How much energy do we need?

SUBHEAD: A reduction of 75% in energy use could stay within the carrying capacity of the planet.

By Kris De Decker on 8 January 2018 in Low Tech Magazine -
(http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/how-much-energy-do-we-need.html)


Image above: John Marshall is 50 years old and live on the beach in San Jose, California. He was once a cell phone engineer. From original article.

Because energy fuels both human development and environmental damage, policies that encourage energy demand reduction can run counter to policies for alleviating poverty, and the other way around. Achieving both objectives can only happen if energy use is spread more equally across societies.

However, while it’s widely acknowledged that part of the global population is living in ‘energy poverty’, there’s little attention given to the opposite condition, namely ‘energy excess’ or ‘energy decadence’. Researchers have calculated minimum levels of energy use needed to live a decent life, but what about maximum levels?

 Energy Use Per Capita

Humanity needs to reduce its energy use radically if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, the exhaustion of non-renewable resources, and the destruction of the natural environment upon which our survival depends. [1]

Targets for reductions in carbon emissions and energy use are usually framed in terms of national and international percentage reductions, but the energy use per head of the human population varies enormously between and within countries, no matter how it is calculated. [2]

If we divide total primary energy use per country by population, we see that the average North American uses more than twice the energy of the average European (6,881 kgoe versus 3,207 kgoe, meaning kilograms of oil equivalent).

Within Europe, the average Norwegian (5,818 kgoe) uses almost three times more energy than the average Greek (2,182 kgoe).

The latter uses three to five times more energy than the average Angolan (545 kgoe), Cambodian (417 kgoe) or Nicaraguan (609 kgoe), who uses two to three times the energy of the average Bangladeshi (222 kgoe). [3]
 
These figures include not only the energy used directly in households, but also energy used in transportation, manufacturing, power production and other sectors. Such a calculation makes more sense than looking at household energy consumption alone, because people consume much more energy outside their homes, for example through the products that they buy. [4]


Image above: Chart of per capita energy consumption in the equivalent of kilograms of oil. For North America the average consumption per person is over 2,000 gallons of petroleum oil. From original article.

Such a 'production-based' calculation is not perfect, because countries with high energy use per capita often import a lot of manufactured goods from countries with lower energy use per capita. The energy used in the production of these goods is attributed to the exporting countries – meaning that the energy use per capita in the most ‘developed’ countries is an underestimation.

Finding out about the distribution of energy use within countries requires data with higher spatial resolution. For example, an analysis of variations in household energy consumption (electricity + gas) and energy use in private transportation in the UK shows that the average energy use per capita can differ fivefold depending on the area. [2]

Taking into account both differences between and within countries, as well as the outsourcing of manufacturing (a ‘consumption-based’ calculation), the highest energy users worldwide can contribute 1,000 times as much carbon emissions as the lowest energy users. [5]

Inequality not only concerns the quantity of energy, but also its quality. People in industrialized countries have access to a reliable, clean and (seemingly) endless supply of electricity and gas.

On the other hand, two in every five people worldwide (3 billion people) rely on wood, charcoal or animal waste to cook their food, and 1.5 billion of them don’t have electric lighting. [6]

These fuels cause indoor air pollution, and can be time- and labour-intensive to obtain. If modern fuels are available in these countries, they’re often expensive and/or less reliable.

Beyond Energy Poverty: Energy Decadence

It’s now widely acknowledged that these 3 billion people in the developing world are living in ‘energy poverty’. [7][8]

In 2011, the United Nations and the World Bank launched the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative, which aims to “ensure universal access to modern energy services” by 2030. Energy poverty has also gained attention in developed countries, where it is mainly focused on inadequate space heating.

A 2015 study found that up to 54 million Europeans are not able to adequately heat their homes in winter. [9]

The European Commission launched the Energy Poverty Observatory in 2017, which will conduct research and provide guidelines to national governments for setting up measures to address fuel poverty. [8]

Bringing the rest of the world up to the living standards and energy use of rich countries is not compatible with the environmental problems we face.

However, while it’s recognized that part of the global population is using not enough energy, there is not the same discussion of people who are using too much energy. [2] [10] [11]

Nevertheless, solving the tension between demand reduction and energy poverty can only happen if those who use ‘too much’ reduce their energy use. Bringing the rest of the world up to the living standards and energy use of rich countries – the implicit aim of ‘human development’ – would solve the problem of inequality, but it’s not compatible with the environmental problems we face.


Image above: Most families living in rural off-grid areas of Africa use dim kerosene lamps to light their homes at night. Even a modest solar PV panel can provide enough light for socialization and doing school homework. From original article.

Based on the figures given above, if every human on Earth would use as much energy as the average Western European or North American, total world energy use and carbon emissions would be at least two to four times higher than they are today. This is an underestimation, because to achieve the same living standards developing countries first need to build an infrastructure – roads, electricity grids, et cetera – to make this possible, which also requires a lot of energy. [12]

Consequently, whilst much work has been done around fuel poverty, there is a parallel debate to be had about ‘energy decadence’ or ‘energy excess’. [2]

The quest for ‘energy sufficiency’ – a level of energy use that is both fair and sustainable – should involve not only ‘floors’ (enough for a necessary purpose) but also ‘ceilings’ (too much for safety and welfare, in the short or long term). [13]

Otherwise, we would be mortgaging the health of future generations to realize development gains in the present. [14]

Calculating Energy Floors and Ceilings

How do we define energy decadence? How much is ‘too much’ energy use? To a large extent, we can build upon decades of research into energy poverty, which has measured the components of a minimum acceptable standard of living. [14]

For example, the Millenium Project of the UN Development Program establishes a minimum level of 500 kgoe per person per year – an amount of energy that is almost four times below the world average. [15]

Some researchers have addressed energy decadence in a similar way, calculating a maximum acceptable standard of living. For example, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology proposed the 2,000 watt society, which implies a worldwide energy use per capita of per 1,500 kgoe per year, while the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence proposal limits energy use to 1,255 kgoe per person per year. [10][13][16]

These levels of energy use per capita correspond to a reduction of 20-35% below the world average today.

Because energy poverty research only investigates ‘floors’ and not ‘ceilings’ of energy use, minimum energy levels are calculated from the bottom-up. Researchers investigate how much energy is required to live a decent life, based on a set of goods and services that are considered essential.

On the other hand, maximum energy levels – above which energy use is considered to be excessive and unsustainable – are calculated from the top down. Researchers determine a ‘safe’ level of global energy use based on some indicator of the carrying capacity of the planet – such as a level of carbon emissions that is thought to keep global warming within certain limits – and divide it by the world population.

Between the upper boundary set by the carrying capacity of the planet, and a lower boundary set by decent levels of wellbeing for all lies a band of sustainable energy use, situated somewhere between energy poverty and energy decadence. [14]

These boundaries not only imply that the rich lower their energy use, but also that the poor don’t increase their energy use too much. However, there is no guarantee that the maximum levels are in fact higher than the minimum levels.

Between the upper boundary set by the carrying capacity of the planet, and a lower boundary set by decent levels of wellbeing for all lies a band of sustainable energy use.

When a minimum level of energy use is calculated from the bottom-up, it remains to be seen if this level can be maintained without destroying the environment. On the other hand, if a maximum level of energy use per capita is calculated from the top down, it remains to be seen if this ‘safe’ level of energy use is sufficient to live a decent life. If the ‘floor’ is higher than the ‘ceiling’, the conclusion would be that sustainable wellbeing for all is simply impossible.

To make matters worse, defining minimum and maximum levels is fraught with difficulty. On the one hand, when calculating from the top down, there’s no agreement about the carrying capacity of the planet, whether it concerns a safe concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, the remaining fossil fuel reserves, the measurements of ecological damage, or the impact of renewable energy, advances in energy efficiency, and population growth.

On the other hand, for those taking a bottom-up approach, defining what constitutes a ‘decent’ life is just as debatable.

Needs and Wants

The minimum and maximum levels of energy use mentioned above are meant to be universal: every world citizen is entitled to the same amount of energy. However, although distributing energy use equally across the global population may sound fair, in fact the opposite is true.

The amount of energy that people ‘need’ is not only up to them. It also depends on the climate (people living in cold climates will require more energy for heating than those living in warm climates), the culture (the use of air conditioning in the US versus the siesta in Southern Europe), and the infrastructure (cities that lack public transport and cycling facilities force people into cars).

Differences in energy efficiency can also have a significant impact on the “need” for energy. For example, a traditional three-stone cooking fire is less energy efficient than a modern gas cooking stove, meaning that the use of the latter requires less energy to cook a similar meal.

It’s not only the appliances that determine how much energy is needed, but also the infrastructure: if electricity production and transmission have relatively poor efficiency, people need more primary energy, even if they use the same amount of electricity at home.


Image above: It does not take a great deal of money or technical skill to transform the most isolated places with independent of grid electricity. From original article.

To account for all these differences, most researchers approach the diagnosis of energy poverty by focusing on ‘energy services’, not on a particular level of energy use. [17]

People do not demand energy or fuel perse – what they need are the services that energy provides.

For example, when it comes to lighting, people do not need a particular amount of energy but an adequate level of light depending on what they are doing.

An example of this service-based approach is NGO Practical Action’s Total Energy Access (TEA) indicator, which was launched in 2010. [17][18]

The TEA measures households in developing countries against prescribed minimum services standards for lighting, cooking and water heating, space heating, space and food cooling, and information and communication services.

For example, the minimum level for lighting in households is 300 lumens, and Practical Action provides similar standards for other energy services, not only in households but also in work environments and community buildings.

Needs are universal, objective, non-substitutable, cross-generational, and satiable. Wants are subjective, evolving over time, individual, substitutable and insatiable.

Some energy poverty indicators go one step further still. They don’t specify energy services, but basic human needs or capabilities (depending on the theory). In these modes, basic needs or capabilities are considered to be universal, but the means to achieve them are considered geographically and culturally specific. [10] [17]

The focus of these needs-based indicators is on measuring the conditions of human well-being, rather than on specifying the requirements for achieving these outcomes. [19]

 Examples of human basic needs are clean water and nutrition, shelter, thermal comfort, a non-threatening environment, significant relationships, education and healthcare.

Basic needs are considered to be universal, objective, non-substitutable (for example, insufficient food intake cannot be solved by increasing dwelling space, or the other way around), cross-generational (the basic needs of future generations of humans will be the same as those of present generations), and satiable (the contribution of water, calories, or dwelling space to basic needs can be satiated).

This means that thresholds can be conceived where serious harm is avoided. ‘Needs’ can be distinguished from ‘wants’, which are subjective, evolving over time, individual, substitutable and insatiable.

Focusing on basic needs in this way makes it possible to distinguish between ‘necessities’ and ‘luxuries’, and to argue that human needs, present and future, trump present and future ‘wants’. [14][17]

Change over Time: Increasing Dependency on Energy

Focusing on energy services or basic needs can help to specify maximum levels of energy use. Instead of defining minimum energy service levels (such as 300 lumens of light per household), we could define maximum energy services levels (say 2,000 lumens of light per household).

These energy service levels could then be combined to calculate maximum energy use levels per capita or household. However, these would be valid only in specific geographical and cultural contexts, such as countries, cities, or neighborhoods – and not universally applicable. Likewise, we could define basic needs and then calculate the energy that is required to meet them in a specific context.

However, the focus on energy services or basic needs also reveals a fundamental problem. If the goods and services necessary for a decent life free from poverty are seen not as universally applicable, but as relative to the prevailing standards and customs of a particular society, it becomes clear that such standards evolve over time as technology and customary ways of life change. [11]

Change over time, especially since the twentieth century, reveals an escalation in conventions and standards that result in increasing energy consumption. The ‘need satisfiers’ have become more and more energy-intensive, which has made meeting basic needs as problematic as fulfilling ‘wants’.

Energy poverty research in industrial countries shows that the minimum energy level required to meet basic needs is constantly on the rise. [11][20][21]

What is sufficient today is not necessarily sufficient tomorrow. For example, several consumer goods which did not exist in the 1980s, such as mobile phones, personal computers, and internet access, were seen as absolute necessities by 40-41% of the UK public in 2012. [20]

These days in the industrial world, even the energy poor are living above the carrying capacity of the planet.

Other technologies that are now considered to be minimal requirements have gone through a similar evolution. For example, central heating and daily hot showers are only a few decades old, but these technologies are now considered to be an essential need by a majority of people in industrialised countries. [22]

In fact, these days in the industrial world, even the energy poor are living above the carrying capacity of the planet.

For example, if the entire UK population were to live according to the minimum energy budget that has been determined in workshops with members of the public, then (consumption-based) emissions per capita would only decrease from 11.8 to 7.3 tonnes per person, while the UN Development Program’s target to limit the increase in average world temperature is less than two tonnes of carbon per person per year. [14]

In short, the ‘floor’ is three times higher than the ‘ceiling’.

Challenging Needs and Wants

“By equating what is ‘required’ with what is ‘normal’”, write UK energy poverty researchers, “we actively support escalating expectations of need, which runs counter to objectives like those of reducing energy demand… To achieve demand reduction entails challenging embedded norms rather than following them.” [11]

In other words, we can only solve energy poverty and energy decadence if we manage to decouple human need satisfaction from energy intensive ‘need satisfiers’. [21]

One way to do that is by increasing energy efficiency.

In a 1985 paper called Basic needs and much more with one kilowatt per capita, researchers argue that the amount of energy needed to avoid energy poverty will decline thanks to continuing improvements in energy efficiency – from 750 kgoe per capita per year in 1985 to only 570 kgoe in 2030. [23]

In reality, this is not what is happening, because efficiency gains are continually matched by more energy-intensive ways of life. However, if this trend could be halted or even reversed, advances in energy efficiency would allow us to live increasingly low energy lives.

For example, to produce the 300 lumens that Practical Action considers the minimum level for lighting, a LED-light requires six times less electricity than an incandescent light bulb.

More importantly, basic needs can be met with different means, and the relative necessity of some energy services could and should be questioned. This approach can be labeled ‘sufficiency’.

Energy services could be reduced (smaller TVs or lighter and slower cars, or less TV watching and car driving) or replaced by less energy-intensive ones (using a bicycle instead of a car, buying more fresh instead of frozen food, playing boardgames instead of watching television).

Substitution can also involve community services. In principle, public service delivery could bring economies of scale and thus reduce the energy involved in providing many household services: public transport, public bathing houses, community kitchens, laundrettes, libraries, internet cafés, public telephone boxes, and home delivery services are just some examples. [24] [25]
 
Combining sufficiency with efficiency measures, German researchers calculated that the typical electricity use of a two-person household could be lowered by 75%, without reverting to drastic lifestyle changes such as washing clothes by hand or generating power with excercise machines. [25]

Although this only concerns a part of total energy demand, reducing electricity use in the household also leads to reductions in energy use for manufacturing and transportation.

If we assume that similar reductions are possible in other domains, then the German households considered here could do with roughly 800 kgoe per capita per year, four times below the average energy use per head in Europe.

This suggests that a modern life is compatible with much lower energy demand, at least when we assume that a reduction of 75% in energy use would be enough to stay within the carrying capacity of the planet.

This article was originally written for The DEMAND Centre.

---

References:

[1] Encouraging renewable energy sources alone cannot reduce carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, energy demand rises faster than the share of renewable energy, meaning that solar and wind power plants are not replacing fossil fuels, but accommodating part of a growing demand for energy. Secondly, renewable energy systems are highly dependent on fossil fuels for their manufacture, especially when we count on an infrastructure that aims to match supply to demand at all times. Energy efficiency is not getting us anywhere either, because advances in more efficient technology often result in new or more energy-intensive products and services, and because energy efficiency makes unsustainable practices non-negotiable.

[2] Chatterton, Tim, et al. "Energy justice? A spatial analysis of variations in household direct energy consumption in the UK." eceee, 2015. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28337/1/Chatterton%20Barnes%20Yeboah%20Anable%202015%20Energy%20Justice%20-%20ECEEE%20Conference%20Paper.pdf

[3] Energy use (kilogram of oil equivalent per capita), 1960-2014. World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?locations=BD-GR-NL&year_low_desc=true

[4] Consumption of energy, Eurostat, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy

[5] Piketty, Thomas. "Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris." Trends in the Global Inequality of Carbon Emissions (1998-2013) and Prospects for An Equitable Adaptation Fund. Paris: Paris School of Economics (2015). http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/chancelpiketty2015.pdf

[6] Poor people’s energy outlook 2010, Practical Action. https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/poor-peoples-energy-outlook/poor-peoples-energy-outlook-2010. For later versions, see: https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/poor-peoples-energy-outlook.

[7] Sustainable Energy For All, United Nations & World Bank. http://www.se4all.org/

[8] Thomson, Harriet, Stefan Bouzarovski, and Carolyn Snell. "Rethinking the measurement of energy poverty in Europe: A critical analysis of indicators and data." Indoor and Built Environment (2017): 1420326X17699260. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1420326X17699260

[9] Team, Authoring, and Claire Baffert. "Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures." Policy 2 (2015). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/energy-poverty-may-affect-nearly-11-eu-population

[10] Steinberger, Julia K., and J. Timmons Roberts. "From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005." Ecological Economics 70.2 (2010): 425-433. http://julias.promessage.com/Projects/Articles/EE_SteinbergerRoberts_2010_DecouplingEnergyCarbonHumanNeeds_v2.pdf

[11] Walker, Gordon, Neil Simcock, and Rosie Day. "Necessary energy uses and a minimum standard of living in the United Kingdom: energy justice or escalating expectations?." Energy Research & Social Science 18 (2016): 129-138. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616300184

[12] Lamb, William F., and Narasimha D. Rao. "Human development in a climate-constrained world: what the past says about the future." Global Environmental Change 33 (2015): 14-22. http://decentlivingenergy.org/publications/Lamb-Rao-HDinClimConstrainedWorld.pdf

[13] Darby, Sarah. "Enough is as good as a feast–sufficiency as policy." Proceedings, European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. La Colle sur Loup, 2007. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8e68/c68ace130104ef6fc0f736339ff34b253509.pdf

[14] Gough, Ian. "Heat, Greed and Human Need." Books (2017). http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/heat-greed-and-human-need

[15] Energy for a sustainable future, Report and Recommendations, The Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC), 28 April 2010, New York. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/AGECCsummaryreport[1].pdf

[16] Bretschger, Lucas, Roger Ramer, and Florentine Schwark. 2000 Watt Society?." https://www.mtec.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/cer-eth/resource-econ-dam/documents/people/lbretschger/Brochure_2kW.pdf

[17] Day, Rosie, Gordon Walker, and Neil Simcock. "Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework." Energy Policy 93 (2016): 255-264. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301227

[18] Total Energy Access, Practical Action. https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/total-energy-access

[19] Rao, Narasimha D., and Jihoon Min. "Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing." Social Indicators Research (2017): 1-20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0

[20] Mack, Joanna, et al. "Attitudes to necessities in the PSE 2012 survey: are minimum standards becoming less generous?." PSE-UK Working Paper Analysis Series 4 (2013). http://poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/PSE%20wp%20analysis%20No.%204%20-%20Attitudes%20to%20necessities%20in%20the%202012%20survey%20(Mack,%20Lansley,%20Nandy,%20Patazis)%20Oct_2013.pdf

[21] Mattioli, Giulio. "Transport needs in a climate-constrained world. A novel framework to reconcile social and environmental sustainability in transport." Energy Research & Social Science 18 (2016): 118-128. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616300536

[22] Hand, Martin, Elizabeth Shove, and Dale Southerton. "Explaining showering: A discussion of the material, conventional, and temporal dimensions of practice." Sociological Research Online 10.2 (2005). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/hand.html

[23] Goldemberg, Jose, et al. "Basic needs and much more with one kilowatt per capita." Ambio (1985): 190-200. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4313148?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 [24] Thomas, Stefan, et al. Energy sufficiency policy: an evolution of energy efficiency policy or radically new approaches?. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, 2015. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/5922/file/5922_Thomas.pdf

[25] Brischke, Lars-Arvid, et al. Energy sufficiency in private households enabled by adequate appliances. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, 2015. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/5932/file/5932_Brischke.pdf

.

Maui conservation effort working

SUBHEAD: Large landscape scale reforestation at Auwahi on Haleakala is proof.

By Jan TenBruggencate on 21 July 2017 for Raising Islands-
(http://raisingislands.blogspot.com/2017/07/landscape-scale-conservation-can-work.html)


Image above: Southern flank of southwest Maui where Auwahi reforestation project is turning Haleakela green. From original article. Click to enlarge.

When Art Medeiros fenced some Maui pasture that had a smattering of native dryland forest plants on it, most folks figured he was engaged in a pipe dream.

He hoped that by excluding deer and cattle, and with a little loving care and some outplanting, something approaching a healthy native dryland forest could result.

Medeiros was right. The image above is the proof. The three dark green patches are areas fenced to keep grazing animals out and then planted with dryland natives. The 10-acre center square was fenced and planted 20 years ago, the bottom 23 acres 12 years ago, and the 23-acre shape at the right eight years ago.

Medeiros worked with the landowners, `Ulupalakua Ranch’s Erdman family, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to form the Auwahi Forest Restoration Project. You can learn more about it at this website.

What they found is that landscape-scale conservation efforts work.

It is a remarkable example, but certainly not the only example in Hawaii.

• When the Territory of Hawai`i removed feral cattle from the Koke`e grasslands on Kaua`i, those rolling acres of pasture were able to convert back to forest that is now Koke`e State Park.
  
  
• When George Munro on Lana`i fenced hundreds of acres at Kanepu`u a century ago to keep out deer and mouflon sheep, he protected a native forest that survives today.
  
  
• When Lida and David Burney took the analysis of ancient pollen samples at Makawehi on Kaua`i  and planted those plants into a nearby former cane field, they restored something long gone from that landscape. 

Medeiros a few decades ago saw a few botanical gems in a severely degraded landscape. When he proposed trying to restore it, he got a lot of pushback. It was a dead forest standing, he was told - Degraded landscapes were inevitably going to further decline.

He didn’t give up.

“The question was whether we could rebuild this system, or was this (an example of) the end of all natural systems?”

At Auwahi, there were priceless old endemic trees, but they were not reproducing and had not reproduced for decades. The native species covered only 3 percent of the landscape.

Why care? Native dryland forest is some of the rarest treasure in the Hawaiian realm. It has been displaced by development, agriculture, pasture and constant pressure from non-native predators on the natural landscape, like cattle, deer, goats, sheep, pigs and rats.

Medeiros and his team fenced out the cattle and deer at Auwahi, starting with the 10-acre square they now call A-1. With the help of teams of community volunteers, teachers, canoe clubs and many others, they began planting out native species—more than 125,000 seedlings to date.
The result: Native species cover in some areas is now 82 percent.

“Near two-thirds of native tree species at Auwahi are now producing seedlings naturally, a sign of a healthy functioning ecosystem, including some species that had not done so in centuries,” Medeiros said.

And on a dry slope of Haleakala, where much of the landscape is brown and yellow, here it is deep green. Not only an indication that the plants are back, but that the landscape is functioning as a watershed.

Medeiros gives special credit to the landowners, Pardee and Sumner Erdman and their family, for their dedication to conservation, and their willingness to convert pasture to native forest—without compensation.

“`Ulupalakua Ranch has...served largely as a silent and enthusiastic partner. In all my years in conservation, I have never seen another for-profit group act in this way,” he said.

Donors to the project over the years included the Frost Family Foundation, Maui County Department of Water Supply, Hawai`i Community Foundation, Hawai`i Tourism Authority, Maui County Office of Economic Development and the Edward J Anderson Foundation.
.

Nuke power limps to extinction

SUBHEAD: Nuclear power generation corporations are headed for the junk pile.

By Paul Brown on 16 April 2017 for Truth Dig -
(http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_nuclear_industry_is_heading_financial_black_hole_20170416)


Image above: Sunset over the Sellafield power plant in Cumbria, England, near the area where Westinghouse was about to start building three large nuclear reactors - before they went bankrupt. Photo by Dom Crayford. From original article.

Any lingering hope that a worldwide nuclear power renaissance would contribute to combating climate change appears to have been dashed by US company Westinghouse, the largest provider of nuclear technology in the world, filing for bankruptcy, and the severe financial difficulties of its Japanese parent company, Toshiba.

After months of waiting, Toshiba still could not get its auditors to agree to its accounts [last] week. But it went ahead anyway and reported losses of nearly $5 billion for the eight months from April to December, in order to avoid being de-listed from the Japanese stock exchange.

The company admitted it too could face bankruptcy, and is attempting to raise capital by selling viable parts of its business.

In a statement, it said: “There are material events and conditions that raise substantial doubt about the company‘s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Nuclear Reactors

The knock-on effects of the financial disasters the two companies face will be felt across the nuclear world, but nowhere more than in the UK, which was hoping Westinghouse was about to start building three of its largest nuclear reactors, the AP 1000, at Moorside in Cumbria, northwest England.

The UK’s Conservative government will be particularly embarrassed because, in late February, it won a critical parliamentary by-election in the seat that would be home to the Moorside plant, on the guarantee that the three reactors would be built—a pledge that now seems impossible to keep.

Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, says: “I think the day of the large-scale nuclear power station is over. There is no one left to invest anymore because renewables are just cheaper, and these prices are still going down while nuclear is always up.”
Toshiba and Westinghouse are in deep trouble because the reactors they are currently building—the same design as the ones planned for Cumbria—are years late and billions of dollars over budget. Even if the companies can be re-financed, it seems extremely unlikely they would risk taking on new reactor projects.

Both the UK and Toshiba have looked to the South Korean nuclear giant KEPCO to take over the Moorside project, but the company is unlikely to want to build the Westinghouse design and would want to put forward its own reactor, the APR 1400.

This would delay the project for years, since the whole safety case for a new type of reactor would have to be examined from scratch.

But the company is already under pressure from within South Korea, where Members of Parliament have urged KEPCO not to take on a risky project in the UK. Twenty-eight members of the Republic of Korea’s “Caucus on Post-Nuclear Energy” have called on KEPCO not to invest in Moorside.

The other nuclear giant present in Britain, the French-owned Électricité de France (EDF), is in serious difficulties of its own. It is already deep in debt and its flagship project to build a prototype 1,600 megawatt reactor at Flamanville in northern France is six years behind schedule and three times over budget at €10.5 billion.

Originally due to open in 2012, its start date is now officially the end of 2018, but even that is in doubt because an investigation into poor quality steel in the reactor’s pressure vessel is yet to be completed.

Despite this, the company and the UK government are committed to building two more of these giant reactors in Somerset in southwest England, and have started pouring concrete for the bases to put them on. These reactors are due to be completed in 2025, but nobody outside the company and the UK government believes this is likely.

So, with troubles of its own, EDF is in no position to help Toshiba out of its financial difficulties. In the nuclear world, this leaves only the Chinese and the Russians who might be capable of taking on such a project.

The Russians will be ruled out on political grounds, and the Chinese are already helping out EDF with a large financial stake in the Somerset project. They also want to build a nuclear station of their own design at Bradwell in Essex, southeast England – another project that looks likely to take more than a decade to complete.

Vast Capital Costs

The problem for all these projects, apart from the vast capital cost and the timescales involved, is that the energy industry is changing dramatically. Solar and wind power are now a cheaper form of producing electricity across the world, and are less capital-intensive and quicker to build.

Despite the fact that there are more than 430 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide and the industry still has great economic and political clout, it is beginning to look like a dinosaur – too big and cumbersome to adapt to new conditions.

Nuclear power now produces about 10% of the world’s electricity, while 40% is from coal and 23% from renewables. The rest is mainly from natural gas.

Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, says: “Nuclear lobbyists are abandoning the tiresome rhetoric about a nuclear power renaissance. They are now acknowledging that the industry is in crisis.

“The crisis-ridden US, French and Japanese nuclear industries account for half of worldwide nuclear power generation.

“Renewable energy generation doubled over the past decade, and strong growth, driven by sharp cost decreases, will continue for the foreseeable future.”

See also:

Ea O Ka Aina: Nuclear Industry Bankruptcy 3/30/17

Ea O Ka Aina: US Nuclear power dream is dying 2/25/17

.

Saving the Colorado River Delta

SUBHEAD: Two Years After the Colorado Pulse Flow to restore the river delta — An abundance of life.

By Maureen Nandini Mitra on 21 October 2016 for Earth Island -
(http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/two_years_after_the_colorado_pulse_flow_an_abundance_of_life/)


Image above: Martha Gómez Sapiens, a monitoring team member, stands on a riverbank next to willows and cottonwoods that germinated as result of the pulse flow. Photo by Karl W. Flessa. From original article.

Birds, plants, and groundwater continue to benefit from effort to revive the Colorado River delta.

Back 2014, an unprecedented transnational experiment attempted to restore, temporarily, the flow of the Colorado River to the Gulf of California. As part of a landmark agreement between the United States and Mexico, the International Boundary Water Commission unleashed an eight-week “pulse flow” of some 105,000 acre feet of water from a small dam on the US-Mexico border to help restore the Colorado River delta.

Conservationists hoped the water would revitalize the delta — which has been bone dry for nearly 60 years as a result of upstream dams and diversions on the Colorado — and bring back trees, animals, and aquatic life that were once abundant in the region when it was flush with water. (The transnational agreement authorized environmental flows of water into the Colorado River Delta from 2013 to 2017.)

Two growing seasons after that engineered release, it appears that birds, plants and groundwater in the delta, which lies south of the US-Mexico border, have indeed been benefitting from it.

Native willows and cottonwoods have sprung up wherever the pulse flow inundated bare soil and in response to this post-flood vegetation, birds have begun flocking to the area, according to the latest monitoring report prepared for the International Boundary and Water Commission by a bi-national University of Arizona-led team.

The interim report, released on Wednesday, documents the effects of the environmental flows in the delta from the initial pulse in March 2014 plus subsequent supplemental deliveries of water through December 2015.

"Some of the cottonwoods that germinated during the initial pulse flow are now more than 10 feet tall," Karl W. Flessa, UA professor of geosciences and co-chief scientist of the team that’s monitoring the impact of the pulse, said in a statement.

Migratory waterbirds, nesting waterbirds, and nesting riparian birds have all increased in abundance, the report says. The monitoring team found that the abundance of 19 bird species of conservation concern, including vermillion flycatchers, hooded orioles, and yellow-breasted chats, was 43 percent higher at the restoration sites than at other sites in the floodplain.


Image above: The abundance of 19 bird species of conservation concern, including vermillion flycatchers (pictured here), hooded orioles, and yellow-breasted chats, was 43 percent higher at the restoration sites than at other sites in the floodplain. Photo by Sarah Murry. From original article.

Some of the water from the pulse flow and subsequent smaller environmental flows recharged the groundwater, which had both ecological and social benefits, said Eloise Kendy, a senior freshwater scientist with The Nature Conservancy's North America Water Program who helped compile the report.

The vegetation greened up in areas that received surface water and also in some areas that did not. "The farmers [whose irrigation canals were used for some of the water deliveries] were happy because it recharged the aquifer they use for groundwater irrigation," she said. "And plants that were outside the inundation zone got a big drink of water.

Dams and river diversions built in the twentieth century have for decades prevented the river — that once flowed freely from the Rocky Mountains all the way to the Sea of Cortez in Mexico — from completing its journey to the sea.

These days it dies after it crosses the US-Mexico border. The southernmost dam on the river — Mexico’s Morelos Dam, near Yuma, AZ — diverts nearly all of the river water into an aqueduct that serves agriculture and homes in Tijuana. South of the dam, the river channel travels about 75 miles to the Gulf of California. With the exception of a few wet years, the river has not reached the Gulf of California since 1960.

Before 1960, spring snowmelts regularly sent water gushing down the Colorado River into the delta, scouring the river bottom and overtopping the bank and creating the ideal conditions cottonwood and willow trees to germinate and establish.

But since then, salt cedar or tamarisk, an invasive plant, has taken over the riverbanks. Since cottonwoods and willows need bare ground and sunlight to germinate, they cannot establish themselves on tamarisk-covered riverbanks.

The March 2014 pulse flow delivered a fraction of the water the pre-1960 spring floods used to bring to the delta. Staff from the Sonoran Institute and Pronatura Noroeste, a Mexican conservation group, cleared some areas of non-native vegetation beforehand. The researchers hoped that reducing competition would allow native plants such as willows and cottonwoods to germinate and grow after the pulse flow.

"We reconnected the meanders to the main river channels so when the pulse flow came there were these nice backwater areas where the conditions were good for the establishment of native trees," said Karen Schlatter, a restoration ecologist of the Sonoran Institute's Colorado River Delta Program, who was part of the monitoring team. In those restoration areas, cottonwood and willow seeds that germinated after the pulse flow have become 10 to 13 foot trees, and bird diversity and abundance has increased.

"Now we have diverse habitat types, including lagoons, cottonwoods-willow forest, mesquite bosque and marshes," Schlatter said. "We are seeing a much higher diversity of riparian bird species in the restoration sites compared to other areas along the river."

The pulse flow has also reduced soil salinity in some areas that had been targeted for restoration. "We didn't expect that — it is a huge bonus," Schlatter said. Reducing the soil salinity makes conditions more favorable for native plant species.  If there's another pulse flow, she suggests clearing tamarisk and other non-native vegetation from the river's bank ahead of it would be helpful.

The pulse was the only water release planned so far. Once this pilot project ends in 2018, US and Mexican officials will review findings and discuss whether other discharges should be made.

Part of the impetus for the pulse experiment was to determine whether a healthy delta system can be maintained without a lot of water. Of course, the delta can’t be restored to what it was a say, a century ago, given the cities and towns that need Colorado’s water aren't going anywhere, as well as the fact that much of the delta land has since been converted to farmland.

But, as Flessa says, this short-term experiment “really demonstrates that a little bit of water does a lot of environmental good."
.

Conservation and Global Warming

SUBHEAD: Conservation is a moving target and growing more that way, in ways both predictable and not.

By Jim Robbins on 13 July 2015 for E360 Yale -
(http://e360.yale.edu/feature/resilience_a_new_conservation_strategy_for_a_warming_world/2893/)


Image above: This tidal marsh in San Francisco Bay is one of the key areas on which local environmentalists are focusing. From (http://blog.savesfbay.org/2014/09/celebrate-your-local-estuary/).

As climate change puts ecosystems and species at risk, conservationists are turning to a new approach: preserving those landscapes that are most likely to endure as the world warms.

The San Francisco Bay was once one of the richest estuaries in North America. Almost completely enclosed and protected from the open ocean, and with more than 200 freshwater creeks feeding into it, it was a fertile refuge for young salmon, halibut, sturgeon, anchovy, and smelt. It was lined with some 200,000 acres of tidal marsh, and the connected Sacramento Delta doubled that, creating a region so rich and productive it was known as the Everglades of the West.

By the middle of the 20th century, infill for development and diking had shrunk the bay's tidal marshes to just 40,000 acres. In 1999, the San Francisco Estuary Institute set a goal of bringing the acreage of tidal lands in the bay back to 100,000. Several thousand acres have been rebuilt since then, and the replacement of nearly 30,000 more is in the planning stage.

Then came the specter of climate change.

Environmentalists realized that hard won gains could be undone as the sea level rises and claims the marshes — new and old — which are home to the clapper rail, a shorebird, and the salt marsh harvest mouse, endangered species both. "So the question isn't just how do you restore tidal marshes," says Robin Grossinger, senior scientist with the San Francisco Estuary Institute. "But how do you increase resilience as you restore them at the

 Resilience calculations are going on all over the conservation landscape these days. Around the globe, species are on the move, rising up in elevation at a rate of 11 meters and poleward at 17 kilometers per decade — about 36 feet and 10 miles respectively — to escape the heat and stay within their niches. That's more than two or three times as fast as previous accounts. Conservation, then, is a moving target and growing more that way, in ways both predictable and not.

Resilience, in a nutshell, means preserving options — no one can predict the climate future with any certainty and how the biodiversity deck will be reshuffled. So that means protecting landscapes that maintain as wide a variety of characteristics to preserve as many species as possible, in order to maintain both ecological function as the world changes and the ability to recover from disturbance.

The initiative in the San Francisco estuary is one of the leading efforts to protect and restore a natural shoreline in a largely urban area. A lot is riding on the efforts there, including the fate the clapper rail, renamed

Ridgway's rail last year. Some 1,100 of these chicken-sized wading birds — one of the largest populations left — scour the tidal marshes and mud flats for snails and worms near the tall grass that they use for camouflage and nesting.

The estuary institute's strategy is to capitalize on the natural resilience of the marshes by allowing them to move inland as the ocean rises, as the marshes have always done, into gently sloped areas, which the institute is protecting through land purchases. But there are a number of places where highways and other things have been built right up to the edge of the marsh.

To solve that problem, researchers are looking at ways to fortify the tidelands by nourishing them with sediment that has built up behind dams in local watersheds, and allow the ecosystem to reclaim itself. "These systems are extremely brittle, inflexible, and vulnerable," says Grossinger. "But we have the ability to increase their resilience and give them the ability to adapt."

In 2010 Mark Anderson and Charles E. Ferree of The Nature Conservancy published a paper called “Conserving the Stage: Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpinnings of Species Diversity” that looked at the northeast United States and ways to predict where the greatest biodiversity occurs.

At the time, forecasting of species migration looked primarily at what climatic conditions a species lives in now and where those same climatic conditions might exist in the future, which is presumably where those plants and animals would move to.

But biological models are frustratingly untrustworthy because there are so many variables. So Anderson, using earlier research, compared the impact of climate on plants and animals with abiotic, or non-living factors, such things as geology, elevation, and landforms — and got a surprise.

"Abiotic variables were fantastic predictors of how much diversity was in a state," said Anderson.

"And climate variables were not good predictors." (Coincidentally another biologist, Paul Beier, published a very similar paper called “Conserving the Arena” at the same time.)

One of the best predictors for richness of biodiversity, for example, is limestone because many species thrive in its low acid, calcium- rich soil. A good deal of biodiversity, in fact, occurs only in limestone regions.

The idea of “conserving the stage” has become a big part of conservation thinking since 2010. "It's a key aspect," said Grossinger. "The physical drivers, such as the sediment, are what shapes habitat and gives it the dynamic ability to adapt over time. And those are often really what's missing. You can focus all you want on the clapper rail, and the ecology. But if you don't have the sediment, the resilience is not going to be there."

The abiotic approach has proven to be a powerful new addition to the toolbox for forecasting where biodiversity might end up. For a long time, efforts to protect biodiversity have focused on predictions of where species might move as temperatures warm. As huckleberries migrate north or upslope to stay in their climate comfort zone, for example, the berry-eating grizzly bear will follow.

Problem is no one knows what the future will bring for the berries. How warm will it get? What else will change? More rain? Less? Disease? How will natural communities reorganize? Which new species will move in and which will move out?

The grizzly bears, huckleberries, and other members of the ecological community are the actors on the stage, while the soils, micro-climates and topography where the berries will grow well are the stage on which the drama is set.

Rather than focusing on these actors and where they might move, many land conservation organizations are scouring the continent for the best, most diverse stages to give the drama of life its best chance. Anderson's research over the last decade has greatly changed how many scientists and organizations look at conservation and has led to an overhaul in the way climate change mitigation is forecast.

A team of 60 scientists working for The Nature Conservancy just finished an eight-year assessment of the East Coast using abiotic criteria and identified 61 different representative "stages," or settings, where a broad range of biodiversity has its best chance to survive. Those areas with the highest scores are "resilient," while those with the lowest scores — generally flat and one-dimensional landscapes — are considered vulnerable.

The Nature Conservancy is seeking to buy and protect the most resilient places, and the program received a boost from the Doris Duke Charitable Trust, which contributed $37 million to land purchase efforts. They’ve made the scores of these landscapes available to other groups as well.

"It's a reworking of Noah's Ark," said Peter Howell, executive vice president of the Open Space Institute. "Instead of two of every animal, we take one of each different setting. When everything goes down, these are the places that will go last. They'll save life the longest and in the most thorough way."


Image above: Smoke Hole Canyon, a 1,126-acre area in West Virginia, is home to 120 rare plants, animals, and ecological communities. From (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/28905668@N03/2878819353/).

Looking through the abiotic prism, for example, The Nature Conservancy protected a 1,126-acre ranch in the Smoke Hole Canyon, a remote 20-mile long valley along the Potomac River in West Virginia. The resilient features are numerous: It's an anomalous microclimate for the East Coast, as it sits in a rain shadow and gets just 30 or so inches of rain a year and so is a dry prairie. It has a diversity of land forms, ridges, steep slopes, micro-climates, and cliffs.

And while much of the limestone soil in West Virginia was cleared by farmers to plant crops, the Smoke Hole remained wooded and is still blanketed with limestone and the plants that thrive in the nutrient-rich soil. That's why there are 120 rare plants, animals, and ecological communities.

But the Smoke Hole is not immune to climate change. A devastating outbreak of woolly adelgids, which was driven by warmer temperatures and killed hemlocks, found its way to the forest there.

The Nature Conservancy also rated its existing refuges for resiliency and found that nearly all of them scored well or average. "Only four percent scored terrible," said Anderson.

While it's been widely adopted, some say the “conserving the stage” approach takes the focus off of species that need help now. And it's a coarse filter that needs to be ground-truthed — land that should be resilient because of its geology, for example, said the Open Space Institute’s Howell, may not be because of invasive species.

That's why the abiotic filter isn't the only tool. The Nature Conservancy is still doing work the old-fashioned biotic way. Brad McRae, a landscape ecologist for the conservancy in Fort Collins, Colorado has created a software called Circuitscape that predicts, especially in highly fragmented places, where corridors for climate change refugees will be needed and where they can be found so species can migrate to more habitable ground.

The software looks at vegetation, climate gradient, how much development there is, and topographic factors such as ridgelines and valley; it even factors in which are the lowest-cost corridors. "We need a well-connected portfolio to help these species find a new home," McRae said. "Many species won't be able to disperse fast enough, so we'll have to physically move them."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in charge of the 1,400 or so endangered species, primarily manages the biotic way, though it has moved toward a big-picture look at landscapes. In 2012, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar created Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

There are 22 of these self-directed co-ops now around the U.S., and they are charged with coordinating agencies, tribal governments, and private landowners in creating a landscape-level look at wildlife, invasive species, and wildfire issues beyond their own jurisdictions to plan for a changing climate.

No matter how good the forecasting, though, the mercurial nature of how life will adapt to climate change is always going to be part crapshoot. "It doesn't solve the problem of predictability," says Anderson, co-author of the “Conserving the Stage” paper. "It identifies places on the ground that should continue to support diversity and function. But it doesn't tell you exactly what the diversity and function will look like."

.

Sierra Club on Mauna Kea

SUBHEAD: Significant scarring and erosion of the Mauna Kea summit as well as threats to delicate habitats.

By Nelson Ho on 1 July 2015 for Malama i ka Honua -
(http://sierraclubhawaii.org/pdf/Sierra%20Club%20Newsletter%20JULY%202015%20Email.pdf)


Image above: Current scarring of summit ridge by erosion along access roadway to observatory sites. From original article.

Mauna Kea has garnered significant media and celebrity attention over the past few months, but the Sierra Club has had its eyes focused on the summit for decades.The controversy over telescope development atop Mauna Kea actually began with the first University of Hawaii facility in the 1968. From the start, the Sierra Club and the broader environmental community were key critics of development on and around the summit.

It was Club member Mae Mull, a Volcano resident and energetic environmentalist, who brought her concerns to this author’s attention, back in 1980. She was recruiting anyone who could make the arduous trip to the summit and speak for the Hawaii Audubon Society or Sierra Club.

Through numerous meetings, Mull made allies among the hunters concerned about access to hunting areas, which the Honolulu-based Institute for Astronomy attempted to limit. Mull kept boxes of newspaper clippings and documents from the many DLNR hearings back then. She was very vocal
about the urbanization of the summit as telescopes began sprouting up like weeds.

Her opinion was shared by many islanders upset with the proliferation of domes. Even Hawaii County Mayor Herbert Matayoshi called them “pimples” blemishing the beauty of the mountain.

During the late1970s Mauna Kea’s upper slopes were the testing ground for a series of moon vehicles. The field activities were reported in a 1979 issue of Science magazine. The article claimed that the volcano’s harsh stone environment was as bare and lifeless as the surface of Mars. Three Hawaii biologists scoffed at that superficial pronouncement and began their own field surveys to see what biology actually was on Mauna Kea.


Image above: Excavation in 1986 for the Keck facility on of Mauna Kea required 40 foot deep removal of summit material to make large enough area for construction. From original article.

Dr. Frank Howarth was an entomologist working at the Bishop Museum who specialized in cave biology. Dr. Wayne Gagne was an entomologist and a key volunteer leader on the Sierra Club of Hawaii’s Chapter Executive Committee. Dr. Steve Montgomery was the third entomologist in this group and was also very active on the Executive Committee. Howarth, Gagne, and Montgomery were friends of Bill and Mae Mull.

Together this volunteer team explored the alpine, aeolian (wind-driven) stone desert ecosystem. In 1979, they discovered a complex web of life, finding 15 species of native arthropods, including the endemic wekiu bug, nysius wekiucola, found nowhere else on the planet.

The wekiu bug is adapted to a habitat limited to the upper reaches of the Mauna Kea conservation district. This complex ecosystem, to this day, has not been studied, monitored nor protected from the industrial changes to the summit region.

Howarth and Dr. Fred Stone conducted an entomology study for the proposed Keck telescope area in 1982, and by the next year they were disturbed by the damage done to the summit habitat. They made recommendations for biological inventory, habitat mitigation, and monitoring. The wekiu bug habitat is easily altered by vehicular traffic and construction activity, as tephra cinders preferred by the bug are easily crushed into dust-sized particles, which fill their living spaces.

Prime habitat can be quickly degraded to compacted silt and mud by use of off-road vehicles. wekiu habitat may also be altered by dust blown up from road grading and other construction activities. Concerns about the urbanization and industrialization of the summit prompted the University to prepare a master plan in 1983. The University has still not fulfilled some of the promises made in that plan two decades ago.

Club members Deborah J. Ward and the author accompanied Dr. Fred Stone on a visit to the summit. The Japanese Subaru facility had seriously altered the top and inner cinder slopes of Puu Hauoki and was that day trenching, with heavy machinery, into the outer slopes of the cone (high-quality wekiu bug habitat) for optical and electrical cables. The DLNR had no idea this industrial activity was going on, let alone in prime wekiu habitat.


Image above: Excavation into cinder slope for construction of Japan's Subaru facility. From original article.

Was this the kind of activity and lack of oversight that Gov. David Ige and UH President Dave Lassner apologized for on May 26, 2015?

In 1996, the Sierra Club of Hawaii adopted a policy calling for;

“a moratorium on any further development in the Mauna Kea Science Reserve until... [certain] conditions, designed to re-establish a prudent balance between astronomy and the cultural, religious, biological, eological, and recreational attributes of the mountain, are met...”

To date, most of the conditions have not been satisfactorily met.

The Sierra Club’s concerns back then—and today—include the visual impact of construction on sensitive cultural view planes from both the summit and the lowlands, the industrialization of conservation district land, the impact on cultural resources and historic sites, the impact on wekiu habitat, and the failure of the State to collect the fair market value of lease rents from foreign and mainland entities thatuse public trust lands.

The Sierra Club of Hawaii intervened in two contested case hearings: expansion of the Keck telescope facilities and the UH Comprehensive Management Plan.

For decades, Sierra Club has worked side by side with the Conservation Council for Hawaii and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance to correct bad land-use management practices for this vulnerable land. It also challenged the acceptance of the latest management plan.

.

TMT permit goes to Supreme Court

SOURCE: Kerri Marks (occupyhilomedia@yahoo.com)
SUBHEAD: The transfer signals the court believes the TMT Conservation District Use Permit deserves the utmost scrutiny.

By  Kealoha Piscotta on 5 June 2015 for Mauna Kea Hui -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2015/06/tmt-permit-goes-to-supreme-court.html)


Image above: Mauna Kea with fresh snow in the light of sunset, 12 Jan 2011. From (http://darkerview.com/darkview/index.php?/archives/2142-Wordless-Wednesday-Sunset-and-Snow.html).

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its order granting the Mauna Kea Hui’s application for transfer of their case concerning the construction of a Thirty-Meter Telescope (TMT) on the sacred summits of Mauna Kea from review by the state Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).

Mauna Kea Hui members, Kealoha Pisciotta of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Deborah J. Ward, Clarence K ū Ching, the Flores-Case ʻOhana (E. Kalani Flores and Pua Case), Paul Neves, and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, are appealing the state Third Circuit’s affirmation of the state Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR) decision to grant a conservation district use permit (CDUP) to the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo (UHH) for TMT construction.

Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman, attorney for the Mauna Kea Hui, said that his clients are encouraged by the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to grant the application for transfer.

One of the criteria that the Supreme Court considers in granting an application for transfer is whether the matter involves a question of imperative or fundamental public importance.

Wurdeman said UHH, on behalf of TMT, had strenuously objected to his clients’ application for transfer of the appeal from the ICA to the Hawaii Supreme Court for review.

The grant of transfer comes in the wake of UH’s public concessions of its mismanagement of Mauna Kea and agreements to Governor Ige’s plans for purported “improvements” on Mauna Kea, all of which fall short because they were premised on continued support of the TMT project. “These are interesting, to say the least,” said Wurdeman, “given the University’s vigorous opposition in legal battles.”

In a separate case, the ICA had earlier ruled against the Kilakila o Haleakala’s similar appeal concerning the University ’s CDUP for an Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) to be constructed on the Haleakala summit.

The Hawaii Supreme Court subsequently granted a request for review and oral arguments were held in April in that case. Now, appeals from both the TMT and ATST CDUPs are under review by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not yet issued an order on whether oral arguments will be held in the Mauna Kea case.

Deborah Ward said the court’s decision to hear the case is “heartening” and Kealoha Pisciotta stated, “This is good news and recognizes the importance of our case for all of Hawaii.”

 Both cases may bear on the ways conservation districts islandwide will be treated. CDUPs are essentially variances for construction in conservation districts and can be granted only if a project meets eight criteria, including an absence of substantial adverse impact, preservation of natural beauty, and consistency with conservation district purposes.

“The transfer signals that the Hawaii Supreme Court, in unanimity, believes that the so-called TMT Conservation District Use Permit deserves the utmost legal scrutiny and priority,” stated K ū Ching.

.

Earth Day and Green Movements

SUBHEAD:This Earth Day get involved with some Green Wizardry. Prepare yourself and enjoy the ride.

By Juan Wilson on 22 April 2015 for Island Breath  -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-and-green-movements.html)


Image above: Earth Day by Sam Spook on Deviant Art. From (http://happywallpaper.net/earth-day-pics.html).

GREEN ENVIRONMENTALISM
Each year, Earth Day -- April 22 -- marks the anniversary of what many consider the birth of the modern environmental Green Movement in 1970.

"Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, city slickers and farmers, tycoons and labor leaders. The first Earth Day led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts."  (http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement).

GREEN POLITICS
Along the way the Green Environmental Movement became political. There was a time about a quarter of a century back when the Green movement was a political idea with some teeth. The Green Party Movement was (and is) a real force in German politics that was compared by some with Red Communism. In America the Greens have run candidates for office with little success. In 2012 Jill Stein ran with Cheri Honkaka against Obama and Biden. Did you vote for them?

The Ten Principles of the Green Party of the United States are (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.php):

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.  We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.  We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

The only problem with Green Politics in America is that no one is listening or cares. It's dead in the water because it would mean turning our attention away from the big colorful flat screens that suck the life out of us.

GREEN CONSUMERISM
The Green Consumer movement envisions solar panels charging lithium batteries in self-driving sedans and home 3D printers producing plastic buckets and dustpans while thorium and fusion reactors power server-farms for our wireless devices. And let's not forget local food production - there is nothing like foraging at the artisanal food market for expensive organic greens grown sustainably by wwoofers.

One thing that Green Consumerism clings to is Techno-Optimism. That's the idea that more advances in science and  technology - and their implementation in our everyday lives is the only way to save ourselves and the world. The TED Talks - focusing on Technology, Entertainment and Design - are a good example of the Green consumer propaganda. Today's Earthday TED talk is titled "How Virtual Reality can can Create the Ultimate Empathy Machine".

There is also the feel-good side of being a green consumer. TreeHugger.com is one sterling example. It once was a website with some teeth. It has devolved into one "Partial to a modern aesthetic, sharing sustainable design, green news and solutions." Some headlines from Earthday 2015:


A look at NYC's eco-friendly residential buildings
China's low-carbon electricity on track to be greater than entire U.S. grid
Cutting emissions slows climate change faster than we thought
Twelve really cool random things about planet Earth  subtitled:
In celebration of Earth Day: An ode to our awesome orb.

GREEN ROT
And so Earth Day has become an empty vessel. Environmentalism has become co-opted and transformed into a new approach to corporate consumerism and dragged the Earth Day crowd along for the ride. They do not want to hear the bad news or change what they are doing. Who does? Unless knowing the truth is required to living life in the future.

As individuals there is precious little we can do to influence the large environmentally destructive forces that surround us and in which we are embedded. One can participate in organized protests, demonstrations, walk-outs, sit-ins and the like, but these efforts are more symbolic than strategic.

The economic, political, military and social forces that weave the tale of history may even notice your efforts in numbers, but the play of the larger forces are what really make the changes on the ground.

What is available to individuals is an understanding of the overarching forces and how personal planning and action can anticipate changes over the horizon and make decisions that result in the best accommodation to the future.

The players in the big system have to do this all the time. The pharmacy chain Walgreens just made such a decision regarding Kauai. See TGI article from 4/18/15:

The first Walgreens on Kauai will not be opening after all, at least not in the Hokulei Village shopping center under construction in Lihue.

Walgreens spokesman Philip Caruso said the decision was based on review of the geographic market presence and performance of its stores, including existing locations and future-planned stores, conducted over the past year.

“As a part of this process, we conducted a comprehensive financial reassessment of our plans to open a new store in Kauai and have concluded that it is not in our company’s best interests to move forward with opening a store in that location.”

In my opinion the Hokulei Village was one shopping center too many for the Lihue-Puhi area to accommodate. The idea that a giant Safeway Lifestyes supermarket was needed within a stone's throw of the Kukio Grove Times supermarket and the Costco supermarket is obviously a bad idea.

If there was a need for another supermarket on the southside of Kauai  perhaps it might be located in a town without any supermarket -  like Kalaeho or Kekaha.  Wouldn't that help to alleviate the traffic we are forced to widen the Kaumaalii Highway for?

Walgreens will not be the last to decide Kauai is not a place to invest for growth. The reality is that the world powers are being dragged kicking and screaming away from abundant energy, resources and consumption.  Many of their best laid plans for Californicating Kauai will face economic headwinds that will not abate.

The Chinese real estate bubble is unraveling and their economy is entering recession. So is Europe while facing the Greek Euro Exit and a war in the Ukraine...  and so is America and its federally financialized fake equity markets and fake job markets and fake promise of higher education for everybody. The old growth model, and the middle class are in the dust bin.

Things will not get built that already have permits. Middle class tourists won't be able to afford a family of four vacation to Hawaii. Existing national chain stores on Kauai will start closing their doors.

You will find your life here changing dramatically. What you can do?

GREEN WIZARDRY
John Michael Greer, the Archdruid of North America, coined the term. See(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1239343/-Green-Wizardry-People-Get-Ready#) and http://www.amazon.com/Green-Wizardry-Conservation-Gardening-Appropriate/dp/0865717478)

Greer sees the environmental movement of the 1970s of having grasped the solution to our current dilemma of social and environmental collapse. It is a combination of conservation, solar energy organic gardening, and other hands-on DIY skills from the appropriate tech toolkit.

So this Earth Day get involved with some Green Wizardry. There is hard work ahead. But it is work that you can do on your own and those close to you, that will improve where you are. That is really all we can do. 

Prepare yourself and enjoy the ride.

.