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

We watched Charlie Rose last night, and it was everything we could do not to commit hari kari.  On the show were Drs. James Hansen, Jeff Sachs, Elaine Claussen Pew President and a reporter from The Post.

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6424

Sachs was thoroughly morose and laid most of the blame on the US and Obama’s failure to lead over the last year on this issue. Hansen was still hopeful that EPA, using the Clean Air Act (CAA), could force FF reductions, increased CAFE, etc.   Claussen was holding out for Cap and Trade, which has a very slim chance of passing the Senate and was arrogantly confident that her Washington power world would deliver something.  Hansen was adamant that we need to look beyond the cap and trade Bill to Carbon Tax and Dividend, and believed it could be brought to a national debate, as many are becoming jaded with the allowing polluters to pollute, watered down and politically manipulated  bill.  He gracefully beat back Claussen’s defense of mitigation– a key component of cap and trade, which fails to understand the basic scientific fact that we are altering the geophysical carbon balance by releasing from under the the Earth’s surface enormous amounts of carbon that any mitigation will affect, brilliant!

All blamed the Senate for stalling on this issue, and pointed out that the US had signed the Convention on Climate Change in 1994 and in 19 years has done nothing, even though that treaty has bound us to cuts and requirements to give to developing nations.  Obama has also been a major failure in framing this debate as it seems his staff can not command the language or high ground on this issue, captured by the old paradigm that the markets should be “free” to destroy our planet.

What we all must take away from Copenhagen, is don’t expect leadership to lead.  We are going to have to do this ourselves and look to local solutions.  Key:

1) up our political activism to pressure Washington and our States to use CAA to regulate;

2) work towards bi-lateral deals with China and India to set meaningful reductions, help in technology transfer, Millennium development goals and adaptation;

3) find local policy, funding and capital systems to promote our new green economy bottom up.

Without  solid playing field changes to stabilize carbon prices, don’t expect the engine of the free markets to contribute anything.

Watch as the news from around the world spirals downward as climate disruption rears its head, and pray for forgiveness that we did not do more and let a small group of greedy, conservative, status quo,  ideologues keep us from acting in time to avert the unfolding, human induced disasters .

This is exciting to see so many of you and to hear such good ideas.  We have everything we need to solve these problems and there is great evidence of leadership in this room by the turnout.

My name in Marc Dreyfors and wear a number of hats, am President of The Forest Foundation, and Manager of several green businesses, Carolina Biodiesel, Greenway Transit and built a biodiesel plant over in east Durham in an old petroleum site.  We have employed over 40 at risk youth part-time, training them in green jobs, and feel this has been our contribution to the community.  However, I feel we absolutely most change the language of what we are trying to achieve, not promoting jobs for young people but creating incentives for them to stay in school, and get an education that will help them succeed in their careers and become better citizens in our community.  Right now attitude is everything, and I see the effect of placing pressure on kids to make money often by parents spoils a sense of wonder, creativity and fun that young people need to have, because life often has the effect of dimming such expressions of youth.

A lot of the ideas I will be presenting are on our website:

www.TheForestFoundation.org

I want to recognize the work of OWED in getting the EPA grant for Brownfields Assessments in NE Central Durham.  Our site is in the Angier Pettigrew corridor and funding has helped in moving these properties towards redevelopment.  The EPA grant also funded Durham Tech.s training program and the use of our site as an incubator and  place for hands-on training. This is an enormously successful program and a national model.  Expanding this program to include other green jobs is what is needed.

I want to step back a moment and put things in perspective and address this issue of language.  What can government do for us?  This is the core of what we are asking here tonight.  I would say that government can’t do a lot, the Federal government is bankrupt, the City is cutting left and right, and the future looks bleak as we have vilified taxes.  Times are tough and likely to get tougher as we have seen with the financial meltdown.  The banks aren’t lending, so we must get a reality check on our expectations of what government can do.  Don’t expect government funding to be consistent, nor  should we be asking the government to subsidize business.  This means we have to become more self-sufficient as a community, find systems of keeping money in our community.

We also need to be speaking a common language.  The Obama Administration ruled this week that Carbon is an air pollutant, affecting human health and can be regulated without Congress’ approval.  This is a game changer, along with what is being decided on in Copenhagen, it is guaranteed that energy will be more expensive.  This is regressive, impacting low income, minority communities, as they spend a higher percentage of their income on energy.  Thus, we need to be activists to make sure that policies are developed to offset this.  We absolutely need more expensive energy.  Why? Because of market externalities.  The cost of burning fossil fuels is not included in the price of our stuff, thus we over consume energy intensive goods and services that are destroying our environment.  This does not bode well for our near future and our children.  We absolutely have to change the way our society values things. Additionally, higher prices for energy will drive innovation to develop new sustainable and renewable technologies that will employ millions as they are ramped up.  This is critical to our country and communities future.

These ideas of building local economies primarily come from Michael Shuman, who spoke at Duke and was just down at Star, NC at a textile plant revitalization opening, and who wrote the Smallmart Revolution and has promoted local business alliances called BALLE groups.  He decrees the failed policies of local government to assist luring big businesses at the expense of local, small businesses.  This must change. We need to keep our money in our communities increasing the times those dollars exchange hands, or “multiplys.”  Increasing multipliers should be at the heart of our policies.

Finally, what we need to be talking about is not Green jobs, but green business as this is the place where jabs are created.  Supporting small local businesses should be the order, not necessarily training.  Most of the green jobs will absorb already existing trades and skills. However, we need all jobs to be green, in other words, we need everyone to be environmentally literate and live more sustainable livelihoods.  In doing so, we will save money, live healthier lives, create better communities and save the planet!

What are the Future Jobs and what do we need to see them?

1) Energy efficiency and weatherization

We need better policies that incentivize property owners to upgrade, including financing mechanisms, training in energy audits and installations

2)  Local distributed energy production, such as PV, wind, geothermal and biofuels/biomass

We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and tax them using the funds to capitalize these types of projects.  The multipliers are enormous, reducing flight of capital out of our communities.

3)  Green Transportation

This is an enormous job creator and during a recent Fleet Managers meeting here in Durham, green was the hot topic- use of alternative fuels and new hybrid and alt. fuel vehicles.  We need trained managers and mechanics.

4)  Resource Management

Our communities need better management of our natural resources, that means changing codes and laws, properly valuing these resources and giving more resources to those who manage them.

5)  Local foods and value adding

This is an enormous national and local success story.  Buoyed by problems and concerns of pesticides, Frankenfoods, carbon footprint, self-sufficiency, etc., local farmers markets and organic farms have taken off.  We need to be growing our own food, eating more healthy and value adding this food locally.  Small grants and lending programs, community kitchens and training will maximize this “bang for buck.”

What is our biggest struggle?

1)     Capital, we need a local lending system and have been promoting a voluntary lending system to mitigate our environmental footprint. This money could be used to lower interest rates and leverage traditional lending institutions.

2)     Stabilization of energy prices, everything is tied to energy and its hard for a small business to write a business plan will any credibility when prices fluctuate so dramatically.  This can be done by creating a floor for energy prices and local taxes of vehicles and businesses with high fuel consumption, rewarding/incentivising efficiency.  This is what they have done in California.

3)     Durham needs visioning forums like this one regularly, we need better communication between organizations, liaison and collaboration.

4)      We need local policies and taxes that improve multipliers, and support local small businesses, not big corporations

5)     Grant writing, we need help in writing grants ourselves and so does the many government offices.  Lots of funds are available to transform our society and communities, but we can’t keep up with deadlines or the extensive RFPs

6)     Changes in State legislation that will allow communities and cities to innovate

Finally, we need leadership, less politics and turf battles and more collaboration between both public and private sectors and between each other.  The time is now and this is nothing less than a revolution!  We have what it takes here in this room, off the shelf technology with some old-fashioned “lets solve this problem together” know how.

Thank you

As Dr. Healy pointed out at Mayor Bell’s visioning for the Obama Administration’s jobs creation Forum, “Green infrastructure, like bike paths and green space that the Enor River ASsociation promotes, may be an excellent way to promote local, small business and youth employment.” (Dec. 9, 2009)

Green infrastructure is different than green technologies. Green infrastructure is an umbrella for cropland, parks, trails, local and state parks, rangeland, rails-to-trails, private and public forests and water amenities like wetlands, rivers, lakes, streams and related activities like fishing, hiking, canoeing, marinas, etc.  Durham has a bigger challenge than most because it is a good size city located in a very small county in terms of land area. So planning to create accommodate residential, office, commercial uses as well as green infrastructure is more complex here. But one thing in Durham’s favor is that more than a third of the land area is already set aside in watershed including rivers, lakes, cropland, etc.

People in economic development need to take note that places with great green technology are associated with seven to eight times more job growth in metro areas and water amenities translate into 13 to14 times more jobs. Hopefully people in visitor centric economic development already sensed that. Another thing the report makes clear to economic developers who often bemoan taxes is that lower taxes may mean more population but not job creation or income growth. It also indicates that the old strategy of tax-based job attraction may only attract population but not employment or income.  (From Dec. 2009, Durham Convention and Visitors Board)

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

Counter to the rhetoric of the authors, there are many within the environmental community that have seen the hubris in “saving the planet” without offering a tangible vision of sustainable development. Creating policies, demonstrative case studies and working from the grass roots “to build the Earth” has been a core tenet of many environmentalists, particularly those who have worked on integrated conservation and development (ICDP) overseas. In this country, we still face the either or mentality nature versus man, or the new oversimplification yet incrementally more palatable approach of Triple Bottom Line, where we optimize for Social, Economic and Environmental variables to achieve sustainability. However, this also over weights human activity at the expense of nature as well as creates a a false “pigeon-holing” of environment as a category rather than understanding the nature of our cosmology, which is that nature (and its laws of physics and ecology) are the bottom line and we are a component of it, or one within it.

There is much to show in environmental improvements globally, but they sadly pail in the juggernaut of hyper-consumption and global capitalism fueled by materialist pursuits in a postmaterial era. This spiritual disconnect of the environmental movement about which the authors rail is also debunked by the work of authors, like Thomas Berry, Aldo Leopold, Wendell Berry and others. The authors fail to pick up on T. Berry’s cosmology and use it as the basis for gaining passionate followers to the transformative, evolving “Universe Story.” Indeed the authors identify the need for a new story of hope and possibility, amidst the dire predictions of the future, to unleash the potential of human creativity. But their brief review of Berry’s work was shallow and focused on his book, Dream of the Earth, a early work of Berry’s that first articulated the ecumenical need for many voices and a new story.

The authors believe we should not be constrained or have limits, or at least not promote them in a transformative platform. They pit fall into promoting economic “growth,” when they really mean transformation (i.e. Herman Daly’s Steady State economic theory). To offer such as an “either/or” shows their own illogical argument. Developing countries will need to grow themselves out of poverty, however to do so at the expense of the environment will be not only self-destructive, but impossible. Their development will be a different kind of growth than what we in the West have experienced, and must leap frog industrialization, but to do so they must be offered the fruits of green technology transfer as quickly as possible. The author’s diatribe against the environmental community is weakened by their illogical non-secutors.

Overall this is a seminal work and parts should be required reading because of the authors brilliant job in assessing political will and cultural history and trends, defining well the power that is be hind the fundamentalist movement and juxtaposing it with the environmentalism. It is uncertain that the door they open in cultural relativism and reconciliation may not simply justify the Right’s continued irresponsibility. The authors spend a great deal of time discussing political philosophy, most of which are outdated modes of thinking and rampant with misperceptions of the fundamental systems that guide us. Determinism is strongly defended by the principles ecology and economy, and it is highly questionable how much freedom we have to change human behavior, and that “truths change as society does.”

The authors are major promoters of the Apollo Project and adaptation to a growing inhospitable planet that is now required because of decades of political inaction and capture by status quo and corporate interests. The authors explain away and find no blame in the economic injustices that have resulted from decades of greed and manipulation by powerful elite. Should not these people be held accountable given the evidence for “crimes against humanity?” Yet they point a hard finger at the environmental community as being as culpable as the conservative right from achieving political change on the issue of global warming.

They are right on that the message of “fire and brimstone” and the “sky is falling” have not been hopeful, too monkish and scientific, and unlikely to gain donors and transform fence sitters into fomented activists for lifestyle changes. This is ironic in that Christian fundamentalists and political Right have used red meat, Biblical literalism and oversimplifications to raise a political maelstrom of activism, as it appeals to their under educated and conservative demographics. Materialism and quest for power has been the drive of human progress and should be tapped, the authors state. But is there not a middle way, a way that can tap our primal need for competition, material gratification and power without destroying each other and the planet? Or is there a new, progressive socialism based on a cosmology of shared communion of a common origin and a creative, self-fulfilling future? This debate is core to what it means to be human on this planet.

They are right that the world is constantly changing, and that we are one with nature and product of it. Their argument is an important one, but the attack of the environmental community is alienating, as it is full of fallacious arguments. And is questionable whether they could have made their point without such libelous accusations against some of our planet’s most profoundly visionary and important activists and change leaders.

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.”