Cloud interoperability and security drove passionate discussions among presenters and attendees at Cloud User ’09 in San Diego this week. A very good mix of professionals representing equipment vendors, cloud service providers, cloud software and systems developers, government, and the media rolled up sleeves, put egos aside, and drilled into issues that are impeding broad acceptance of cloud services.
The conference, sponsored by MarcusEvans, brought a lot of really interesting perspectives to the issues surrounding cloud provisioning, regulatory concerns, marketing, and the technology of cloud. The objective – determine a course of action in the cloud community to promote and provide confidence needed for the general information and communications (ICT) community to adopt cloud services.
Igor Edelman, representing a financial services company which is an early adopter of cloud computing (he’d prefer to keep the company confidential, however I can say I am a customer!), discussed his security concerns.
- Where does your data actually reside? It is not enough for a financial institution to know data exists, it is critical they know exactly where it resides. This is a major roadblock in the financial community using cloud resources on a public or shared platform.
- What additional measures can they takes?
- Data encryption?
- Dedicated network capacity?
- Dedicated storage?
Cloud does free up valuable CAPEX and OPEX resources, and his company is using this as further justification to develop their enterprise cloud architecture.
Tim Crawford, from Vivo and Stanford University IT Operations gave a very good general introduction to issues concerning all potential cloud users, including misconceptions of what cloud is and can do for a company. One item Tim highlighted was the impact Internet will have on broad cloud adoption. However the majority of his presentation centered on cloud service interoperability.
To successfully integrate cloud capacity and resources over both the Internet and allow for potential migration of data, Crawford emphasized the need for “greater cross vendor integration, development of common cloud interface APIs, and development of cross-platform migration tools.” While this is a problem today, it is also an opportunity for companies to emerge and solve the cloud platform interoperability problem.
Finally, Crawford walked the audience through a very detailed roadmap on the process a company or organization should go through in planning, executing, and operating their cloud strategy. You can reach Tim at tim.crawford@vivoinc.com for more information on his cloud strategy visions.
Dell and IBM both walked through their roadmaps for cloud computing, with additional focus on the need for a thorough understanding of the benefits and shortfalls of cloud technologies. Riz Amanuddin from IBM outlined his vision of implementing cloud within an organization by walking through the main steps, which include:
- Planning and preparing for cloud implementation
- Testing and deploying cloud services through a scaled approach
- Start with a couple non-critical projects
- Open on-demand access to power users who can potentially benefit from having project driven capacity
- Extend and evolve the platform as testing is passed, confidence is gained, and applications are made “cloud-friendly”
Riz also mentioned each organization should prepare an image library of cloud application templates, allowing users to quickly load applications, add resources, and discontinue individual instances of applications and resource when the requirement expires.
When preparing the organization’s cloud strategy, IT managers and planners consider:
- Security (including ISO 27,000 security compliance)
- Application and network latency
- Application and network availability
- Legal and regulatory compliance issues (HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc)
- System backup and recovery
- Image and application licensing
- VM sizing and planning
- Storage requirements
- The human element (training, ownership of cloud resources, organizational issues)
All fairly common sense business items, but all important to the success of any cloud (or other business) project.
Surendra Reddy from Yahoo gave a great presentation on Yahoo’s “Lessons Learned” in implementing Yahoo’s internal cloud. Surendra also walked through a very detailed process organization’s need to consider prior to doing their own internal cloud migration. Reddy provided very good statistics on the cost of internal cloud provisioning, and the cost of operating both cloud and dedicated application services within large data centers.
Both Surendra and James Urquhart (Cisco Systems) noted that cloud provisioning within the enterprise or organization should be through a common provisioning portal, with strong accounting and security. This is needed to ensure the IT group can properly account for who is accessing or initiating cloud applications, as well as supporting internal charge backs for ensuring good management of resources.
The topic of cloud’s impact on the environment came up during the data center and facility presentation (mine!), sparking a heated discussion on the value of green designs in both facility construction and deployment, as well as managing ICT resources. The panel went through Cap and Trade, alternative energy, proper use of mechanical and electrical design within the data center, as well as reviewing the concept behind metrics such as the Uptime Institute’s PUE (Power Utilization Effectiveness).
Many other topics discussed, many good debates and questions from a distinguished audience and group of attendees from all over North America and Europe. It was very interesting to hear different perspectives from Canadians and Europeans, as we are normally exposed to American thought leadership.
Bottom line, there are many, many very good people working hard on cloud issues. We know cloud and virtualization is here to stay, and the burden of producing a high quality, acceptable product is on the vendors, integrators, consultants, and thought leaders. This is complicated stuff, representing a major leap in technology, globalization, and business or organizational process. It is also a lot of fun!
John Savageau, Long Beach
Back in the Internet dark ages, around December 2007, the State of California released a report entitled “The State of Connectivity – Building Innovation through Broadband.” This was in response to public concern that both California and the United States continued to fall further behind other economic competitors, in particular South Korea, and Singapore.
The report also outlined a new state task force (California Broadband Task Force/CBTF) with the objective “to remove barriers to broadband access, identify opportunities for increased broadband adoption, and enable the creation and deployment of new advanced communication technologies.” The governor also requested that the CBTF “pay particular attention to how broadband can be used to substantially benefit educational institutions, healthcare institutions, community-based organizations, and governmental institutions.”
Task Force members were selected from a variety of disciplines and industries, including Cable TV (Cox Communications), broadband hardware (Cisco Systems), academia (USC, Humboldt State), government (Cities of Mountain View and San Francisco, state assembly), and telecom carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Hughes). While I might find personal apprehension having so many utilities telecom companies as part of the conversation (AT&T, Verizon, Cox), the members do represent a good mix of professionals who can appreciate the need for broadband.
So, we can have a level of confidence the State of California recognizes the need to aggressively develop broadband for all persons desiring access to broadband within the state. The CBTF was given some interesting tools to assist in developing their appreciation for the needs of Californians. A listing of unserved communities is very long, although we must understand California is a very large state, with many small and rural communities.
However the “unserved” listing does have some surprises. You will be shocked to see how many locations within LA County, Orange County, San Diego County, and Riverside County unserved by broadband Internet. This report was done in 2007, so we will acknowledge that many of these locations may have gained better access to broadband, however is it possible (according to the report) that parts of Rancho Palos Verdes (Portuguese Bend), Long Beach (Naples), and Huntington Harbour do/did not have adequate access to broadband Internet?
Some People Want to Live in a Quiet Place
Having lived in the countryside (near Baudette, Minnesota) at an earlier phase in life, I can say with experience that many people simply want to live away from others. They want to wake up in the morning to the sound of birds and tress rustling in the wind, and go to sleep with the sound of a timber wolf singing a lullaby at the moon. Broadband Internet is not a priority, and in fact presents interaction with others that is unwanted and misplaced. As a society and taxpayer we should really leave those people alone, and focus our funding and energy on those who want or need to live in the 21st century.
So, Baudette needs broadband, but my old cabin on the Lake of the Woods does not – unless I want it. Nor does a person living in a log cabin near the Telephone Flat Reservoir in Northern California.
To live in the 21st century we need to participate in a rapidly moving global marketplace and economy. Thus the California initiative is important, for without broadband tools we will not be competitive in education, business, or social skills (you cannot hide any longer, web 2.0 is here to stay). We need broadband communications and Internet access to both drive and stimulate:
- Information technology and communications in business
- Education
- Emergency services and heath care
- National defense (including Homeland Security, military, and disaster services)
- Entertainment
- Social interaction
- Technical leadership to ensure California leads the nation and world in technology and research
- Lots of other really good reasons
Where do we Stand in the US – Alone?
As you might expect, the US Government does have a broadband plan. In fact the plan is contained with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The project is managed as a joint effort by the national Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Rural Development’s Rural Utility Services (RUS) program. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated, and will continue to support the “Recovery Act Broadband Initiatives/RABI and Broadband Data Improvement Act/BDIA” project with NTIA/RUS.
Funding for RABI includes $7.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. His money sis split between NTIA and RUS, with the ultimate objective “to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved, underserved, and rural areas and to strategic institutions that are likely to create jobs or provide significant public benefits.” Pretty similar to California’s objectives.
Other states are not sitting idly by while California tries to move ahead. Some other great projects in states like New York have similar objectives, and are aggressively moving those objectives ahead. Their battle cry is very simple, and very powerful:
Broadband access supports our economy, attracts businesses, and enables New Yorkers to be globally competitive. It improves the quality of life for New Yorkers through better communication and learning. Strategic oversight of the broadband initiative is provided by the Broadband Development and Deployment Council per Executive Order 22.
Arizona believes “reliable, affordable access to high-capacity telecommunications infrastructure has become as essential as water, sewer, transportation and electricity service in creating healthy and successful communities in the 21st century. This is true for all communities, not just the urban or affluent. Access to these services is not just a desire but an increasing necessity for rural Arizona communities in the 21st century.”
It is in each state’s interest to develop an aggressive broadband initiative, as the BDIA now offers the “Broadband Data and Development Grant Program” to help individual states develop and better understand their broadband projects. The State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program is a merit-based matching grant program providing around $240 million to assist states developing state-wide broadband maps, used to develop national broadband maps for the NTIA required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Basically free money for states to use in developing strategies for broadband deployment.
The Global Initiative
Broadband penetration around the world shows the US is not in a very strong position compared to some of our competitive nations. In June Strategy Analytics (a Boston research company) released a study showing broadband penetration to homes by country. A couple highlights include:
- South Korea – 95% broadband penetration to the home
- Singapore – 88%
- Netherlands – 85%
- Denmark – 82%
- Taiwan – 81%
- Hong Kong – 81%
- — Canada – 76% (ranked 9th in the world)
- — Australia – 72% (ranked 11th in the world)
- — Japan – 64% (ranked 16th in the world)
- — United States – 60% (ranked 20th in the world)
- — Indonesia – 1%
This study does not take into account geography or the size of a country, and we do understand countries such as the US, Canada, Russia, and China have special problems in deploying broadband due to their large size and numerous rural locations.
There are many international projects either driving or researching the need for broadband access in both developed and developing countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Telecommunications Union, Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), and everybody else down to US AID and World Vision are all trying to bring better Internet access to all world citizens.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation recently released a report showing the conflicts, cooperation, challenges, and opportunities of US and international broadband access. The report provides through leadership on broadband topics including:
- Identifying factors that have spurred broadband performance in other nations
- Presenting key findings that government and the technology industry must recognize if we are to find the right course for the United States
- Propose key policy recommendations that will drive greater broadband performance
What we can do
Understand the impact of broadband internet and communications access has today, and will have in the future. Understand the impact our children and future generations will encounter if we do not give them the intellectual and information tools they need to develop lifelong tacit skills in technology and communications. Carefully compare and weigh potential results if we do not prioritize development of both California communications, and our leadership role in the global tech and economic marketplace.
Sent via email from my laptop computer on the beach in Long Beach, California
John Savageau
A couple months ago we explored citizen journalism and how that is changing the way we access news. From an industry that is largely dependent on advertising revenues to subsidize professional journalists and delivery of news and information, to a communication platform that that allows anybody with a keyboard and Internet connection to post their interpretation of events to a global audience, the news world has changed.
The players:
Traditional News and Information Sources
- News papers
- Periodicals
- Broadcast news
- Cable Television
New Media News and Information Sources
- Bloggers
- Ezines
- Webcams
- Online websites for traditional media outlets
The second category of news and information sources are mostly free from the cost of subscription, other than Internet access charges. In addition, Internet-enabled news sources are available by merely logging into the internet and the news source website. From anywhere that is not restricted from accessing news via the Internet, or that controls access to the Internet. About 1% of the global wired population.
The result of citizen journalism and Internet-enabled traditional sources is mainly in advertising revenue losses by traditional news publications. Subscription fees have never been the prime source of revenue for traditional printed media, it has always been the revenues produced from advertising.
As the world continues to move their primary access to news sources from broadcast television and printed news media to cable TV and the Internet, those advertising sources are quickly drying up.
The Federal Trade Commission/FTC Tries to Help
On August 17th the FTC announced in December it will begin a series of workshops entitled “From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” The purpose of the workshops is to:
“bring competition, consumer protection, and First Amendment perspectives to bear on the financial, technological, and other challenges facing the news industry as consumers increasingly turn to the Internet for free news and information, advertisers increasingly move their ads onto online sites and reduce advertising buys as a result of the recession, and news organizations struggle with large debt that was taken on when times were better.”
The FTC does acknowledge the shift from print to Internet, and simply wants to ensure that traditional media companies understand the realities of the shift to new media formats. The FTC also wants to ensure at the same time copyrights are protected, and fair business practices are maintained while media companies either deal with new media, or make the decision to drop out of their businesses.
Reality Hurts, But there are Realities to Consider
Several Realities to List
- Anybody with a keyboard and a free website can post “news”
- The Internet is ubiquitous (available just about everywhere, to everybody)
- Censorship and control of information is almost impossible
- Citizens do not need editorial guidance or management to post stories, blogs, photos, or anything else
- Citizens can provide a snapshot in time, but rarely have the contacts, experience, or time to do an exhaustive check on stories or facts
- People still want to read the LA Times or Huffington Post, even if it is only online access (and they want to read from anyplace in the world)
- Microblogging (Twitter) supports immediate notification of events to a nearly unlimited number of recipients via email, web access, SMS Messaging, or even voice notification
Blogs do have their place. Without blogs, email, and immediate posting of real time events, we may have never learned what really happened during the recent Iran elections. We might never know what happens when an event occurs in China, a fire is approaching Santa Barbara, a storm swell is threatening Miami Beach – or any other kind of news important to those who may be impacted or are interested in the topic.
Back to the Topic
In most cases we try to offer a recommendation on what to do when identifying a problem. A good editorial goes further than simply presenting a story or fact (like a good journalist may do!). In this case I have to admit I do now have the answers or a recommendation. I don’t know how to advise a newspaper on the verge of collapse how to deal with people like myself who are happy to offer editorials, news, and reviews of events or complex topics.
In a previous article we quoted David Simon, former reporter for the Baltimore Sun and producer of HBO’s series “The Wire,” as stating “if you do not charge for a product, the product has no value.” If this is true, then the news industry needs to sit back and fully study and understand the dynamics of the Internet, citizen journalism, blogging, and global ubiquitous access to new via the Internet, and then come up with a plan to help it survive through to the next century.
Throughout history we have gone from story tellers traveling and telling their rendition of events in faraway places, to cave inscriptions telling a story of events, to town criers, to newspapers, to television, and now the Internet. Change happens, and change in the media industry is good for the consumers of their news product. And change requires us to find new ways of funding and compensation for the producers and carriers of news.
Time for a trip to the white board
John Savageau, Long Beach
The Uniform Resource Locator/URL is a tool allowing users to locate and access resources available on the Internet. Most of us are familiar with the format http://www.somwhereontheinternet.com, which is a URL telling your browser to use the hypertext transfer protocol/HTTP to display a file located at the Internet domain somewhereontheinternet.com.
Depending on where a file or resource is located on the destination server, a URL can quickly become very complicated, with displays such as http://www.somewhereontheinternet.com/news/news-releases/2008/august/1035587ssebn2008.html relatively common.
Many innovations throughout history have emerged because people need to simplify complex ideas or operations into something that is usable. For example, 40 years ago we used slide rules in school to help us shorten the time it took for complex trigonometry and logarithms. Many people thought that was blasphemous, as it removed most students from going through the pain of doing long hand mathematics.
Now we use calculators, and it is probable that no student born since 1960 has ever seen a slide rule.
The Complex URL Falls into the History Books
Internet users are getting tired of typing in complex URLs, as they make mistakes, cannot remember complex URLs, or simply don’t want to be bothered being forced to mentally dig too deep into the technology of the Internet. People simply want to display stuff on their screens, whether PDAs or 24 inch monitors, and engage in the utility of the Internet – rather than becoming systems engineers.
Complex and extended URLs have even recently gained the nickname of “Dirty URLs,” as they are often encumbered with lots of weird punctuation marks and identifiers that make them look more like an alien or ancient Egyptian script, rather than a useful business identifier or tool for the masses.
The MiniURL is a step towards making the Internet a friendlier place for users and content producers. The underlying complexity of the URL will stay, as data will still physically or logically reside in some deep dark place on a server or within a cloud, however the human representation of that location is made simple. Take our complex example from above:
http://www.somewhereontheinternet.com/news/news-releases/2008/august/1035587ssebn2008.html
When sent through a URL shortening service, such as TinyURL (we’ll post a listing of URL shortening services later in the post) this complex URL may come out of the shortening engine to look like: http://tinyurl.com/nf7otw. Not bad, eh?
This is very good for most people, particularly microbloggers using services such as Twitter, which only allow a maximum of 140 characters per post. It is also much easier to post MiniURLs into instant messengers such as Yahoo and MSN Messenger, or even into email messages where you need to be succinct or are afraid of mistyping an important URL you need to get into the hands of a partner or client.
How Do We Shorten URLs?
There are now quite a few URL shortening services available on the Internet. While there are some subtle differences between the services, for the most part the service offers a simple outcome – taking a DirtyURL and making it a short URL.
There are two main types of URL shorteners, those which allow you to paste a Dirty URL into a window on the website, and those which are embedded within an application such as WordPress that produce a MiniURL (in WordPress called a “Sortlink”) simply by clicking a button next to the original DirtyURL.
Example – TinyURL
TinyURL is one of the best known URL Shorteners. TinyURL offers three main services, including:
- Web-based shortener available on the TinyURL website – you just go to their website and type in your DirtyURL for an on-demand MiniURL
- A web browser toolbar plug in that allows you to paste URLs directly off a web page you may be reading, and immediately create a MiniURL
- A website redirect service, which offers a MiniURL for any file within a specified directory within your website
How do they do it? That is fairly easy as well. A DirtyURL is taken by the URL shortener software, and an alias is created by the shortener application. The alias is matched to the DirtyURL in the shortener service’s “hashed” or encrypted data base, and each lookup for the URL is made against the shortener’s domain plus the “hashed” alias. Or,
DirtyURL-> shortener service -> alias/MiniURL created-> database entry made-> MiniURL returned to requester
When a user requests the MiniURL, the first request goes to TinyURL (tinyurl.com), and the TinyURL server looks up the alias, and finally redirects the browser to the original DirtyURL.
In reality, the whole concept was designed to remove the average user from thinking about this complex process, and only worry about creating and typing human-friendly URLs.
Why Some People Dislike MiniURLs
Most companies and organizations are using the Internet as an integral part of the identity and branding. You see domain names everywhere there is advertising. You will see www.something.com plastered on the sides of buses, food wrappers, pens, clothing, and anything else that can possibly used as a marketing tool. MiniURLs do not support branding.
There are some significant risks as well. Reliability being among the highest. If the shortening service has technical problems, is shut down, or is sold, links to the service and alias database may stop working. Then, if you have made a significant distribution of your MiniURL, you may end up with dozens or hundreds of dead links, and a lot of confused users.
There is no regulation of MiniURLs, which may open privacy concerns. As most of the URL shortening services are free or hosted, then you really have no idea what marketing or data collection is occurring each time a user clicks on your MiniURL. Is the URL shortening service selling your data and your customer data to marketing companies? Governments? Thieves? You really have no control over the potential data collection of persons using your MiniURL. Much better to bring the shortening application in-house if you need to use a MiniURL.
These are real, and legitimate concerns that any business owner must carefully consider before allowing their mission-critical website, image, or branding to go out of their control.
However, the Internet Will Change to make Life Easier for Users
The MiniURL is a good concept. I like the idea of embedding MiniURLs into hyperlinks that will translate as an alias to the DirtyURL destination file. It is good, but we need to ensure we do not lose control of our data.
Here is a short list from MasterMedia of URL shortening companies and services you can check out, test, and decide if their service will meet your needs to help simplify the Internet!
- http://snipurl.com/
- http://urltea.com/
- http://tinyurl.com/
- http://traceurl.com/
- http://readthisurl.com/
- http://memurl.com/
- http://doiop.com/
- http://www.dwarfurl.com/
- http://notlong.com/
- http://urlx.org/
By the way, the MiniURL for this post is: http://wp.me/pnD0m-6w
John Savageau, Long Beach
August 18th, 2009. Los Angeles, California, USA
Around 2:30 p.m. This afternoon I needed to make the drive from Long Beach (California) to Burbank (California). Normally this is not a bad drive, as the mountains are a pleasure to see off in the distance, and if you take the long way around (US Interstate 605 from Long Beach to the mountains, then follow the I 210 freeway around towards Burbank), particularly in the winter months, it is a clear, beautiful panorama of the LA Basin skyline.
Not today. A combination of smoke drifting into the LA area from fires near Santa Barbara, and weather conditions holding the smog in the LA Basin have created a condition that is, well downright disgusting. In Long beach we have the advantage of good breeze coming off the ocean which keeps the coastline generally clear, and not too unhealthy.
Today I could not see clearly for more than a mile or so in the Long beach area, and by the time I hit the ’605 heading towards the mountains the visibility had dropped to a couple hundred meters. Headache time. Horrible headache time. Nearly had an accident headache time (and yes, I feel embarrassed and humbled by the fact…).
By the time I hit the northern edge of the basin air quality had degraded so badly it was hard to see more then about 200 meters. Traffic in LA, which under normal conditions is pretty aggressive, actually started slowing down because of reduced visibility. And perhaps the burning eyes, people trying to drive while choking up lung chunks. Yes, the air was really bad.
Not Just Me
Finally made it to Burbank. Having lived in LA for around 5 ½ years I thought I had seen it all, from ash fall during wild fires, to driving through a wildfire myself. We know that wildfires will generate a nasty haze that covers entire regions. We know all this because it is an annual routine we go through in California as the land renews itself.
But this was even worse, as the offshore flow pushed bad air, including smoke – and smog into the ring of mountains surrounding the LA basin. So I decided to get some facts. Facts from the California Air Quality Management District/AQMD, and the US Government’s air quality website called “Air Now.”
Yes, indeed, today LA’s air quality was bad.
According to the California Air Resources Board “three-fourths of residents still live in areas that violate health standards for ozone, which causes respiratory disease.
And large swaths of the Inland Empire have 40 to 80 days a year that exceed the federally designated safe level for ozone, a colorless gas. About half the state, including major portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, exceeds the health standard for fine particulates, which are linked to cancer, heart disease and other ailments.”
Californians Lose Some Enthusiasm Supporting Environmental Issues
In July 2009 the private Public Policy Institute of California/PPIC released a survey focusing on Californian’s opinions on climate change, air pollution, and energy policy. More than 2500 California residents completed the PPIC survey, and the result highlights included a couple surprising statistics such as:
Most residents (66%) support the 2006 California law (AB 32) that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Support has declined 7 points from July 2008 (73%) and 12 points from 2007 (78%). The decline is sharpest among Republicans (57% 2008, 43% today).
Only 23% of Californians saw air pollution as “a big problem” in their region, an 11-point drop since last year. In Los Angeles County, that segment dropped 17 points, to 30%, and in the Central Valley, it sank 15 points, to 36%.
Probably a lot of reasons for the decline in support of reducing greenhouse emissions, most likely due to concerns moving closer to the bad economy, and the immediate need for jobs over environmental concern. Other major areas showing changes, in some cases based on political party and partisan lines, include:
- Effects of global warming
- Government regulation of emissions
- Cap and Trade
- Carbon Taxes
The California Air Resources Board also released a lengthy report (524 pages) in July entitled the “California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2009 Edition.” The report includes air quality statistics for the period 1988 to 2007 for ozone, particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.
Again, while Southern California is making great progress in improving air quality, it is still among the worst in the nation, giving us ample opportunities to improve our quality of air and quality of life.
Not Just a California Problem
The European Space Agency has made several extensive studies of global pollution trends. The most pressing world problem involves the release of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), which when combined with rain produces “acid rain.”
Acid rain is a leading cause of deforestation, which of course kills trees, which of course further results in the earth’s inability to recover from over-production of greenhouse gases, in particularly the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is (if you are a believer) the main cause of global warming.
NO2, when it returns to the earth in the form of acid rain, has the further effect of polluting lakes, rivers, and the oceans. This means fish kills, it means the fish you eat may not be healthy, and it means the food we produce in our farms and ranches will also have byproducts of airborne chemicals which join CO2 and NO2 as it is carried long distances by the wind.
The Environmental Protection Agency/EPA advises that
Taller smokestacks can lift pollutants high above a local community but help pollutants get into wind currents that can carry them hundreds, even thousands, of miles. For example, emissions from power plants and industrial boilers can travel hundreds of miles and contribute to smog, haze, and air pollution in downwind states.
One family of pollutants, nitrogen oxides, also reacts with other chemicals, sunlight and heat to form ground-level ozone. The nitrogen oxides and the ozone itself can be transported with the weather to help cause unhealthy air in cities and towns far downwind.
This means that our pollution produced in the LA area will eventually find its way into the wind leaving the LA Basin, and find its way to the Inland Empire, the Salton Sea agricultural areas, the wilderness areas of Arizona and New Mexico – an impact going far beyond the haze of Los Angeles.
Another Call to Arms
The risk to our city, our health, and the downstream impact of pollution is real. The California Air Quality Management District tells us thousands of LA-area resident die each year from ailments directly attributed to pollutants. The need to continue aggressively pursuing projects and plans to reduce our production of pollutants is real.
This blog article contains links to two very powerful reports (PPIC/CA-ARB). You don’t need to read through the entire report, but simply taking a look at the overviews on each report is quite enlightening. Then if you have a strong belief, on either side of the debate, let your elected representatives know.
John Savageau, Long Beach
Those of us who are soldiers in the Pickens Army are dedicated to promoting and evangelizing the religion of reducing carbon produced by oil, reducing our dependence on foreign energy, and are always on the lookout for initiatives to feed our passion to solve critical energy issues facing America’s economy, the environment, and our national security.” (from the Pickens Plan)
We should aggressively find those jewels of energy leadership, highlight them, and learn from their efforts.
The National GRID is actually a British company, specializing in delivering both electrical and natural gas in the northeast United States (as well as the UK). Serving about 3.3 million electricity users, and around 3.4 million natural gas users, national GRID is taking a leadership role in developing US policy towards energy transmission and use.
“The average home that converts from oil to natural gas heat will cut by as much as 99.9% its emissions of sulfur dioxide, a major contributor to acid rain, and emit up to 28% less carbon dioxide (CO2), which equates to planting 100 trees every year. North America has abundant supplies of this environmentally friendly energy source, so converting from oil to gas delivers double benefits by helping to reduce our carbon footprint while reducing reliance on foreign-sourced fuels.” (Tom King, president of National Grid in the US)
Is it Real, or is it…?
Writing in a blog, news release, website, or marketing brochure is easy. The proof is in the results, and National GRID is holding management responsible for results. Leadership starts at the top, and National GRID has policies in place from the board of directors down to individual employees established to promote a culture of being environmentally conscience and dedicated to both reducing impacts of both energy delivery and usage within the United States.
04/09/2009
For the 10th consecutive year, National Grid has received national recognition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for leadership in mitigating the effects of climate change by promoting energy efficiency.
The company received three awards at the EPA-DOE ENERGY STAR awards ceremony in Washington D.C; the ENERGY STAR Sustained Excellence Award; the ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Award; and, the ENERGY STAR Award for Sustained Excellence in Program Delivery.
However the most interesting part of the National GRID story is just appearing the horizon. More than sharing Pickens Plans promoting the use of natural gas, the National GRID is also now aggressively going after investment in, and production of, wind power. You might ask, “aren’t a lot of companies messing around with wind power?” or “isn’t California already a leader in the development of wind power?” Yes, and Yes.
The problem is that other states are also in wind corridors, and could generate as much or more wind energy as California. There is only one minor problem, how do you get the energy out of Texas and into Chicago? The transmission line infrastructure in the USA cannot current support or carry the power generated in many of our most attractive locations.
The Power of Electrical Transmission
Several complicated factors contribute to power transmission challenges:
- The US has hundreds of separate power companies and independent transmission companies
- Power generation in the US is generally a vertical industry, where power is generated and delivered within a single company infrastructure, or through private supply contracts with power wholesalers
- Most power companies are public, or public utilities, with very little reason for cooperation with competitors in the same region
- The lead time from planning to construction can take many years, with actual electrical delivery in excess of 8~10 years from the initial project start date
- Given the cost of transmission, reliability and redundancy is not always the highest priority in any electrical transmission design
The value companies like National GRID bring to the US are very compelling. In Europe, electrical transmission systems for delivering “green” or renewable energy had much greater government and industry focus than in the US. In the period of 2004~2008, according to the Edison Electrical Institute, the UK invested more than 3 times the amount of money in transmission technologies for renewable energy sources than in the US. Even worse, the demand for power in the US outstripped the transmission capacity on long distance routes by near 2:1.
So, the National GRID brings their experience and investment culture in building electrical transmission technology to the US. They propose solutions ranging from recommending independent regional high capacity transmission lines, to supporting energy transmission trial initiatives such as recently advanced by New York State (Gov Patterson’s “45″ by “15″ project, which would provide power for 6,500 households, and reduce carbon emissions by 20,000 tons per year).
“The Governor’s aggressive energy agenda is particularly encouraging as it matches National Grid’s equally robust initiatives, including recently proposed smart grid pilot programs in the Albany and Syracuse areas,” said William E. Flynn, vice president of New York government relations for National Grid.
For Those of Us in California
All is not lost in California. While PG&E and SoCal Edison struggle through many of the issues National GRID highlights in the Northeast, both companies (and others of course) do understand and promote the use of clean energy. My Edison bill not only shows how energy is being used, but also my personal usage trends and carbon cost of my use. I can go to any grocery store in Long Beach, and see “Edison Certified” light bulbs for sale. Yes, there are politics involved. Who can forget the lessons we learn from the Erin Brockovich story?
In the coming weeks we will look at several different energy companies and energy initiatives. For today, national GRID gets a strong tip-of-the-hat for efforts in making our energy better, greener, and more sustainable.
John Savageau, Long Beach
The Day of Losing Your Dream
How many of us have been there? You get up early every day, get cleaned and prepared for the job. You want to give your job 150% of your energy, and crave the camaraderie of your co-workers, and friendship of your customers and business partners.
Then organization changes come along. Your company is sold or acquired, the culture begins to change, and life becomes one of “who is going to be let go today?”,… or concerns develop on the dilution of respect and friendship within the working group. You wonder, am I getting up early to work, and will this be the day security comes to walk me out of the building?”
Then it happens. “Thanks for your years of service. However the company is going in a different direction…” You don’t hear anything beyond that point. All you want to do is get out and breathe some fresh air. You see others in the office looking at you, a couple of conversation murmurs in the background, and the pressure building in the back of your head, just above the neck.
You jump into your car and start driving, somewhere. You don’t want to go home. You don’t want to explain to your wife or family that you are now unemployed. You don’t want to talk to anybody.
Then the phone calls start. “What happened?” “This is horrible, what are we going to do without you?” “things won’t be the same…,” “let’s get together…”
Then you find a coffee shop, log into your personal email. Check out Facebook. You see your friends, the same people who just called to say how horrible everything is that you are let go, and you read their pithy comments about parties that evening, things they are doing with their jobs, and happy futures. And you realize all those fun things are happening without you in the planning or discussion.
At that point it is clear most of the people who have called are going through the same emotion we go through when passing by a serious automobile accident on the freeway. Damn, that is horrible. Glad it isn’t me. Then you also realize at the same time, no matter how good a driver you are, no matter how good your driving record, this could also happen to you. You immediately block out the thought of you or a loved one lying on the concrete with an emergency team trying to save your life. And as quickly as possible you put the scene out of your mind and drive on.
The Next Morning
Maybe you slept well, maybe you stayed awake mentally going back and forth between emotions of shock, anger, inadequacy, failure, and sadness. But the next morning will arrive, with the sun, news, and dawn of a new day. You hear the bustle outside your window of OTHERS who are going to work.
Now the administrative task of cashing severance checks, explaining to your family members, checking out the process to register for unemployment, thinking about getting your resume in order, thinking about how you are going to support your family for the next few months. And all the time a burning sensation in your guts trying to burst out into an explosion of emotions that you cannot either define or control.
Your Real Friends Show their Worth
After a day or two you will start receiving more calls. These are guys whom you may not have talked with for a while, but have shared the difficult times in one or more companies through the years. They know your contributions to your industry, your customers, and loyalties to your fellow workers and employees.
Rather than talk about how much it sucks that you were “whacked” by your former company, they are more interested in new opportunities, and how your energy, skills, and dedication can be used in a new venture, or new professional challenge. It is not “sucks to be you,” but rather “what can we do together.”
Then the burning sensation in your gut starts to change to a burning sensation of hope. Maybe you are not a train wreck or failure, maybe you are just at a point that you can recharge your creativity and energy. Too many months have passed where you peeled off tremendous energy worrying about what was going to happen that day, and now that energy can be refocused on a new and useful project.
Real Opportunity Takes Time and Planning
Nothing good falls from the sky. Real good is the result of hard work and planning. Preparation through education or interpersonal networking, and having a sincere desire to build and succeed.
Tacit knowledge and experience is not gained over night, it is the result of hard work, failure, success, and being exposed to a lot of people and “stuff.” Tacit knowledge and experience is what gives us the ability to quickly identify problems, opportunities, and apply our knowledge quickly to either resolve or exploit an opportunity.
The tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be codified, but can only be transmitted via training or gained through personal experience. Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” — as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written down.
With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust. While tacit knowledge appears to be simple, it has far reaching consequences and is not widely understood. (Wikipedia)
Without tacit knowledge you may not even be able to identify a problem or opportunity.
We can also add a new concept we’ll call “tacit relationships.” This is a circle of relationships you build over the years based on mutual respect and being open to their ideas, cultures, differences, and personalities.
After spending a few days getting over the emotional roller coaster of job and company termination, it is time to take the attitude that your experience and ability deserve better personal emotion of failure and self-pity. The old company is history, and there is no reason to dwell on that history. The new day will open the door to a new and better life.
Open the door. We owe it to ourselves, our real friends, and the business opportunities we will develop and build.
John Savageau, Long Beach
In the mid-1990s I frequently worked in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The city supported around 1 million people, nearly half of which were transients living in small tents called “gers.” The “ger” communities had no real infrastructure such 
as electricity or water, and subsequently used raw coal in stoves as a primary heat source, and those people who had a little money occasionally had small gas generators for minimal electricity.
In those days unleaded gasoline did not exist in Mongolia, and transportation was either older used cars from Korea and Germany, or even more often Russian made vehicles such as Ladas or Volgas. During the winter months Ulaanbaatar’s air was so bad you did not dare to wear any clothing with exposed white, as it would soon be covered with black soot, which could never really be cleaned.
Our employees were frequently ill, at a rate that is unprecedented in offices I’ve worked in over 35 years. Sadly, people also died at a much younger age, with respiratory problems and cancer being the most frequent cause. A very unhealthy place live and work.
What Cap and Trade Tries to Accomplish
Cap and Trade programs try to limit production and impact of CO2 emissions and production of greenhouse gases resulting in pollution and potentially global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency/EPA identifies Cap and Trade as programs which “reward innovation, efficiency, and early action, providing strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.” In addition to providing incentives and penalties on the production of CO2, Cap and Trade programs have also included projects focuse don controlling Acid rain, NOx, and another US program called the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
California Cap and Trade
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or California AB 32, establishes a “first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG).” AB 32 assigns responsibility to the California Air Resources Board/ARB to:
- Establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions by January 1, 2008
- Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January 1, 2008
- Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009 indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions
- Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms
- Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB
- Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all ARB actions
- Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, requires ARB to evaluate several factors, including but not limited to: impacts on California’s economy, the environment, and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability, conformance with other environmental laws, and to ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities
- Adopt a list of discrete, early action measures by July 1, 2007 that can be implemented before January 1, 2010 and adopt such measures (AB 32)
California also belongs to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which includes US states and provinces, including:
- British Colombia
- Manitoba
- Ontario
- Quebec
- Montana
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Arizona
- Oregon
- Washington
- And of course California
The WCI is a regional Cap and Trade system which will exceed federal initiatives, with implementation planned by 2015. When implemented the program will address 90% of the greenhouse gases produced within the member states and provinces. Specific program design includes:
- Provides opportunities to obtain low-cost emission reductions through emission trading, allowance banking, and inclusion of an offsets component
- Is intended to mitigate economic impacts, including impacts on consumers, income, and employment
- Balances all principles adopted by the WCI Partner jurisdictions to maximize total benefits throughout the region, including reducing air pollutants, diversifying energy sources, and advancing economic, environmental, and public health objectives, while also avoiding localized or disproportionate environmental or economic impacts
Opinions on Cap and Trade
In Part 1 of this series we posted a link to the Federal Cap and Trade Policy Primer. Using this primer as a reference, we can look at some of the opinions driving public reaction to Cap and Trade, in this case mostly positive (this is the “Pro” segment of the series!). rather than list dozens of positive opinions on the topic (readers can just as easily do a Google search on Cap and trade and list hundreds of pro and con opinions), we will hit a couple highlights.
Overall, I still give Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts a solid “B.” I’m grading on a curve–the curve of political reality. Straight A’s are hard to come by with oil, coal, and other industries spending almost $80 million lobbying on climate policy in just the past three months (pdf). (Alan Durning)
I love Waxman-Markey’s scope. It is comprehensive, covering essentially all fossil fuels, along with most other greenhouse gases.
The 2050 goal of Cap and Trade is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 83% below 2005 levels. This brings us beyond carbon is only 40 years! (Durning)
Waxman-Markey is comprehensive in scope, including essentially all fossil fuels, along with certain other measurable greenhouse gases. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Waxman-Markey’s cap would cover about 72 percent of US emissions in 2012; by 2020, it would cover 86 percent. (Sightline.Org)
The Bottom Line
Another morning looking over the port, and in the direction of Palos Verdes. While only a few miles from downtown Long Beach, it is almost impossible to see the Palos Verdes Peninsula due to the haze and smog generated from both the port, and the oil refineries in San Pedro and the harbor area. We need both the port, and the refineries. Nobody can argue that point.
However the move from old diesel engines to cleaner diesel within the port. The move to natural gas to drive trucking and container movement within the port. Reducing emissions from automobiles through introduction of natural gas (CNG) engines and elimination of gasoline. Increased use of cleaner public transportation such as trains and buses. Many things we can and must do to bring our community back into a reasonable environment, while still promoting and protecting the port economy.
On June 4th the Alaskan Navigator, a huge oil tanker from Valdez, Alaska, docked at the Port of Long Beach. The “Navigator” is unique. While in port the Navigator plugged into the shore-side electrical grid. The ship’s diesels turned off, and power within the ship was provided entirely by dockside power. Normally ships in port burn diesel to power on-board systems, and in a worst case burn diesel sludge, which is the dirtiest dreg of fuel. The LA Times described the fuel used by the average ship in port as the “energy equivalent of a days worth of driving 187,000 cars (4 June 2009 – articles.latimes.com).
The Navigator, and other ships in production, will have a major positive impact on the air quality within the Ports of Long Beach/LA, and the entire Los Angeles basin. Cap and Trade programs in California and at the federal level will continue to force similar projects, and Angelinos – as well as all Americans, will benefit from the effort.
Again, study the issues. Learn about Cap and Trade and greenhouse gases, with the impact all may have on the environment. It is our world, and we have an obligation, and right, to have our voices heard.
John Savageau, Long Beach
Nearly all people agree protecting the environment is critical to our continued prosperity and health. However there are arguments on how to best approach legislation that would either regulate or offer guidance on controlling pollutants and waste.
On the Cap and Trade issue, which is part of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (H.R. 2454, or “Waxman-Markey”, most of the arguments are related to the potential high financial cost of reducing carbon dioxide. Those critical of H.R. 2454 list many reasons to reject the bill, with some of the highlights including:
- Huge increases in the cost of gasoline (due to higher taxes)
- US jobs will be lost
- The bill will not reduce our reliance on foreign energy
- Similar efforts in Europe have not been successful (under debate)
- Potential to lose control of carbon credits in open trading markets
- Does not force electric utilities using fossil fuels to re-engineer with technology that would reduce carbon
- Economies in coal-producing states could be devastated
- The American people would pay the full price of Cap and Trade with personal tax and cost hits of nearly $2000/year per family (Spectator.Org)
- Belief that global warming due to greenhouse gases is a fantasy
While it is clear much of the debate is based on politics and corporate special interest lobbying, a couple of the above points do justify further study and discussion. The most compelling argument may be the high cost of carbon credits being passed down to individuals, as well as the potential impact on jobs and local economies as fossil fuel-producing industries are forced to either re-engineer, or scale back operations.
The Politics of Carbon
Political action organizations have always been part of American politics. For those of us who frequently do research over the Internet, it is important to keep in mind a pretty web page can be a simple façade that will be easily accepted as fact, but in fact be well-prepared propaganda from a source aggressively trying to influence a reader to their point of view.
If you read a newspaper, such as the LA Times or Washington Post, you have a reasonable expectation the publication will provide a representation of events that will factually inform the reader on the topic or event. Editors go to great pain ensuring facts are checked prior to committing a story to print, as the reputation of the journalist, editor, and publication are at stake.
When we learn a journalist has misrepresented or presented facts in error, it generally results in an additional news story with a public explanation by both the editor and publication on the hows and whys of the error, and what they are doing to prevent future errors.
The Internet does not regulate web sites at the same level as mainstream news publications. A website on the Internet claiming to be a legitimate news outlet may in reality be a facade for a political action group, or other organization trying to influence thought through propaganda or other thought controls.
In the debate over Cap and Trade, global warming, greenhouse gas effect, and other issues down to whale harvesting, both sides of the debate will present their arguments as fact, but when you peel off the façade you will discover the information being presented is provided by an organization aggressively providing their own thought leadership.
For example, the website energytomorrow.org has a great home page. American flags flying, the impression of patriotism, and a call to action on web pages filled with facts provided by,… well, the American Petroleum Institute. The American Petroleum Institute (API):
is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry. (http://energytomorrow.org/About/)
If the Cap and Trade bill is passed, and as the bill is written places much of the burden of carbon reporting and reduction on the “upstream” end of energy production and consumption, then the API will likely have to pay a large percentage of the price to re-engineer our energy industries. This can be translated as “lower profits.”
However the home page is filled with facts, which are backed by other groups such as the Heritage Foundation, which has the taglin on their very patriotic website as “The Heritage Foundation, conservative policy research since 1973.“
In All Fairness…
In part 3 of this series we will look at the Pro side of the Cap and Trade issue. The pro side will have equally aggressive propaganda to support their side of the debate. Much of it based on information provided through less than factual journalistic sources.
And it is reasonable to expect the average American will pay a price for carbon reduction in our lifetimes. A price that will help bring legislation and controls which will clean the environment, lessen our probability of health problems due to pollution, and quite possibly have a positive impact on slowing down the process of global warming through reduction of greenhouse gases.
It is also true that if we blindly accept either side of the debate, we will run a high risk of accepting a solution that is dished up by a special interest group, and may not fully consider all aspects of either the issue or the proposed solutions. So bring on the debate.
A Call to Action, Part 2
This issue will affect all Americans, and all other residents of our planet. We all need to learn more about both the cons, and the pros of the Cap and Trade issue, carbon, greenhouse gasses, energy production and science – it will affect all of us and future generations. Learn, and then relentlessly go after your elected representatives with your opinions, and even better your suggestions to help solve and deal with the issue.
Looking out over the Port of Long Beach and the LA Basin, and seeing (or not seeing) the levels of pollution in the air, not being able to see Catalina Island this afternoon, barely being able to see the LA skyline – well, that is a fact. We residents of the LA area and Southern California have the right and obligation to be aware and knowledgeable.
John Savageau, Long Beach
Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a natural byproduct of nature. Nature produces CO2 in large quantities during volcanic eruptions, geo-thermal events, and other processes as simple as breathing and normal chemical breakdowns of other elements. It is an essential component of photosynthesis, which is the process of plants changing CO2 into oxygen, and an essential component of the “carbon cycle.” At proper levels, CO2 is a requirement to sustain life.
When the ratio of CO2 to other elements becomes disrupted, the carbon cycle is also disrupted. The earth’s eco-system may not be able to absorb the excess CO2 present within the system, and the cycle is changed to account for disruption in the status quo of nature.
One byproduct of excess CO2 in nature may be excess “greenhouse gases,” which may have the effect of retaining heat within the earth’s atmosphere. This is widely accepted as being the main cause of global warming, which many scientists believe is causing much of the world’s problems with deforestation, drought, and melting of the polar ice caps.
We generate CO2 through use of energy ranging from driving a car, to running air conditioning, refinery of oil products, or anything else that is lit, propelled, heated, or cooled. The US Government Energy Information Institute estimates production of excess CO2 in the United States in 2008 reached around 6 billion metric tons. Most of that was produced in urban areas, with the excess CO2 remaining present within the local area in the form of pollution – while at the same time contributing to greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere.
Positive Use of CO2 in Day to Day Life
CO2 is used in many products we use every day. It is used to provide “carbon”ation in soft drinks, removing caffeine in coffee and other drink products, compressed air in items such as life preservers, production of plastics (OK, maybe not a real good example), and even wine making.
That is all good.
Health Effects of Too Much CO2
As mentioned above, and taught to every child in basic biology, CO2 is an essential element in the process of photosynthesis. We breath oxygen, and our lungs and blood system binds used oxygen molecules together with a carbon molecule as kind of a human sewage system. We exhale CO2 , plants grab the CO2 , and eventually convert the CO2 into sugars, oxygen, and other stuff that is needed to fertilize and sustain life.
In normal air, the concentration of CO2 is somewhere between 360 and 390 parts per million/PPM. It can vary depending on how far you are from green plants, and the source of global oxygen production.
When the concentration of CO2 in air starts hitting around 1000 PPM, the human body starts reacting with a bit more difficulty breathing, and a bit of dizziness. Think of the miners caught underground in mining disasters, and the almost narcotic effect of CO2 on their breathing when trapped without a fresh source of oxygen for prolonged periods.
At concentrations of CO2 greater than 5000 PPM, you can expect you will begin to suffer permanent damage, as your blood will become starved for oxygen. Eventually, you die when the body breathes in too much CO2 . In an extreme example, this is what happens to you when running a car in a closed garage to commit suicide – eventually the oxygen is overwhelmed by high concentrations of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuel in your car engine.
The Double CO2 Whammy
So here is an issue. The combination of excess CO2 production creating higher levels of heat trapping, global warming greenhouse gases, as well as the continued production of CO2 through increasing use of fossil fuels.
Do we sit back and hope our lives end before the planet starts to crumble, taking the attitude some other generation down the road will figure it out, or do we begin, not only as a city, nation, and society – but also as a planet community to address and find a solution to the issue?
The Great CO2 Debate
Of course, as you would expect, not everybody even believes this is a problem. That is fine, to come up with a consensus and potential response to the legions of scientists who are crying for greater awareness of global warming through some level of dissenting debate. That debate is currently being waged within the US Senate, as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), or more commonly known as the Cap and Trade Bill, hit the senate and American media.
Cap and Trade is a difficult topic, and in fact H.R. 2454 itself contains more than 1400 pages of legislation. Cap and Trade, according to the Sightline Institute (warning, this is also a special interest group), can be defined as:
In short, the “cap” is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and “trade” means that companies may swap among themselves the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases.
Cap and trade commits us to responsible limits on global warming emissions and gradually steps down those limits over time. Setting commonsense rules, cap and trade sparks the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible.
They also produced a document entitled “Cap and Trade 101, A Federal Climate Policy Primer” which may help understand their perspective of the benefits of H.R. 2454.
The range of debatable issues ranges from those who believe there is absolutely nothing credible in the discussion on greenhouse gases and excess CO2, to those who believe we are on the brink of global disaster. There are those who base their objections to a comprehensive energy and security policy on economic reasons, political lines, or simply through affiliation with industries that will need to re-engineer much of their operations to comply with caps on fossil fuel use and carbon production.
Those on the pro side of the debate are concerned with making our country energy-independent, and stronger through design and construction of alternative energy sources and green living.
It will be a good debate, and all Americans need to be part of the learning process, understand the issues, and weigh in with all possible intelligence with our elected representatives. Feel free to comment here – we’ll make sure your voice is heard within the CTC community. Regardless of where you stand on the debate.
Next articles in series:
- Part 2 – the Con side of the debate
- Part 3 – the Pro side of the debate
- Part 4 – Summarizing the debate, and future recommendations
John Savageau, Long Beach
