Greening San Diego

In 2005, San Diego County imported energy, electricity and natural gas, costing us over $1-Billion (not counting transportation fuels, or long term infrastructure costs).

That is $1-Billion that left our economy to pay for energy, most of it wasted through inefficiency. Today we are in the middle of a recession, looking for ways to save money, to create jobs, to become more productive. Now, we have the opportunity to free ourselves from the long term trap that uses our lives to pay outsiders for our energy.

Ecological Designer, Jim Bell, and UCSD's Heather Honea, Ph.D., wrote us a plan in 2007. Their analysis came to the conclusion that even without any local, State, or Federal Government subsidies, it makes pure economic sense to transform San Diego's energy economy over to diversified, local, renewable energy.

Their plan, titled "NET-METERING", calls for 'Community Choice Aggregation Ordinances' that ask all current energy users to reform their energy consumption, implement conservation and efficiency measures, like those called for under the ARRA, and smartly cut usage by 40%. Then uses the energy cost savings from those measures to implement renewable energy projects, like Solar Photo-Voltaics, on a neighborhood scale, to supply the remaining 60%+ electricity we need.

Once we collectively choose to begin down this path, there is a net savings to our economy, and a net increase in local jobs and resources. That means we keep at least $1-Billion dollars in the local economy every year, assuming both our population and the price of imported energy were to stay constant. With that extra capital, we can innovate, educate, and even export energy. Imagine that?

If the average cost of electricity in San Diego County is just ten-cents per kilowatt-hour, then the 2010 cost of energy is $1.6-Billion, in negative cash flow. We can end our dependence on foreign energy supplies, we can increase our energy security, and can keep the money in San Diego County.

We don't need to build more power plants nor power-links to other areas. We don't have to worry about future energy-cost increases, nor brown-outs. No more carbon fuel polluting the atmosphere, no more atomic energy risking catastrophe. We might even choose to create fresh water from the sea using the excess green energy we create?

That is what I call a truly SUSTAINABLE FUTURE!
Want to read more? Visit JimBell.com and read the study for yourself.

Spray Polyurethane Foam - Pros and Cons

One great advance in insulation technology is spray polyurethane foam (SPF). With a Polyurethane made from two highly toxic chemicals: methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and a Resin also known as the polyol blend, and is comprised mostly of polyols, with smaller amounts of catalysts, blowing agents, flame retardants and surfactants. 

Spray polyurethane foam, commonly referred to as SPF, is a spray-applied insulating foam plastic that is installed as a liquid and then expands many times its original size. It offers excellent insulating properties, improving energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings, and is also used in many specialty applications.

Although there is a STYROFOAM™ Brand Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF), these types of spray foams come in all types for all purposes. There use and handling is very dangerous, so I would never call them "green", however they can be used properly to create a very solid insulation barrier, that will last for decades (if not centuries) and create a vapor and moisture barrier that can save energy and thus indirectly save the environment. 
Spray Foam has some great advantages...

• Very High R-Value for size
• Easily sprayed into tight spots
• Can be very water resistant
• Increases the strength of the existing walls
• Excellent vapor retarder, creates a good barrier
• Good sound control by filling cracks and crevices
• Highly durable

Unfortunately, there are also many drawbacks to be overcome ...

• Looses its ability to insulate over the years
• Breaks down at 250-degrees, like all plastic
• Can give off toxic fumes, off-gassing
• More expensive than traditional materials
• Use fossil fuels in production
• Greenhouse gases are produced by the blowing agents
• Fumes can be deadly if inhaled, Installers of polyurethane foam need to be protected when applying the foam to a project
• Some people have allergies to the foam, and If this type of foam comes in contact with the eyes, they should be rinsed thoroughly and attended to immediately because temporary blindness can occur.
• Very difficult to do any remodel or make changes after foam is sprayed.
• Lasts forever, so how do you dispose of it when the building's life-span is done?

Remember Polyurethane Foam is made from molecules that are not found in nature. Here is one great alternative that you might want to use: Ecovative Design's - Greensulate (TM) 

Looking at the Future of Climate Change

After his horrible defeat in 1999, Al Gore retooled and created his lecture, "An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It".

The idea that 'Global Warming' is a hoax, or a mistake in the data, has been propigated by reactionary wing-nut radio, but I did a little research. I found that the argument is deep, there are large inconsistencies and variations in the limited data we have. After all we've only had satellites flying around the planet since 1951.

The pseudo-scientists and fringe academics who ask questions, sometimes legitimate questions, are real and right to be skeptical. Unfortunately, their curiosity ends as soon as their political and financial interests are met. The deeper story is that, climates are too complex for our limited time on the planet to comprehend, yet we keep polluting, in spite of the growing evidence.

• "Carbon in the atmosphere acts like fertalizer." - True, but it has a half life of just seven years in our atmospher, and is mostly absorbed into the seas, creating carbonic-acid and destroying the shells of microscopic phytoplankton at the base of the food chain.
  
• "Global Warming is caused by sun spots" - the sun spot cycle went down last 10 years, as temperature increased.
• "The Warming of the planet is a normal variation." - Turns out that the EARTH is actually cooler than it should be because it is shielded by our carbon pollution.

If Al Gore is wrong, then we will simply have a heat wave, and we will adapt. But if he is right we will not only have great social and economic catastrophe, we may loose a large percentage of the species on the planet. Here is what you can do about it - RepoWEr America

First Day in the HERS Class

Today we saw a video about California that everyone should see, this is our future.
The Big Gamble

Watch the Entire Video Online

Sustainable Food

Perhaps it involves models like Veta La Palma, or agroforestry, or perennial wheat polycultures, like the ones being developed at The Land Institute. These are systems that demonstrate natural resilience and ecological stability, which are essential for facing the challenges ahead.

I think we're heading for a vastly different food experience, in our lifetimes. I think the conventional food system -- which is based on lots of cheap energy, lots of cheap labor, lots of available water, lots of soil erosion -- is going to dead 20 years from now. And that's because the things it relies upon are not going to be available.

If you look at the carrying capacity of agricultural areas throughout the world, their ecological habitats are changing. So I think we're looking at -- in our lifetime -- great collapses of food services. We need the humbleness and clarity to see that our food, while benefiting from technological advances, has benefited even more from free ecological resources: Cheap energy, lots of water everywhere, and a stable climate. But studies have shown these are eroding. And if you take these away -- if you don't have those in abundance -- you're not only going to NOT feed the world, you're not going to be able to eat the way we do now. We're going to be forced into a new system. The question is: Is that going to be a traumatic transition, or are we going to start preparing for it now?

Yield is generally defined by economists as yield for a particular crop. When you farm in a monoculture, that's easy to measure. But when you farm organically, you grow several different crops. So your yield per individual crop is lower, but your total output of caloric foods is higher. The TOTAL CALORIC yield on an organic farm far surpasses a conventional farm. That's on every credible study out there. That's not even an issue.

Let's talk about grain. Because if you're talking about feeding the world, it's really about grain. Now, if you're an organic corn farmer, by definition, you can't grow corn every year. You have to get nitrogen back in the soil. So you'll grow corn, and then you'll grow a legume, and so you'll fix the nitrogen and improve the soil structure. Now, if you're a conventional farmer, you're growing just corn and nothing else but corn. So you might look at this system and say the conventional farmer got more corn. But what that doesn't show is that the organic farmer also got soybeans, switchgrass, vetch, alfalfa ...

the single most important thing you can do to improve your food supply >> Buying at a farmers market is the biggest difference you can make overnight. I think it's important to get people to realize they have a very powerful set of decisions to make when they eat. And those decisions have a huge effect on how the world works. That's very powerful!

The second thing you could do is grow your own food. It sounds crazy, but it's not. It's not about providing 100% of your food; it's about doing something that connects you to a natural system, and gets you closer to the food you're eating.

It's all about the flavor. Because when you taste really fresh, delicious food -- food that's been grown the right way -- you become greedy for more. And then you are by definition being an environmentalist, because that's the food that's the most ecologically responsible, and by definition you're a nutritionist -- because that's the food that's the most nutrient-dense. And you're being a community activist, because you're engaged in the kind of community system you want to support. So a lot of important things flow from good food. But at the end of the day, it's about food that tastes good. This idea has spread through hedonism.

Breed for flavor. You get flavor from flavinoids, and you get flavinoids from biologically diverse soil -- this means there are nutrients in the soil that are feeding the plant, as it's being grown, and you're tasting that.

The refractometer — a small, hand-held device that measures Brix, the sugar content of a fruit or vegetable. Traditionally it was used to help winemakers determine when to harvest their grapes.

I'm not radically opposed to the science of genetic modification, but so far there’s been no evidence of significant progress, in part because it’s embedded within the same tired agribusiness thinking. Yes, there is a way to use biotechnology, but the research needs to be conducted independently (not for profits and patents), and understood as one tool in a toolkit, rather than a silver bullet. Autar Mattoo, a scientist who works for the USDA, exemplifies that. Autar argues for what he calls a “bio-sustainability” solution—marrying genetic engineering with sustainable principles. His research has shown a synergism between transgenic tomatoes and organic cover crop. It’s brilliant stuff.

- Chef Dan Barber of Stone Barns Center, NY - Taken from TED interview after his talk.


About perennial polycultures:
A farm that looked like the prairie would require fewer inputs by farmers, allowing them to keep more of the profit. It would feature a mixture of crops that could be harvested from the early spring to late fall; and perhaps most importantly, it would regenerate the soil into a thriving ecosystem.

The main problem farming with perennials is that they must devote more energy into building a larger root system and have less energy for growing seeds, thus have a lower food yield. Researchers at the Land Institute and several universities are searching for varieties of perennials whose yields can compete with annual crops. The Land Institute has had some success with wheat, sorghum, and sunflowers by cross breeding perennial strains with annual strains. Some lines of wheat have been developed that yield 70% of the best annual varieties.

Perennials are hardier than annuals and more resistant to weeds once they are established. In addition they contain stronger resistance to disease. A polycrop field, imitating the prairie, further increases resistance to disease since each type of plant is further separated making the spread of disease more difficult.

Designing farms in the image of nature would be a second agricultural revolution. Wes Jackson believes that the first agricultural revolution was the beginning of our estrangement from nature, and claims that, “It is fitting then that the healing of our culture begin with agriculture."

Bonus: about permanent aquaculture in Argentina.

"They take about 20 per cent of our annual yield," he told TIME. "But that just shows the whole system is working."

Located on an island in the Guadalquivir river, 10 miles (16km) inland from the Atlantic, Veta la Palma produces 1,200 tonnes of sea bass, bream, red mullet and shrimp each year. Yet unlike most of the world's fish farms, it does so not by interfering with nature, but by improving upon it.

"Veta la Palma raises fish sustainably and promotes the conservation of birdlife at the same time," says Daniel Lee, best practices director for the U.S.-based Global Aquaculture Alliance. "I've never seen anything quite like it." --

End of Network Neutrality

The court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the internet!



Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski can simply change the FCC regulatory rules to give the Federal Communications Commission jurisdiction over the internet.

People have to remember, all media—television, radio, phone service—every type of media other than the printed page, will soon be delivered by a broadband or internet connection. That means these wonky sort of arcane rules that are being played out at the Federal Communications Commission and in the court ruling yesterday, these will shape the media for generations, what it looks like, whether independent voices like Democracy Now! can get into the suite of options that people have across the country when they turn on a television. It will determine whether we can bridge the digital divide that currently has the United States slipping from fourth in the year 2000 to twenty-second in broadband adoption and speed and affordability. It will really determine whether or not we will have a twenty-first century internet economy or whether we’ll continue to lag behind the rest of the world.

Call him [(202) 418-1000, and 888-CALL-FCC (888-225-5322)], email him [ Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov ], and tell Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski you want Network Neutrality, all information on the internet must be equal, or we loose free speech and we loose our democracy!

Join Free Press Network

Join the Free Press Movement