Commercial Shipping Returning to the Eerie Canal

Commercial shipping is making a comeback in the Eerie Canal after decades of decline. Soaring gas prices have caused some companies to rethink sending goods via truck, turning instead to barges – and they’re not alone. More companies are beginning to look into it. So far this season, there have been 42 shipments up the canal – up from 15 last year. 42 shipments is still far from the numbers seen during the Eerie Canal’s heyday, when 33,241 shipments passed through the lock at Frankfurt, 54 miles east of Syracuse.

From The New York Times:

The canal still remains the most fuel-efficient way to ship goods between the East Coast and the upper Midwest. One gallon of diesel pulls one ton of cargo 59 miles by truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles by canal barge, Ms. Mantello said. A single barge can carry 3,000 tons, enough to replace 100 trucks.

As the price of diesel climbed over $4 a gallon this summer — the national average is now about $3.31 a gallon — more shippers rediscovered the Erie Canal. On one trip in mid-October, the Margot motored down the canal at about seven knots, pushing a barge loaded with a giant green crane. The machine was being transported from Huger, S.C., to the Pinney Dock, operated by the Kinder Morgan Company in Ashtabula, Ohio.

“It really just came down to economics,” said Lee Demers, the dock’s manager. The other option was to move the crane through the St. Lawrence Seaway, adding more than 1,000 miles and greater fuel costs to the trip.

Wow, who knew barges were so green? If a single barge can replace 100 trucks, that’s really getting somewhere.  Of course, the environmental impacts of a huge increase of barges in the canal would have to be considered, but it’d still be a hell of a lot better than having all those trucks on the road. Interesting, how we’re returning to simpler ways of doing things in so many cases.

Link [The New York Times]

World Energy Outlook ‘Patently Unsustainable’

Grim news from the International Energy Agency this week. The organization’s annual World Energy Outlook reports that the earth simply can’t sustain current trends in energy supply and consumption, and that we’ve got to cut back, stat – but it won’t be easy.

Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA’s Executive Director, says rising imports of oil and gas from the increasingly concentrated production in a small number of countries puts us at even bigger risk of major disruptions. At the same time, our greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, putting the world on track for a global temperature increase of up to 6 degrees Celsius.

From The Daily Green:

If government policies don’t change, the world will spend $1 trillion on energy — much of it fossil fuels — and demand will grow 45% by 2030, a slightly slower rate of growth than was predicted last year because of the economic crisis. China and India would account for half the growth in world energy demand, and world cities would account for three-quarters of total demand.

Demand for oil would rise nearly 25% and will remain the world’s “main source of energy” for years to come, even under the most “optimistic” alternative scenarios. But it could come at an increasing cost, as supplies dwindle, oil supplies are nationalized, sources shift to non-traditional forms like oil shale, oil sands and deep-sea deposits, and political instability disrupts supply. “The era of cheap oil is over,” Tanaka said.

Renewable energy, even under current government policies, will become the second-biggest source of electricity sometime in the next few years.

Carbon dioxide emissions will increase 45% by 2030, if current trends continue unabated. Three-quarters of the increase will come from China, India and the Middle East. Reducing emissions to prevent a 3-degree (C) rise in temperature would take a $4.1 trillion investment ($17 per person per year) by 2030 primarily in energy efficiency so that vehicles, homes and appliances demand less energy. That investment would deliver fuel-cost savings of $7 trillion or more. But to prevent a 2-degree temperature increase, the cost would rise to $9.3 trillion, as the world invested heavily in non-polluting forms of energy, and the fuel-cost savings drops to just $5.8 trillion.

Scary. I don’t know about you, but things like this make me even more grateful that we’ve at least got President Elect Obama about to take charge, instead of another Republican who’d continue the status quo. This is no time to let oil industry buddies influence how we move forward on such a pressing problem.

Link [The Daily Green]

Who Will Obama Choose for Important Environmental Cabinet Posts?

During these 8 long years of George W. Bush’s presidency, we’ve had little trust in the Environmental Protection Agency to do their job. Since Bush has aggressively pushed his business-first agenda and put undue influence on the EPA in their decision-making process, the agency has become little more than a front, allowing Bush and Co. to trample all over human and environmental health so corporations can pad their bank accounts even more.

In these last few months before he’s forced to vacate the White House, Bush is on the warpath along with his puppet-like EPA chief Stephen Johnson to push through as many business-friendly measures as possible. He has eased pollution restrictions on factory farms, making it easier for factory farm operations to contaminate drinking water supplies with huge amounts of waste. He has rushed to ease endangered species laws so that building projects can go forward despite encroaching upon the habitats of threatened animals.  And, quietly, amidst the excitement and chaos of the election, Bush is doing all he can to allow power plants to operate near national parks and wilderness areas.

In an Obama administration, things will undoubtedly change – in a monumental way. No longer will we shake our heads in anger and frustration over yet another EPA decision that allows businesses to get away with polluting the earth, destroying ecosystems and threatening species. Anyone Obama chooses will automatically be more effective than Jones, simply because Obama actually cares about the environment. But Obama has an opportunity here to choose a true environmental leader – someone who will take the job of protecting the environment seriously.

One prominent name that’s been bandied about as of late is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said to be Obama’s first choice. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer and has long worked toward cleaning up the water supply in New York City. The outdoorsman’s obvious personal dedication makes him a popular choice among environmentalists, especially given his experience fighting anti-environment legislation in Congress in 1995 and 1996.

Lisa Jackson has also been mentioned as a possibility. Jackson, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, has been tapped to co-chair Obama’s transition group overseeing the EPA. That puts her on the shortlist to be named administrator, according to anonymous sources.  Jackson was recently appointed Chief of Staff to New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, the first African-American to serve in that position in the state.

For Secretary of the Interior, The Huffington Post has speculated that Democratic congressmen Norm Dicks of Washington and George Miller of California could be in the running. The Interior Department is yet another federal agency that has been plagued by appointees that saw industry profits as more important than conservation.

Rep. Miller is a member of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus as well as the House Natural Resources Committee, and has a long history of supporting America’s wildlife and public land systems. Rep. Dicks is also a member of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus and is chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. He recently won the 2008 Ansel Adams Conservation Award from the Wilderness Society, mostly for his efforts to increase budgets for public land systems.

Though some have mentioned Democrat Tony Knowles – the man who lost the governorship of Alaska to Sarah Palin – as a possibility, his support for drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge makes him less than palatable.

Grist has additional possibilities for both EPA Administrator and Secretary of the Interior as well as top names for Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture and possible new position ‘Climate Change Czar’. To get the names on their list, Grist spoke to campaign advisors, academics, nonprofit conservation advocates, lobbyists and others who might have the low-down.

Though Obama has been far quicker to begin the process of choosing his staff than previous presidents, don’t expect a definite appointment too soon. Officials are uncertain when Obama will be making a selection.

Whether it’s tomorrow or next month, what a relief it is to know that the environment will once again be in capable, empathetic hands.

Link [The Huffington Post] + [Politico] + [NJ.com] + [Grist]

Eco Geek: Why Gaming is Green

Hank Green of EcoGeek.org is sick of people saying that geeks adversely impact the environment, and he’s telling us why in a series called ‘Why Geeks are Greener’.  Geeks are often accused of being less than environmentally responsible because of ‘power-sucking computers, toxic game consoles, and general disinterest in the outdoors’. But, in the first installment of ‘Why Geeks are Greener’, Hank’s telling us why gaming – a popular geek activity – is greener than you think.

From Eco Geek:

1. Children don’t need boyscouts to care about global warming. I will fully admit to have been affected greatly in my experiences in the outdoors. But saying that caring about the environment is dependent on experiencing nature is like saying that caring about sex is dependent upon talking to girls. Just because you haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean you don’t want to do all you can to protect your chances at having a healthy future with it.

Protecting nature isn’t about loving nature anymore, it’s about liking the idea of life continuing on the planet.

2. Gaming isn’t that power intensive. Depending on what kind of system you have, your console might draw as much power as a CFL, or an incandescent lightbulb. Yes, the Wii is far more efficient than the XBox 360, but even the 360 only pulls a maximum of 150 watts. It’s just not that much power, especially because neither pull much power at all when they’re off. And the act of gaming itself, it turns out, is quite good for the environment.

That’s just a taste - get the rest at EcoGeek.org.

Well said, Mr. Green. Three cheers for geeks!

Link [Eco Geek]
Photo credit: Nerdfighters