Hydrofracking and the Economy: A Simple 3 Point Plan that Ensures Environmental Stewardship, Securing Long Term Green Energy and Economic Growth in New York State.

Hydro-fracking is so controversial that writing anything in favor of or against will only sound like a polemic for extremists on both sides. It has caused me much trepidation to publish this article, but with so much being discussed on both sides, I feel certain important conversations are being missed. I am in agreement that any well drilling within watersheds on NY State or historic sites should be prohibited. This is common sense because at the human level, water is more important than oil and energy. If you’re a right wing red dog conservative or a yellow dog liberal this point should not be a point of argument.

The NYS DEC proposed formal regulations for gas drilling into the Marcellus and Utica Shales of New York State last year and held the last of four public hearings on the regulations on Nov. 30. Under state law, DEC has one year after the last public hearing to finalize the regulations, although it can file for a 90-day extension (http://www.cnbc.com/id / 49240763). If it misses the Nov. 29 deadline, the rulemaking process restarts, including a new comment period. This could turn out to be a big win for environmentalists and I applaud the slow process in an attempt to get it right for all New Yorkers. While the development of new regulations are significant, most specifically 6 NYCRR Part 560 which is applicable to all High-Volume hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) for gas and oil well development, the regulations do not require the energy companies to implement the maximum protective measure in meeting codes and standards. The proposed rules do not spell out the level of disclosure of chemical additives to be used on the lands of New York State or require fracking fluids to be treated by local municipally owned wastewater treatment plants or disposed of as waste once characterized, two important protective measures that are absent in the current rule to the level of detail that needs to spelled out for New Yorkers.

 

Because of the lack of long-term planning in the recent 30 + years, the moment of now and to some extent the pursuit of hyper-individualistic goals of the “me” population, a working contemporary model to approach problems and living our lives within our energy limits is elusive. I believe a common sense, long term goal oriented, approach to drilling should be engaged in for our economy and to secure energy resources for New Yorkers and this great state in the next Century. At this point, I assume some are in total opposition prior to reading any further.  Hold on for a moment! New Yorkers need energy resources and utilizing local energy resources is beneficial as opposed to importing oil and gas from far off places, unless of course we want to do without our cars, i-phones, and air conditioners? Since such a a marginal number of people, red dog conservatives or a yellow dog liberals and almost all in the middle are willing to change in this way we must find a common sense solution to our hunger for energy. A long term plan to build a viable infrastructure of renewable resources are the only answer and harvesting them via technology improvements and development will be key to building a sustainable growing New York. Not only is utilizing a local source of energy favorable, it is also a more green option, producing less greenhouse gases to deliver and for New Yorkers to use to run those cars, i-phones, and air conditioners. 

Recognizing that we are in a long recalcitrant economic crisis that politically only a few are taking responsibility for, we must find a way to grow the economy for the next 100 years and put our fellow New Yorkers back to work. Economic policies of each political party have benefits and detractions depending of what ideology you subscribe to, so I am tabling that discussion to focus on comprehensive jobs and economic growth plan for New York State that will bring down the unemployment rates and increase tax rolls like we have observed in other states like North Dakota, Montana, Texas and others. While on any day, I would rather see solar, water, or wind power New York State, people are not ready and technology is not yet affordable enough to power our hungry state. So how do you build a sustainable growing green New York while hydro-fracking? Well, it won’t be a simple thing to do and will require long-term planning of financial resources, regulations, and the idea that this energy belongs to the people of New York, things difficult for some to accept however, it would be a plan for New York.

A plan for New York would include three main points; a highly regulated environment for drillers and energy companies where increased testing, inspection, and construction standards for drilling were put into place, hydro-fracking fluid compositions are fully disclosed and will be brought back up to the surface, treated and disposed at municipally owned wastewater treatment plants, a green energy tax or additional permit fees are put into place on all product wells developed.

The 3 points that must be incorporated into the final proposed regulations include:
Point 1 – Utilizing state of the art technology developed by the oil and gas industry and requiring drillers to build wells the most protective codes and standards would allow local environs and aquifers to be more sufficiently protected, protected for the worst case scenario. Energy companies while creating GIS maps, should also include worst case scenario process hazard analysis to determine if risks were to high when developing a well. The environment for routine, sloppy well drilling often seen in the industry would be severely curtailed and the public would have extra layers of protection. The first point in the plan would also require for testing wells for seepage and using double walled construction with leak chemical detection to determine if fracking fluids or natural gas escapes the main well. The proposed regulations need to go further and spell out examples of the most protective measures to protect water resources in New York State.

Point 2 - New York State would require full disclosure of hydro-fracking fluids to be used during fracking process and end the argument that these are trade secrets by saying if you want to drill in NY State, full disclosure is required. Companies cannot be allowed in the proposed rule to use broad names like HVHF fluid, but should spell out individual components of that fluid. These fracking fluids need to be required to be brought back up to the surface for treatment and disposal aboveground and not pumped back deep into the Earth’s crust, unless energy companies clearly use green biodegradable substitutes as fracking chemicals that do not impact water quality.

It is not reasonable or fair that companies make arguments that fracking water will not or never migrate upwards towards aquifers or drinking water supplies as it has been shown that contamination plumes will migrate downward into aquifers or impact drinking water supplies through pinch outs of confining layers clays found underneath the ground surface. It is proven already that contamination near the surface can eventually migrate downwards through these windows in soil profiles or along faults in bedrock underneath the ground that act as pathways for transmission of chemicals underneath the surface. The argument that water moving upwards rarely occurs and it only moves downwards with respect to to pumping fracking fluids into the Earth is not grounded in the facts. Depending on the hydraulic conductivity and how water levels fluctuate due to rainfall or other inputs in the aquifer or the way lakes seasonally turn over from lower to higher levels based on temperature, or ocean upwelling events, it would be premature and I would add false to say fracking fluids deposited deep below the surface would never rise to the water table and impact local drinking water supplies. A case for reference is the way the United States deals with nuclear waste storage is short sighted and the nuclear waste we are generating will be here for up to 1 million years or longer depending on the isotope of interest, while the containment systems holding this waste are designed in practicality for 100 years. This shows that we are a people of now and are not especially capable of managing problems 100 years from today or able to think broadly enough to identify risk 100 years into the future.

Point 3 - NY State would issue two taxes or require additional permit fees on the development of natural gas or oil wells in New York State. Lets call them additional permit fees for our discussion here. These additional permit fees would include a smaller fee for cleanup based on the Superfund model for unanticipated accidents and the other larger tax would fund green energy projects using solar, water, biodiesel and wind power sources of energy to be expected to be available long after these natural gas wells are depleted. This will provide significant funding for the development and implementation of alternative sustainable means of energy and the framework for long term planning and funding of New York’s renewable resources.  The way this can be practically carried out is through utilizing local sustainable means of energy for government services and buildings, and funding a tax credit for households installing alternative sustainable means of energy. These funds could also be issued as grants to universities, companies and non-profits that fund, develop, and build sustainable energy projects.

The U.S Energy Information Administration states there are about 1.3 trillion barrels of oil left in the world right now.  According to OPEC, over the next 21 years, the world will average about 36 billion barrels of oil each year. Thus, barring any new major oil discoveries, the world's oil supply will be effectively gone in 36 years (http://www.eia.gov/).  With possibly a 50 or 60 year supply of natural gas based on a worldwide reserve of 300,000,000,000,000 m² and expected energy prices and consumption, to remain as they are or increase in the future, there will be enough money in the development of wells and in these hydro-fracking projects to both fuel profits for companies, protecting the environment through regulations and enforcement, laying out  along term plan to harvest renewable green energy in New York and help the State out of this economic crisis and create jobs now. None of this happens without a long term plan, compromise on the part of politicians, and fiscal responsibility in not allowing companies to rake in extraordinary royalties year after year and for government to act boldly and lead for the public good, the commons we all share and allocate monies to the future plan of developing alternative sustainable green technologies for the 22^nd century. If the most protective measures are not implemented, I would ban hydro-fracking because of the risks, however, Andrew Cuomo needs to be a visionary on this topic, think big like the visionaries who created the New York City Water Supply system. I believe he and New Yorkers are capable of achieving big goals. Hell, we are New York and we can do anything!

References:

1. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html
2. http://www.eia.gov/
3. Central Intelligence Agency 2009, The World Factbook 2009, ISSN 1553-8133, Washington, DC, viewed 26th September, 2009, <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html>.
4. The Editor, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2009, BP Statistical Reviewof World Energy, June 2009, BP p.l.c., London, UK, viewed 10th September, 2009, <http://bp.com/statisticalreview>.
5. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49240763
6. http://www.rationalmiddle.com

Environmental Tools & Ideas for Government, Corporations and Non-Governmental Organizations in Renewing the Environmental Agenda: Part I: Life Cycle Assessment

Advancing a pro-environmental agenda seems like an uphill climb these days. So many seem dis-interested in environmental matters except for media sound bites and I was curious why this is the case? I certainly know of many people in my community doing so much for the environment. That being said, I know many more who are doing nothing, know the sound bites regarding issues and nothing more. One core problem is the public attention is continuously shifting towards consumption  and corporate necessities. People are simply engaging with big business and not engaging with nature or our surrounding world. And then there is politics, which I am always taken aback by extraordinary venting about big government, but rarely hear people venting about big business. Big business is or has been depending on whom you speak to taking over government in many ways, from the communities selling rights to their parking meters, highways and water supplies to the many government technical boards that are filled with industry executives and experts. I believe it is fair to say that big business is dictating policy and big business is mostly concerned with profits, bottom line profits for shareholders and other investors and not the commons of Americans. In this model, advancing a pro-environmental agenda will always be challenging.

So how can the environmental movement impact big business? I think this is a question that has begun to be answered in certain non-governemntal organizations creating programs for engaging business. One brief example is The Center for Market Innovation at the National Resource Defense Center (NRDC) which has successfully partnered with real estate firms to foster a green and sustainable approach to development and office space build outs. The iconic Empire State Building is just one case study of an existing building making the choice for a more green future by installing over 6,500 new windows that cut down energy bills and CO2 emissions among other changes in a major retrofit that supports the environmental agenda. This is a model of a private/public/NGO partnership that worked and was a great success offers a light on a new path. Details of this case study and others is at the following link; http://www.nrdc.org/greenbusiness/empire-state-building-windows.asp.

When partnerships are based on sound policy and empathic communication, change with the environment in the calculus of the solution is possible and in the process can change big corporations. Good policy is based on sound scientific experiment and data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. Without science, policy will be too swayed by politics. The war on science from certain elements of the political world and political stagnation is just creating bad policy and does subsequently have an incalculable impact on the environment. Good policy should answer questions, provide solutions and political different ideologies together. There is caution to be included in this private/public/NGO partnership. Not every National Park can be boiled down to an advertising  plan for the corporation, nor can protection of wildlife be brought to you by the Exxon Mobil. These corporation have a responsibility to the commons as well and efforts shouldn't be broken down to an advertising metric and profits. These corporations have a responsibility to Government and the commons we share.

One such policy the Environmental Protection Agency wrote regarding Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and related principles and practice might be one solution that both environmentalists and corporations could use. This policy is a natural next step from the original Recycle, Reuse, and Reduce dictum and logo that is ubiquitous in our culture and on many of the products we buy. Some often add Recover as part of this dictum and believe LCA is the next step in reviving and renewing Recycle, Reduce, and Reuse, rather than abandon it for expanded consumption and investment as some might offer. The Reduce and Reuse portions of this dictum never really took hold and because of that, more investment in the EPA Risk Management office could open new doors for private/public/NGO partnerships. A simple schematic of the framework of LCA is below.

Life Cycle Assessment is a "cradle to grave" approach for assessing industrial systems. Cradle to Grave begins with the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create a product and ends at that point when all materials are returned to the earth. Life Cycle Assessment evaluates all stages of a product's life from the perspective that they are interdependent, that one operation leads to the next. LCA generates all the cumulative environmental impacts from all stages of the life cycle, often including environmental impacts not considered in more traditional analyses. By including these impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection (EPA, 2006). This type of analyses could and often does include non-traditional impacts to social systems and captures economic impacts to communities where the extraction occurs. In doing this, LCA places real values on raw materials extraction that go beyond what commodities markets normally trade.

A more widespread implementation of LCA might foster a renewed zeal for invention, new business opportunities, and profits, but most important of all it will allow corporations to develop a deeper responsibility to the earth and its resources, the life supporting system for all. In 2002, WNYC reported that 40% of the garbage that New York City residents separated for recycling actually ended up in landfills (WNYC, 2002) New York City has reconstituted its recycling program with a new 20 year deal with Sims Metals, a metals recycling company and re-organized the program, but more work is still to be done. You can see how your NYC neighborhood does with recycling here; http://gis.nyc.gov/ops/mmr/address.jsp?app=MMR. The statistics for my neighborhood were grim and there is allot more to do, so there is much work to do in renewing our efforts to Recycle, Reduce, Reuse, and Recover.

Expecting, or dreaming in my case, that a more robust government will start to fund the EPA's Risk Management Office to promote LCA more than has been done, or expecting corporations to do this on their own is just not in the plans during this financial crisis this Country is facing. Politically speaking, its simply a dream that government would play a larger role in these efforts with corporations holding such a huge amount of power in our politics and policy making arenas. Environmentalists will have to cautiously engage in private/public partnerships to have positive environmental impacts until a paradigm shift occurs and the US government is not so feckless in light of the rise of corporations in the US.

References:
1 - Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice., Scientific Applications International Corporation & National Risk Management Research Laboratory: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 2006.

2 - City Council Holds Hearings on Saving Recycling, WNYC, April 18, 2002

3 - http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2008/dec/18/20-year-deal-may-prevent-recycling-cuts/

4 - Life Cycle Assessment Framework - http://www.setac.org/

NYC Companies Leading the Way in Environmental Progress & Climate Change!

The climate deniers are kicking puppies now exclaimed an article in the Huffington Post recently when referring to the non believers. Since the collapse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durbin South Africa. This may be the breakdown of large scale climate change movement, and because of that, looking at American and local companies in NYC that have reckognized climate change and where the movement may find itself with governments in financial crisis. These companies are implementing climate based policies to plan future business activities with climate change as a variable that will impact business and subsequently profits and marketshare. These practical sound steps are important in the realization that a new beginning is near for the climate change movement. Large scale climate change organizations or legacy climate change movements as I call them will remain in the conversation, but I wonder what their overall impact will be to foster change? In New York City, a community of local farming, bicycle advocates and non profits, technology, and urban composting organizations will be the new front and most likely have a profound impact on the movement in years to come.

Small practical steps within the following 15 NYC companies offer a roadmap for other companies that need guidance to facilitate change in the corporate world in an integrated collaborative approach. In these organizations, one will find case studies at change for the environment and climate change. The non-profit sector has great ideas and these environmental organizations in NYC will be the focus of future blogs.

The top 25 green New York City companies follow:

1. Ecologic Cleaning Solutions
2. Gotham Greens
3. Green Team
4. Greentech Capitol Advisors
5. Daily Feats
6. Hopstop
7. Liga Masiva
8. Plum Organics
9. 1-800-POSTCARDS
10. Recyclebank
11. Greyston bakery
12. Mission Markets
13. Farmland LP
14. Exponent Partners
15. Ice Stone
16. Revolution Foods
17. Peeled Snacks
18. Freelancers Insurance Company
19. Comet Skateboards
20. Etsy
21. Green Forestry US
22. Ryhme and Reason Clothing
23. Empire State Building Company
24. Dallas Brothers Coffee
25. Green Table

New York City Government (http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030.html) has been one of a few goverments implementing some environmentally sound projects via their PlaNYC, which is realizing a more green NYC.

The top 25 green companies in the United States:

1. IBM
2. Hewlett-Packard
3. Sprint Nextel
4. Baxter
5. Dell
6. Johnson & Johnson
7. Accenture
8. Office Depot
9. CA Inc.
10. NVIDIA
11. Agilent Technologies
12. Hartford Financials
13. EMC Corp.
14. Adobe
15. Intel Corp.
16. Honda
17. Swiss RE:
18. Siemens
19. Amazon
20. Discovery Communications
21. Oricle Corporation
22. Deloitte
23. Totota
24. Google
25. CH2M Hill

This is where change will occur for the big climate change movement. By investing in partnerships with companies until the gridlock over this issue dissolves and geovernemnt financials improve. These legacy environmental firms have a stature and credentials to form alliances and some like NRDC are changing with their Center for Market Research whereby forming aliances with big NYC companies is making change in NYC. Clear succinct progress with this current political stagnation and financial burdens will be a challenge, except when forming partnerships by smaller lean non-profits with social media leveraged as it has been recently, we will see these newer firms become the climate doers.

Thanks for reading and see you in the field!

References:

1 -  http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml

2 -  http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/16/green-rankings-2011-america-s-greenest-companies-photos.html

Business Plans & Climate Change; Not Mutually Exclusive!

While the business world incorporates climate change and associated risks into their business plans, government remains stagnated on ideological foxholes. I have been focusing this blog on climate change in December because our New York winter may be the warmest on record and 2011 appears to show us a 1 degree warming, thus not much real action can be seen in the federal government, a priority if we are to lock in a 2 degree temperature change by 2020. While Kyoto adherents attempt to develop post-Kyoto plans, many U.S. cities and states are planning and rushing to impose their own regulations. We must be aware that climate change is as unpredictable as working with beakers in a laboratory, the results may surprise you. In the experiment we might call Earth's atmosphere, we will certainly be part of the geochemical experiment.

Sometime government takes the lead and change occurs, other times, the business community takes the lead and change occurs. It is becoming more evident to companies that recognizing the risks associated with climate change now may serve them in planning business services and locations, but the regulatory climate due to carbon emissions and trading carbon on open markets may cause serious bottom line capital issues for companies.  Billions of dollars are at risk to these companies via severe weather, service or parts suppliers being slowed or taken out of the market by what some scientists predict is a century of serve, more intense and destructive weather.  "Risk of climate change is real. It's here. It's affecting our business today," says John Coomber, CEO of insurer Swiss Re. Insurance companies like Swiss RE or Let's be very clear, this is not a new marriage between environmentalism and business, it comes down to cold hard bottom line finance. This should not leave environmentalists feeling defeated, but excited at the opportunity to reach goals, have wins and form partnerships with business.

General Electric formed a new Ecomagination division in 2011 and have really attempted to incorporate sustainability, green practice, and innovation to begin what will transform the climate change movement if all players find avenues to work together. This may also improve the bottom line of their companies if for example; their company can reduce energy costs or carbon output. This is a win win for the company and I would predict consumers and the markets will respond to these efforts. Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that DuPont committed to cutting its gas emissions by 40% by the year 2000 from its 1990 levels. By 2000 the company had met its original target and set an even more ambitious one -- a 65% reduction by 2010. But the gains have been so dramatic that DuPont has already hit that goal too. It also uses 7% less energy than it did in 1990, despite producing 30% more goods. That has saved $2 billion. DuPont was ahead of the curve when they began implementing these programs in 1994.

Why so many people are climate skeptics I have no idea? This mistrust of scientists and engineers is probably rooted in educational and economic inequities or possibly egotistical arrogance or greed. It is hard to believe it is about the science and is probably about ideologues and communication. Who doesn’t want clean air, less severe storms, and a loss of the world we know to something different, less beautiful. No matter how small or large the change, the risks are too great in my opinion. "Forget the science debate," says Cinergy Corp., CEO James E. Rogers, who was at the meeting. "The regulations will change someday. And if we're not ready, we're in trouble." So if you can’t support climate change legislation support it based on your own self-interest? If you cannot do that, support it based on that it is good for business. Evan national retailers like Target have begun implementing green habits as can be seen at the following Target efficiency & operations website;http://hereforgood.target.com/environment/efficient-operations. These are doors opened to environmental ideas that are and can be rooted in true fiscal discipline and bottom line economics.

Thanks for reading and following and see you in the field!

*Special thanks to http://www.generationim.com for the graphic supplied for this blog post.

10 Warmest Years on Record!

The science is undeniable, yet climate skeptics sell fear recklessly. On this warm January day after a warm January week this New Year, four of the world's leading climate research centres agree that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998 in Table below (NOAA 2011, NASA 2011, UK-MetOffice 2011, JMA 2011). The data presented below was posted at http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=53 and this is very important research and data on climate change.

 

The Environmental Movement's Death Bell Sounds: Which Direction Forward?

The new year is fresh with hope for renewal and starting over and I hope a new environmental movement finds its foothold in coming years. When I first read the controversial paper calling for the death of modern environmentalism to make way for a movement better able to handle the dramatic, global problems facing the world I bristled. On Tuesday May 3, 2005 at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus discuessed their article "The Death of Environmentalism". At first, I thought they were out of touch with on the ground conditions in places like Portland Oregon, San Franscico, California, and New York, New York, but years later this prescient paper has born out as truth.

The article was released at the October 2004 meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association and sparked many discussions amongst environmentalists working in this community. Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus went on to start the non profit Breakthrough Institute and the full paper can be found at http://thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf. It is a much needed read for anyone wanting to start building a movement of change to shift the discussions and efforts we currently take in the environmental movement.

I have been involved in the environmental movement for over 15 years and by education am a geologist and environmental engineer. I have worked on Environmental Protection Agency Superfund cleanups and water supply issues my entire career. This blog was started to highlight and discuss foundational changes occurring in New York City and required for the environmental movement to create value to the public and have impact on our communities.

Some might ask why discuss this paper now?

In light of the recent setbacks over the last 5 or more years, the death knell of larger scale environmental progress, like funding superfund cleanups and the brown agenda, failure of the science and technology educational systems to produce scientists and engineers, or the recent collapse of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate conference in Durban, South Africa, it has become clear the public has not bought into the current environmental movements goals and objectives. The James Inhofe Press Office video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmtjh7yCrw4) of the nescient views of Senator from Oklahoma describing the "complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the the Kyoto process" adds to the fire of this calamity and his glee at its demise is unsettling. As this is quite unesttling, he is essentially right that the the global warming movement is ineffective, but the reasons he assigns to them are fundamentally incorrect and unsubstanitated. The Durban failure and the inaction since the Copenhagen Agreement on climate change tell the story of the environmental movements minor impacts.

The results of the Durban conference plan was to plan other efforts and to generate more ambition for climate change intiatives in 2012. The outcomes included a decision by parties to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015. The established dates miss the overal Kyoto goal of limiting global temperature increases to 2 degress Celsius by 2020, which is unfeasable under any solutions proposed or to be proposed in the next 8 years since no real inclusive starting point has been set and no binding agreements obtained for global particpation reached. The full details and reports could be found at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change here http://unfccc.int/2860.php. The Tucson Citizen review of the conference ends with a question wondering "what the carbon footprint for that conference was?", they are unfortunately not to far off, and the conference leave larger structural questions.

While the reasons for failures are rooted in the economic conditions of recession and political stagnation and not the data of the science that show clear undisputable evidence anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases. This can be seen in the historic maximum of 30.6 metric tons recorded by International Energy Agency in 2010, mostly due to developing countries reliance on using coal for energy and production and increased extreme weather events throught the United States and the World. This can also be seen in the data generted by 4 of the larger climate study centers who all reported the last 10 years are the warmest years on record as reported by the

United Nations Environment Programme Global Resource Information Database - Sioux Falls http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=53.

All hope is not lost and this is because committed environmentalists currently working in the field to re-ivigorate the environmental movement locally and by taking an integarated systems approach. These organizations, people, policies, programs, and politicians committed to rebuilding this movement and an multi-discipline integrated systems approach to problem solving will be the focus of this blog. While the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, I believe the innovators in this community, along with the truth that the environmental movement posesses in the hard data, I feel hopeful that a new movement will emerge and answer the questions about which way forward from here? Big environmental groups are already beginning to respond to this with major shifts at the top of organizations and restructuring for a new environmental movement. The environmental movement accomplished much in recent times and this new green movement will have to pick up from their forebearers in the movement at the end of the road with their tools to build a new road, a new movement.

That answers for the business restructuring, the political party wanting to regain power in Washington or the State Houses, or implementation of  policy ideas is to work locally and take an inclusive integrated systems approach in my opnion and this is where the environmental movement will reinvent itself; in the streets, churches, our homes and jobs if it is to have any impact on the world we live and rely on.

Thanks for reading and following and see you in the field!