ideas Energy

10 for & Environment

July 2010 | Featured Idea

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
 10 Ideas for Energy and the Environment
July 2010

National Director
Hilary Doe

National Network Coordinator

Tarsi Dunlop

Lead Strategist for Energy & the Environment

David Weinberger

Managing Editor
Gracye Cheng

Editor
Frank Lin

The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network

455 Massachusetts Ave NW
Suite 650
Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 2010 by the Roosevelt Institute. All rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors. They do not ex-
press the views or opinions of the Roosevelt Institute, its officers, or its directors.
 ideas
10 for

Energy
and
The Environment
 Congratulations to
Weston R. Laabs,
author of
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure:
The Campground Solution

Nominee for
Policy of the Year
 Inside the Issue

P
An Efficient Design for Cap and Trade 8
Elizabeth Allan

A Green Tax Refund 10

Cory Connolly

Federal Loans for District Energy: 12

Cogeneration for Communities
Robert Henry Weaver

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: The Campground Solution 14

Weston R. Laabs

Bike-Based Mass Transit System 16

Theresa Gasinski

Living Walls: Indoor Biofilters in College Campus Buildings 18

Dylan Beach

Dry-Cooling Power Plants to Reduce Water Consumption 20

Riley Wyman

Reducting Temperatures and Pollution 22

through Cool-Colored Roads
Michael Tracht

Sequester Carbon Emissions 24

by Subsidizing Organic Agriculture
Jannie Trelogan

Using the Power of the Sun: Push for Fusion Power 26

Samson Yuchi Mai

Roosevelt Review Preview: 29

Desalination - A Comprehensive Evaluation
Grayson Cooper, Emily Zuehlke, Jason Dunn, and Allison Briggs
p Letter from Washington
W e are pleased and proud to present the second edition of the 10 Ideas Series.
Comprised of six journals, these articles represent the best of our student policy work
across the country. Throughout the past year, our national policy strategists have sup-
ported hundreds of students chapters stretching from New England and Michigan to
California and Georgia. As a peer-to-peer network, our student strategy team is unlike
any other - they are both friends and mentors, strategists and promoters. Instead of
waiting for their ideas to be approved in Washington, our Washington team looks to the
field for our most innovative policies - and it is the student network that votes on the
best proposals of the year.

Within this volume, you will find a variety of ideas in motion. Some are new proposals
being spread for the first time; others have already gained traction in their local com-
munity, as our campus chapters work to enact their policies today. Some will rise to
higher prominence in the months ahead, gathering momentum as the idea is adopted
throughout our national network of 8000 members. A few will be adopted by state
legislatures and city councils; some make it all the way to Capitol Hill.

A year ago, one Colorado student published an idea about improving remote access to
health care via unused television waves; the state of California is now working with him
to make that idea a reality. A pair of students in Chicago postulated that their school
could start a revolving loan fund for energy efficient building and development; they
now help administer such a fund at Northwestern.

Whether intensely localized or built for the nation at large, these ideas all have the po-
tential to become realities. We look forward to what comes next for these authors - and
if you can be a part of that change, we hope you’ll join us.

Sincerely,

Tarsi Dunlop
National Network Coordinator
 Strategist’s Note P
N early one year after the House made history by passing the first-ever national cli-
mate bill, American Progressives should conceivably be disillusioned, disheartened by
the unwillingness of their government to follow through on its promise to reform energy
markets and stem greenhouse gas emissions. While the federal government has kept
young green progressives on the edges of their seats as they awaited Senate action on
comprehensive climate change legislation, members of the Center on Energy and the
Environment were hard at work, thinking of pragmatic and actionable solutions to en-
vironmental crises that spanned everywhere from their campuses to the global energy
market.

The policy pieces presented in this edition of 10 Ideas for Energy & the Environment
feature a level of analysis matched only by the most prestigious and well-endowed think
tanks in Washington. Conceived and written by students on college campuses, these
ideas take on national and global emergencies at a grassroots level. These students
have undoubtedly benefited from their proximity to communities; their ideas were not
born in an ivory tower, nor were they arbitrarily designed. From Dylan Beach’s plan to
install biofilters on college campuses, to Elizabeth Allan’s system of upstream emissions
monitoring, these ideas hold great promise. Still, it is important to remember that these
ideas, brilliant as they are, are not ultimate products; instead, they are blueprints for
future action. Consistent with the Campus Network’s Think Impact model for making
change through progressive policy activism, these authors’ ideas are ripe for promotion,
ready to be taken out on the front lines and effectuated.

A common misconception regarding young members of the green progressive move-

ment is that they are idealistic and naive in their pursuit of environmental protection.
After a year of working side by side with the future of the environmental movement, I
can truly attest that members of the Center on Energy and the Environment are any-
thing but passive dreamers. Innovative pragmatists, these students recognize the grav-
ity of environmental exploitation and see opportunities for preventative and mitigatory
action, even while they wait for their government to see the same.

Your friendly neighborhood wonk,

David Weinberger
Lead Strategist, Energy & the Environment
An Efficient Design for Cap-and-Trade
Elizabeth Allan, University of Georgia

A carefully designed cap-and-trade system that includes upstream monitoring of

emissions, offsets for emissions allowances, and an auction for allowance distribution
will effectively and economically reduce the United States’ carbon footprint.

Cap-and-trade represents an effective tool for confronting climate change at the na-
tional level. All cap-and-trade systems share a similar design. The EPA caps the amount
of greenhouse gases that a given entity is allowed to emit. Greenhouse gas emissions
are then divided into subunits – e.g. one ton of carbon – to be distributed to emitters of
greenhouse gases. Once enacted, cap-and-trade legislation makes the emission of car-
bon dioxide illegal without the possession of corresponding allowances. Subsequently,
the EPA will decrease the number of carbon allowances allocated for a given year until
carbon reduction goals are met.

A cap-and-trade system monitoring carbon

Key Facts
• In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel
carries multiple benefits for the United on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded
States including energy independence, that an increase of floods, droughts,
improved air quality and a stable climate. extreme weather and famines are
Cap-and-trade systems have a proven re- likely results of climate change.1
cord of success in reducing various types • The CBO estimates that compliance
of emissions. In the 1990s, cap-and-trade costs could be reduced by 30 % if
effectively reduced sulfur and nitrogen revenues from the auction were re-
distributed into the economy.2
oxides at a price tag below initial EPA esti-
• Upstream monitoring reduces the
mates.4 Similarly, the European Union Emis- EPA’s monitoring burden to only
sion Trading Program successfully reduced 2,000 carbon sources.3
E.U. greenhouse gas emissions below 1990
levels in 2007.5 Finally, the Chicago Climate
Exchange in the United States has achieved voluntary but legally binding commitments
from national corporations to reduce carbon emissions.6 The scope of a national pro-
gram, however requires modifications to previous designs.

Analysis
Upstream monitoring, offsets, and an auction are the critical elements of a cap-and-
trade design that fits America’s economic and environmental needs. An upstream mon-
itoring system requires producers or importers of gas, coal, and oil to hold allowance
for each C02 ton equivalent of gas, coal or oil that they introduce into the economy.
The sheer amount of total emissions points in the country, including individual homes,
automobiles, and small factories, makes monitoring every emission point impossible
with downstream regulation. Upstream regulation only requires an estimated 2,000
sites be monitored.7 This broad scope also better distributes the burden of carbon re-
ductions. By incentivizing more carbon sources to reduce emissions, the same national
reduction will require fewer reductions from each source.

Auctioning allowances provides the best opportunity for lowering the cost of cap-and-
trade to the economy. In this system, the EPA will auction a predetermined number of

8
carbon allowances each year. Because these companies paid for the allowances, they
will raise the price of the fossil fuels that they distribute to compensate for the upfront
costs of allowances. As a result, EPA proceeds from the auction will roughly equal the
total price increase in fossil fuels across the country.

To ease the burden of the cap-and-

trade system, the government can re- Talking Points
distribute this money in the form of • Normal economic arguments against cap-
tax refunds. This money should be and-trade do not apply. This policy chang-
directed to those with little disposable es consumer preferences by raising the
price of energy-intensive products, but it
income, who are most disproportion-
gives money back to consumers to ease
ately affected by increased transporta- the transition.
tion, electricity, and heating costs. • The design of this system eases the price
fluctuations and loopholes that plagued
Finally, offsets allow producers of fossil the European system and creates a flex-
fuels to fund emission reductions in- ible and efficient system suitable to our
ternationally in place of an equivalent country’s ideals and economic situation.
number of allowances. Under this pro-
vision, the restoration or preservation
of forests that reduced C02 emissions by ten tons would give a company ten free al-
lowances. As ocean and forest destruction accounts for much of the excess C02 in the
atmosphere, this provision addresses a critical cause of climate change. Additionally,
this provision eases the direct burden on American households while not sacrificing
global emission reductions.

Next Steps
The United States Congress should pass a cap-and-trade program employing upstream
monitoring, the auctioning of allowances, the distribution of auction revenues back to
the public, and offsets. The EPA should include other measures such as banking of
allowances and measures to reconcile the plan with global trade regulations. Alter-
natively, states or regions could implement this policy, but it will be most effective if
implemented nation-wide.

Endnotes
1. IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulner-
ability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson,
Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.
2. “Issues in the Design of a Cap-and-Trade Program for Carbon Emissions.” Economic and Budget Issue
Brief. Congressional Budget Office. Nov. 25, 2003.
3. Stavins, Robert M. A U.S. Cap-and-Trade System to Address Global Climate Change. PublicationNo.
2007-13. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution. 2007.
4. Burtraw, Dallas, David A. Evans, Alan Krupnick, Karen Palmer, and Russell Toth. “Economics of Pollution
Trading for S02 and NOx.” Annual Review of Environmental Resources. (2005): 253-289.
5. “EU EmissionsTrading Scheme.” EurActiv. Jan. 16, 2009. http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/
eu-emissions-trading-scheme/article-133629
6. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821
7. Stavins, Robert M. A U.S. Cap-and-Trade System to Address Global Climate Change. PublicationNo.
2007-13. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution. 2007.

9
A Green Tax Refund
Cory Connolly, Michigan State University

The responsible spending of tax refunds on energy efficient products would help
reduce energy consumption and save money.

In the current economic recession, an increasing number of people have limited dis-
posable income. This excludes a large segment of society from the environmental
movement and the potential monetary savings from energy efficiency upgrades. En-
ergy efficient products have the opportunity to benefit the environment and save many
households money. Americans spend approximately 2,200 dollars on energy per house
each year.6 A relatively comprehensive energy efficiency makeover can be expensive;
however, energy efficiency investments can be very small. For example, home appli-
ances account for 20% of a household’s energy bills.7 While these upgrades seem rela-
tively cheap, with current economic conditions the initial investment may be too high
for many households. Energy efficiency is often referred to as the proverbial low hang-
ing fruit in establishing the green economy, but it may not be low enough. Additionally,
the willingness to invest in such changes may not be present. Policy can help address
both of these issues.

In 2003, 77 percent of tax payers received a

tax refund and the average tax refund was Key Facts
• In 2008 Energy Star appliances
2,100 dollars.8 The nature of a tax refund makes
and products helped avoid green-
it seem like a windfall and can often result in house gas emissions equivalent
unwise spending because of this perception. A to those from 29 million cars.1
tax refund, spent on energy efficiency, reduces • Energy Star appliances and
energy consumption and lowers energy costs. products helped save $19 billion
on utility bills of households and
Analysis businesses.2
Tax payers can have their refund deposited di- • 17% of US carbon emissions
rectly into their bank account or they can re- come from households.3
• In 2003, 77 percent of tax payers
ceive the check via mail. In order to promote
received a tax refund.4
responsible spending of tax refunds, increased
energy efficiency, and energy savings, a tax
payer should be given an incentive to spend their refund check on energy efficient
products. Energy Star, a program run by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Energy (DoE), would certify the products that would be eligible.
In 2008, Energy Star appliances and products helped avoid greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those from 29 million cars. Simultaneously, households and businesses
saved $19 billion on their utility bills.9 This option would allow a taxpayer to invest a
portion of their tax return to energy efficient products and appliances for their home
or apartment.

Each tax payer, using their tax refund check, would have the choice to purchase energy
conserving products at a reduced rate. A staggered system with matching funds paid
for by the federal government would be established. The system would be divided
based on traditional tax brackets. When purchasing Energy Star products with a tax
refund check the lowest income brackets would have their investments matched by

10
the federal government, making their tax refund go much farther than before. For each
income level higher, the amount of money pledged by the government would decline.
A program like this has the potential to be expensive; however, energy efficiency has
been a major priority in federal spending and it promises to be the most enticing and
effective way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term.

There are numerous existing incentive programs for reducing energy consumption and
increasing efficiency. Targeted specifically at lower income sectors of the economy, this
program should be looked at as an auxiliary to existing programs and should exist along
side other programs. To avoid potential overspending, incentives should not overlap on
purchases; under this program a purchase should not be subject to further tax rebates
or incentives from other federal or state programs.

Next Steps
Coordinating the program between
the EPA, DoE, and various stores
that carry certified energy efficient
products will be critical. Addition-
ally, checks would need to demon-
strate some designation based on
tax bracket in order to ensure that
the highest incentives only apply to
tax payers who could otherwise not
afford energy efficiency upgrades.
Talking Points
• The average US home produces approximate-
ly twice as much carbon dioxide in one year
as the average car and US consumption of en-
ergy is a major tax on the environment.5
• Energy efficient products and retrofits have
the opportunity to benefit the environment
and save many households money.
• The nature of a tax refund makes it seem
like a windfall and can often result in unwise
spending because of this perception.

In the United States 17% of carbon

emissions come from households.10 By drawing on tax refunds emissions reductions
and energy savings can be achieved by using a pool of money that is more likely to be
perceived as expendable. This program would help to ensure that this income is used
responsibly for individuals, businesses, and the environment. It would also be more ag-
gressive than current tax credits for similar projects for lower income households.

Endnotes
1. Energy Star, “About Energy Star,” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index.
2. Energy Star, “About Energy Star,” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index.
3. Understanding Energy Consumption. http://revelle.net/lakeside/lakeside.new/understanding.html.
September 2008.
4. FDIC, “Expecting a Tax Refund? Beware of Costly Loans and Other Pitfalls,” Winter 2004/2005, http://
www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnwin0405/tax.html
5. “Individual Emissions - In the Home | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA.” US
Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 29 Apr. 2010. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
ind_home.html>.
6. Energy Star, “Where Does My Money Go?”, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_pie.
7. Energy Star, “Appliances and Home Electronics,” http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/
index.cfm/mytopic=10020
8. FDIC, “Expecting a Tax Refund? Beware of Costly Loans and Other Pitfalls,” Winter 2004/2005, http://
www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnwin0405/tax.html.
9. Energy Star, “About Energy Star,” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index.
10. Understanding Energy Consumption.http://revelle.net/lakeside/lakeside.new/understanding.html.
September 2008.

11
Federal Loans for District Energy:
Cogeneration for Communities
Robert Henry Weaver, Amherst College

The federal government should create a loan program to facilitate the development
across the United States of district energy systems that combine heat and power
generation to drastically improve efficiency.

In a district energy system that uses cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP),
one or more central plants serve the heating, cooling, and even electricity needs of a
community or institution. The large quantities of waste heat from electricity generation
are used to produce steam or hot water that is then transported through a network
of pipes to individual buildings. Today in the United States, about 9 percent of total
electricity production is from CHP systems. If we increased that figure to 20 percent
by 2030, we would prevent the release into the atmosphere of more than 848 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and create 936,000 jobs in communities across
the nation.2

The United States already has about 2,500

operating district energy schemes, but they
are mostly limited to large institutions and
downtown areas. Communities lack credit;
banks remain reluctant to lend money, es-
pecially for a project that could take up to a
decade to pay for itself. In order to encour-
age the expansion of district energy into
local communities, the federal government
should create a loan fund that offers low-
interest financing for the construction of
district energy CHP systems.
Key Facts
• 70 percent of the energy used in
electric generation in the United
States is wasted as heat released into
the atmosphere.1
• A typical cogeneration plant reverses
the ratio, transforming 75-80 percent
of the fuel’s heat into useful energy.2

Analysis
Denmark provides an excellent example of the technical and economic viability of co-
generation. During the 1990s, the Danish government completely overhauled the coun-
try’s energy system, establishing local energy districts that incorporated CHP. Over the
past thirty years, Denmark’s gross domestic product has doubled while its energy use
has remained stable. Individual projects in the United States have also had encouraging
results. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reduced its emissions by 45 per-
cent with the construction of a 21-megawatt CHP plant,3 and Amherst College reports
500,000 dollars of yearly savings from its new facility.4

Congress has already created some incentives for cogeneration. The Energy Improve-
ment and Extension Act of 2008 added CHP to the list of alternative energy sources
that receive a 10 percent tax credit, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
provided a limited amount of funding for new projects. A loan program could build on
the success of previous efforts to dramatically accelerate the development of district
energy systems in the United States.

12
A pool of money to finance these proj-
ects could be modeled on the Advanced Talking Points
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing • District energy is a community-based
solution that will create jobs and keep
(ATVM) Loan Program, which was creat-
money in local economies.
ed by the Energy Independence and Se- • CHP can lower and stabilize energy
curity Act of 2007 to promote the devel- prices for homes and businesses while
opment and production of new, cleaner reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
automobile technology. The Department
of Energy solicits applications and selects
recipients based on the potential of the technology and the financial viability of the
company. The loan must be repaid within the projected life of the project or 25 years,
with the possibility of deferring payment for up to 5 years and a fairly low interest rate.
Congress originally appropriated 25 billion dollars for the program, and a continuing
resolution in late 2008 has allowed lending to continue.5

Next Steps
The price tag for district energy projects ranges from under a million dollars for very
small systems to 150 million for the most extensive. An appropriation comparable to
that for the ATVM program could finance hundreds of new projects. Many parties must
come together to realize a new district energy system, and the major discussions be-
tween stakeholders—customers, local government, utility companies, and developers—
must take place on a local level. But by extending loans targeted to district energy, the
federal government can ease the credit crunch and realize the potential of a practical,
feasible energy solution.

Endnotes
1. Pierce, Morris. “The Opportunity and Necessity for New District Energy Systems in the Northeast
United States.” Hot|Cool. Danish Board of District Heating. 2008: 2. 6-8.
2. Shipley, Anna, et al. “Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future.”
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. December 2008.
3. “MIT Cogeneration Project.” <http://cogen.mit.edu>.
4. “Amherst College Cogeneration Plant.” <https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/greenamherst/cogen-
eration>.
5. US Dept. of Energy. “Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.” <http://www.atvm-
loan.energy.gov/>.

13
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure:
The Campground Solution
Weston R. Laabs, Michigan State University

By revamping existing RV sites at campgrounds around the Midwest, federal and

state agencies could establish an interim solution to the insufficient number of bat-
tery switch-out or quick charge stations needed to sustain the impending influx of
electric vehicles in the automobile market.

Alternative fuels have already penetrated the U.S. market. With increasing demand for
these cheap and renewable fuel sources, American-based car companies like General
Motors and Ford have already revealed plans for fully-electric or electric with range-
extending gas motor cars available to the average consumer by late 2010 or 2011. With
this impending influx of electric cars and vehicles (EVs), infrastructure will prove to be
the largest obstacle.

With a battery that can take five passen-

Key Facts
• Electric Vehicles will be available to
the public in late 2010 or early 2011.1
• 35% of drivers park their car in do-
mestic garages at night, giving them
access to electricity.2
• There are over 14,600 state-owned
and private campgrounds in the U.S.3
gers forty miles on a single six-hour charge
for less than a quarter of a dollar, new elec-
tric cars like the GM Volt and 2011 Ford Fo-
cus will generate demand among consum-
ers who are sick of paying $30 for a tank at
the pump.4 Since the average American’s
commute is less than 50 minutes round
trip, the first generation of mainstream
electric cars are already affordable, envi-
ronmentally conscious alternatives.5

EV critics say that consumers are weary to invest in an electric car with no means
to charge it en route. This idea bridges the gap between a lack of available charging
stations and a nation-wide network of quick-charge or battery-replacement stations.
It could take years to establish such a network. With electric cars on the horizon and
demand pushing through the roof, Americans need some interim solutions.

Analysis
A simple, pre-existing solution to the need for charging stations along major highways is
to form a partnership with chain campgrounds, e.g. KOA, Yogi Bear, and the state and
national park services. These family campgrounds are usually no farther than five to
ten miles from major interstates and are common across the country. Additionally, the
campgrounds experience the heaviest usage during weekends, which leave the major-
ity of their RV electric hookups available for weekday commuters, who would gain the
most from this type of program.

These campgrounds usually house 100-250 RV sites, which can accommodate mass
electric needs. The campgrounds would need to be fitted with fast charging, high effi-
ciency outlets; even a $5/charge fee would give the campground a ~2000% profit, while
remaining an unbeatable attractive bargain to the alternative $30 tank of gas. With

14
grant money already available to companies promoting green technology (the U.S. De-
partment of Energy is offering $2.4 billion),6 the campgrounds could minimize start-up
costs for the project and quickly reap the benefits.

The industry has already made

vast improvements in quick-charge Talking Points
stations. Unfortunately, house- • Retooling electric RV hookups at campgrounds
hold power grids do not have the will offer an electric charging solution for trav-
amount of energy necessary to elers overnight or on-the-go.
charge a battery in less than 4-8 • Much of the start-up costs for similar projects
have been covered by government grants, al-
hours. Quick charge stations can
lowing for large economic gain by participants,
charge a car in 10-45 minutes, cost including needy agencies like the Department
between $500 and $2000, and are of Natural Resources.
already available in overseas mar- • Implementing the project will take an estimat-
kets.7 The main obstacle to imple- ed 9 months to complete, matching estimates
mentation of this policy is the limit- for public electric vehicle availability.
ed capacity of the U.S. power grid.
However, these ideas are exactly
the types of interim solutions necessary to jump start EV infrastructure development:
campgrounds can provide charge stations quickly and can be easily retooled to support
quick-charging as the technology becomes available in the U.S.

Next Steps
A program in Massachusetts and Connecticut applied for a federal grant to help build
575 charging stations across the two states. The estimated total cost of the project is
a mere $1.39 million, half of which was gained through federal funding.8 A deadline for
this type of Midwest project is pressing; Nissan and GM plan to have publicly available
EVs on the road by the fall of 2010. Seattle’s infrastructure program has been success-
ful in implementing a 14-month timeline to build 2,550 charging stations around the
city.9 Using similar math, the Midwest has the capacity to build over 1,600 stations in
a 9-month period. With an estimated 80 campgrounds in the Midwest between these
two companies, a goal of 800 stations (ten per campground) is easily obtainable in a
9 month timeline, ensuring infrastructure availability matching Nissan, Ford, and GM
estimates for EV availability.

Endnotes
1. “Chevy Volt Exact Launch Will Be Mid-November 2010, Tens of Thousands in 2011” GM-volt.com: 20 April 2009. http://
gm-volt.com/2009/04/20/chevy-volt-exact-launch-date-will-be-mid-november-2010-tens-of-thousands-in-2011/
2. Clarke, Ronald V. and Mayhew, Pat. “Parking Patterns and Car Theft Risks: Policy-Relevant Findings from the British
Crime Survey” Rutgers: School of Criminal Justice. 1994.
3. RVThereYet? RV Park and Campground Directory. Accessed 27 April 2010. http://www.rvthereyet.cc/
4. “GM Builds First Lithium-ion Battery for Chevrolet Volt” (7 January 2010) http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibil-
ity/environment/news/2010/voltbattery_010710.jsp
5. Stephen Buckner, “Americans Spend More Than 100 Hours Commuting to Work Each Year, Census Bureau Reports”
(U.S. Census Press Office 30 March 2005) http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_
community_survey_acs/004489.html
6. Martin LeMonica, “Energy Department awards auto battery grants” (CNet News 5 August 2009) http://news.cnet.
com/8301-11128_3-10303477-54.html.
7. “Vancouver Charges Ahead with Electric-car Plug-ins” (CBC Canada 10 July 2009) http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/sto-
ry/2009/07/09/bc-vancouver-electric-cars-plug-ins.html
8. “NU Plans Electric Car Charging Stations” (Environment Northeast 7 April 2009) www.env-ne.org/public/resources/
pdf/ENE_PressClips_Pilot_Project_Announcement_20090408.pdf
9. Scott Gutirrez, “Seattle gets $1.4 million for hybrid trucks and electric car charging stations” (SeattlePi 26 August 2009)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/177526.asp.

15
Bike-Based Mass Transit System
Theresa Gasinski, Michigan State University

By implementing a bike-share program, municipalities can enhance and expand their

existing public transportation system with minimum infrastructure – increasing both
mobility and safety.

Bike-share programs consist of a network of bicycles strategically distributed around a

city for low-cost use. These bicycles can be picked up at any 24 hour self-serve bicycle
station, and returned to any other bicycle station. People can sign up for daily, weekly
or annual memberships, which can be purchased online or at any bicycle station. Users
swipe their card or enter their passwords at the bicycle station, select a bicycle from
the rack, and ride. To help discourage theft, many programs consider bicycles kept for
over 24 hours to be stolen, and charge the user’s credit card.5 Not all programs require
such sophisticated technology. Some can be as simple as distributing uniformly painted
bikes throughout a city, and allowing citizens to pick up, use and return the bicycles at
random. However, these less-sophisticated programs tend to fail faster, because the
bicycles cannot be secured or monitored and thus succumb to vandalism and theft.

Start-up costs for bike-share pro-

grams – which include direct capital
costs (bicycles and bicycle stations),
direct operating costs (maintenance,
electricity to power bicycle stations),
associated capital costs (infrastruc-
ture construction), and associated
operating costs (bicycle repairs and
maintenance, upkeep on existing bi-
cycle paths) – vary greatly depending
on the system, population density,
service area, fleet size, and existing
infrastructure. Clear Channel Out-
door’s SmartBike system estimates
$3,600 per bicycle (this includes
capital costs – such as the cost of
producing/installing/distributing bicycles, stations and a centralized computer system).
Cyclocity estimates $4,400 per bicycle, and Bixi estimates $3,000 per bicycle.6
Key Facts
• According to the Federal Highway Admin-
istration’s 2001 National Household Travel
survey, 40% of all trips taken in the United
States are two miles away or less, 74 percent
of which are traveled by car.1
• In its first year, Barcelona’s Bicing program
increased cycling usage by 1%.2
• Montreal’s Bixi program estimates that it has
saved over 3,000,000 lbs of greenhouse
gases since its inception in May 2009.3
• Vélib’, Paris’s program, reported that in
2008, 28% of its users were less likely to
use their personal vehicles; this number in-
creased to 46% in 2009.4

In recent years, bike-share programs have proven successful, from the established Velib
in Paris, with over 20,600 bicycles, to the up-and-coming Nice Ride Minnesota, with
1,000 bicycles. Other well-known programs include Bicing in Barcelona (6,000 bicy-
cles), Hangzhou Public Bicycle System in China (10,000 bicycles), Washington DC (120
bicycles), and Bixi in Montreal (5,000 bicycles). Denver, San Francisco, Chicago, Phila-
delphia, Phoenix and New York City are all considering bike-share programs as well.

Bike-share programs can be organized through a number of different entities: the gov-
ernment, a quasi-governmental transport agency, a university, a non-profit organization,
an advertising company, or a for-profit private business.7 Initial start-up costs present

16
one of the greatest challenges to a bike-share program. While they vary, such costs can
be fairly expensive. It can take several years for a bike-share program to be economi-
cally viable. Safety concerns pose an additional obstacle to implementing a successful
bike-share program. Studies show that even when a comprehensive system of off-road
bike paths exist, bicyclists still opt to ride in the street or on the sidewalk. Moreover, car
drivers, cyclists and pedestrians need to be made more aware of the rules-of-the-road
and right-of-way.

Next Steps
To successfully implement
a bike-share program, lo- Talking Points
cal municipalities must first • Despite the increased development and expansion of
conduct a detailed survey public transit in recent years, it continues to isolate
of pedestrian traffic flow, to pedestrians and bicyclists.
determine how many bike • Bike-share programs will increase transportation ef-
stations will be needed, and ficiency and city mobility, provide new opportunities
where to place them. The for economic growth, decrease traffic congestion,
and improve environmental quality.
cities should also analyze its
• By creating a multi-modal public transit system, which
existing bike paths, to deter- includes both motorized and non-motorized trans-
mine which areas will need portation, cities can better meet the ever-changing
the most improvement. Its transportation needs of their citizens.
goal should be to create a
comprehensive system of
off-road bike paths, especially in areas with the heaviest traffic flow and most business-
es. City councils should also analyze existing bike-share programs – such as ‘Nice Ride
Minnesota’ and ‘Clear Channel Smartbike’ in Washington D.C. – to better understand
how a bike-share program can be structured.

Endnotes
1. “The Top Ten Facts on Biking and Walking in the United States.” America Bikes. [n/d]. http://www.ameri-
cabikes.org/Documents/Top-10-Facts.pdf
2. Paul DeMaio, “Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future,” Journal of Public Trans-
portation 12 (2009):43.
3. Ibid. 12:45.
4. Ibid. 12:43.
5. For continual updates and helpful resources about new and established bike-share programs across
the world, visit “The Bike-Sharing Blog,” MetroBike, LLC, 24 January 2010 http://bike-share.blogspot.
com/.
6. “Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, 2009,” New York City Department of City Planning, 2010,
www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/bike_share_complete.pdf
7. For more information about different types and analysis of bike-share programs, read DeMaio, Paul
“Bike-share: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future” in The Journal of Public Transportation
(downloadable via The Bike-Sharing Blog).

17
Living Walls:
Indoor Biofilters in College Campus Buildings
Dylan Beach, Denison University

Indoor living walls are a new sustainable technology that lowers indoor air ventila-
tion costs, provides educational opportunities, and offers unique improvements to
health and well-being.

Indoor conditions, such as poor air quality within office buildings, often contribute
to stressful work environments. However, green space has been shown to help with
physical and psychological problems, such as “sick building syndrome,” a problem that
contributes to employee absenteeism in office buildings around the world. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reports that about one-third of absenteeism due to
illness stems from poor air quality; a European study concluded that worker absentee-
ism can be reduced by 15 percent by greening indoor space.1

The percentage of green space in people’s

living environment has a positive association
with the perceived general health of residents
according to a study by Cornell University. It
also mentions that people with a secondary
education benefited most out of all educa-
tion levels from green space.2 A college cam-
pus then seems a perfect location for indoor
green space.
Key Facts
• Estimated to cost $1500 per m2.
• Can filter 50% of the benzene and
toluene and up to 90 percent of
the formaldehyde in the air during
a single pass.
• Living walls pay themselves back
in an estimated 10 years.

One way to add green space to an indoor environment is by constructing a living wall.
Living walls are beginning to pop up in buildings around the world. They are an example
of cutting edge, multifunctional green infrastructure, acting as biofilters in addition to
being aesthetically pleasing. They generally have vertically arranged panels made of
polypropylene plastic containers, geotextiles, irrigation systems, a growing medium,
and vegetation. The system can either be passive where air naturally circulates or ac-
tive where it is integrated into the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) system.1

Few living walls however, have found their way into American universities. Several
colleges in Canada have installed indoor living walls, but Drexel University is the only
American university that has begun construction of a living wall at a multi-story level.

Analysis
The costs associated with indoor living walls mostly focus on initial installation and
maintenance (cost and man power.) If the living wall is an active system then the HVAC
system circulates air through the living wall, so there is still the cost associated with
this system. The University of Guelph reported utility savings derived from not having
to bring in as much outside air that must be warmed up or cooled down to room tem-
perature. Based on these savings, a living wall would pay for itself in about ten years
since 40% of a building’s utility costs are for ventilation.3 The possibility of improving

18
productivity of staff and students as well as improving a campus’ image means the wall
could pay itself back much more quickly.

A sample budget in The University Waterloo

study lists costs of $1500 per square meter.
Included in this figure are plants, growth me- Talking Points
• Living walls filter toxins and add
dium, support structure, and plumbing system
oxygen to indoor air.
parts. These costs can increase slightly as wall • Provide aesthetically pleasing in-
complexity is increased and by adding anchor- door environments that can be
ing structures for multi-level walls.3 used by faculty and students for
educational purposes.
There are costs associated with maintaining • Reduces the toxic waste disposal
the wall. Plants on the wall have a 10% turn- of HVAC filters.
over rate per year and have to be replaced. • Less new aire needs to be brought
About 70% of the maintenance is basic horti- in, reducing energy costs of HVAC
system which comprises 40% of a
cultural care which can be handled by student
buildings energy costs.
workers or volunteers. The remaining 30% of
the maintenance is standard mechanical up-
keep that most building mechanics can handle
in as low as five hours per month.3

Living walls act as biofilters, sustainably filtering volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as toluene, methylethylketone (MEK), and formaldehyde. Research at the Univer-
sity of Guelph has shown that the system can remove half of the benzene and toluene
in the air during a single pass and up to 90% of the formaldehyde.4 HVAC filters are
carbon based and generally disposable. Symbiotic bacteria in the biofilter sustainably
break down the toxins into usable forms of energy for the plants which, depending on
the size of the biofilter, reduces or eliminates the economic and environmental costs of
toxic waste disposal associated with HVAC filters.

Endnotes
1. Vowles, Andrew. “Guelph-Humber Plant Wall a Breath of Fresh Air” 2007. 19 Jan. 2010 <http://www.
uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtml>.
2. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P. “Green space, urbanity, and health:
how strong is the relation?” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2006. Vol.60. No 7:587-
92. 19 Jan. 2010 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566234/?tool=pubmed>.
3. Wismer, Susan. “Living Wall: A Feasibility Study for the SLC.” Final Report ERS 250. 2002. 22 Jan. 2010
<http://www.watgreen.uwaterloo.ca/projects/library/f02livingwall.pdf>.
4. Darlington A., Chan M., Malloch D., Pilger C., Dixon M.A. “Biofiltration of Indoor Air: Implications for
Air Quality.” 2002. 29 January 2010 <http://www.ces.uoguelph.ca/research/envweb/Biofiltration%20
of%20Indoor%20Air.htm>.

19
Dry-Cooling Power Plants
To Reduce Water Consumption
Riley Wyman, The Colorado College

Innovative dry-cooling systems enable thermoelectric power generation to reduce

consumption of water resources by 90 percent, increase flexibility in facility location,
and hold consumers accountable for their water use.

The arid state of Colorado faces a severe dearth of renewable water resources to sup-
port its growing energy demand. Thermoelectric power generation facilities are the
second largest water user in the country, following agricultural irrigation.1 In order to
cool the steam that powers these plants, which account for 89 percent of electricity
generation, wet cooling systems are fed tremendous quantities of water. Power plants
take 75 percent of their water from surface water and 20 percent from nonrenewable
groundwater.2 Much of this water is returned to stream flow, but over three percent, or
3 billion gallons per day, is permanently consumed.3

Traditionally, power plants have had access to enough water for their wet cooling pro-
cesses, but scarcity has challenged this convention. Water has become the most impor-
tant consideration in regulating site location and permitting for power plants.1 Colorado
energy firms are uniquely worse-off than companies in other states, as locations with
natural water sources are extremely rare,
and moving and treating water consumes
massive amounts of energy.4 Growing cli- Key Facts
mate change impacts, paired with a rap- • Dry-cooling uses 90% less water.3
idly expanding population means that lim- • Over 3 billion gallons of water, or
4,500 Olympic sized swimming pools,
ited groundwater resources are becoming
are permanently consumed daily by
scarcer while water and energy demands thermoelectric power generation.3
grow. In order to preserve water resources • Thermoelectric power generation ac-
and energy security, Colorado must recon- counts for 89% of electricity genera-
sider its policies towards one of its biggest tion in the US.2
water users — thermoelectric power gen-
eration facilities.

The biggest cities in the West were built on desert, semi-arid lands—requiring depen-
dence on nonrenewable water sources such as aquifers, and depleting, conflict-ridden
surface sources like the Colorado River. As cities’ capacity to support growth slows,
water is becoming one of the most pressing issues in the West. Western water law is
unlike any other, requiring unique and innovative policies that take into account its
structure. Substantive changes to water policies are within the purview of the Public
Utilities Commission, and independent body responsible for permitting and regulating
site location for power plants in the state.5

Analysis
Through the permit process, the PUC should compel future thermoelectric power gen-
eration facilities to install dry-cooling systems as opposed to conventional wet-cooling
systems as a way to address unsustainable water requirements.2 This permit process

20
should be redesigned to include water consumption analysis as a part of the environ-
mental impact assessment (EIA). Renewal permit seekers should also face this EIA and
address unsustainable water practices through compelled efficiency measures and po-
tential cooling system changes. Dry-cooling systems rely on large radiators and fans to
cool steam water. This falls under the purview of environmental impact and thus within
the scope of the PUC, as dry-cooling systems require no water withdrawal or consump-
tion. Dry-cooling uses over 90 percent less water than wet-cooling systems and can be
sited far from natural water sources with minimal transfer costs, allowing greater flex-
ibility in power plant locations.3

The permit process is the best way to mandate dry-cooling systems, as it skirts the
powerful influence of power companies at the state legislative level and is simple and
straightforward. The PUC also has sufficient rate-making power to justify plant build-
ing and the higher capital costs of a dry-cooling system, whereas county land use and
state legislative bodies do not. Obstacles that must be overcome include the higher
start-up and operating costs of dry-cooling systems compared to their wet-cooling
counterparts. Forcing power plant builders to internalize the environmental costs with
dry-cooling systems will raise electricity costs. Further, dry-cooling systems can reduce
the efficiency of the plant by as much as ten percent. This is especially true in extremely
hot climates, as the fans can only lower water temperatures to the ambient air tem-
perature.6 Some environmentalists may not support the policy because it would enable
continued systemic reliance on coal-fired power rather than making way for increased
use of renewable resources.

Next Steps
To prevent further exploitation of water resources, the PUC should enact a special man-
date that goes into immediate effect. As we move towards renewable energy resources
in the future, this permitting process can translate to concentrating solar power (CSP)
plants, as their plants require similar cooling systems to that of thermoelectric plants.7
Partnership between government and facility developers is critical to success, as there
will be an increased need for finding suitable development sites, more opposition to
increased costs, and potentially decreased efficiency at the plants. However, this policy
will reduce financial and environmental costs in the future by ensuring long run access
to water for municipal use, by internalizing environmental costs, and by translating to
solar power generation facilities in the future.8

Endnotes
1. Feely, Thomas J III; Pletcher, Sara; Carney, Barbara, and McNeamar, Andrea T. “Department of Energy/National Energy
Technology Laboratory’s Power Plant-Water R&D Program.” www.netl.doe.gov
2. “The Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West” Hewlett Foundation Energy Series and the Clean Air
Task Force, April 2003. http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/water/wateruse.php
3. Torcellini, P., Long, N., and Judkoff, R. “Consumptive Water Use for US Power Production” National Renewable Energy
Laboratories, December 2003
4. “Energy/Water Nexus” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute: A Joint Institute of the University of Colorado
& the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://rasei.colorado.edu/index.php?id=362&pid=362&page=Energy/
Water_Nexus&parent=64
5. http://www.dora.state.co.us/puc/
6. Hogan, Michael. “The secret to low-water use, high-efficiency concentrating solar power” Climate Progress, April 29,
2009. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/csp-concentrating-solar-power-heller-water-use/
7. Bugle Editor, “There Ain’t No Free Lunch” The Button Valley Bugle October 29, 2007 http://buttonvalley.wordpress.
com/2009/10/27/there-aint-no-free-lunch/
8. Schimmolle, Brian. “Wet, Dry and In Between” Power Engineering, March 2007.

21
Reducing Temperatures and Pollution
Through Cool-Colored Roads
Michael Tracht, University of Chicago

Using light-colored pavement would mitigate rising temperatures by reflecting sun-

light, reducing cooling costs, and increasing a road’s longevity.

The use of dark-colored pavement and roofing has contributed to the rise of tempera-
tures in urban “heat islands.” These dark materials absorb sunlight, and then radiate
the absorbed heat, leading to higher temperatures in urban areas. In response, houses
and other buildings use more energy for air conditioning, as do cars. This increased
energy consumption in turn increases fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2005, in response to rising energy costs, California’s building code was modified to
require that roof materials be light-colored, or “cool-colored.” Since the lighter colors
reflect some of the heat that would otherwise be absorbed into buildings, less energy
is used for air conditioning.

However, roads also contribute to heat
islands. Just like roofs, roads cover an Key Facts
immense area, and are often made of • Black pavement and roof temperatures
dark materials; however, cool-colored can as much as 80° F above ambient air
materials already exist and are used temperature, which leads to increased
energy use in the summer.1
for roads. Cool-colored roads also last
• Grey pavements can reflect up to 1,000
longer than dark ones, since higher tem- percent of the sunlight reflected by
peratures decrease pavement durabil- black roads.2
ity. If a significant portion of dark roads • The area of roads in the United States is
were lightened, money would be saved immense – federal highways cover over
on construction in the long term, and the 2 billion square meters, ignoring state
manufacturing plants’ decreased produc- and local roads.3
tion would reduce their own emissions as
well as their energy consumption.

Analysis
The idea to use cool-colored materials is not new. Testimony as far back as 1989 advo-
cates their use,4 and at this point, three states’ building codes encourage cool-colored
roofs.5 However, no such guidelines exist on a large scale for road materials, though
data support the energy benefits of cool-colored materials. One study found that if
80 percent the 2.28 billion square meters of commercial-building roofs were retrofitted
with a material reflecting 55 percent of sunlight instead of 20 percent, the U.S. would
save $735 million and 10.4 trillion watt-hours (TWh) of energy6 in one year, and offset the
yearly carbon dioxide emissions of 1.2 million cars.

Since roads cover at least as much area as roofs, their conversion could also save equal
or greater amounts of energy, money, and emissions. The combined 157,000 miles7 of
federal highways cover 2.43 billion square meters, based on Federal Highway Authority
standards. This total ignores all state and local roads. Conversion of roads from black
asphalt to grey concrete could reflect up to 1,000 percent of roads’ presently-reflect-

22
ed solar energy – black asphalt reflects
around 5 percent of the sun’s radiation,
while a weathered “cool white” material
reflects 55 percent.8 Additionally, high
pavement temperatures have a signifi-
cant negative effect on roads’ weight-
bearing abilities.9 By reducing maximum
temperatures, the roads would last lon-
ger, reducing frequency of repair, and
over time decreasing the amount of pav-
ing material required.
Talking Points
• Roads that reflect more heat last longer,
saving money, and reducing pollution
from pavement manufacturing. The con-
version process could also create jobs.
• No money would need to be spent on de-
velopment, as light-colored pavements
already exist.
• Roads absorb at least half as much light
as do roofs, and therefore could poten-
tially drastically reduce absorbed heat.

Next Steps
One could immediately begin to advocate for the inclusion of paving color in regula-
tions at any governmental level. It is not necessary to immediately tear up streets; since
roads have a limited lifespan, light-colored pavements could be phased in as roads
undergo routine maintenance and repaving. Depending on the time frame and provi-
sions of the repaving, there may actually be an increase in infrastructure projects. Only
in the long term, perhaps 10 years or more, would manufacturing in this sector actually
be reduced.

Endnotes
1. Ronnen Levinson, “Cool Colors for Summer: Characterizing the Radiative Properties of Pigments for
Cool Roofs” (presentation, EETD Noon Seminar, Berkeley, CA, April 22, 2004).
2. Ronnen Levinson and Hashem Akbari, “Potential benefits of cool roofs on commercial buildings: con-
serving energy, saving money, and reducing emission of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.” Energy
Efficiency OnlineFirst, 14 March 2009, 1. DOI 10.1007/s12053-008-9038-2.
3. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Dwight D. Eisenhower National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm.
4. Hashem Akbari and Art Rosenfeld, “Urban Trees and White Surfaces for Saving Energy and Reducing
Atmospheric Pollution,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of
the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Serial 101–37, 7 June 7 1989, 35–80.
5. Felicity Barringer, “White Roofs Catch On as Energy Cost Cutters.” New York Times, July 22, 2009,
page A1.
6. Levinson and Akbari, “Potential benefits.” 1.
7. Federal Highway Administration, “Dwight D. Eisenhower.”
8. Levinson and Akbari, “Potential benefits.” 1.
9. D. Jones, J. Harvey, C. Monismith, Reflective Cracking Study: Summary Report. University of California
Pavement Research Center report number UCPRC-SR-2007-01, December 2007

23
Sequester Carbon Emissions
By Subsidizing Organic Agriculture
Jannie Trelogan, Wesleyan University
Investing in organic agriculture will help the state of Connecticut meet defined goals
in limiting carbon emissions. While the agriculture industry is not the leading source
of CO2, a shift to organic agriculture would sequester CO2, thereby reducing green-
house gas levels overall.

In the natural carbon cycle, which is carbon neutral, living plants absorb CO2, then
emit it as they decompose. Carbon sequestration is the point in the cycle when grow-
ing trees and plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into biomass, i.e.
wood and leaves. Therefore, farms are carbon sequestration sites, which can decrease
the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when managed differently. According to
the results of a study at the Rodale Institute, now in its 23rd year, organic agriculture
is more effective at sequestering carbon than traditional agriculture because it does
not use chemical fertilizers. The study concluded organic farms sequester up to 3,670
pounds of carbon per acre-foot each year.5
Considering that U.S. cropland is 431 million
acres, full conversion to organic agriculture
Key Facts
• In 2007 the agricultural sector con-
would reduce carbon emissions by 790.885 tributed 6% of total U.S. emissions,
million tons annually. Since U.S. agriculture 413.1 teragrams of CO2 equivalents.1
currently emits 750 thousand tons of car- • Full conversion to organic agriculture
bon, this would result in sequestration of would reduce carbon emissions by
790.135 million tons of carbon annually. This 790.885 million tons annually.
amount is truly significant considering that • Farms are carbon sequestration
it not only meets, but exceeds the emission sites, which can decrease the overall
reduction target laid out in the Kyoto proto- amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
when managed differently.
col by about 390 million tons.

Analysis
On October 1, 2008, Public Act No. 08-98 took effect, setting Connecticut’s goal to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions “to levels ten per cent below the 1990 levels not
later than January 1, 2020.” Through a program of research and reform across industrial,
home, and agricultural sectors, the state is hoping to achieve carbon emissions of 39.9
million metric tons annually by 2020. The act also established 2050 as the target year
for reducing emissions of greenhouse gas by seventy-five to eighty-five per cent below
2001 levels, a part of a larger initiative with the Conference of New England Governors
and Eastern Canadian Premiers.

Possible sources of funding for the program include provisions from the 2008 Farm
Bill, such as the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which
allocated $78 million in grants for organic studies including “the conservation outcomes
of organic practices.” The Organic Conversion Assistance Provision is particularly
apt to this policy as it provides support payments of up to $20,000 per year, but no
more than $80,000 over six years, for those requiring either financial or technical as-
sistance in converting existing farmland to organic practices.6 Another source could

24
be the Connecticut - DPUC - Capital
Grants for Customer-Side Distrib- Talking Points
uted Resources, which could be used • Organic agriculture is a carbon negative
process. Instead of emitting greenhouse
for infrastructure support relating to
gases, it has the potential to sequester 3,670
energy-distribution.7 pounds of carbon per acre-foot each year.2
• In 1990, Connecticut released 44.3 million
Another possible source is farming metric tons of carbon dioxide and other
subsidies. Currently, a higher propor- greenhouse gases. In 2007 emissions had
tion of the approximately $16.5 billion climbed by 4 percent.3
in annual farming subsidies distribut- • Connecticut law dictates emissions reduc-
ed by the federal government goes to tions to 10 percent below 1990 levels, spe-
the top 10% of farms, while the other cifically to 39.9 million metric tons.4
90% of farms only receive 35% of the
subsidies. This unequal distribution is
highly controversial, with small farms arguing that subsidies have been used by large
farms to buy others out of business.8 Large farms maintain that redistribution would
result in a loss of farm value, but research has shown that simply by calculating a more
specific subsidy rate for low net-worth farmers redistribution of subsidies could guard
against this loss while being more fair to small farms.9 Redistribution under the auspice
of this policy would serve as a compromise, between those in the environmental lobby
who want to reduce subsidies to protect local agriculture, and those in the farm lobby
who fight to maintain them.

Next Steps
By supporting organic farming, Connecticut would move toward its goals of decreased
carbon emissions. Projecting from the Rodale Institute’s research, the state could meet
their goal of 39.9 million metric tons annually by 2020. Investments implemented
through this policy have the added benefit of continuing the Connecticut government
tradition of supporting local agriculture.

Endnotes
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.” 20 November
2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
2. Jake Whitney. “Organic Erosion / Will the term organic still mean anything when it’s adopted whole hog
by behemoths such as Wal-Mart?” San Francisco Chronicle. 28 January 2007. http://articles.sfgate.
com/2007-01-28/living/17227247_1_horizon-organic-organic-standards-organic-food
3. Bill Cummings. “State, region find out how hard it is to cut greenhouse gases.” Stamford Advocate. 2
March 2010. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/State-region-find-out-how-hard-it-is-to-
cut-387533.php
4. Judy Benson. “Connecticut moves to curb greenhouse gas levels.” The Day. 25 December 2009. http://
www.theday.com/article/20091225/NWS12/312259893/1019&town=
5. Sayre, Laura. “Organic farming combats global warming -- big time.” Rodale Institute. Dec 12 2009.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_31
6. Lerman, Tracy. “Organic Provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill” 20 May 2008. Organic Farming Research
Foundation. http://ofrf.org/policy/federal_legislation/farm_bill/080520_update.pdf)
7. Connecticut Grant Programs for Energy Efficiency. “Agricultural Grant Programs.” http://www.goodto-
begreen.com/ct_energy_grants.aspx#1
8. Reidel, Brian M. “Another Year at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich, Famous, and Elected
Jumped Again in 2002.” The Heritage Foundation. May 24 2004 http://www.heritage.org/Research/
Budget/bg1763.cfm
9. Kirwan, Barrett E. Ed. Bruce Gardner and Daniel Sumner. “The Distribution of U.S. Agricultural Subsi-
dies.” 5 June 2007

25
Using the Power of the Sun:
Push for Fusion Power
Samson Yuchi Mai, University of California San Diego

Due to the growing demand for energy from population growth and emerging econo-
mies, fusion power is the long term solution for the world’s energy needs.

Fission is the splitting of atoms. Fusion is

the opposite. Fusion is a nuclear reaction. Talking Points
It occurs at 100 million Celsius with deu- • Fusion power is the ideal energy
terium, tritium, and hydrogen. The intense source. It is practically abundant, it is
heat overcomes the electrostatic forces of environmentally friendly, and it pro-
the nuclei forcing them to fuse. The world duces enormous amounts of energy.
• Fusion power has grown faster than
entered the thermonuclear age when
the semiconductor industry.
the first fusion bomb was tested on Nov. • Even with a concentrated effort to
1, 1952. The United States and the Soviet produce carbon free energy, it may
Union researched on fusion in hopes of us- not meet the future energy demand.
ing it to increase their military’s advantage.
After scientists realized it was not possible,
they declassified their research and began cooperating with each other. Russian sci-
entists developed the tokamak reactor in the 1960s. Since then, this model has shown
the most potential at achieving fusion ignition. In the 1970s, JET (Joint European Torus)
achieved the creation of the first plasma in 1983. There are several tokamak reactors in
the United States: DIII-D and TFTR (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor). The United States
also have two other devices to achieve fusion power through different methods. The
Z machine in New Mexico achieves fusion ignition with a “pinch” (pulse). The National
Ignition Facility built the largest and most powerful laser to implode a seed to attempt
fusion power. The next major international project for fusion power is ITER (Interna-
tional Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) which is being constructed in France and
funded by the European Union, United States, China, Japan, India, Russia, and South
Korea. It is scheduled to be activated in 2016.

This scenario is provided by Dr. Brian Cox and Dr. Saul Griffith in BBC’s Horizon “Can
We Make a Star on Earth.” Dr. Cox is a particle physicist at the LHC in CERN. Dr. Saul
Griffith founded Mankani Power and received the MacArthur “Genius” Award.

Today’s Energy Use

Average American usage = 11.4 KW
Global Average usage = 2.2 KW
Current Total World usage annual = 13 TW

Tomorrow’s Energy Use

This scenario assumes that each person gets 5 KW by 2035.KW, which places every
person at a modern standard of living. The total world energy use would be 30 TW.
This scenario excludes fossil fuels because more fossil fuel usage will cause harm to
the environment and humanity. To achieve this, industrialized countries use less, while
developing countries increase their power consumption.

26
This is what is needed:
Nuclear: 5 TW
We need to install 2.5 reactors every week for the next 25 years to
build 5000 reactors.
Wind: 5 TW
We must install full size 3 MW turbines every 3 minutes for the next
25 years, taking up about 2 percent of the land on Earth.
Solar: 10 TW
We must install 250 sq. m. of solar cells every second for the next 25
years.
Biofuels: 2 TW
We need to produce 4 Olympic swimming pools’ worth of genetically
engineered algae every second for the next 25 years.

This scenario does not take into account inevitable global population growth and the
growing economies of the developing world such as China, India, and Brazil, which drive
up the energy demand. The longer we wait to make progress, the higher the numbers.

Fusion power offers several advantages over other energy sources. It has a low envi-
ronmental impact, as its byproducts have short half-lives. It is safer than fission-based
power, as it does not reply on critical mass for fuel. Meltdowns are therefore not pos-
sible. It is secure, producing no fissile material that can be weaponized. The fusion
process can only be sustained with a constant supply of fuel and controlling magnetic
fields; it shuts down otherwise. Its marginal costs for producing additional energy are
low, and fuel for fusion is abundant. Fusion requires two hydrogen isotopes: tritium and
deuterium. Deuterium is extracted from seawater, and tritium is extracted from lithium.
Finally, fusion releases a lot of energy: after antimatter, it is the most potent source of
untapped energy.

The United States could have achieved fusion ignition back in 2000, but due to budget
cuts development has been severely limited. The Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act of
1980 was created in order to reach ITER level development by 1990 and begin demon-
stration by 2000, but because of slowing of funds, the U.S. will reach ITER level devel-
opment at least 10 years late. By the end of 2010, the U.S. will only spend half of the
original bill’s allocated funds. Currently, the U.S. spends 500 million dollars annually on
research; 200 million are committed to ITER. The government should double its overall
commitment to 1 billion dollars annually to generate the R&D the nation clearly needs.

Endnotes
1. Brian Cox, 2009, “Can We Make a Star on Earth”, Horizon, BBC
2. W J Nuttall, September 2006, “Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities”, Institute of Physics
Report , http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_31695.pdf
3. International Energy Agency, 2003, “Technology Options: Fusion Power”, IEA Energy Technology Policy and Col-
laboration Papers, http://www.iea.org/papers/2003/fusion.pdf
4. Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, “Why Fusion is Needed” Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, http://www.fusion.org.
uk/Why_fusion.aspx
5. Energy Information Administration, 2006“World Total Energy Consumption by Region, Reference Case, 1990-2030”,
Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_1.pdf
6. Office of Science, 2006, “Office of Science 5-Year Budget Plan” FY 2007-FYm 2011”, Office of Science, http://www.
ofes.fusion.doe.gov/FusionDocuments/SC5-yearplanmaster.pdf
7. Farraokh Najmabadi, Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Director of Center for Energy Research at
UCSD, Lectures Series on Energy

27
Roosevelt Review Preview:
Desalination - A Comprehensive Evaluation
Grayson Cooper, Emily Zuehlke, Jason Dunn, and Allison Briggs
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract
A photograph of the world would not suggest water scarcity as an issue. Water covers
seventy percent of the surface area of the earth, yet only three percent of that supply is
fresh water and an even smaller portion is readily available for human consumption. A
necessity for human life, water resources are threatened by degradation and chang-
es in the global climate while simultaneously facing the demands of a growing global
population. To cope with water scarcity, humans have turned to a variety of alterna-
tive water resources such as pumping aquifers dry and transporting water hundreds of
miles from its source. Having nearly exhausted many sources of water throughout the
world, man has innovated processes to purify remaining water supplies and to create
new fresh water sources out of previously non-potable water. One such process that
shows particular potential is desalination. Desalination, or the process through which
excess salt and contaminants are removed from water, is one of the longest used natural
water purification systems in the world and is broadly used on ships to provide drinking
water. Historically, it has been prohibitively expensive for widespread commercial use;
however, growing concerns over scarcity have renewed interest in this technology as
a means to supplement traditional supplies. While desalination has long been used in
the Persian Gulf, Northern Africa, and island nations, it is now being more deliberately
considered in places such as Australia and California, where traditional supplies have
been exhausted or are increasingly unreliable. Still, any consideration of widespread
implementation demands a closer review of the future feasibility of desalination within
the constraints of technology, environmental, and economic considerations, as well as
the policy concerns that must be addressed for the success of desalination.

To read more, visit www.rooseveltinstitute.org for the full white paper,

part of the forthcoming Roosevelt Review.

29
www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org