Gavin Newsom's reputation as “the green mayor” is going down the drain, contaminated by the toxic sludge on his hands.
With Mayor Newsom's blessing, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission distributed 80 tons of “organic biosolid compost” to city residents, community gardens, and the Parks and Recreation Department in 2007.
On May 17, 2008 it conducted its third Great Compost Giveaway – “5 gallons for every green thumb!” – claiming that “all food scraps, garden clippings, and soiled paper that residents have been piling into green bins had been transformed into rich, soil-enhancing compost that is perfect for landscapes and containers.” One trusting resident commenting on the Giveaway's website writes, “I made out like a bandit last year! Garden looks great because of it. When is this year's Great Compost Giveaway?”
Problem is, this substance is not organic! Moreover, the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) regulations strictly forbid the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer or soil amendment, no matter if composted or otherwise treated.
John Stauber is author of Toxic Sludge is Good for You and an advisory board member to Organic Consumers Association (OCA). He says, “In the mind of the public “organic” represents the highest standard of integrity, purity, and healthfulness.”
But the EPA's January 2009 “Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey” found San Francisco's sludge contains heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, PCBs, flame retardants, and endocrine disruptors.
Stauber adds, “That the sewage industry and the SFPUC misuses the word “organic” destroys ordinary peoples' trust and credibility. It is the same sort of public relations spin that hoodwinks farmers around the country.”
While writing his book, Stauber heard from a worried Water Environment Federation spokeswoman. “We don't call it sludge anymore,” she said. “What's more, it is no longer toxic. It is now a natural organic compost we call 'biosolids'. We work with the EPA and major public relations firms to give biosolids away free to farmers. Your book title will scare them.”
Indeed, the sewage sludge industry had held a contest in the early 1990s to rename sewage sludge; the term “organic biosolid compost” won and has been used ever since. Had the SFPUC called this substance what it is, treated sewage, no one would show up for even a sniff-test. “SFPUC engaged in fraudulent deception and OCA is fighting to ensure “organic” cannot be used this way.”
In 2009 the Center for Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems (RILES) petitioned Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as mayor, and Ed Harrington, in his official capacity as SFPUC general manager, to suspend the Giveaway program.
Nevertheless, Newsom and notables like restauranteur Alice Waters went along with PUC spokesman Tony Winnicker's statement that, “San Francisco's biosolids compost is safe, tested, and great for plants [and is] tested for metals and other contaminants and meets or exceeds all standards.”
Mayor Newsom went further and claimed the substance is safe and healthy...and that he'd be happy to eat food grown in it. Does this mean his PlumpJack business associates use it for their products?
Unfortunately, the mayor's intractability undermines other successful green programs he supports, including Recology's city-wide paper, plastic, glass, and food scraps recycling programs.
On March 4, 2010 OCA's bay area organizer John Mayer rallied a grass roots action against the mayor and the SFPUC charging they were purposefully duping residents. Mayer says, “San Francisco's “organic biosolid compost” is about one third sewage sludge and two thirds wood chips.”
That same day SFPUC announced they were temporarily suspending the Giveaway. They emphasized that is was not because the OCA team, dressed in haz mat-suits, dumped a load on the steps of City Hall and made national and international headlines.
There is a silver lining to the black cloud over sludge-stained Mayor Newsom: a recognition that public organizations and mayors crying “green” doesn't make them green...or that wishing away toxic realities makes them disapper. Stauber says, “There is little, if any, attention when farm animals die from this stuff. But there is national and international attention when the green mayor of San Francisco is caught fooling urban gardeners and foisting toxics on them.”
John Mayer and OCA concur and support any gardener who wants SFPUC and The City to clean up their gardens. Mayer says, “This is a pretty cut and dry case where people took the stuff because it was said to be organic; it is not organic and they've admitted it is not organic. The PUC must take it back.”
Trust betrayed
“Ordinary people,” says Stauber, “tend to think of sewage treatment plants as magical places where water from industrial, residential, and medical toxins is treated so people can re-use it. It is true that sewage plants remove as many pathogens as they can: about 50 percents of it. They give the remaining mounds of sewage sludge that is too toxic to incinerate, landfill, or dump in the ocean to farmers – free! – to spread on America's fruited plains.
Sludge reaches right in to the White House too. After the Obama's moved in, Michelle Obama had the White House garden soils tested; they revealed elevated levels of lead. Previous administration had used sewage sludge there.
Once this substance – containing thousands of hazardous synthetic chemicals from medications to sprays used upon fruit and vegetables – is dumped in any garden it is not easy to remove.
Extrapolate what went on in San Francisco and at the White House and to thousands of unsuspecting farmers around the country...recognize that only about one percent of our Earth is fertile enough to produce crops capable of feeding the world's population...then consider the far-reaching implications.
Moreover, Stauber says that the majority of progressive environmental groups operating back in the 1990s were so focused on preventing sludge from being dumped into the ocean and were so enthusiastic about cleaning up our water that “they took a dive on this issue and allowed the EPA to spread it on land. Most national environmental groups are still not involved in the fight to stop spreading “organic biosolid compost” on farmland.”
They are not the only ones fooled. Stauber says, “A lot of my friends in the environmental community have drunk the biosolid kool-aid and say, “Gee this is just nutrient recycling.” But this is not just human manure – or “Humanure” as we call it – this is toxic sludge from industrial, medical, residential, and other waste.”
Solutions to Pollutions?
John Stauber concludes that the entire sewage process as now constituted is archaic. “We cannot afford to contaminate our clean water with our waste and send it to plants that pull out the toxics then spread it on our farmlands. We already spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars moving this stuff around instead of, for example, separating humanure from the truly toxic stuff and safely composting what we can. We will spend hundreds of billions more dollars to figure this out... and we had better start sooner rather than later.
Despite the cliché, everything is connected. Humans are smart enough to look at the big picture and integrate generative solutions. We can no longer pretend these problems don't exist...or think we will solve them with more bigger, better, brighter technology... or export our waste to other countries. Ordinary Americans can – must insist upon the opportunity – to confront our mistakes directly...and our elected officials must deal honestly with residents who are ready, willing, and able to collaborate.
In San Francisco a first step toward healing the credibility gap between local government and residents is for the mayor and the PUC to take back their not-so-free Giveaways.
Listen to the radio show with Organic Consumer Association John Mayer and John Stauber.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Compost: the highest tech method to preserve our planet and our health
Wrote this article to accompany this week's radio show. Listen to the show.
Mayor Gavin Newsome passed a mandatory source separation ordinance in June 2009, that requires residents and businesses to separate organics and recyclables from their garbage. It came into effect in October and is the first of its kind in the U.S. Six months later, more than 300 cities and universities across the US are replicating this program and collecting food scraps and taking them to modern composting facilities.
Robert Reed, Public Relations Manager for Recology which is contracted to haul the waste says this “essentially makes sure that no matter where you go in San Francisco, you’ll have opportunities to recycle and compost through the city’s curbside programs.”
As an added inducement, this city is the only one in the country where collection trucks give passersby a view into the truck. Or, at least, the 3-D artwork decorating the trucks give the impression of transparency. “This program, Recycling Changes Everything, encourages people to pause...and look at their garbage. And when they do that,” says Reed, “they see paper, metal, glass, and food scraps, that is, a mixture of resources that should be reused, recycled and composted.”
More than 225,000 households, 4,000 businesses, and about 46 percent of San Francisco’s 8,500 apartment buildings participate. The collections go to Recology's Jepson Prairie Organics in Vacaville, north of San Francisco, where over a period of 60 days they're turned into compost. What's more, this compost comes in custom blends, made with recipes that add different amendments for specific uses and locations.
Reed agrees city dwellers sometimes must learn to overcome the “yuck factor”, that initial reluctance to handle what was heretofore thrown away. “Something as simple as an apple core doesn't simply disappear, it goes somewhere else. We suggest people take a more responsible attitude to that apple core and other waste. It is really a fork-in-the-road moment: toss it away and it goes to a landfill – where it'll produce methane gas; or put it into a compost cart where it can end up doing wonderful things to the soil for 200 vineyards in five different counties.”
Soil scientist, viticulturist, ecologist, and agronomist Bob Shaffer uses San Francisco compost in his daily life and in his work consulting with viticulturists in California's Napa and Sonoma counties. He explains, “Compost is organic matter and water that's been mixed up in a proper ratio that makes bacteria and fungi happy so that they consume organic matter. This produces heat, a little CO2, a little water vapor, and humus, the same humus that is in the soil. Humus holds an enormous amount of water. But it is fragile. It is always being created or destroyed; some of it is two thousand years old and some of it is two days old.”
Shaffer mentions that, in the classic book published in 1936, Soils and Men, the USDA and fifty reputable soil scientists announced that from 1900 until 1936 our nation had lost much soil fertility by not returning organic matter to the soil. They warned, “This is nothing short of an emergency.” They pleaded with cities around the country to recycle food scraps back to farms, stating that it was imperative that we take advantage of this rich resource. Since that time we have lost vast amounts of humus in our farming soils.
Today, a growing number of farms using compost made from food scraps produce better quality food at a lower cost. Only there are not enough such farms. Moreover, Schaffer says, “Even though I love farming it is hard on the environment. The word “care” is particular to how we need to farm now. Good farmers understand how to care for the land and how to care for animals. I travel a lot and I notice that the big farms are difficult to manage and to care for in a way that produces food that is capable of producing human health.”
Humus is still a mystery to science. Shaffer says, “As a forty-year long composter and farmer I recognize that of all the creatures on the earth, only bacteria and fungi can make humus – that mystical substance that also holds water. I can only make the conditions under which I know bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa can make humus for me.”
According to Shaffer, this is a point the chemical fertilizer manufacturers miss. Back in the early days, he says, “Honest men in these companies were simply trying to concentrate the weight to enable shipping the materials. Synthetic triple grade fertilizers were not intended to be used at thousands of pounds per acre as they are used today, or to be used as a primary input. Advertising and marketing told the farmer that this was all he needed. So he stopped making cover crops, he stopped making compost.”
Cover crops are those plants with long roots that heal soil. Beneath the visible plant above the ground the roots take photosynthate and exude about half of that sugar to the soil around its roots to provide nutrients to the bacteria and fungi. These in turn provide available minerals and other materials to the plant as well as prevent disease. Plus, the cycle of living and dying roots maintains humus.
In a recent radio interview Shaffer admitted, “I love compost. But I can put down compost for a lifetime and if I don't grow a diversity of plants along with cover crops, compost won't work right.”
According to Shaffer, “Compost is nothing short of the highest tech, cutting edge method to preserve our soils, preserve our ability to raise food and to feed ourselves, and to preserve our health in current science. There is nothing that comes close to the necessity for us to learn more about compost as quickly as possible and to apply this technology. Yet we only know a certain amount about humus. It is the enigma in soil. It does not have a regular chemical formula. It is made of colloids, materials so small that we can barely examine them. All the top scientists working in the field agree that it is a highest priority to figure this out given the reality of our current world. We humans do well to remember that only about one percent of the earth actually is rich enough to farm productively.”
Chateau Montelena vineyard uses compost made from food scraps collected from San Francisco restaurants and city homes. The mustard plants in the tract in the foreground did not receive compost. The lush tract in the background did receive compost. (Photo by Larry Strong, courtesy of Recology.)
Mayor Gavin Newsome passed a mandatory source separation ordinance in June 2009, that requires residents and businesses to separate organics and recyclables from their garbage. It came into effect in October and is the first of its kind in the U.S. Six months later, more than 300 cities and universities across the US are replicating this program and collecting food scraps and taking them to modern composting facilities.
Robert Reed, Public Relations Manager for Recology which is contracted to haul the waste says this “essentially makes sure that no matter where you go in San Francisco, you’ll have opportunities to recycle and compost through the city’s curbside programs.”
As an added inducement, this city is the only one in the country where collection trucks give passersby a view into the truck. Or, at least, the 3-D artwork decorating the trucks give the impression of transparency. “This program, Recycling Changes Everything, encourages people to pause...and look at their garbage. And when they do that,” says Reed, “they see paper, metal, glass, and food scraps, that is, a mixture of resources that should be reused, recycled and composted.”
More than 225,000 households, 4,000 businesses, and about 46 percent of San Francisco’s 8,500 apartment buildings participate. The collections go to Recology's Jepson Prairie Organics in Vacaville, north of San Francisco, where over a period of 60 days they're turned into compost. What's more, this compost comes in custom blends, made with recipes that add different amendments for specific uses and locations.
Reed agrees city dwellers sometimes must learn to overcome the “yuck factor”, that initial reluctance to handle what was heretofore thrown away. “Something as simple as an apple core doesn't simply disappear, it goes somewhere else. We suggest people take a more responsible attitude to that apple core and other waste. It is really a fork-in-the-road moment: toss it away and it goes to a landfill – where it'll produce methane gas; or put it into a compost cart where it can end up doing wonderful things to the soil for 200 vineyards in five different counties.”
Vineyards in Northern California apply compost made from food scraps to grow cover crops such as mustard and beans. Cover crops such as mustard stimulate microbial activity and help turn farms into carbon sinks. (Photo by Larry Strong, courtesy of Recology.)
Soil scientist, viticulturist, ecologist, and agronomist Bob Shaffer uses San Francisco compost in his daily life and in his work consulting with viticulturists in California's Napa and Sonoma counties. He explains, “Compost is organic matter and water that's been mixed up in a proper ratio that makes bacteria and fungi happy so that they consume organic matter. This produces heat, a little CO2, a little water vapor, and humus, the same humus that is in the soil. Humus holds an enormous amount of water. But it is fragile. It is always being created or destroyed; some of it is two thousand years old and some of it is two days old.”
Shaffer mentions that, in the classic book published in 1936, Soils and Men, the USDA and fifty reputable soil scientists announced that from 1900 until 1936 our nation had lost much soil fertility by not returning organic matter to the soil. They warned, “This is nothing short of an emergency.” They pleaded with cities around the country to recycle food scraps back to farms, stating that it was imperative that we take advantage of this rich resource. Since that time we have lost vast amounts of humus in our farming soils.
Today, a growing number of farms using compost made from food scraps produce better quality food at a lower cost. Only there are not enough such farms. Moreover, Schaffer says, “Even though I love farming it is hard on the environment. The word “care” is particular to how we need to farm now. Good farmers understand how to care for the land and how to care for animals. I travel a lot and I notice that the big farms are difficult to manage and to care for in a way that produces food that is capable of producing human health.”
Humus is still a mystery to science. Shaffer says, “As a forty-year long composter and farmer I recognize that of all the creatures on the earth, only bacteria and fungi can make humus – that mystical substance that also holds water. I can only make the conditions under which I know bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa can make humus for me.”
According to Shaffer, this is a point the chemical fertilizer manufacturers miss. Back in the early days, he says, “Honest men in these companies were simply trying to concentrate the weight to enable shipping the materials. Synthetic triple grade fertilizers were not intended to be used at thousands of pounds per acre as they are used today, or to be used as a primary input. Advertising and marketing told the farmer that this was all he needed. So he stopped making cover crops, he stopped making compost.”
Cover crops are those plants with long roots that heal soil. Beneath the visible plant above the ground the roots take photosynthate and exude about half of that sugar to the soil around its roots to provide nutrients to the bacteria and fungi. These in turn provide available minerals and other materials to the plant as well as prevent disease. Plus, the cycle of living and dying roots maintains humus.
Bob Shaffer displays mustard's long roots that provide nutrients to bacteria and fungi. (Photo by Larry Strong, courtesy of Recology.)
In a recent radio interview Shaffer admitted, “I love compost. But I can put down compost for a lifetime and if I don't grow a diversity of plants along with cover crops, compost won't work right.”
According to Shaffer, “Compost is nothing short of the highest tech, cutting edge method to preserve our soils, preserve our ability to raise food and to feed ourselves, and to preserve our health in current science. There is nothing that comes close to the necessity for us to learn more about compost as quickly as possible and to apply this technology. Yet we only know a certain amount about humus. It is the enigma in soil. It does not have a regular chemical formula. It is made of colloids, materials so small that we can barely examine them. All the top scientists working in the field agree that it is a highest priority to figure this out given the reality of our current world. We humans do well to remember that only about one percent of the earth actually is rich enough to farm productively.”
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Signs of the times
Two signs that echo a frightening meta-message: The human community has groups of people that exist simply to service the needs of other groups of people.
In northern Italy: a warning to motorists to look out for prostitutes.
“I saw this sign and had to slow down to get a proper look,” said resident Dino Vezino, 34.
“Does it mean I have to look out for prostitutes crossing or that they are available around here?” Read more >>
In southern California: a warning that drivers might encounter people frantically darting across lanes of traffic to evade border security. Read more >>
Apparently, we (those of us fortunate enough not to be in these situations) are fine enough with this state of affairs that we accommodate it.
Or is it just me being over-finicky and "idealistic"?
A far ranging solution would be to address the underlying causes of prostitution and "illegal" immigration.
Perhaps human communities and systems that addressed the trade in young women...and addressed why families must leave their homes and seek work elsewhere...
This solution might also surface why the current financial meltdown... and paint a picture that helps ordinary people stand up and against blatant greed.
In northern Italy: a warning to motorists to look out for prostitutes.
“I saw this sign and had to slow down to get a proper look,” said resident Dino Vezino, 34.
“Does it mean I have to look out for prostitutes crossing or that they are available around here?” Read more >>
In southern California: a warning that drivers might encounter people frantically darting across lanes of traffic to evade border security. Read more >>
Apparently, we (those of us fortunate enough not to be in these situations) are fine enough with this state of affairs that we accommodate it.
Or is it just me being over-finicky and "idealistic"?
A far ranging solution would be to address the underlying causes of prostitution and "illegal" immigration.
Perhaps human communities and systems that addressed the trade in young women...and addressed why families must leave their homes and seek work elsewhere...
This solution might also surface why the current financial meltdown... and paint a picture that helps ordinary people stand up and against blatant greed.
World Bank Loan update
Today, April 8, the World Bank will decide on the loan to South Africa's Electricity Supply Commission (Eskom). It is a big day as it determines the direction South Africa takes for the next 30 years or so.
We'll keep updating on this story. Meanwhile, here are the voices of Prof. Patrick Bond and activist Desmond D'Sa:
World Bank coal loan to South Africa? No thanks!
We'll keep updating on this story. Meanwhile, here are the voices of Prof. Patrick Bond and activist Desmond D'Sa:
World Bank coal loan to South Africa? No thanks!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
MotherSpeak Structure
This blog is part of the MotherSpeak "hub". The nodes are:
MotherSpeak - the center of it all is fiscally sponsored by Peace Development Fund. You are invited to make a donation any time and you will receive your IRS donor credit from PDF.
This blog derives from the book, Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War and Terror. (Buy it and help a sister out! or donate $50 to MotherSpeak and receive the book as a premium and an IRS tax credit!.)
The author, Susan Galleymore, is founder of MotherSpeak, creator of the nodes, and host of the weekly radio show, Raising Sand Radio, under MotherSpeak Media...
and the Cato Ridge Environmental Coalition which is one node of MotherSpeak's environmental arm (think of this as Mother Nature's arm of MotherSpeak) Other nodes include keeping tabs on the Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Superfund site formerly Naval Air Station, Alameda, California, learning about and educating on composting, developing green and sustainable communities, and keeping tabs on unsustainable fossil fuel developments.
For those more oriented towards pictures:
MotherSpeak - the center of it all is fiscally sponsored by Peace Development Fund. You are invited to make a donation any time and you will receive your IRS donor credit from PDF.
This blog derives from the book, Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War and Terror. (Buy it and help a sister out! or donate $50 to MotherSpeak and receive the book as a premium and an IRS tax credit!.)
The author, Susan Galleymore, is founder of MotherSpeak, creator of the nodes, and host of the weekly radio show, Raising Sand Radio, under MotherSpeak Media...
and the Cato Ridge Environmental Coalition which is one node of MotherSpeak's environmental arm (think of this as Mother Nature's arm of MotherSpeak) Other nodes include keeping tabs on the Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Superfund site formerly Naval Air Station, Alameda, California, learning about and educating on composting, developing green and sustainable communities, and keeping tabs on unsustainable fossil fuel developments.
For those more oriented towards pictures:
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Holy Crude! Is it true?
Shell Oil apologizes for messing up the environment:
Watch and listen
In a parallel but more equitable universe this could be true. Alas, not in this one but the idea behind the hoax is good. Perked me up for a moment or two!
Thanks to the creators!
Watch and listen
In a parallel but more equitable universe this could be true. Alas, not in this one but the idea behind the hoax is good. Perked me up for a moment or two!
Thanks to the creators!
The World Bank and the Four Horsemen of Climate Change: Apocalypse Now?
Read my article below, ...then tell U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to ensure the U.S. votes against any World Bank loans for dirty coal.
World Bank and the Four Horsemen of Climate Change: Apocalypse Now?
Senator John Kerry described President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma as “the four horsemen of climate change.” It is, Kerry said, “a powerful signal to see [them] agree on a meeting of the minds.”
As the World Bank prepares to vote April 8 on a $3.75 billion dollar loan to South Africa's parastatal Electricity Supply Commission (Eskom) Kerry's language evokes a powerful vision: the apocalypse of business-as-usual disguised as “clean coal.”
Rocks of ages
The World Bank is positioned better than most to know the true, externalized costs of coal fired energy. Indeed, in 2007 the Bank acquiesced to China's request to excise mortality information from its report, “Cost of Pollution in China”: about 350,000 to 400,000 people die prematurely each year from high air-pollution levels; 300,000 die from exposure to poor air indoors; another 60,000 deaths are attributed to poor water quality.
As a geologist and engineer by profession climate change horseman Premier Wen knows that coal fires have burned for centuries along China's 5000 kilometers mining belt. They contribute up to three percent of annual global carbon emissions, about 360 million metric tons, as much as all the cars and trucks in the US.
China's government intends to extinguish fires to meet its own target of 20 percent reduction of carbon emission over three years. But it takes from months to years to put out one fire. Then, small private mining companies working under cover of dark often fail to replace the soil after extracting coal; spontaneous combustion occurs at 80 degrees Celsius. Yet China seems intent to cut greenhouse gas emissions by putting out fires rather than introduce energy saving measures.
Climate change horseman President Zuma's South African government inherited the decades old coalfield fires at Witbank (renamed Emalahleni).
Two years ago, unemployed mother Thandi Mthlango and her young son scavenged for coal to heat their home on land pocked with subsidence from underground fires and acid mine drainage. He was in a trench when it collapsed and crushed him to death.
There is no one to blame; even assigning responsibility is tough as former owners of Emalahleni's seven abandoned mines are long gone; apparently they cannot be traced.
A German consultancy estimated that it would cost at least R1 billion to rehabilitate the area, way beyond the funding capacity of the city council as it mulls relocating squatters crowded on the toxic land. But where? Town planner Eric Parker says the region is “sterilized”. In the video report UnderMined, he laughs ruefully and says he sees one bright spot: local cattle are acclimated. “But, if you bring a new cow from somewhere else, it dies. We have a super breed of resistant cows!”
Climate change horseman Prime Minister Singh's Ministry of Coal controls Coal India Limited (CIL), the world's largest coal mine. But, in November or December 2010 financial investors anywhere could own a piece when CIL presents an initial public offering (IPO). It intends to invest the proceeds of US $1 billion to $1.5 billion in joint ventures in Australia, Indonesia, US, and South Africa. Chairman Bhattacharya told Economic Times, “Our focus is to invest our funds in acquiring assets that deliver energy to our country...in a viable manner.” This includes relocating 400,000 people from mining town Jharia who suffer breathing disorders, skin disease, and compromised health from the fumes emitted by fires.
Singh's government has been criticized for its attitude. But, India's coal is worth US$12 billion and relocating the poor is cheaper than implementing environmental controls.
The unaffordable luxury of clean earth
South Africa's finance minister Pravin Gordhan knows the externalized costs of coal fired energy and believes they are unavoidable. He wrote recently in a Washington Post op ed:
If there were any other way to meet our power needs as quickly or as affordably as our present circumstances demand, or on the required scale, we would obviously prefer technologies -- wind, solar, hydropower, nuclear -- that leave little or no carbon footprint. But we do not have that luxury if we are to meet our obligations.
South Africa has one of the planet's most energy-intensive economies and Eskom plans a five year, $50 billion dollar expansion to increase capacity. Its Kendal plant is already the largest coal-fired power station in the world. If approved, over $3 billion of the Bank loan will go toward constructing 4800 MW Medupi, the first so-called super-critical clean coal plant in Africa and the fourth largest coal-fired power plant in the world that, as advertised, will use “some of the most efficient, lowest-emission coal-fired technology available.”
Analyst Patrick Bond says Eskom’s bid for the loan comes “at a time of intense controversy surrounding Eskom’s mismanagement. In its last annual reporting period, the company lost R9.7 billion, mainly due to miscalculations associated with hedging aluminium prices and the South African currency. Both the chair and chief executive officer lost their jobs late last year amidst unprecedented acrimony.” Moreover, “Eskom's continuation of inexpensive prices to several large export-oriented metals or mining multinational corporations, headquartered abroad, and offering the world's cheapest electricity, [is] heavily subsidised by all other – mainly poor – users in South Africa.”
He refers to Nersa, National Energy Regulator of South Africa, recently tapping ordinary South Africans for power rate increases of 25 percent for each of the next three years.
Gordhan assures the public that the “rest of the loan, $745 million, will be invested in wind and concentrated solar power projects, each generating 100 megawatts, and in various efficiency improvements.” He avoids the government's 2003 White Paper that states that by 2013 four percent of electricity – 4700 MW based on Eskom's projected electricity consumption – must come from renewable energy. Eskom's three year plan – unveiled after Nersa's country-wide community meetings in January – states that only 400 MW will come from such sources.
Gordhan concedes the loan “faces stiff opposition.” Civil society around the world reminds him that Medupi adds an estimated 25 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year to Eskom’s 40 percent share of South Africa’s overall total greenhouse gas emissions. There is also the real possibility that, if South Africa's currency crashes again – as it has five times since 1996 – repayment in US dollars is more expensive than in South African rands.
The South African government can afford the luxury of R8.4 billion to construct five new stadia and refurbish five others for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. There are further, yet undisclosed, costs to improve public transport, implement special safety measures for tourists' security, and “beautify” (by hiding or removing tens of thousands of shack dwellers). Why can't it afford to clean up environmental degradation that results from generating electricity?
The US is the largest World Bank funder. Send a powerful signal to climate change horseman Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to intervene. Then buckle up for a wild ride along the unexplored path of real energy sustainability. In the long run it affords more security than tripping down the World Bank's yellow brick road of business as usual.
World Bank and the Four Horsemen of Climate Change: Apocalypse Now?
Senator John Kerry described President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma as “the four horsemen of climate change.” It is, Kerry said, “a powerful signal to see [them] agree on a meeting of the minds.”
As the World Bank prepares to vote April 8 on a $3.75 billion dollar loan to South Africa's parastatal Electricity Supply Commission (Eskom) Kerry's language evokes a powerful vision: the apocalypse of business-as-usual disguised as “clean coal.”
Rocks of ages
The World Bank is positioned better than most to know the true, externalized costs of coal fired energy. Indeed, in 2007 the Bank acquiesced to China's request to excise mortality information from its report, “Cost of Pollution in China”: about 350,000 to 400,000 people die prematurely each year from high air-pollution levels; 300,000 die from exposure to poor air indoors; another 60,000 deaths are attributed to poor water quality.
As a geologist and engineer by profession climate change horseman Premier Wen knows that coal fires have burned for centuries along China's 5000 kilometers mining belt. They contribute up to three percent of annual global carbon emissions, about 360 million metric tons, as much as all the cars and trucks in the US.
China's government intends to extinguish fires to meet its own target of 20 percent reduction of carbon emission over three years. But it takes from months to years to put out one fire. Then, small private mining companies working under cover of dark often fail to replace the soil after extracting coal; spontaneous combustion occurs at 80 degrees Celsius. Yet China seems intent to cut greenhouse gas emissions by putting out fires rather than introduce energy saving measures.
Climate change horseman President Zuma's South African government inherited the decades old coalfield fires at Witbank (renamed Emalahleni).
Two years ago, unemployed mother Thandi Mthlango and her young son scavenged for coal to heat their home on land pocked with subsidence from underground fires and acid mine drainage. He was in a trench when it collapsed and crushed him to death.
There is no one to blame; even assigning responsibility is tough as former owners of Emalahleni's seven abandoned mines are long gone; apparently they cannot be traced.
A German consultancy estimated that it would cost at least R1 billion to rehabilitate the area, way beyond the funding capacity of the city council as it mulls relocating squatters crowded on the toxic land. But where? Town planner Eric Parker says the region is “sterilized”. In the video report UnderMined, he laughs ruefully and says he sees one bright spot: local cattle are acclimated. “But, if you bring a new cow from somewhere else, it dies. We have a super breed of resistant cows!”
Climate change horseman Prime Minister Singh's Ministry of Coal controls Coal India Limited (CIL), the world's largest coal mine. But, in November or December 2010 financial investors anywhere could own a piece when CIL presents an initial public offering (IPO). It intends to invest the proceeds of US $1 billion to $1.5 billion in joint ventures in Australia, Indonesia, US, and South Africa. Chairman Bhattacharya told Economic Times, “Our focus is to invest our funds in acquiring assets that deliver energy to our country...in a viable manner.” This includes relocating 400,000 people from mining town Jharia who suffer breathing disorders, skin disease, and compromised health from the fumes emitted by fires.
Singh's government has been criticized for its attitude. But, India's coal is worth US$12 billion and relocating the poor is cheaper than implementing environmental controls.
The unaffordable luxury of clean earth
South Africa's finance minister Pravin Gordhan knows the externalized costs of coal fired energy and believes they are unavoidable. He wrote recently in a Washington Post op ed:
If there were any other way to meet our power needs as quickly or as affordably as our present circumstances demand, or on the required scale, we would obviously prefer technologies -- wind, solar, hydropower, nuclear -- that leave little or no carbon footprint. But we do not have that luxury if we are to meet our obligations.
South Africa has one of the planet's most energy-intensive economies and Eskom plans a five year, $50 billion dollar expansion to increase capacity. Its Kendal plant is already the largest coal-fired power station in the world. If approved, over $3 billion of the Bank loan will go toward constructing 4800 MW Medupi, the first so-called super-critical clean coal plant in Africa and the fourth largest coal-fired power plant in the world that, as advertised, will use “some of the most efficient, lowest-emission coal-fired technology available.”
Analyst Patrick Bond says Eskom’s bid for the loan comes “at a time of intense controversy surrounding Eskom’s mismanagement. In its last annual reporting period, the company lost R9.7 billion, mainly due to miscalculations associated with hedging aluminium prices and the South African currency. Both the chair and chief executive officer lost their jobs late last year amidst unprecedented acrimony.” Moreover, “Eskom's continuation of inexpensive prices to several large export-oriented metals or mining multinational corporations, headquartered abroad, and offering the world's cheapest electricity, [is] heavily subsidised by all other – mainly poor – users in South Africa.”
He refers to Nersa, National Energy Regulator of South Africa, recently tapping ordinary South Africans for power rate increases of 25 percent for each of the next three years.
Gordhan assures the public that the “rest of the loan, $745 million, will be invested in wind and concentrated solar power projects, each generating 100 megawatts, and in various efficiency improvements.” He avoids the government's 2003 White Paper that states that by 2013 four percent of electricity – 4700 MW based on Eskom's projected electricity consumption – must come from renewable energy. Eskom's three year plan – unveiled after Nersa's country-wide community meetings in January – states that only 400 MW will come from such sources.
Gordhan concedes the loan “faces stiff opposition.” Civil society around the world reminds him that Medupi adds an estimated 25 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year to Eskom’s 40 percent share of South Africa’s overall total greenhouse gas emissions. There is also the real possibility that, if South Africa's currency crashes again – as it has five times since 1996 – repayment in US dollars is more expensive than in South African rands.
The South African government can afford the luxury of R8.4 billion to construct five new stadia and refurbish five others for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. There are further, yet undisclosed, costs to improve public transport, implement special safety measures for tourists' security, and “beautify” (by hiding or removing tens of thousands of shack dwellers). Why can't it afford to clean up environmental degradation that results from generating electricity?
The US is the largest World Bank funder. Send a powerful signal to climate change horseman Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to intervene. Then buckle up for a wild ride along the unexplored path of real energy sustainability. In the long run it affords more security than tripping down the World Bank's yellow brick road of business as usual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)