries of 2009 ). In my latest rankings, I sought to identify the 10 U.S. academic institutions best suited to take advantage of this trend. I looked whether there exists—and to what degree—a pipeline of collaboration of businesses, universities, state initiatives, investors and research dollars. The mix has to be just right to accomplish the end goal of a commercially viable product. Here are the top 10 cleantech universities in 2010, in my estimation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT is a true cleantech spinoff machine. The Cambridge, Mass.-based institution is also home to the MIT Clean Energy Prize, the premier student clean energy innovation and venture creation competition in the country. The annual $200,000 prize is awarded to the top student energy venture in the country. In 2009, 113 teams entered from 40 universities around the country. MIT Clean Energy Prize has helped launch several energy ventures, including FloDesign, FastCap Systems, Levant Power, Husk Insulation, and Covalent Solar. Another reason for the top ranking has been the establishment of the MIT Energy Initiative in September 2006, as an institute-wide initiative designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the needs of the future and to help build a bridge to that future by improving today’s energy systems. Notable cleantech spinouts include: A123 Systems , FastCap Systems, Levant Power, Trophos Energy, Promethean Power , 1366 Technologies , Sun Catalytix, and Agrivida . University of California at Berkeley One of UC Berkeley’s goals is to connect students and the business community to the high-level research done at the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs and on-campus labs. Berkeley is home to several partnerships with big players in the industry. The most important ones are the Energy and Biosciences Institute—a partnership of UC Berkeley, Berkeley Lab, and the University of Illinois, funded by BP with $500 million over ten years (see BP funds biofuel research with $500M )—and the Bio Energy Institute, which is a partnership of three national labs and three research universities in the San Francisco Bay Area, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy with $125 million over five years. Finally, the proximity to Silicon Valley and the East Bay Cleantech Corridor gives students the opportunity to get in touch with the entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and consulting companies that are driving the growth of the new energy sector. Notable cleantech spinoffs: Amyris Biotechnologies , Adura Technologies , Seeo , Aurora Biofuels , and Progressive Cooling Solutions. The University of Texas in Austin The University of Texas at Austin is a historical leader in energy innovation, R&D and teaching. With abundant oil and gas on its own lands, and deep connections to the energy industry, UT has directly profited from its energy leadership and its graduates have populated the highest executive ranks of the world’s energy companies (CEO of ExxonMobil, CEO of ConocoPhillips, President of Shell are just a few examples). The good news is that UT is using its leadership of the conventional energy industry as a launching pad for continued leadership in the cleantech revolution. Those same oil and gas companies are investing aggressively into cleantech and they turn to UT for the expertise and people to make those innovations work. The inventor of the lithium-ion battery, John Goodenough, is a professor of mechanical engineering at UT. The university also is a leader in algae based biofuels. UT is a part of a multimillion dollar DARPA-sponsored project to produce jet fuels from algae. UT Austin was also awarded $35 million in research on carbon sequestration by the Department of Energy. Notable cleantech spinouts include: ActaCell , Advanced Hydro , Graphene Energy , Organic Fuels, and Inspired Solar. Stanford University , Palo Alto, Calif. Stanford University is on the cutting edge of clean technology. Stanford has developed an ambitious, long-range, $250 million initiative to sharply reduce the university’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The university also has established a $100 million research institute, the Precourt Institute for Energy, to focus on energy issues (see Stanford launches $100M energy research institute ). More than $30 million in yearly funding is now spent on energy research at the university. Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP) is the entrepreneurship center at Stanford’s School of Engineering. STVP is dedicated to accelerating high-technology entrepreneurship education and creating scholarly research on technology-based firms that, in turn, provides new insights for students, scholars and business leaders. Notable cleantech spinouts: Amprius, Nanostellar , Rolith, D.light Design , Driptech , and Veranda Solar . University of Michigan in Ann Arbor With research expenditures of over $1 billion and an innovation pipeline unparalleled among the nation’s public universities, the University of Michigan can rightly take its place among the leading Cleantech universities in the U.S. Student engagement in Cleantech Entrepreneurship is at a all-time high, driven by the Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies in the Business School, the Center for Entrepreneurship in the College of Engineering, and the student organization MPowered. The student-led Wolverine Venture Fund and the Frankel Commercialization Fund managed by the Zell Lurie Institute made recent investments in Environmental Operating Systems, and Accio Energy. The Universities TechArb program is poised to leverage a rich entrepreneurial ecosystem to stake out a leadership position in the emerging green economy. Notable cleantech spinouts include: T/J Technologies (acquired), Sensicore (acquired), Sakti3 , and Flexsys Wind Energy . University of Colorado at Boulder The University of Colorado at Boulder is viewed as being at the forefront of the sustainability and cleantech revolution. The university was recently recognized by Sierra Magazine as the No. 1 sustainable campus in the United States. CU Boulder has created a new joint energy institute with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The new institute, The Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI), partners leading researchers from CU-Boulder and NREL on cross discipline research across multiple areas. Currently there are 19 major corporations that sit on the RASEI leadership council including such companies as Xcel Energy, ConocoPhilips, Toyota, SAIC, Good Energies, Wells Fargo and Vestas. In addition, dozens of companies are involved in collaborative research with the university and its partners across several major cleantech initiatives. With more than $350 million of annual research funding, the University of Colorado at Boulder leads the Rocky Mountain region in world class research. Notable cleantech spinouts: Ion Engineering and OPX Biotechnologies . University of Wisconsin at Madison University of Wisconsin has been a leader in cleantech research for decades. The Solar Energy Lab, founded in 1954, is the oldest of its kind. More recently, the university has become a focal point for research in bio-energy and is home to one of three Department of Energy-funded Bioenergy Research Centers and the only one based at an academic institution (see Not everyone applauds new U.S. biofuel research centers ). In 2009, the College of Engineering entered into a long-term partnership with Vestas . In May, the University of Wisconsin snagged 10 of 71 funding awards from the U.S. Department of Energy for advanced nuclear research, totaling more than $5 million. To coordinate the energy-related research and education, a group of professors came together in 2006 to create the Energy Institute. Focused on sustainability opportunities through “real world” design and engineering practices. Notable cleantech spinouts include: Virent Energy Systems and AquaMost . Cornell University , Ithaca, NY With world-class research in the physical sciences, engineering and nanotechnology fields, Cornell is a natural spawning ground for cleantech. And Cornell is leading New York state’s task force to promote high-tech development through industry-higher education partnerships. Cornell’s campuswide Center for a Sustainable Future is unique in fostering innovative multi-disciplinary research into new energy sources, environmental and biodiversity initiatives, and economic development projects for global implementation of these programs. Notable cleantech spinouts include: Novomer and iFyber. Georgia Institute of Technology , Atlanta, Ga. Georgia Tech is one of the nation’s top research universities with over $500 million of sponsored research activity currently. The Advanced Technology Development Center is a nationally recognized science and technology incubator that helps Georgia entrepreneurs launch and build successful companies. Commercialization Services helps move innovations out of Georgia Tech laboratories and into the marketplace by assessing the commercial potential of research results and assisting in the development of new companies through the VentureLab program. VentureLab is currently advising a number of cleantech startup companies (see Cleantech industry in the U.S. South emerging from stealth ). Notable cleantech spinouts: Suniva , RideCell, and CoolClouds. Washington State University , Pullman, Wash. With legacy expertise in agriculture, power and applied engineering, WSU’s Clean Technology program is rapidly growing in the cleantech-centric Pacific Northwest. Plant science is the engine behind the opening last year of the Bioproducts Science and Engineering Laboratory, Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and the recently funded Washington State Algae Alliance. One of the main objectives is the commercialization of aviation biofuels with partner Boeing Commercial Airlines. Notable cleantech spinouts: GoNano, Ajuga Biosciences, BioGasol , Schweitzer Engineering Labs, and Integrated Engineering Solutions. Shawn Lesser is the president and founder of Atlanta-based Sustainable World Capital, which is focused on fund-raising for private equity cleantech/sustainable funds, as well as private cleantech companies. For information, visit his Web site .

As often as socialism and communism are evoked to discredit the Obama Administration’s agenda, it can be illustrative to observe how communist governments actually behave. China’s National People’s Congress convened on Dec. 22.

Barack Obama sold the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” to Congress and the American people by saying that investment in so-called “ green energy ” would create millions of high-wage American manufacturing jobs. … Barack Obama is using taxpayer money to subsidize a business that cannot justify its existence by providing enough value to pay its employees, suppliers, and of course its well-paid executives and British investors . Bloomberg News adds, …

Increasing the population and employment density in metropolitan areas could reduce vehicle travel, energy use, and CO 2 emissions anywhere from less than 1% up to 11% by 2050 compared to a base case for household vehicle usage, according to a new report from the National Research Council. The reductions depend on the extent to which current development patterns could be reversed, and some members of the study committee disagreed on the plausibility of achieving the higher estimate. Requested by Congress and funded by the US Department of Energy, Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions examines the relationship between land development patterns, often referred to as the built environment, and motor vehicle travel in the United States. Assuming compact development is focused on new and replacement housing—as converting existing housing to higher densities could be prohibitively difficult—significant increases in density would result in modest short-term reductions in personal travel, energy use, and CO 2 emissions. However, these reductions will grow over time. Currently, 80% of Americans live in metropolitan areas, but population and employment are increasingly decentralized. This trend of suburbanization, made possible largely due to automobiles and extensive highway systems, reflects the preferences of many Americans for living in detached, single-family homes. Dispersed, automobile-dependent development patterns, however, involve numerous costs: the use of vast quantities of land, increased reliance on petroleum, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Compact, mixed-use development—individuals living in denser environments with jobs and shopping close by—could reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by shortening trip lengths, the report says, and by making walking, biking, and public transit more viable alternatives to driving. According to the committee that wrote the report, the most reliable research studies estimate that doubling residential density in a metropolitan area might lower household driving between 5% and 12%. If higher density were paired with more concentrated employment and commercial locations, and combined with improvements to public transit and other strategies to reduce automobile travel, household driving could be lowered by as much as 25%. By reducing vehicle use, petroleum use and CO 2 emissions would also be lessened. In order to quantify the potential effects of compact development, the committee developed illustrative scenarios, looking forward to 2030 and 2050. If 75% of new and replacement housing units in the US were developed at twice the density of current new development, and individuals drove 25% less—the committee’s upper-bound scenario—personal travel, fuel use, and CO 2 emissions would be reduced by 7% to 8%, relative to a base case, by 2030, and by 8% to 11% by 2050. If only 25% of housing units were developed more compactly, and residents drove 12% less, then personal travel, fuel use, and CO 2 emissions would be reduced by approximately 1% by 2030, and by 1.3% to 1.7% by 2050. If in this lower-bound scenario residents drove only 5% less, then personal travel, fuel use, and CO 2 emissions would be reduced by less than 1% by 2050. The committee disagreed about the feasibility of achieving the target density in the upper-bound scenario—doubling the density of 75% of new development—by 2050. Some members of the committee thought that these higher densities would be reached due to macroeconomic trends—higher energy prices and carbon taxes—in combination with growing public support for infill development, investments in transit, and higher densities along transit rail corridors. Other members thought that the high-density scenario would require such a significant departure from current low-density development patterns, land-use policies, and public preferences that it is unrealistic without a strong state or regional role in growth management. A number of obstacles stand in the way of widespread compact development in the US. States and regional entities would need to take a major role in managing local growth, which is now controlled by local governments. Local zoning regulations would be a large obstacle, and compact-development initiatives could meet resistance from existing homeowners and politicians. Their legitimate concerns about congestion, local taxes, or home values may be at odds with regional and national goals, such as housing affordability or climate change. In the near term, the primary opportunities to increase density are in areas already experiencing such changes, like the inner suburbs and areas close to public transit or along major highway corridors. Over the long term, adopting compact development would likely require changes in housing preferences and a greater political consensus in support of stronger state and regional control of land use. Public infrastructure investments, such as public transit, and market-based strategies like congestion pricing and higher parking fees, could be a way to steer communities toward compact, mixed-use development, but, in the case of transit, would require significant new investments. Government policies to support more compact, mixed-use development should be encouraged, the report says. The nation is likely to set ambitious goals to address climate change and, given the large contribution of the transportation sector to greenhouse gas emissions, changes in land use may have to be part of the effort. If so, land use changes should be implemented soon, because current development patterns will take decades to reverse. Nevertheless, the committee recognizes that it does not have as much verifiable scientific evidence to support this recommendation as it would like. It lacks a more complete understanding of how specific land-use policies might affect travel in different metropolitan areas and a fuller accounting of the costs and benefits of compact, mixed-use development. Given these limitations, the committee urges that it would be wise to proceed carefully, monitoring the results and incorporating new research as it becomes available. The study was sponsored by the US Department of Energy. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Resources Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions (Special Report 298)

The United Steelworkers (USW) union is calling for the phase-out of hydrogen fluoride (HF) alkylation units in petroleum refineries in the US. NFPA diamond for hydrogen flouride. Hydrogen fluoride is an acid used as a catalyst in the alkylation unit in the refinery to produce high-octane petroleum. It carries an NFPA 704 (“fire diamond”) health rating of 4: “very short exposure could cause death or major residual injury.” The chemical turns into hydrofluoric acid when it is in contact with moisture and becomes an extremely corrosive liquid and contact poison that burns skin, tissue and eyes. It rapidly penetrates tissues and can cause systemic toxicity, damaging the heart and lungs and causing death. Under the right conditions, a large release could form a lethal plume of acid vapors that could extend for miles downwind, putting thousands of people at risk. One-third of refineries use hydrogen fluoride, according to the USW. The other two-thirds use sulfuric acid as a catalyst, which also can burn skin, tissue and lungs but is somewhat less toxic. Most important, sulfuric acid has much less potential to form a deadly vapor plume extending outside the refinery. Solid-state catalysts offer promise as an even safer alternative but are currently at the pilot plant stage and have not been used commercially yet for the alkylation process. The USW says it will discuss other alternatives to the use of hydrogen fluoride with the industry and if necessary will work through the regulatory agencies and Congress to get the issue resolved. Hydrogen fluoride is such a deadly component, and there are new and safer technologies available…We intend to pursue every avenue till we have safer units that don’t endanger our refinery workers or the communities surrounding these facilities. —USW Vice President Gary Beevers There have been three reported hydrogen fluoride release incidents in the past five months. On 11 March at the Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia, 10 contractors were exposed to hydrogen fluoride and sent to the hospital after the chemical’s release from the alkylation unit On 19 July, hydrogen fluoride was released during a fire at Citgo’s east refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. One USW-represented employee remains in an intensive care unit as a result of thermal burns from the fire. On 6 Aug, at the non-union ExxonMobil refinery in Joliet, Ill., hydrogen fluoride was released from the alkylation unit and resulted in one operator suffering from hydrogen fluoride-related chemical burns. In a 13 Aug. final report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Citgo estimated that nearly 4,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride had been released in its event. According to Citizens for Environmental Justice, the TCEQ records show that this quantity was the largest hydrogen fluoride release in 20 years. The group said the company did not tell citizens the dangerous nature of the fire or that potentially deadly gas had escaped. Reportedly there were citizens who experienced adverse health effects, according to the USW. The USW plans to work with local community environmental groups to end the use of hydrogen fluoride. A mid-September meeting between the local and international union, the Sierra Club and Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi is planned.