New EPA regulations and cleaner snowmobiles

The Environmental Protection Agency, oft maligned by liberals and environmentalists alike for their lax protection of the environment, recently took a step forward this past month by proposing an initiative to cut the emissions of smog and soot produced by diesel engine boats and trains (EPA). The announced program will take hold in 2007 and continue phased in initiatives though 2015 based on the size and model of the engine. All told, the EPA expects to reduce diesel engine particulate pollution from by 90 percent, smog-forming nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, and decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in marine vessels by 99 percent.

However, General Electric, the nation’s largest locomotive producer, wrote the EPA and asked for weaker smog standards because they lacked the technology to meet the new standards. (This is the same company that joined a consortium of scientists and businesses asking for stronger CO2 emission standards.) Despite their objection, a recent study projected the cost of upgrading diesel engines are estimated at $600 million, or an additional 3 percent to the cost of the locomotive and at most 3.6 percent to the price of boats.

On the other hand, the “health benefits are estimated at $12 billion by 2030, including 1,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,100 fewer hospitalizations and 170,000 more work days by people breathing easier.” According to Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “We estimate the emissions benefits will be equivalent to taking three-quarters of a million diesel trucks off the road each year” (MSNBC).

Although this does not affect all pollution emitting engines, a new program is underway to produce a zero-emission snowmobile. Currently, Yellowstone National Park phased out the usage of snowmobiles because of their detrimental affect on the environment (MT Department of Environmental Quality). How bad exactly are snowmobiles for the environment? According to a National Park Service revised 2001 report on Impacts of Snowmobiles in National Parks:

“The two-stroke engines produce amounts of unburned HC and CO similar to that produced by automobiles before the 1970 Clean Air Act. These two-stroke engines still produce significant amounts of fine (PM-2.5) particulate matter emissions due to the method of scavenging, leaving the exhaust and fuel inport ports open at the same time. The best estimates available comparing snowmobile emissions to average automobile emissions conclude that a traditional snowmobile produces ten to 70 times more CO and between 45 and 89 times more unburned HC than an average car. (Peaks to Prairies, for more in depth studies, see Lab Testing of Snowmobile Emissions prepared for the National Park Service).”

This year, four National Science Foundation- supported teams competed at the Society of Automotive Engineers Clean Snowmobile Challenge. The teams, consisting of college and university members of the SAE, were each given $10,000. The teams are not only attempting to reduce emissions, but also reduce their noise level and overall impact on the environment. The winning group will go to Greenland to work directly with the NSF’s research and development of a cleaner snowmobile. (Science Daily)

Third Party Organic Certifiers

Cross-post: Brudaimonia

Bru's Note: This was originally posted as a diary on Daily Kos, as part of the excellent Recipe for America series started by Kossack OrangeClouds115. Recipe for America, along with OrangeClouds's popular Vegetables of Mass Destruction series, seeks to inform citizens about how to transform our food system into a sustainable one. They are some of Daily Kos's most useful and informative diaries, in my opinion, offering advice that can be carried out immediately to make the world a better place in which to live. I also recommend the Recipe for America website, which cross-posts the Daily Kos diaries and has a lot more juicy information.

Nearly 100 third party certifiers do the leg work behind that familiar green seal on the organic food you buy. They are farmers' associations, nonprofits, state departments of agriculture, businesses, and other organizations. They are accredited to certify different steps of the organic food production process.

Each organization is different. Their job qua certifier is to ensure that growers and producers stay chemical fertilizer- and pesticide-free, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about their positions on other food issues: source of food, treatment of workers, and so forth.

Below the fold is an introduction to third party certifiers.

Meat Beets and Potatoes Info

The USDA calls third party organic certifiers Accredited Certifying Agents (ACAs). There are 95 total ACAs: 55 from the US and 40 foreign. Thirty-six different US states have at least one ACA. California alone, not surprisingly, has 13, almost 1/4 of all US ACAs, and they're all in Berkeley...juuuust kidding. The agriculture departments of 14 states (Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington) are ACAs. In two other states, different government entities are certifiers: the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the New Mexico Organic Commodity Commission.

One organization, Integrity Certified International (Nebraska), which became accredited (PDF) April 29, 2002, surrendered its accreditation October 31, 2006. I couldn't find any information on why they did this, but it could just be that they decided to focus on priorities other than running a certification program.

Another organization, American Food Safety Institute International (Wisconsin), had its accreditation revoked, the first revocation in the history of the NOC. AFSII "allowed an organic farm to use banned chemicals and broke several other federal regulations" (Dallas Morning News - PDF). More:

A report from the [National Organic Program] investigation said the company certified a seed farm that was treated with banned chemicals even after another certifier turned the farm down for that reason.

It also allowed a bottled-water company to use the USDA Organic label despite federal rules against designating water as organic.

Whoops! Now what kind of company would do stupid things like that?

American Food Safety is a four-person company overseeing about 30 organic operations in seven states and Mexico, according to USDA records.

It is part of the High Sierra Group, which also owns companies that make specialty chemicals for the food industry. [Ibid]

I'm not going to turn this into an investigative diary on a chemical company, but there are a few odd things about AFSI that I couldn't pass up. It was run out of the founder's car as late as 1999. In 2000, when its headquarters were finally located in something without wheels, AFSI (not to be confused with AFSII, which was separate) gave birth to The High Sierra Chemical Company. (Source: link below)

Now, the group could be a decent organization apart from its organic certification noncompliance -- I'm not going to pull a Seymour Hersh here and write a 10,000-word article on it -- but it certainly violated its own core principles on this one:

Be honest, forthright and candid with each customer. The customer may not always be right - we are straight forward!

OK, my penchant for tangents has manifested itself here. Back to the basic information on international certifiers.

The 40 foreign ACAs come from 19 different countries. (Keep in mind these are only certifiers accredited by the USDA.) Here is the breakdown by country, ordered by most to least ACAs:

Germany - 8
Italy - 6
Argentina - 4
Canada - 4
Australia - 2
Spain - 2
Switzerland - 2
Austria - 1
Bolivia - 1
Brazil - 1
Chile - 1
Costa Rica - 1
Greece - 1
Guatemala - 1
Israel - 1
Mexico - 1
Netherlands - 1
Peru - 1
Turkey - 1

Responsibilities

ACAs are responsible for (PDF):

1) Conducting certification activities according to the regulations.
2) Ensuring certified clients comply with all requirements of the NOP regulations.
3) Ensuring compliance with labeling requirements of products of operations they certify.
4) Approving organic systems plans for each operation they certify prior to onsite inspections.
5) Approving all inputs, ingredients, and other materials used by certified operations prior to their use.
6) Conducting annual onsite inspections of certified operations to verify implementation of an approved organic systems plan.
7) Issuing certification decisions and certificates in compliance with NOP regulations.
8) Issuing notices of noncompliance and suspending or revoking the certification of clients that do not comply with the NOP regulations.
9) Reporting adverse actions against certifiers to the NOP, including notices of noncompliance, proposed suspension, proposed revocation, suspension, revocation, or denial of certification to the AMS Compliance office.
10) Obtaining NOP approval for reinstatement of suspended or revoked operations prior to recertification.
11) Submitting annual updates of application information and annual reports of operations certified to the NOP.
12) Maintaining records as required in the NOP regulations.

Accreditation periods last for five years. Near the end of the period, the ACA must apply for renewal. ACAs must submit annual reports to the National Organic Program and correct any deficiencies found in their certification process. ACAs can become accredited to certify four different types of operations: crops, livestock, wild crop harvest, or handling (e.g. processing).

A Few Good Certifiers

Here are a few examples of popular organic certifiers.

Oregon Tilth

Oregon Tilth is a nonprofit research and education membership organization dedicated to biologically sound and socially equitable agriculture. Tilth's history begins in 1974, as an agricultural organization with a unique urban-rural outlook. Primarily an organization of organic farmers, gardeners and consumers, Tilth offers educational events throughout the state of Oregon, and provides organic certification services to organic growers, processors, and handlers internationally.

By including "socially equitable," Oregon Tilth addresses not only the growing process but also one of the issues discussed in OrangeClouds's recent VMD diary on organic standards. Here's more:

Oregon Tilth advocates sustainable approaches to agricultural production systems and processing, handling and marketing.

Oregon Tilth's purpose is to educate gardeners, farmers, legislators, and the general public about the need to develop and use sustainable growing practices that promote soil health, conserve natural resources, and prevent environmental degradation while producing a clean and healthful food supply for humanity.

[snip]

We provide speakers for groups and organizations interested in the work of Oregon Tilth or in specific topics such as gardening, alternatives to pesticides, composting, and food safety. Oregon Tilth coordinates conferences, produces events locally, and makes presentations at fairs, educational events, and trade shows throughout the region.

Oregon Tilth's organic program (OTCO) also works with retailers and restaurants (who do not need certification to sell organic products as long as they are not also processors, but who must nonetheless follow certain regulations).

Quality Assurance International

With a name that is on the other side of the "earthiness" spectrum from "Tilth," the San Diego-based QAI is one of the largest certifiers in the world. Their client list includes 976 operations! Here you'll find some of the large agribusinesses and their subsidiaries -- ConAgra, Nestle, Odwalla (Coca Cola) -- though needless to say they also certify independently-owned companies like Amy's Kitchen and Nature's Best. Don't think they're too corporate, though: they still wear flip-flops to staff meetings (or at least one guy does). I guess you can do that in San Diego. (You can even train for Antarctic marathons there.)

Bru's Soapbox

Organic certification says nothing about distance the food travels from land to plate, nor how workers on farms are treated, nor size of farm. However, ACAs can choose which operations they certify, and they can establish their own standards for which operations are eligible for their certification. Oregon Tilth, for example, clearly places an emphasis on smaller farms. According to their 2000-04 farms and handling statistics the average US farm certified by OTCO was 211 acres. About 66% of the 412 US farms they certified were located in Oregon, and they had an average acreage of 141. The farm size range with the most OTCO certifications was 10 to 50 acres, which included 121 farms. The third-highest range was under 10 acres (93 farms). Only 46 farms they certified were over 500 acres.

The problem is that large processors who get produce from long supply lines will still be able to find a certifier even if some certifiers emphasize locally sold products and smaller farms. The onus will still be on us, the consumers, to scrutinize labels, if we want to push organic foods up to even higher standards.

More Thoughts on Corn-based Ethanol

To add my thoughts to berg's and mike's recent posts...

It's time to put this matter to rest: There is no sustainable future in corn-based ethanol. Period. Even if all the farmland in the US was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol, it would currently only supply a small amount of our auto fleet's fuel demand. And then we'd have to import all of our food, using some kind of fuel to do so. We would do best to just forget about corn-based ethanol, even if the EROEI (energy received over energy invested) ratio is, in fact, above 1 (and I actually think it is, or could be made such, so don't consider me a devotee of the Pimentel/Padzek study).

The tragedy is that it is politically expedient to push it, given Iowa's role in presidential races. But expedience doesn't set you free. Nor can ethanol proponents hide the fact that, at present, it takes a lot of coal to produce. (See here and here.)

Corn-based ethanol is only a "bullet" in a too literal sense, as in, "We should try to avoid getting hit by one." Cellulosic ethanol, if it ever reaches beyond the experimental stage, could be used sustainably if on a small scale. In other words, don't think it will be the manna from heaven that nourishes or fuel-guzzling auto fleet. If made economically feasible, it could be useful in powering buses, paratransit, and emergency vehicles. But to think that ethanol will allow us to continue motoring well into the future with a smooth transition is the stuff of fantasy reserved for those who believe in a perpetual motion machine.

Global Warming Doesn’t Matter (Part 2 of 2)

Is ethanol the answer?

As for the debate over ethanol, I agree with Brett on most points. Ethanol is no silver bullet. To extend the analogy, it may be more of a rubber bullet. We really haven’t seen conclusive evidence that ethanol will produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the fossil fuels required to create it. All of the hype is coming from corn-producers and the governments (state and federal) that subsidize them.

If we are to use ethanol as a means of alternative energy, it would be best to use the most efficient types of biomass to produce it. This means using sugarcane instead of corn, as ethanol derived from sugarcane is more efficient. Brazil is currently the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, but the U.S. is currently imposing trade restrictions on its sale in the state to bolster domestic production of ethanol. (I hate to source Wikipedia here… but it’s the most comprehensive source I could find right now)

Oddly enough, it is several Senate Democrats including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are urging President Bush to maintain the current trade restrictions in an effort to support corn ethanol producers. Read their letter to President Bush. Democrats including Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Barack Obama (D-IL). It seems that serving their already-heavily-subsidized corn-producing constituents is more important than finding the most efficient fuel source for Americans.

Even with sugarcane ethanol, there’s the issue of the fuel costs to transport it to the U.S.

The solution to decreasing atmospheric pollution, slowing global warming, protecting ourselves from the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or whatever other energy-related problems you may think we have begins with investment in a “diverse portfolio” of renewable energy solutions.

Ethanol isn’t the end-all-be-all of fuel sources. There is no one answer, despite what our politicians might be telling us. In areas where there is lots of sunlight, install solar panels. In areas with lots of wind, install wind turbines. And so forth.

Moving energy only wastes energy. The farther you have to move fuel or the longer your electrical lines are, the less benefit there is.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, global warming is being used by anti-environmentalists and oil company cronies as an easy target. The media is displaying the question as being about whether or not there is global warming. The issue really should be boiled down into two facts: 1) Pollution harms human health and the environment 2) Fossil fuels won’t last forever.

Brett’s completely right that it would be careless to waste taxpayer dollars on research that is unnecessary and unlikely to produce real results. But, energy and sustainability research is absolutely necessary and has already produced results. The longer we wait to combat our energy problems, the tougher they’re going to be. In the end, I’m confident that the time, energy, and resources spent limiting our contribution to air pollution and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels will most not have been wasted.

As Brett noted, only 1% of the U.S. budget is spent on science and technology. I can only assume that major portions of that 1% go to medical and military research. And even the money we’re using for energy development is being spent on the wrong thing. According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, “our economic health depends on the continued availability of reliable and affordable fossil fuels”. They are still pouring money into, “research and development of future fossil energy technologies”.

It’s about time we stop living in the industrial revolution and start working towards a sustainable future.

Global Warming Doesn’t Matter (Part 1 of 2)

In the last few years, it has become a widely acknowledged scientific fact that global warming is a dire and urgent issue facing the human race. However, there are some who still deny its existence or downplay its significance.

To them, I say: global warming doesn’t matter.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that global warming won’t cause the ice caps and glaciers to melt. Let’s assume that the oceans won’t rise to drive millions from their homes and the weather won’t change in unpredictable and dangerous ways.

The main rationale of those who deny global warming is that human action isn’t the cause for global climate change. Even if this were a logical argument, it is impossible to argue that human action has no effect on the environment.

Whether or not it heats up the earth, air pollution is harmful

Regardless of its effect on climate change, air pollution is extremely dangerous to both humans and the environment.

According to CBS News:

“Air pollution threatens the health of human beings and other living things on our planet. While often invisible, pollutants in the air create smog and acid rain, cause cancer or other serious health effects, and diminish the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere…”

Pardon the double negative, but you can’t argue that air pollution is not bad… no matter how much the oil companies pay you.

It’s so easy to ignore or hide facts that, if accepted, would demand a change in the western life of convenience and, to be honest, excess, that we in the U.S. have come to accept and embrace. I understand that it’s tough for any politician to get re-elected by telling voters that they shouldn’t use as much electricity and shouldn’t drive as much. In fact, politicians are trying to promote renewable resources right now as a means of continuing our current lifestyles. They argue that average citizens shouldn’t have to pay more for gasoline and energy. Very few of our representatives make the argument for conservation and efficiency.

Many of those who actually deny global warming due so in an effort to support the unbridled right of humans to consume as much energy and fuel as they please. Most of these so-called experts also happen to be paid by oil companies. One example is Chris Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (more like the "Idiot's Guide) and counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $1.3 from ExxonMobil.

Even if oil companies stand to make billions from the sale of fossil fuels, it is impossible to argue that fossil fuels will last forever.

Fossil fuels, by definition, are non-renewable. We can’t create more fossil fuel, at least not without burying tons of biomass far beneath the earth’s crust and waiting around for hundreds of millions of years.

The undeniable fact is that fossil fuels will run out. And, if we keep gobbling them up like Takeru Kobayashi, we’re going to face a world-wide energy shortage all too soon.

To be continued...