A new report by the National Research Council seeks to put a dollar amount on the “hidden” costs of energy produced by burning fossil fuels.

These costs aren’t factored into the market prices of coal, oil, and gasoline, or the prices of electricity generated by fossil fuels, the report says. But someone eventually pays for them.

The report found that, in 2005, the hidden costs of energy production with fossil fuels in the United States amounted to $120 billion. This includes the negative impact of air pollution on health, but doesn’t include the effects of mercury emitted by coal-fired plants on wildlife and people, harm done to ecosystems by air pollution, or the climate-warming effects of carbon emissions (which the Stern Report estimated to be a drag on global GDP of 20% by the turn  of the Century, a very conservative estimate).

Coal-fired plants produce about half the nation’s electricity. The report found that pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter cost the US $62 billion. That works out to about 3.2 cents’ worth of “nonclimate” damages for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) generated.

Natural gas had fewer hidden costs than coal. Four hundred ninety-eight natural-gas-powered electric plants caused about $740 million in damages. That’s about 0.16 cents per kWh, or 1/20th of the damage produced by coal.

Vehicles, meanwhile, which account for 30 percent of US energy use, produced $56 billion in damages. That works out to between 1.2 and 1.7 cents’ worth of hidden costs per mile traveled (and $.30-.40 per gal for an average vehicle) .   (Estimates from NRDC calculate all costs for fuel closer to $10 per gal.)

Climate considerations aside, damages wrought by ethanol made from corn were usually similar to, or even slightly worse, than damages from gasoline. That’s because of the extra energy needed to convert corn to ethanol .

(It’s estimated that a $300 per ton of CO2 would internalize these costs and raise fuel prices around $1.50)

Over 2 billion people have been left out of the purported economic gains of the globalization process of the last decade.   The disparity between rich and poor has been increasing, and the global economic collapse has shown the strong inter-connections between developed and developing worlds.  Clean air, clean water and biodiversity necessary to life itself, continue to be undervalued, external to capitalist markets and in increasing demand by rising poulations.  Many development projects have misallocated funds and in some cases hastened the destruction of natural capital.  It is this natural capital from which all forms of capital are formed.  Yet development funding is still woefully inadequate to meet current and growing needs.  Subsidies, tariffs and taxes have distorted economies, and have kept resource allocation from achieving sustainable, renewable or even rejuvenating consumptive levels.

Approximately half of the world’s species are concentrated in the rural tropics on less than ten percent of the planet.  Uniquely, much of the porest regions are also some of the most biologically diverse (Madagascar and parts of North Carolina are examples).  These natural systems are critical to a healthy and functioning planet and fundamental to our continued existence.  Yet, their increasing rate of loss is directly correlated with increased resource consumption and population growth.  The 5th World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003) made following supporting recommendations:

“the need to engage the people who reside in our around protected areas and guarantee the equitable benefits from these resources; to better value these resources for their ecosystem services, and contribution to poverty eradication and sustainable development; and to provide practical tools, training and resources for their managers.”

These communities represent a model for the future—the need to develop in an ecologically sound manner and ability of societies to learn to live “within the park.”

In rural, North Carolina communities the effects of globalization on can be seen in the loss of jobs in textile, furniture and other manufacturing industries, the increase in illegal migrant workers and the dramatic changes in our landscapes and communities, from hog parlors, to urban sprawl.  Concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, consumer demand for cheap goods and the continuous search for cheap labor, comparative advantage and economies of scale have left both the environment and people on the sidelines “of this race to the bottom.”  Many rural farm communities have been impacted negatively by global trade policies, agricultural subsidies and tariffs, dumping of product at below production costs, unfair trade and “liberalized” markets.  These communities are often found close to biologically diverse resources and in turn are closely dependent on them.

Radical changes are needed to bring the policies of our government, international trade organizations, investors and consumers in line with principles of sustainable livelihoods.  According to the United Nation’s Development Program,

“A sustainable livelihood system can only be understood and promoted if the matrix of interactions between governance, policy, science/technology and investment/finance is approached in an integrated manner, and used to augment what local people already do well and the assets to which they have access. The reality is that livelihood systems comprise a complex and diverse set of economic, social and physical strategies.” (http://www.undp.org/sl/)

To support and promote these systems, an equally diverse group of institutions are required. No one organization can fulfill all these complex functions, and new models for public-private partnerships will be required to build the needed systems that focus less on specific outcomes, than more importantly, on self-perpetuating, growing and dynamic connections that blend various “values” critical to sustainable livelihoods. No better model exists than that of institutions of higher learning, and those organizations closely aligned or that have developed out of them.  For these reasons, the following goals are proposed. 

Goals of the Working Group:

The primary goal of the Working Group is to increase debate and dialogue on how to create and promote sustainable livelihoods and the institutions that support them.  The definition of sustainable livelihoods will be based on that promulgated by The Department for International Development, UK.  Focus of the Working Group will be on those communities living around important, biologically diverse regions of the planet.  More developed, rapidly growing and industrializing urban areas may benefit from these models, particularly from an eco-regional, bio-mimicry or “living in the park” approach based on these natural areas.  In addition, much may be learned from urban populations adaptation to issues of resource scarcity, density and social justice.  Because of the impact of globalization and our interconnected relationships, the Working Group will promote education of consumers and other decision-makers on the importance of these biologically diverse resources, the need for sustainable livelihoods and how each of us affects these communities through our consumptive habits and purchasing decisions.

Finally, The Forest Foundation has been approached by UNDP’s Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and many other conservation and development organizations to assist their field projects in enterprise development and sustainable livelihoods.  Together with other organizations in the Triangle, it is hoped that a system of resources and services in education, training and consulting can be developed to support these field projects. The Foundation has also been asked to assist in developing curriculum and training modules on sustainable livelihoods for the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.  This poses a unique opportunity to develop a program to not only help and support the planet’s most critical ecosystems, but to provide a training system that can give students and faculty experience and opportunities to “test” or put into practice models in sustainable livelihoods.  Long-term, we hope to build relationships with educational facilities and entrepreneurial infrastructure to build truly sustainable service systems.

To fulfill its goals, the Working Group proposes three objectives:

1. the sponsorship of lectures, meetings, conferences, research and publications in the field of sustainable livelihoods;

1. to promote new and innovative multi-disciplinary, public-private sector models to address these issues, through academic curriculum and training; and

1. to create a system of resource centers and virtual networks throughout the world to support sustainable livelihoods and “green business” enterprises, to support and promote the next generation of social and environmental entrepreneurs.

Protocol for Membership:

1)                  A letter is required from all possible Members and Organizations stating their interest in participation;

2)                  Attendance at meetings, conferences or lectures;

3)                  Input and review of draft and finished publications of the Working Group;

4)                  Assistance in identifying Board members and/or funding sources.

Resources:

Stone, R. The Nature of Development: A report from the rural tropics on the quest for sustainable economic growth.  New York: Knopf, 1992.

Millard, E. “Business Planning for Environmental Enterprises: A Manual for Technical Staff,” Washington, D.C.:  Conservational International, 2003.

Bovarnick, A. and Gupta, A. “Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation: Improving the Design of Small Business Development Strategies in Biodiversity Projects,” New York: UNDP Global Environmental Facility, 2003.

http://www.usaidmicro.org/know_Management/BDS/

http://www.snhu.edu/Southern_New_Hampshire_University/Academics/MDI_Home/MDI_Course_Descriptions.html

http://www.springfieldcentre.com/about.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/OPPORTUNITIES/GRANTS/DEVMARKETPLACE/0,,contentMDK:20094517~pagePK:180691~piPK:174492~theSitePK:205098,00.html

http://www.seepnetwork.org/bds.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/economic_growth/egat/eg/tech-enterprise/emdap.htm#program

Institute of International Education (IIE). Contact Leslie B. Anderson, EMDAP Director, Institute of International Education, 1400 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-2403; phone (202) 326-7704; Fax: (202) 326-7698;

http://www.livelihoods.org/SLdefn.html

http://www.sustainable.org/

http://www.eco-index.org/add/online-form.cfm

http://www.ra.org/programs/cg/index.html

http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/KI/cse/

Members:

John Marc Dreyfors, President, The Forest Foundation (it’s lonely)

Member Organizations:

The Forest Foundation, Inc.

Forests of the World, LLC

Carolina Biodiesel, LLC

Greenway Transit Services, LLC

Possible Member Organizations:

Organization for Tropical Studies

Center for Tropical Conservation, Duke University

Student International Discussion Group, Duke University

Institute for Environmental Policy  Solutions, Nicholas School of the Environment

Center for Sustainable Enterprise, Kenan-Flagler School of Business, UNC-CH

Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Kenan-Flagler School of Business, UNC-CH

The Rural Economic Development Center, Raleigh, NC

Net Impact Chapters of Kenan Flagler Business School and Fuqua Business School

The Ecozoic Society

Ashoka

Social Venture Network

The Crafts Center, Washington, DC

Aid To Artisans

Handmade in America/Handmade Institute

Program in Sustainable Agriculture, Central Carolina Community College, Pittsboro, NC

A Community Supported Energy Project, or CSE, is a lot like a CSA, or Community Supported Agriculture.  Across the country, CSA’s have ”sprouted up” as Americans realize that locally produced food has an array of benefits, including better tasting, healthier and lower impacting food, keeping money local and supporting farm systems that stem suburban sprawl and provide food security in the face of negative impacts of globalization.  Folks can support CSA’s in a couple of ways: 1) they can prepay at the beginning of the season and receive a weekly or monthly supply of produce either delivered to their door or to a central pick up point, or 2) they can buy produce weekly or bi-weekly at local farmers markets.  Some CSA’s let folks come out to the farm and help pick and manage the farm.  Community Gardens work very similarly.  These “Loca-vores,” local eaters, are making a huge contribution to reducing our carbon footprint, selecting and promoting foods that don’t travel thousands of miles, consuming copious amounts of fossil fuels to get to our plate.  If you buy organic, or permaculture-based food, you have traveled a long way down the road towards sustainability.

The same goes with “consumption” of energy.  If we consume our energy from local sources, we become less reliant on foreign sources of fossil fuels, spend less energy getting it to us and keep more money in the local economy.  “Local energy” comes in a variety of forms, like: the wind, water, solar and biodiesel.  A CSE could be supported similar to a CSA with folks buying into a CSE each year as a member, similar to NCGreenPower, offsetting or mitigating their energy consumption with the investment and purchase of local energy equivalents, or simply buying the energy good or service directly.  Biodiesel can be made from virgin oils produced by local farmers, or made from waste oil.  Obviously some technology is needed and most likely it may come some distance before you can set it up or use it.  But it is likely soon that manufacturers of these green, alternative energy technologies may be setting up shop nearby, as demand grows, creating more jobs and employing people.  In NC alone $15 billion flees the State to pay for energy.  Think if that money was spent in your community and how that would change the landscape.  Think of the cleaner environment!

Examples of Local CSE’s are:

Piedmont Biofuels and Carolina Biodiesel and its local restaurant to waste veggie oil to biodiesel production.

Eno River Grist Mill

SAS 1.7MW Solar array

Durham County Landfill Methane to Energy

My first inclination was that this would be a stale corporate tour that focused solely on the light to medium duty chassis going into Sprinter vans.  But in fact the chassis were going into a range of vehicles, and the engineers we met were using the designs to test and implement a whole variety of hybrid and alternative fuel systems built by Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA).  I asked the engineers if they received a lot of support from Europe, as they had had these  systems in operation longer.   I was surprised they said “no,” but that a FUSO (another Daimler owned company) research facility in Japan had been more helpful and productive.  The Gaffney facility was treated as a very independent operation from Daimler corporate/global, and we had a sense they were more autonomous than they may have liked, given how rapidly the market is shifting and how much resources are needed to achieve the darmatic changes to our transportation systems.

2010 Emissions

The tour started with a presentation to the Clean Cities representatives from Asheville, Charlotte and several organizations and cities in SC by Freightliner’s chief engineers.  They first spoke to the 2010 emissions requirements of EPA of .2g NOx (down from 5g), and .1 g particulates (PM).  Lots of acronyms were flung our way, including:

SCR- Selective Catalytic Reduction

DEF- Diesel Exhaust Filter

EGR- Exhaust Gas Recirculation

DCU- Dosing Control Unit

DOC-  Diesel Oxidation Catalyst

DPF- Diesel Particulate Fluid (Urea)

All vehicles are required to have SCR and there are two systems that are competing for diesel truck markets SCR and Massive EGR.   Massive EGR, which catepllar and Navistar have thrown their weight behind,  reduces fuel economy but may be more reliable.  SCR seems to be outcompeting EGR at this point, the upside is the better efficiency, and the downside is the need for urea recharges.  Systems take exhaust from the engine, pass it through a particulate filter (DPF), and then through a urea DCU, then through an SCR, then an Exhaust Diffuser (a simple nipple on the tail pipe!).  (See http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/trucks/featured-components/emissions.aspx)

Advanced systems have three levels of filter regeneration: active, passive and manual.  The state of the art in NOx reduction is the Urea injection systems that result in engine life increases and a 5% improvement in fuel economy.  Cost is $6700-7000 per unit, and roughly 3 urea tank fills are required per 15oK miles driven.  Tanks come in 10 to 50 gallons and are attached to the frame where they can be filled like a gas tank.  Urea gallon jugs will be available a truck service centers and dealerships throughout the US.  Interestingly, VW TDI’s are using EGR NOx sponge absorption systems, however, all new systems will have use SCR (See http://www.truthaboutscr.com/).

Hybrid/Alternative Fuel Systems

The engineers then presented on the specs. of the four models being produced at the plant:

CNG,

Diesel Hybrid Electric,

Diesel Hybrid Hydraulic, and

All Electric (demonstration vehicle provided by Enova).

CNG systems have about a 200 mile range and are using 3600 psi fittings and Type IV tanks.  Engines are switching from 5.9L Cummins to 6L IS GM.  The Hydraulic and Electric were new and in prototype stage, though we were able to test-drive at the end of the day an electric UPS truck that had recently come off the line.  CNG and Diesel Electric had been produced for several years and over 450 vehicles had been produced and were in operation.  Maintenance statistics showed that their hybrids we highly successful performing at over 98%with no failures after 2 years.  Incentives include:

• Each has up to a $25K per vehicle savings,
• $6K tax credit for Class 6 and $12K for class 7, and
• $4,500-6,000 in fuel savings (plus Blue Skies).

All of us, Charlie and Rich in particular, came away with the feeling that the Parker Eaton hybrid hydraulic was the ideal technology for trucks, particularly for those with lots of stop and go routes (delivery trucks, buses, shuttles, couriers).  Three hydraulic systems have developed: 1) launched assist (10-25% efficiency improvement), 2) series hybrid (20-40%), 3) Advanced Series Hybrid (35-125%).  These advanced systems capture 70% of breaking energy and use Optimized Engine Control and passive engine breaking.   The efficiencies were enormous, approaching 65-125% in storing breaking energy.  This means that the delivery drivers engines can shut down for very extended periods with enormous fuel savings.

The hydraulic system has two accumulator reservoirs and line systems that operate where the drive shaft would normally be connecting the transmission to the differential.  Energy from the engine drives the vehicle, but also builds up in the accumulator, as does breaking, releasing the energy at the time of acceleration (where most energy to propel a vehicle is used).  Charlie stated that they what is needed to make these systems state of the art is a high quality, hydraulic fluid filter system, as the lines can become contaminated over time.

These hybrid systems are relatively simple and low maintenance.  Importantly, the hybrid electrics do require relatively sophisticated inverter/controller computer for “dual mode” on the engine side.  Indeed, during the test drive, Rich complained that the Electric Clutch Actuator (ECA) on the hybrid electric was just not correctly adjusted, causing a jerky shift in gears.  Freightliner is using a 340VDC Hitachi Lithium-ion battery with a 7-8 year life and 44KW Eaton motor generator with an added weight of 600 lbs  (See http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/trucks/find-by-model/m2e-hybrid/).

The cost increase is $28K above the base price of which about a third of that cost is in the batteries.  The systems include fuel economy indicator, and critical to their success was a driver training program and improved instrument panel to collect data on: routes (idle time, trip time, average mpg, max. speed) and drivers, and include a downloadable USB connector.  Variables are route, driver and base system.  New systems include and idle off feature that adds 8-9% efficiency improvement, hill hold ABS system and threshold recharge.  AC systems do not disengage when in electric mode and with proper driving, the HEV can improve fuel economy 40%, reduce 96% particulate emissions and 65% of NOx.

An all electric system with a diesel generator (sic. train engines) may be the second smartest system, as it reduces maintenance, allows a plug in option and simplifies things.  However, the Freightliner engineers stated that the emissions requirements of a diesel generator are unknown and they had not moved forward on this system because EPA has not ruled as of yet.  The demonstration vehicle was provided by Eova (See http://www.enovasystems.com/)  DesignLine, an Australian company,  is building these systems with their hyper efficient buses manufactured in Charlotte, and it will be interesting to find out when we run our tour of their facility (See www.designlineinternational.com).

Interestingly, the engineers stated that all the hybrid systems needed a smaller engine than the 6 cylinder Cummins they were using.  A 4 cylinder was needed, as the systems were so efficient, they did not require such a large powerhouse.  Such engines exist but are not being made in the U.S.  Both hybrid systems can be used for PTO’s and Auxiliary Power Generator (APG) for idle reduction. Engine off will not work if rolling.

Rich, Charlie and I also came away from the tour realizing that Freightliner still had a ways to go in refining the technology, were reeling from the diversity of options they had offered the markets and were needing help in advancing the technology.  They also needed more prototypes in the field, which got me thinking about setting up a joint program with the engineering and environmental schools in the Triangle.

Biodiesel options are available on all the systems, and include: a oil/water separator, tank and fuel line heaters, and new fuel senders.  The engines are warranted only to B20, yet with these additions, running very high levels would be easy.

Zero Waste Facility

In the afternoon, we took a tour of the plant and its assembly lines, where they showed us the parts system and unique ways they had improved production efficiency for all the variables and options available for assembling the chassis and cabs. The plant and its three lines can produce 85 chassis per day at 100% capacity.  When we visited they were at 65% capacity.  Since adding the hybrid, electric and CNG products, there has been no change in production time, due to efficiencies gained and the use of a pre-assembly system, pick carts and other line innovations.  They had an in-house dynamometer to measure the engine performance and emissions, and operate their paint ovens during early mornings to reduce peak loads.

The facility had just gone zero waste, after about a year of behavioral modification and design changes.  The program to go Zero waste was impressive, and will actually turn a profit in Oct.  2009, as the income from the waste recycled will generate more income than outlaid for implementation. This is quite an achievement given how conservative a community and worker base it is from which they pull.  But they have also outreached to the local high school, and from surveys, they found that the program has affected workers in their lifestyles at home.

However, we did see a wall full of vending machines with high fructose, corn syrup products, that led me to believe they still may have a way to go in uniting ”green” with “healthful living.”  The engineers did say they were looking for interns and TFF will try to connect them with students from Duke and NCSU.  In addition, they voiced an interest in adding roof-top PV systems and pushing the envelop in greening their operation.  Their tour was excellent and we recommend it to anyone in the fields of alternative energy,  green transportation and environmental management.

A Community Supported Energy (CSE) Project and Incubator Space for the Arts and the Emerging Green Economy– a project of The Forest Foundation

The North Wing of Goldenbelt Manufacturing in Durham, NC is the last building in need of redevelopment, connecting us to our historical roots in the tobacco industry. It sits directly in the midst of a Hope VI federal redevelopment area and has received funding for: Brownfields assessments in the corridor along Angier and Pettigrew (one of the Triangle’s few industrial areas); and green jobs training through Durham Tech.  The South Wing has already been redeveloped by Scientific Properties. This 360Kft2 factory was built in the early 1900’s to print and produce packaging for the cigarettes, and is a robust complex, with acres of open floors, outside parking areas and green space. The goal of our “Green is Goldenbelt Project” to utilize this site to the betterment of our community and change the redevelopment model–  requiring expensive rents and gentrification to pay back investors and bank loans, to one that will create jobs, train and redevelop using green techniques while preserving some of Durham’s history for those organizations that have made Durham a better place to live.  The focus will be around construction of the two sustainable energy projects: biomass and photovoltaic (PV), that will be core tenants, providing tax credits, generating income, reducing operating costs, and use the process of site redevelopment to train and employ our East Durham community.

The first step is to create a series of investment and redevelopment groups:

I.  Site and building redevelopment;

II.  Biomass Cogeneration system in the old boiler room area;

III. Commercial PV System for the roof;

IV. Green Jobs Training program in deconstruction, redevelopment and alternative energy and energy efficiency installations; and

V. Tenant/co-owner coaltion to utilize the space as it is redeveloped.

The goal is to have the two clean energy projects as anchor tenants, generating income and subsidizing portions of the redevelopment project.  This would tie nicely into The Forest Foundation’s effort at developing a “Community Supported Energy” Cooperative and its work in Green Jobs Training.  Redevelopment of the roof and boiler room area may happen first, and the rest of the building can be more gradual, allowing the work generated to become a training opportunity for green jobs.  To gain historic tax credits the newer 1950’s annex that was constructed will need to be separated from the main building.  Interest in remodeling this space to double its capacity and purchasing and leasing this side building exists.

The overall Porject will require excellent design, planning, coordination, quite a bit of political leverage with the goal to create a national model for green redevelopment and a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified building.  LEED should not be just for expensive developments, but be made affordable and available to those organization promoting principles of community sustainability.  This building has the potential to support local non-profits and incubate the new green economy in Durham

Building and Neighborhood Redevelopment

The Goldenbelt Manufacturing Company was founded by Julian Carr in 1900 as a textile factory that processed cotton into thread and produced pouches for Bull Durham tobacco. Carr’s operation of Golden Belt was innovative and adaptive: as the demand for tobacco bags waned, the plant produced thread and cloth for other uses and printed paper packaging for cigarettes. Operations ceased in 1996. A track record has been established with the successful redevelopment of the South Wing and adjacent residential and commercial properties by Scientific Properties, (See:www.goldenbeltarts.com).  Greenfire and the American Tobacco complex has also shown that these types of mixed use histroic redevelopments can make business sense and be besutiful additions to a downtown community renewal.

The site offers enormous potential for investors to receive large tax credits for revitalization, as well as those available for renewable energy and pollution reduction.  Current tax credits include:

1) 30% State and 35% Federal tax credit for all alternative energy projects;
2) qualifies for a 20% state and 20% federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit;
3) projects that reduce air or water pollution or waste disposal pay no property taxes;
4) NC Renewable Energy Equipment Manufacturer Incentive allows a 25% credit for
installation and equipment cost;
5) State Energy Office is offering low interest loans and grants for alt. energy;
6) Accelerated depreciation is also available for plant equipment and property
7) Equipment may be donated to a non-profit at the end of its investment cycle for additional deductions.

Other grants and credits available are:

American Resource and Recovery Act (ARRA), Sustainable Communities Grant, Pathways Out of Poverty Green Job Training; Dept. of Energy: Community Development Block Grants, Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing for energy efficiency for commercial and residential; Dept. of Treasury: New Market Tax Credits; and Goldenleaf.

The Goldenbelt site is in the middle of a Hope VI, HUD revitalization project and a new Historic redistricting area, which are making the property rapidly increase in value. The desire of community leaders is to bring jobs to the area, entry-level manufacturing and construction jobs for the under-employed rather than high tech or clerical. The goal is reduce redevelopment costs by using existing infrastructure and equipment: to revitalize, reuse and reduce overall impacts. The site boasts:

•rail spur and switch, and quick access to the Durham Freeway;
•storage tanks with containment barriers;
•lots of paved and open land 7 acres grandfathered and over 300 parking spaces;
•sewer, water, electrical, natural gas;
•thousands of square feet of high ceiling warehouse and out buildings;
•loading docks, parking, gated entry;
•existing markets for renewable energy and tenants;
•Zoned I2, residential neighborhood in need of redevelopment;
•Adjacent to downtown, Good Work, Trosa and SEEDS.

To purchase the North Wing and redevelop it as a whole would cost in the range of $40 million, $3 million for the old mill (150Kft2) and $2.5 million for the newer addition (45K ft2) and $35 million for the redevelopment (approximately $30 million was used for the South Wing).  Adjacency to a residential area, Commercial/Office zoning, truck traffic, waste-water discharge and air emissions permitting issues may be obstacles to development.

Biomass Cogeneration

A unique aspect of this project will be its use of a biomass cogeneration boiler to produce steam and electricity from yard waste, or other biomass, like wood chips, to drive the building’s energy needs.  The heat will boil water into steam, which will then drive a turbine to produce electricity.  These hyper efficient and super clean systems are found around the world in dense urban environments, where they can achieve maximum efficiencies.  A pre-processing deck will be needed for this site, with a delivery truck feeding a hopper, and all the process contained indoors.  Steam and electricity from this $5-10 million dollar project can be used for the building as well as adjacent properties, with a impact even on downtown and Hope VI redevelopment communities.  Heating and cooling pipes can be run in a radius of close to a mile to both commercial and residential buildings, ideally new construction but buildings can be retrofitted as well without huge cost.  Importantly, new super efficient steam absorption systems can also be used to help cool buildings in the summer.

The Goldenbelt site already has steam pipes in some of the buildings for winter heat, and electrical needs may be provided by biomass, PV and/or any other sustainable energy systems developed.  Finally, excess electrical may be sold into the NCGreenPower program, which can generate a higher Kw-hr value.  There are a number of variables for biomass production, including optimum size for economies of scale, but there are a number of players who have been looking for an ideal site to implement a Durham project.  Importantly, the facility already has a rail spur and processing area with truck delivery access for potential feedstock, and the boiler room is enormous.  Downsides are NIMBY perceptions of biomass as being dirty.

PhotoVoltaic Roof System

A photovoltaic manufacturer and investment group will pay to install the system, lease roof space, sell energy at a reduced cost to the facility, generating immediate capital for the project.  With over 100,000 ft2 of roof surface and double that with potential parking area, the project has the potential to produce close to 2 Megawatts of energy, a $10 million dollar project. The investment group is willing to pay for a portion of the cost of roof repair, which is needed first.  This project may work well in collaboration with a low cost Green Roof system, using vegetation or high reflectivity modern materials.  A parking roof system with PV panels on it can be made attractive, reduce thermal heating, provide shade and reduce storm water runoff, capturing rainwater in cisterns.  Each of these projects will allow training in three very hot fields in the green economy and will require many years of employment to complete. These energy projects will increase the long-term sustainability and rate of return of the overall redevelopment project, with enormous tax credits to the investors, accelerated depreciation and opportunity to donate the equipment to a non-profit at the end of the payback for additional tax deductions.

Green Jobs Training and Green Business Incubator

Efforts are being made by the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the Black, Brown, Green Alliance (BBGA) to develop a joint Green Jobs Training system using ARRA funding. Long-term sustainability/self-sufficiency of this project requires focus less on green jobs training and more on Green Business Development. The Goldenbelt project is large enough to offer multiple year employment and training in emerging green economy fields, with the end result of space being available as a green business incubator, where multiple businesses can share in overhead and synergies with a lower cost leases partially subsidized by the clean, alternative energy projects. Other projects that can be developed on site at Goldenbelt are a Green Café and Green House using heat from the biomass facility to produce vegetables and herbs year round, recycling water and providing food and training for a restaurant in the complex.

“Workbench” Arts Space

Over a dozen non-profits in Durham are in need of reasonably priced space for offices and operations.  Rapid downtown redevelopment has made much of the real estate too expensive for the nascent arts community.  Many of the organizations outreach to low-income minority children and serve an incredibly important function in the community.  Examples are the Scrap Exchange, YIKES!, etc.

The building redevelopment may not be able to rent the entire space to non-profits or nascent green businesses and currently has several larger businesses/organizations in it, including Duke University and a high-tech. electronics company.  However, the return on loans and investment and revenue produced by the clean energy projects can determine the amount of space available for subsidy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Obama Admin. budget policies make a number of basic, false assumptions, which are reflected in the “Green Jobs Report”: One, that the economy will tank so badly that people will forget the need to transition to a “green economy,” shifting into a survival mode mentality (this is reflected in how low “environment” ranks in polls of Americans and the back lots full of unsold Priuses). Two, that big “T”echnology of renewables will dominate, when in fact, smaller technology reflected in simple weatherization projects, and small scale, sustainable ag. and distributed energy systems provide large “bangs for the buck.” And three, that the whole plan reeks of the failure to recognize the “elephant in the room,” over our hyper consumption under rising populations and rapidly destabilizing natural systems. Simply switching our consumption to green products fails to address the throughput issue. Lifestyle must be addressed, and indeed may be central, which begs the question of inherent traditional American “freedoms” as well as inequities.

Axiomatic of the problem of the Green Jobs Report is the definition of “green jobs.” UNEP’s definition is revealing: jobs that “contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality,” that “help to protect and restore,” “reduce” and” minimize” or “avoid” “consumption” of energy or “generation of pollution,” and that create positions that are just and fair. But notice these verbs, “restore” and “preserve” are not “conserve” or “sustain,” which implies setting aside and putting back into the system, regenerating that which has been deteriorated. Add in “fairness,” “diversity” and “equity” and that’s a tall order, given the massive market externalities, misperceptions of ecological systems and level of human induced degradation! There is absolutely nothing fair about free market, neo-liberal capitalism, which begs the question, “what kind of socio-economic system are we talking about?”

“Incubating quality green jobs” requires a strong public mandate, leadership, coordination and setting up the right incentives, identifying existing barriers, actors, “financing interventions” and the involvement of community groups and unions. This is a tall order requiring vision, leadership and unity of purpose of our elected officials. Establishing within each community Sustainability Advisory Boards and a Council or cabinet level Director of Sustainability “ensures that mandates become an organizing principle.” According to The Report, Green jobs policy should be “to leverage the unique capabilities and resources of the private sector to maximize the creation of green jobs,” removing impediments to private investment. Erratic treatment of the production tax credits has been identified as causing problems with “flagging investment.” Tax credits may provide better incentives if more of the credit can be converted to an upfront grant.

“Green jobs generate 2.7 times as many jobs as fossil fuel spending.” An illusion reflected in the document quote “by making wind power competitive with fossil fuel,” shows such a misalignment of priorities. We don’t want wind power or alternative energy to become “cheap as fossil fuel,” but want fossil fuel to reflect its true market, social and environmental costs. Cheap energy should not be the goal of our nation’s energy policy, as the results are inefficiency, suburban sprawl, increased pollution, etc. Yes, improved technology and competition will drive alternative energy costs down, but will take time. Replication, scalability and financing are needed. Some national “green market priority board” may help in ramping up technologies (i.e. thin film PV). Because of monopolies, corruption and market failures, waiting for not so “free” markets may keep good technology from achieving rapid implementation. Higher prices for these technologies will drive investment and innovation.

In ARRA, there is $500 million for research and job training projects that prepare workers for careers in “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy.” What is blatantly missing is the need for the promotion of sustainable agriculture and local produce development. This has such massive multipliers and economic and security value, I am surprised it was left out. Energy efficiency will likely absorb a fair number of entry-level trade and blue collar workers, but this presumes that folks can afford the upgrades to their homes and businesses. Renewables are closely tied to fossil fuel prices and right now there is little incentive to invest and zero capital for required financing.

The Green Jobs Report also presumes an easy transition to high tech, well paying jobs. But initially, most jobs will be entry or low level jobs. For instance, recycling that does not “value-add” is a commodity business. We send our waste to China to be remanufactured into higher value goods, which we then buy back. The carbon footprint is large due to under priced energy and suppression of the Yuan, thus making labor and material costs cheap. That we can create a larger middle class from green jobs is hugely optimistic. Our economy is teetering on another depression. Expectations are for “a sizeable wage premium (10-20 percent),” optimistic as contractors for energy efficiency, one of the pillars of the stimulus, are not high tech. positions. According to The Report, “Green jobs typically earn better wages,” but analyses from the workforce shows a lack of diversity, and “that they are more likely to be held by whites…men, and located in suburban and rural areas,” leaving out minorities and inner city residents.

My concern is that our expectations are being set too high based on the paradigm we are trying to supplant. Without the shift in perception and focus on transformative community structures, through incentives and disincentives, we will not achieve the equity and fairness most of us are expecting from the new, green economy.

I like the term “green jobs movement” as it is not just about creating fair and well paying jobs in the Green Economy. That, in fact, it is about building green communities, using the money earned to support other green businesses, and promoting healthful living and broader community development linkages. Some attention must be placed on building “green communities,” not just green jobs, to reinforce systems for these structural adjustments to really take hold and improve our behavior.

The hiring of Van Jones, President of Green for All who promotes “respect” of the environment and a Clean Energy Corps, is a big plus as he is smart and has spent time in the trenches and on the front lines. We need to rotate folks from the field to the classroom and to leadership and back again, building an apprenticeship, “teach the teacher” systems to implement transformational change rapidly and with efficacy. More case studies and their promulgation are needed. The document provides examples from LA where the Apollo Alliance has helped in workforce redevelopment using apprenticeship models. Training costs (free to participants) are paid for by less than 10% of public funds and by unions and contractors, through labor/management partnership agreements. Focus is on young entry-level workers, and on older, more experienced workers needing skill upgrades. Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training (BEST) is a 10 week training program, with a certificate and helps place graduates in local green businesses and provides follow up support for three years. Solar Richmond, introduces basic construction training with an extra 2 week solar skills module. Mile High Youth Corps focuses on young adults 16-24 to teach job and life skills, creating crews of 8-10 and is supported by YouthBuild. Work is paid and provides on the jobs training, and is accompanied by Corps-to Career classes for job search and preparedness.

“Investments in efficiency are much less centralized than those in renewable energy.” The Report promotes investments in Green Retrofits, energy efficiency and upgrading home equipment with better than “energy star” (since the downgrading of EPA’s classification by the Bushies) compliance equipment. Paying for it is the challenge. The Weatherization Assistance Program will allow an average investment of up to $6,500 per home in energy efficiency upgrades and will be available for families making up to 200% of the federal poverty level – or about $44,000 a year for a family of four. What is needed are loan circles, using energy savings from these upgrade to help offset costs. The Report suggests using energy bills for repayments, tying the investments to the property (not the property owner), and allowing transfer to new tenants. Milwaukee Energy Efficiency (Me2) solves the financing problem with an innovative program: coordinating funds with banks and contractors (their transaction costs are paid for by?). Fundamentally, changes are needed in building codes nationally, if energy efficiency is to take hold.

It is expected that the $6 billion in loan guarantees will leverage over $75 billion in investment, and will build on guarantees managed by already existing DOE and DOA programs. Establishing a Clean Energy Finance Authority (CEFA) is also an excellent idea. (However, loan guarantees require $25K expenditure upfront, without being guaranteed the loan, not much of a guarantee?) According to The Report, an important thing is “to reduce the complexity and increase the flexibility of CEFA applications.” Focus must be on small businesses, which are responsible for the majority of employment growth. Another local funding mechanism is Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, or zero interest bonds that provide tax credit to holders.

The case study from Washington State shows an important protocol needing replication: first, they identify high demand green industries; second, their potential for creating high quality jobs; third, a Green Industry Skill Panel (GISP) is convened; and finally, a Green Collar Job Training Fund is created and money administered according to the findings of one, two and three. “The fund would distribute competitive grants to organizations. with proven success in implementing workforce training,… targeting adults and youth in families below twice the poverty line, dislocated workers and entry level workers.”

Our community in the Triangle is probably one of the more progressive communities in the nation with regards to “education for sustainable development.”  Focus is on localism, small scale, distributed, appropriate technology, closed loop engineering, synergistic, socio-economic sustainable livelihood interactions. Most activities are outside the traditional academic realm and some of the more advanced work is actually being done by small NGOs, individual activists/educators and smaller institutions.  Central Carolina Community College may have one of the more sophisticated, small “t” sustainable technology programs in the country, focusing on sustainable ag., green building and alternative energy.  Sadly, major institutions are behind in developing curriculum and training systems that reflect real “sustainability” (however that may be defined), and are having a hard time moving past old paradigms focused on science, technology and hyper intellectualizing.  Fundamentally, market externalities, human psychology and a lack of moral and spiritual connection are conspiring to keep real, practical “sustainable” (shall we dare say, “rejuvenating”) educational systems from evolving rapidly.  Though we are still having a hard time with the words that will shape our future, the Fair Trade movement along with traditional EE educators have been in the trenches and have been miracle workers in shifting perception, and slowly we are starting to see this new paradigm spreading into our cultural fabric.

One of my Old Testament professors cautioned me, “don’t let your schooling get in the way of your education.”

Good Luck,

Marc Dreyfors (MEM ‘90)
Manager,
www.GreenwayRides.com
Manager,
www.CarolinaBiofuels.com
President,
www.TheForestFoundation.org
Manager,
www.ForestsoftheWorld.com
Board Member,
Env. Educators of NC (2005-07)
Alumni Council,
Nicholas School at Duke University (2005-10)
1505 Angier Ave.
Durham, NC  27701
(919)957.1500

Shelby Gull Laird wrote:

From: Noah Feinstein nfeinstein@wisc.edu
================================================
I'm working on an international collaborative project about Education
for Sustainable Development, and my somewhat imposing task is to
summarize the state of ESD in the USA.

It's an exciting project (details below), but because I work mostly in
science education, I have a lot of catching up to do. I know that much
of the most important ESD work happens at the state and regional
level, and would really the report to reflect this. It is important to
me that the final report goes beyond sweeping statistics and captures
some of the depth and diversity of local efforts.
I would be very grateful if you could help orient me to ESD projects
and initiatives in your respective states. Almost any information is
useful, but I'm particularly interested in: success stories and local
challenges, influential state-level legislation or policy documents,
and any trends that you've observed or measured in your work.
Qualitative or quantitative, formal or anecdotal, references,
contacts, weblinks - you name it, I would love to get it. I will not
cite you if you would prefer not to be cited, and off-the-record
comments are welcome too, as they will help me get a sense of the territory.

Thanks so much for your help! Please call or email if you have any
questions or would like to know more about the project.

Sincerely,

Noah Feinstein
Assistant Professor,
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Department of Agronomy
University of Wisconsin-Madison
nfeinstein@wisc.edu
(608) 262-6288

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I've been asked to represent UW-Madison in the International Alliance
of Leading Educational Institutions, a group that includes member
institutions in Brazil, China, Singapore, Denmark, the UK, Canada etc.
 Each year, IALEI produces a report on an education-related topic of
broad international interest. This year, we are working on "education
for sustainable development," a topic chosen by the Danish team. The
report is intended to highlight international similarities and
differences, synthesize relevant research, and draw attention to best
practices or generalizable findings. Each representative has been
asked to prepare a report that addresses the five issues: (1) the
overall conception of ESD and its place in national education plans;
(2) The role of education in relation to the challenges of sustainable
development and climate change respectively; (3) the relationship
between ESD and climate change education; (4) the presence of ESD in
the curriculum, in relation to traditional disciplines and otherwise;
(5) the realities of ESD in classroom context, especially the possible
role of ESD in promoting pedagogical innovation. Whew! As you will
have noticed, there is an emphasis on K-12 (formal) education. We're
allowed to go beyond that focus, as long as we don't ignore it.
================================================

Green Events

Grow TFF’s service of Green Event Planning through development and implementation of a marketing plan. Help Greenway Transit expand it’s green transportation service to area businesses, universities and organization’s. Develop marketing, advertising materials and workshop schedule. Arrange meetings, and collect and maintain a resource list. A small stipend is available as well as commission based on experience and background, may develop into part-time paid position. Duration of 3-6 months.

Fair Trade

TFF and Forests of the World need support to organize its fair trade crafts inventory, working in the warehouse and dividing sample sets from regular inventory. Additional help is needed in sales of handcrafts, through sales calls and retail and wholesale show presence. Some bookkeeping assistance and producer communication is needed. Sales commissions are available. Duration of 3 months.

Greenway Transit

Help TFF develop and implement of a franchise marketing and expansion plan for a green transportation service, looking at expansion to other markets. Research franchise system and collect and produce franchise legal documents. Rewrite business plan. Assist in development of a franchise training program manual. A small stipend and sales commissions are available, and may develop into full-time paid position. Duration of 3-6 months.

Carolina Biodiesel

Help TFF develop and implement Triangle wide marketing plan for “Community Supported Energy.” Gain and gather restaurant service contracts for waste veggie oil donation and collection. Develop brand graphic and marketing materials and implement marketing plan. Work on end of year donation letters and accounting. A small stipend and sales commissions are available. Duration of 3-6 months.

Triangle Green Fund- A Community Carbon Catalog

Help TFF create business plan for a Triangle wide, community based voluntary carbon mitigation fund for grants and loans. Assist in identification of partners and develop partnership agreements. Develop marketing materials and link with Community Supported Energy project. Identify and gather an Advisory Board. Identify funding and lending institutions. This could develop into a full-time position. A small stipend is available. Duration of 6-12 months.

Green Jobs Training

Help TFF develop and implement a community-wide, Green Jobs training system for low-income, at-risk youth and young adults. Create certificate program and curriculum, working with Durham Tech. and other educational service organizations. Develop “Train the Trainers” program, identifying resources and partner organizations. Create partnership agreements and develop training workshop schedule for after school, weekends and summer. Create self-sufficiency income generation components. This could develop into a full-time position. A small stipend available. Duration of 6-12 months.

A unique feature of The Fund is that it has the ability to create profound environmental protection through its voluntary carbon mitigation system. The Fund would establish a way for organizations and individuals to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offsets from local sources. The Fund will then loan green businesses that provide products and services in a variety of sectors, including but not limited to: transportation, renewable energy, water conservation, energy efficiency, green space and green workforce development. This Fund will effectively internalize external costs of pollution, while instilling a sense of community, keeping money local (maximizing the economic multiplier effect), while financing the local, emerging green economy. Funding may also come from Federal and State grants to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency investments, inabling low interest loan systems working with local governments and lending institutions.

The jobs will be created in the first year, with the expectation to maintain low overhead using existing infrastructure of partner organizations, maximizing the amount of funds redirected into the community. The multiplier effect for The Fund in employment in both direct and indirect job creation may average approximately 5 direct jobs and 20 indirect jobs per $100,000 invested/donated. With each local governmental entity in the Triangle signing on to carbon reduction, the existence of The Fund will greatly help in facilitating real and measurable goals and may become a significant player in growing the green economy.

Importantly, this model can be emulated across the State as a national system of carbon trading or pollution tax may be years from taking effect and will be national in scope, focusing resources away from our State. Environmental affects can be calculated for each of the investment sectors and using academic resources in the area, many indicators can be developed and used to track and evaluate the effectiveness of The Fund. The plan is to market to Triangle organizations with existing commitments for carbon mitigation, who are currently purchasing carbon offsets using products outside of the Triangle or the State and wish reduce their environmental and social impacts by investing locally. Self-sufficiency will be achieved through an administrative fee and interest on loans to cover Fund management. Additional funding may come from individuals and foundations wanting to provide capital for sustainable community development. This project will be a collaboration with  Good Work, The Forest Foundation and other local organizations with expertise in these fields.

The Fund will budget approximately $150K per year for 3 staff members, housed within existing non-profit organizations, with a goal of achieving a $2 million endowment (or annual, mitigation/donation flow rate) to cover its basic overhead. Roughly 90% of the funds will be available for reinvestment and grants, leveraging capital at an estimated 5 times the expected donation income. The hope is to double The Fund size within 3 years to $4 million in capital annually, increase staff and to leverage local financial institutions to take responsibility and leadership for carbon mitigation, pollution reduction and sustainable community development. Staff will provide technical assistance in reviewing mitigation equivalents as well as applications, and others will be involved in marketing and liaison as well as training and assisting financial partners. Some part-time staff borrowing from partner institutions may be required to help during certain times of the year as applications are received and selections for funding made. The Advisory Board will be responsible for final selection of grant recipients.

Triangle Green Investors Club

Another option is to establish an “investors club,” which have shown remarkable success in communities across the nation (See www.usinvestorclubs.org).  Michael Shuman, the Author of The Smallmart Revolution,  has been promoting these types of systems across the US.  Working with organizations like Plenty, and the newly forming Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) groups here in the Triangle, small to medium size business could be identified, resources found to help in business management, and business plans developed for review.  Loans and investments could be made to these organizations showing growth potential, solid management and good business plans.  The Club can work with The TGF and CSE Projects, creating and providing several tiers of capital needs and promoting more sustainable, local community development.

The Foundation also seeks to value the wisdom of women, indigenous communities, who have lived closer and longer in unity with nature, as well as the basic labor and culture reflected in hand made items and fairly traded goods. Because of cheap energy provided by fossil fuels, much of our economy and its transactions are improperly valued. In addition, market externalities are keeping our most important things needed for human community from being properly valued and traded. Technology has a role to play, but ultimately it will be a process of becoming more knowledgeable and aware of how our natural systems work and our place within them, that will allow us to survive.

Using the “triple bottom line” as an introduction and simplified model may help, but it creates and false impression that if we optimize our social and economic values with environmental values we will find the best solution. This inherently over weights our human economy at the expense of the natural world.