Green Jobs and Free Trade

Here and there I have been reading snipes at the Obama Administration's manufacturing policy. The best one liner was something to the effect that while we may be heading for a "green economy," the actual "green jobs" are being created, right now, in China. Most of the turbine windmills are being manufactured in China then exported here. Now that's a carbon footprint if there every was one!

So it seems we should be thinking about what exactly those green jobs entail, and how do we create and sustain them. Part of this discussion, I suspect, means we re-visit the ideas of free trade. China artificially suppresses the valuation of the Yuan, which means we are able to get stuff cheap from them. And they dump a lot of products here in the US, making it virtually impossible for our manufacturers to compete.

How about we say to the world that we need to make the beginnings of the green economy a local issue. Local manufacturing of the components for green energy generation. And using local engineering talent to site the green energy production. Or how about really figuring out how to make our automobile manufacturing the best in the world, energy efficient and cool looking, keeping living wage jobs here in the US.

It just seems hypocritical to me if we talk the talk but certainly don't walk it.

Every Day is Earth Day

There is a bumper sticker that the Society of American Foresters sells to it's members: Every Day Is Earth Day for a Forester.  It's slightly defensive, but makes a critical point.  Every day should be Earth Day for each of us.

We are caught in an interesting time for environmental policy and politics.  We have a President and Congress who seem motivated to "do something" on top of the list environmental issues like, well, er, global climate change.  Global warming, as it is called in the popular media, is the darling of politicians.  Primarily because "doing something" can appeal to so many constituencies.  There can be jobs created doing "green technologies," or "green building."  Legislation can be passed requiring regulations to be promulgated, hence creating more governmental jobs monitoring emissions.  And we can still keep our lifestyle as long as we are consuming "green."

But talk has been and continues to be all we seem to do.  Frankly, technological "solutions" often contribute to the problem rather than the solution.  So-called green buildings actually require destruction of a current structure, contributing to the waste stream.  How about green restoration?  And encouraging people to consume as long as it's green?  How about not consuming.  Those reusable bags from China probably do far more damage to the environment than driving to the grocery store!

Here in the Pacific Northwest we have been talking about salmon restoration for decades, and still the numbers decline because of lack of political will and constituency demand.  We tinker at the edges while advocating the use of hydroelectric power, generated by massive dams along the Columbia River, one of the major spawning waterways for salmon.  Google, claiming they are the premier environmental company ("do no evil") recently located a massive server farm, using huge amounts of electricity, near The Dalles, in Oregon, which is directly across from a massive power generating dam.  Google gets cheap power, salmon die.  Go figure.

The same thing is true for the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, the two premier estuaries in the continent.  Both have been major environmental concerns for decades, yet we continue to overdevelop the adjacent lands (with built green homes, no less) pouring massive amounts of toxic run-off into the waters.  The two estuaries, once filled with lively fisheries and amazingly fresh water, are ecological nightmares.  But we sure love to talk about it.

We have a long long way to go before we can say that every day is Earth Day.  The current economic depression (there, I said it) trumps environmental concerns for most Americans.  The good news is that perhaps as we scratch our heads and examine how we spent our way into this mess, we realize that spending our way out of it might not work.  And that, alone, will go along way for Earth!

As an aside, I want to direct you to the Frontline piece done by Heddrick Smith on the Chesapeake and Puget Sound.  You can find the link to the video by clicking on the title to this post.

Urbancentric

The embattled General Motors and Segway announced they are developing an electric, two person, urban vehicle.  Pretty darn cool.  But where do I put my skis, dogs, groceries, parents...

It seems to me that much of this green technology is very urban centric.  Which make sense since living in cities can be considered highly efficient.  But much of this country and in fact the world, does not live in cities.  Much less, there is still a large number of people who do live in cities but like to get out of them every now and then.

But this green technology development is sorely lacking in it's focus on rural and yes, I know it's not politically correct to talk about, suburban folks.  Where are the substitutes for trucks to haul hay or new technologies in irrigation that reduce water consumption?  

We have a long way to go to reduce our dependence on oil.  In the meantime, homogenizing everyone as if we all live in a compact European town isn't going to solve anything.  And of course, there are all the issues which don't get discussed on whether electricity is any better than oil.  At least in the Pacific Northwest, the salmon are not so sure the dams that generate cheap electricity are such a great idea.

The creativity is good, but really in the end, technology is not going to solve this problem.  We may actually all have to re-think how we live.  Uh-oh, does that mean I have to give up skiing?

Can Green Technology Save Us?

Now that the economic stimulus bill has been signed into law, it's time to examine some of the assumptions contained within the legislation and campaign rhetoric about green technologies (which the development of those technologies is a key element in the jobs creation).

It goes without saying that green technologies are not particularly environmentally friendly, in other words, often the most "green" thing you can do is if your appliance, car, house, or whatever is working, don't replace it.  Replacing with "green" items is as bad or worse than doing nothing.  

However, now the emphasis is on clean energy.  While commentators from other regions of the country drool over clean power, the Pacific Northwest, semi-abundant with large and powerful rivers, knows full well the impacts of hydroelectric power, considered clean by so-called energy gurus (as in it sure beats coal).  As with everything, there are pluses and minuses to hydroelectric power, just as there are with coal, nuclear, wind, and harnessing the tides or waves.  In my opinion it will take a mix of all potential power sources, not relying on one or two, to create a relatively green source of power.

Hydro power not only increases the temperatures of the rivers, but it also creates an impassible barricade to anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead.  And these barriers are extremely difficult to "fix" in order to assist salmon in their return to spawning grounds.  In the Pacific Northwest we have fish hatched, barged, trucked, fish laddered, and airlifted salmon up and down the Columbia and it's tributaries, and still find ourselves listing salmon spawns on the federal Endangered Species lists.  Not only is the spawn an issue, but once you create an impassible barricade, predators become an impediment to the fish, such that the predators such as Sea lions or Caspian terns become prey of humans trying to prevent lower numbers of salmon spawn and yes, the cycle continues.

Then, there are the issues of displacement that we witnessed with China's massive construction of the Three Gorges Dam or the potential irrevocable damage to First Peoples with the proposed Hydro-Quebec's dams on James Bay.  

And, of course, when any technology is seen as a panacea for perceived problems, we overlook or neglect the problems with the technology itself.  For instance, the actual mileage per charge for electric cars is almost 50% less than originally touted.  Plus, there are the issues of battery disposal, much less the amount of electrical energy the cars require.

Ah, then there is the issue of increasing our power capacities.  If we're going to be finding and developing "green" power, the major problem is apparently the current power grids in this country can not handle new sources of power (wind, solar, geothermal) and are vastly  over capacity as it is.  Recently, Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, the current leader of the majority in the Senate, introduced a bill to have the federal government essentially take control of siting of the the high voltage power lines.  In other words, removing all the regulatory red-tape from 231 different state agencies across the country, so that the feds can determine where to put power lines.  Which on it's face seems like a good idea, except who really wants a high tension power line running through a national forest (the bill asks that federal lands be opened up for these kinds of lines) or even, gasp, in your back yard?

Today, I had an appliance repair man come over to fix my oven.  I have this old stove, my guess is it's at least 25 or 30 years old.  The bottom heating element died on the oven.  It cost about $175 to fix.  I've thought for years about replacing it, getting a swanky stainless stove (in fact, I had a free one that was gas a few years ago, but that is a whole other story about my city's bureaucratic nightmare on digging a hole to access the gas main).  But the repair man said to me: "listen, this is the best stove GE every made.  It will last you a long time.  Hold onto it. "  And so I will.  And to me, that is the greenest thing I can do.

As an aside, he also told me that appliances are being made, now, that will generate an error code which will be transmitted to the manufacturer's service division, who will then email or call you to set up a time to repair...he said, that will put him out of business.

As we look to these new and amazing technologies we need to remember we are beginning to emerge from a decade, if not longer, of jumping feet first without looking, thinking, pausing.  It's time for us to  pause, to pencil out all the ramifications of our love affair with more and more technological solutions to our environmental problems.  If the noodling says these technology is worth it, given all the consequences, then let's go for it.  If not, there will be other answers over time.  Remember, the root of conservation is conserve, to be conservative.  Sometimes that is a good thing!