The Minister takes her leave

Well, she certainly didn't just hand over the keys to her office and go home.  Delphine Batho, recently dismissed from her position as French Minister of the Environment, gave a press conference today in which she took aggressive shots at the Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault and certain "economic lobbies" that wanted her out.  Her remarks have been called "politically naive," and they probably were.  All of the blame was directed elsewhere, for example, none her own way.

But her political inexperience and lack of press conference skills shouldn't obscure the fact that the Hollande/Ayrault government, when it chose her ministry to take the largest budget cuts in its 2014 budget, announced that, to put it mildly, environmental programs were way, way down on its list of priorities.  That, to me,  has a lot more significance than Ms. Batho's press conference.

The government's priorities may be jobs, and correctly so.  But, more like socialists of 40 or more years ago, they seem to act as if jobs mean infrastructure and regional economic development.  It's as if they're out to recreate the "Trentes Glorieuses" the 30 years of post-war economic growth.  Thus Ayrault's Notre-Dame-de-Landes airport project just west of Nantes where he was mayor for many years, justified as critical for economic growth in that part of western France.  No one in the government seems much interested in what all this does to land and water resources, or whether the jobs being created will still be around in five or ten years.

Meanwhile, Ms. Batho retains a seat in the National Assembly as a deputy from the Deux Sèvres, a largely rural district directly south of Angers and the Loire River.  I don't have the impression she was particularly identified with environmental issues before being name to her ministerial position.  Nor has she been that close to EELV (Europe Écologie Les Verts) party members.  It will be interesting what role she plays now.

Red River flooding, again

The New York Times reported this week that Fargo and other towns along the Red River in North Dakota are again facing the likelihood of flooding.  This will be the fourth time in five years.  At the moment, it seems every available person has been mobilized to fill sandbags.  Understandably, people may be getting tired of this kind of emergency response and may be looking for less last-minute ways to avoid flood damage.

© Donald P. Schwert. Dept. of Geology, NDSU

Equally understandably, it seems they're giving most attention to familiar measures -- levees and spillways and diversionary channels.  The Times reports that 14 miles of levees have been built in Fargo in the last four years.  Plans are also well under way for a much bigger project.  This is a design for 35 miles of channels to divert flood waters away from the city.  Total cost, $1.8 billion.  A little over $300 million is supposed to come from North Dakota state and local sources; the rest -- about $1.2 billion -- would come from the federal government.

Fargo has purchased and cleared out a few houses located in the floodplain.  But the Times article doesn't mention any plans to make broader use of this tactic.  It doesn't appear, for example, that there's been any consideration given to applying the funds for levees and diversionary channels to buying up homes and businesses in floodplain areas.  Levees and channel systems will inevitably require maintenance.  An open floodplain, left as a park or nature preserve, doesn't. 

Admittedly, I suspect this approach of "sustainable floodplain management" may be more complicated in the Red River Valley.  Apparently this part of North Dakota and northern Minnesota in the U.S., and Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada, was an immense inland glacial lake as recently as about 10,000 years ago.  Today, the Red River descends very gradually across this old lake bed on its way north to Lake Winnipeg.  Because of this geology and history, the river has etched very little in the way of a valley.  This means that when waters rise they spread out across a wide area, across a very wide floodplain.  It is also why an approach to floodplain management that would apply in other areas may be harder to apply here. 

Even so, when close to $2 billion is likely to be spent on engineered solutions to flooding -- solutions that will require additional money every year for maintenance -- it would seem reasonable to ask if there aren't less costly, more environmentally rational, alternatives. 

Sustainability in the District of Columbia

The government of the District of Columbia, the place where I live, wants to move the city toward "sustainability."  Last week, it released the "Sustainable DC Plan," which it says "lays out a path forward to make the District the healthiest, greenest, most livable city in the nation over the next 20 years."  That's an excellent objective, but ambitious to say the least.

This ambition drew praised from David Alpert in his Greater, Greater DC blog, a site I've only recently discovered and enjoy reading.  But I'm not so sure the City's Plan merits quite so much praise.  As they say, the longest journey begins with the first steps, and it's not clear  that the Plan includes any specific commitment to taking them.

For example, in the transportation area, by 2032, the City Plan wants three-quarters of all trips to be by public transit, bicycle or walking.  Currently, based on commuting data, those account for about 54 percent of trips.  In other words, in the next two decades the City needs to find ways to reduce trips by car from about 46 percent at present to 25 percent.  That seems a real challenge.  Yet, as Alpert notes, most of the measures the Plan describes are thing the City is already planning -- streetcars, more bike lanes, and more performance parking (charging more in more desirable locales).

Similarly, the Plan hopes to see 250,000 more people living in the District in 20 years.  But it doesn't appear to say anything about where they'll live or whether new housing will have any relationship to transit systems.

I suppose it's useful to put the idea of sustainability out there.  (Of course, as the Plan notes, this is about "greenness" and "livability," not autarky.)  Among other things, it gives smart growth advocates something to push towards.  But if it's going to be more than a campaign document for the mayor's possible reelection effort, it's going to need a lot of pushing to translate targets into projects.

Ungersheim -- post petroleum laboratory

We imagine France as a country where everything comes from Paris.  There’s truth to that, but only some.  Outside the capital, regional and local governments innovate more than we might expect.  Take for example Ungersheim a town of about 2,000 in Alsace, close to the German border.   Le Monde reports that two days after Christmas, the town inaugurated a solar-powered electric generating station.  At 2.2 MW, it's quite small in comparison to, say, the the Agua Caliente Project in Arizona, where photovoltaics generate 200 MW.  Still, it's estimated to be enough to supply 800 households and Ungersheim will receive rent and a small portion of operating revenues from the operator.

Photo by Grégoire Gauchet, Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsace

 The solar power plant is part of “21 actions for the 21st century," a project lead by Ungersheim’s mayor of 20 plus years, Jean-Claude Mensch.  Mensch, a former miner and union activist, aims to bring new ideas to a region that still remembers hard times after the mines closed.  In meetings with local residents, he and members of the local council worked out ideas for “sustainable development.”  Thus, besides the solar power plant, the municipal swimming pool is now heated by solar panels.  Municipal lighting levels have been reduced to limit light pollution and lower costs.  A new “éco-hameau” residential area will have no cars and target zero carbon emissions.  The town regained control of water treatment and distribution and operates with rates 5 to 20 percent below those of nearby communities.  And more.  Le Monde refers to it as a “post petroleum laboratory.”

I'm interested to follow implementation of all of these 21 actions and to see whether Ungersheim and the aptly-named Mayor Mensch have a wider influence.

Frankenfish?

I find myself in a somewhat awkward position here.  I really look forward to genetic engineering’s potential to improve human health.  But why do the same techniques applied to my food make be nervous, if not squeamish?  I’ll have to keep working on that.  Right now I just want to draw attention to a development that makes me very nervous -- and squeamish.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) finding that genetically engineered salmon would have “no significant impact” on the environment and that the fish is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.”  The fish have been engineered to grow to full size in 18 months, about half the time it takes for natural Atlantic salmon.  I read this and then I think, how many times have we heard similar reassurances about other technologies, nuclear power for example, and then learned of risks ignored or downplayed.  Especially when it comes to messing with animals and natural habitats, it seems like the very highest standard of care should be required.

Last Friday, the agency published the finding in a draft environmental assessment.  The assessment will be open for public comment during the next 60 days and it’s likely to draw lots of them.  I talked about the FDA action with a friend whose work at another federal agency involves fish.  She raised questions about the FDA’s use of the shorter, less comprehensive “environmental assessment” as the basis for the finding, instead of the stricter “environmental impact statement.”  She indicated this could likely be one of the bases for legal challenges to the FDA’s action.  I hope so.

AquABounty, the company that developed the fish, assures that it poses no threat to wild salmon.  The AquAdvantage salmon, as they’ve been branded, would be raised in secure tanks away from the ocean and would be sterilized.  The FDA seems to have accepted this, although critics have questioned both the security of the tanks and the reliability of the sterilization. 

The Center for Food Safety severely criticized the FDA action, declaring that “The GE [genetically engineered] salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment.”
The Center also charged that the FDA had ignored concerns from more than 40 members of Congress, 300 environmental, consumer, and animal welfare organizations, and 400,000 public comments.

Prizes for innovative green businesses

Legambiente, the Italian environmental organization I mentioned a couple of days ago, just announced the 2012 winners of its Premio Innovazione Amica dell'Ambiente (Friend of the Environment Innovation Prize).  The prize, in its 12th year, is a way to highlight innovative green businesses.  It's also a chance to nudge Italian businesses that they should be spending more on research and development.  The announcement notes that Italian companies spend only 1.27 percent of GNP on research and development, less than a third of Finland's 3.97 percent (U.S. businesses invest about 2.7 percent).

Some examples of the winners:
BikeDistrict, an on-line map service in Milan providing directions for travel by bike, including information about road surfaces and degrees of safety.  The service is still in beta form.

Car2Go, the car-sharing service, which has been in Washington, D.C. for about a year, is a subsidiary of the Daimler Corporation and started in Germany.  Despite the prize, Italy is still waiting for the service.  

Grow the Planet, a social network concept dedicated to small-scale, home gardening.

My favorite, though, was not one of the top eight prize winners (of 165 entries).  This was "Ecocapsula," refillable capsules for Nespresso and similar single-shot coffee machines.  They let you buy and use your own coffee and the company says the capsules can be reused up to 300 times.  If I could find these here, I might be tempted to buy one of the machines.

The prize also reminds me that there's much more to the country than tourism and troubled governments.

Menhaden protection

I’m not a fisherman.  I have memories of sitting for what seemed like forever in a small boat on an Iowa lake fishing for barely edible fish like bullheads and bluegills and the appropriately-named crappies.  Still, I’m pleased to see yesterday’s decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to cut by 20 percent the catch limit for menhaden.

Cities and zoning and sustainability

Monday’s Le Monde includes a special supplement on sustainable growth and
one of the articles deals with the connection between urban life and environmental sustainability.  The article points out that by 2050, 70 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas versus just over 50 percent today.  Already, however, 80 percent of CO2 emissions come from urban areas.

It’s hard to bring this to bear in settings like the current revisions of Washington, D.C.’s zoning regulations.  Yet this is one of the areas where positive steps could be taken to reduce those emissions.  Obviously, the more people use cars to get around, the more gas is being burned and the more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere.  We should be doing everything we can to discourage cars and encourage Metro, right?  What happens, however, when planning officials, ever so carefully, suggest that new zoning rules might reduce on-street parking in some neighborhoods close to Metro stops?  Neighborhood list-serves start buzzing and people start mobilizing their neighbors against the idea.  In Northwest Washington, D.C. it seems almost any hint of higher density development around Metro stations provokes similar reactions.

Doha meeting

Michael Harrington, I think it was, used to say that nothing else is possible without full employment.  Grand as it is, I think the statement is true.  Still, it’s equally true that full employment isn’t possible without a sustainable environment.  And we won’t have that if we can’t do something about the disruptions in the climate.

Yesterday, in Doha, Qatar, delegates from around the world began two weeks of negotiations over measures to address climate change.  The meetings will end on December 7.  The objective in Doha seems modest; it's simply to start discussion of a new legal structure under which countries would take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The framework is to be completed by 2015.

The most interesting question for us is what approach the Obama administration will take.  Especially, will there be consideration of a carbon tax?  Will his reelection free the President to exercise leadership in this area?  The U.S., China and India are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.  The success of these negotiations won't depend solely on the U.S., but it’s hard to imagine meaningful results unless we are in support.

Refocus

When I started this blog I was pretty open-ended in defining what it was about.  Effectively, it was about whatever I was interested in and wanted to concentrate on to the extent of making some notes and turning them into a post.  Initially, it was easy to find topics.  For the last six weeks, until Tuesday, I was in Italy, first for the photography workshop in Umbria and then four weeks of studying Italian in Bergamo.  But that’s behind me now.  I’m back home and back to a certain kind of routine without the inherent interest of things noticed during travel.  What to write about isn't so obvious.  So I thought I needed to revisit the question of what the blog is about.  What’s important enough to me now to make me stop, figuratively scratch my chin, and write a few lines about it?

I was awake early this morning, a combination of crashing early last night from jet lag and an empty stomach, an effort to deal with extra pounds I brought home.  I was done sleeping, but I didn’t want to get up.  So I came back to the questions about the blog.  Laying there, I considered and rejected several possibile ways to refocus.  Finally it occurred to me that most of what I'd been considering -- various environmental issues in Italy, France and the U.S. -- could, in one way or another, be tied to issues of “sustainability.”  As enormously broad as it is, this seems like what I want to work on.  I only have a general sense of what the idea involves and I’d like to learn more.  Who knows, I might even write about our household efforts to live more sustainably.  It’s certainly an orientation that’s broad enough to allow reading all kinds of things.  These days almost anything can be linked to it; certainly all the usual environmental issues, urban development and land use, and, of course, politics and political figures and government.  The issues are as current, if not more so, in France and Italy as they are here.  I’ll also pay attention to what’s happening in the U.S.  I should say, though, that this isn’t going to be blog about sustainability per se; it couldn’t possibly be.  Rather, I’ll be trying to make it a blog about topics mostly in these three countries that I find interesting and that are somehow part of this enormous project.

Update: I need to mention a couple other topics that might not have a connection to sustainability but which mean a lot to me: I mean photography and soccer.