Especially if that mess is the gasoline additive MTBE, a possible carcinogen that has leaked into our groundwater. It’s been around since 1979 (ironically, when I was in kindergarten) and is now banned in 23 states, and has not been used by oil companies since 2006.

For more on the 423 million dollar law suit requiring Big Oil to pay big money, check out this article in Grist–after you take a peek at my cartoon, of course…

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

It comes as rather a shock to see New Zealanders in the news, arguing amongst themselves about the missing chapter of a report - questioning their very own green credentials. The chapter in question is unfortunately number 13.

(Not overly unfortunate that it was chapter 13, granted, but it allows me to clumsily shoehorn the word triskaidekaphobia into a piece of writing for the first - and hopefully - last time.)

Included in a statement by the country’s Green Party is the following:

“Chapter 13 states some inconvenient truths about the causes of environmental decline in New Zealand – causes such as dairy intensification, increased car use, and consumption. And it makes some inconvenient recommendations for action such as national environmental regulation and more public transport. Moreover it warns our economy is threatened by our poor environmental performance.”

The Green Party’s reaction has been thorough as the accompanying YouTube video shows.

But I’d like to just concentrate for now on dairy farming. It isn’t perhaps at the forefront of many people’s minds when we think of environmental decline. Conjure up the word “cattle” and more often, it is intensively reared beef rather than milk production that causes a reaction.

But in a report I’ve unearthed here in the UK, one gets the distinct impression that we should be equally wary of our milk comsumption. In the report, the following concerns regarding the environment are raised:

• Dairy cows produce large quantities of slurry and manure. Both can be highly polluting if mismanaged;

• The effluent from grass silage is highly corrosive, so it’s difficult to manage safely and highly polluting if it enters water courses;

• Autumn harvesting of forage maize can lead to soil compaction if the soils are wet, and this can cause excess run-off and soil erosion;

• Dairy and parlour washings and rainfall on extended yard areas greatly increase the total volumes of effluents that require careful management;

• The daily movement of dairy cows from field to parlour, and outdoor grazing in inappropriate field conditions, can lead to soil compaction, poaching and run off.

But what bothers me about the report is not so much these environmental factors, but the lack of money available to farmers to ensure conditions around farms are improved.

UK milk prices have not kept pace with inflation while costs of production have. This has to change surely, with either an increase in the price we pay or increased government funding.

Is this the situation on a global scale? Are dairy farmers elsewhere struggling to break even and perhaps having to cut environmental corners as a result?

And how cavalier should we be about the huge quantities of water used at every stage of the process, including the cooling of the milk itself? Couple this with pollution concerns from run off into streams and rivers and things don’t look too special down on the farm.

I don’t think we can afford to pour milk over our cereal or flavour our tea or coffee until these questions have been answered.

Image courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikimedia Commons.

This New York Times article has me again pondering the crossroads of eco-friendly products and economies of scale. 

While I’m a big fan of the cleaning power of baking soda, vinegar, Borax and lemons …a decent homemade shampoo is still beyond me!  It took me a while, but I found a skin care line that I like; not only because the ingrediants are simple and organic, but because the packaging is recycleble.  (Plant the box and you grow basil! The containers are all glass)

But wouldn’t I be better off spending less money and making less demands on the product delivery system and just settle for soap and water and a bit of olive oil?  My green-conscience says, yes.  My crow’s feet say, no!

How do you make your product purchasing decisions?  What do you think is worth having ’shipped in’ and what do you make or get local?  Should we be happy when great eco-products are brought to us by conglomerates? Or should we move on to a smaller producer who is not also involved with pumping harmful chemicals down our drains? 

Green Roofs
These living roofs reduce strain on the wastewater systems, while reducing the energy use of the building due to insulative properties.

Renewable Energy
Wind, solar electricity, solar thermal, biomass, and geothermal are energy sources that replenish themselves over time, unlike fossil fuels.

Affordable Housing
To help increase the housing options available to Chicagoans, affordable housing as determined by the Chicago Department of Housing standards is encouraged.

Combined Heat and Electric Generation On-site
These systems are more efficient for larger buildings because the generation of electricity typically produces heat as a byproduct that is frequently wasted.

Accessibility
This criteria increases the accessibility of buildings to people with physical disabilities.

Transportation oriented development & access to public transportation
In an effort to create vibrant communities, mixed use developments, proximity to public transportation, and developing previously undesirable areas is encouraged.

Exceptional Water Management
Water efficiency or innovative storm water management can improve water quality, protect ecosystems, and reduce energy use.

The green permit program can serve as an enticing opportunity, especially for developers, who will not benefit from the lower operating costs or higher occupancy after they no longer own the building. Combined heat and electric generation, green roofs, renewable energy can pay for themselves in energy savings over time, but come with a large upfront price tag. Accessibility, proximity to public transportation and affordability can help increase the occupancy of the building down the road, but may not offer short-term financial benefits.

Longer wait times to begin construction for building permits can increase construction costs, while giving a green light for projects with environmental and social features will make the future of green building in Chicago more lucrative.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has raised numerous objections to the permit, which was blocked on October 1. One concern is that the permit may not sufficiently limit chromium, cadmium, silver, cyanide and other chemicals to meet water quality standards for Indiana.

This is the second uproar in recent months about pollutants in Lake Michigan after BP was issued a permit for its $3 billion expansion of the Whitting, IN refinery. This expansion would allow the refinery to handle large quantities of Alberta Tar Sands crude, and comes with a high environmental price tag for Lake Michigan, such as a 54% increase in ammonia and 35% increase in sludge particles being released. This permit was the first to be issued in years that would increase the amount of pollution that a company is allowed to emit into Lake Michigan by finding a loophole in the Clean Water Act.

Today's podcast is available here.