War funding could pay for wind energy, high-speed rail, Superfund cleanup and an end to hunger in the United States.

Our communities are depressingly polluted, social services are being cut left and right and hunger is very real right here in America. So hearing that the United States government spends $20 billion in Afghanistan each year on air conditioning alone stings just a little. When it comes to war, the U.S. Treasury is hemorrhaging cash, yet Congress demanded that President Obama cut things like high-speed rail, United Nations support and funds for the Environmental Protection Agency from the 2012 fiscal year budget.

Nobody seems to know exactly how much the government is currently spending on the war in Afghanistan, but various estimates place it around $8 billion per month. If we weren’t buying air conditioners, gas, equipment and personnel to wage a seemingly endless war on the other side of the world, what could our elected officials spend this money on instead?

1. Domestic Hunger Relief

The financial crisis has drastically increased the number of households that are unable to routinely put food on the table, which rose to 17.2 million in 2010. That’s the highest figure ever recorded. More than one in five children in America lives in a household with low food security. According to DoSomething.org, it would cost just $10 to $12 billion per year to virtually end hunger in America. We could solve the problem in a month.

2. High Speed Rail
$8 billion could make major headway for high speed rail in America, a highly efficient public transportation system that would relieve traffic congestion, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, eliminate thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the economy in depressed areas of the nation. That was the amount originally designated for the project by President Obama in 2009, with chunks of the money going to states like California and Florida, where the first inter-city systems would have been built. Of course, Florida governor Rick Scott returned his $2.4 billion portion in a Tea Party political stunt protesting the president’s $787 billion stimulus bill, and legislators in Ohio and Wisconsin did the same.

3. Public Health Programs

Government-funded health care programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cost at least $732 billion to run each year, and millions of people across the nation rely on them for basic services like check-ups, tests, procedures and medication. Other programs that have seen drastic cuts in recent years include the Women, Infants and Children program, which provides healthy food and infant formula to new mothers, and community health centers, which serve low-income populations. Contrary to the conservative talking point that these so-called “entitlement services” go to people who don’t really need them, a recent analysis found that more than 90% of the benefit dollars spent on these programs go to people who are elderly, seriously disabled  and/or members of struggling working households. Many conservatives would like to see these programs drastically cut. But if we could expand these services, we could provide life-saving care to people who don’t otherwise have access.

4. Protecting the Environment

The amount of money that pays for a single month of the war in Afghanistan could double the annual budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, enabling it to ramp up crucial initiatives like climate change research, pollution cleanup, air quality improvement and the protection of endangered species. It could also considerably pad the budget of the Department of the Interior, which preserves American wilderness and acquires new federal lands. U.S. budget cuts that have allowed more spending on defense have had a considerable impact on environmental protection efforts. Imagine if just one month of war funding could be put toward these programs instead. The effects on land preservation, including the protection of delicate ecosystems threatened by human encroachment, would be incalculable.

5. Superfund Cleanup

Costs to clean up the hundreds of heavily polluted Superfund sites around the United States outpace the funding that is available, leaving many of these sites to sit for decades before they’re even thoroughly assessed, let alone remediated. In past decades, the EPA has allocated $335 million per year for Superfund cleanup, but new estimates put the costs at $681 million per year. The average cost to clean up a Superfund site is between $25 and $30 million, so $8 billion would eliminate about 300 of the roughly 800 Superfund sites on the waiting list.

Companies are supposed to be responsible for cleaning up the sites, but they’re often bankrupt or out of business, and a tax on petroleum that used to help provide funding was eliminated in 1995. With the EPA hurting for cash, Superfund sites will continue to harm ecosystems and communities. According to the Center for Public Integrity, one in four Americans lives within three miles of a contaminated site that poses serious risks to human  health and the environment.

6. Education

The federal government has allocated $153 billion for education this year, which seems like a lot until you realize that teachers are woefully underpaid, classroom sizes are huge, and many schools are dilapidated to the point of water leakage, mold problems and equipment that is decades out of date. If a year’s worth of war funding were applied to education instead, it would nearly double the total budget, preserving programs like the Americorps-funded Teach for America, a program in which recent college graduates commit two years to teaching before moving on to higher-paying jobs. Or we could take a year’s worth of war funding and award $5500 Pell Grants to over 17.5 million students.

According to the Council of Great City Schools, the nation’s major city public schools have at least $15.3 billion in new construction needs, $46.7 billion in repair, renovation and modernization needs, and $14.4 billion in deferred maintenance needs.

7. Low-Income Housing and Help for the Homeless

The foreclosure crisis, coupled with high unemployment, has led to an ever-increasing number of Americans living on the streets. In addition to unemployment benefits and job creation, affordable housing and counseling for the homeless are absolutely essential to help people get back on their feet. Welfare tends to be a dirty word in American politics, but cutting social safety nets in an era of increasing poverty will only deepen the divide between the haves and the have-nots. And the fact is, because costs for things like uninsured hospitalization, imprisonment and emergency shelters are so high, permanent supportive housing for the homeless would actually reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

8. Jobs for the Unemployed

If we could get the economy back to a healthy state – a real, viable, sustainable healthy state, not created with the illusions of easy credit and sub-prime mortgages – many of the issues we’re experiencing in America could be alleviated. And what could get us back on track better than millions of new job opportunities for the unemployed? If the government took the roughly $100 billion it costs to fund the Afghanistan war for one year and applied it to President Obama’s American Jobs Act, we could hire more teachers and first responders, get construction workers started on all of those school modernization projects, improve more roads, rehabilitate and repurpose vacant properties and extend the jobs tax credit for the long-term unemployed.

9. Scientific Research

Nearly all scientific research is funded by government grants. But while President Obama promised in a 2009 speech that he would devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development, pumping billions into fields like renewable energy, the federal government has actually cut funding. In an effort to ease the deficit, the 2012 fiscal year budget eliminates $4.4 billion from the $30 billion that it typically spends on ‘basic’ research. And the House cut Obama’s requested $8.5 billion in research for energy down to $5.3. Some experts say that cutting this funding stifles the kind of research that stimulates economic growth.

10. Organic Farming

President Obama allocated $50 million of the $787 billion stimulus package to organic farming in 2009, but with the high costs associated with converting conventional farms to organic farms, that money is a drop in the bucket. This funding provides grants to start organic farms, giving farmers up to $20,000 each per year. So if $8 billion was given over to support for organic farming, 400,000 farmers could transition to chemical-free agricultural methods or start new farms in a single year.

11. Wind Energy

Three million homes could be powered by renewable energy projects on federal lands – if only Congress would approve clean-energy tax credits that support wind power, which is looking unlikely.  Illinois’ once-promising wind industry could fall flat without it, eliminating nearly 2,000 jobs. The cost of the tax credit? $1.4 billion per year. Take a month of war money, extend the tax credit for five years and they’d still have enough cash left over to build a few more of their own wind farms on government-owned property.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

8 Things We Could Buy With Anti-Clean Energy Funding

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The post 11 Things We Could Buy with 1 Month of War Funding appeared first on EcoSalon.

A centuries-old mill gets back to work at last.

When you’re on an urban hike around your own neighborhood, you don’t expect to find a windmill being built in the middle of the road. Holgate Windmill was here before this area of York (England) was smothered in housing. Long before. This humble brick tower is older than the United States of America, and it milled grain into flour for a century and a half before a storm damaged its sails beyond repair and it was shut down for public safety.

Modern housing developers crept into the area, but by joining the ranks of Britain’s Grade II Listed buildings, Holgate Windmill successfully fought them off, forcing the builders to divert around it. Scarred and crumbling, it has stood derelict for 70 years as sign of a technological age we’ll never see again.

The windmill is not only a beautiful piece of historical architecture, it’s also a highly unusual one.

It had five sails, a design by John Smeaton of Eddystone Lighthouse fame. It’s the best choice for maximum efficiency of converting wind power to mechanical energy, yet rarely used because one broken sail could have shut the whole mill down. (Windmills need balanced sails: if the same happened to a four-sail windmill, it could be stripped down to two sails and still keep working). Coupled with the fan projecting backwards off the roof that kept it pointing into the wind at all times, you have a unique piece of engineering.

Because of recent efforts by The Holgate Windmill Preservation Society, this mill is being restored to working order. The walls have been repaired and rendered, the stone floor relaid, the ground floor machinery (above left) cleaned, repaired and reassembled, and locally-sourced materials have been used to replace perished materials including the millstones (below) and the windmill’s colossal upright shaft (above right).

By 2008 the Society had secured £250,000 in grants, prizes and donations – and in winning the People’s Millions award in November 2010, they finally have the money to rebuild the sails.

After decades of neglect, this mill will mill. Using locally produced grain, the Society will provide bakers with specialty flours milled in the traditional way, allowing them to make specialty breads with a 250-year-old heritage. Any profits will be reinvested in the mill so it pays for its upkeep by doing what it does best.

Factor in the educational value of a fully-functioning windmill (the last of York’s 20+ working grain mills), and the tourist-wowing sight of its white sails turning gorgeously against the skyline, and you have something very special indeed.

Images: Mike Sowden; Holgate Windmill Preservation Society

Know of a local restoration project that is rocking your community? We’d love to hear about it! Send us a note at tips@ecosalon.com.

The post Holgate Windmill: A New Spin On an Old Industry appeared first on EcoSalon.

Q: When is 4.5 percent a lot? A: When it’s up from .11 percent. On the good-news front, that major increase (you do the math, because I just don’t do math) represents an anticipated jump in the number of mobile communications base stations powered by clean energy sources – namely, solar and wind – between today and 2014.

Four-and-a-half percent is also a lot when you consider the ongoing exponential rise in worldwide mobile communications and its required energy-using infrastructure (by the end of 2008 there were an estimated 4.1 billion mobile subscriptions, up from one billion in 2002). These figures, released last week by clean-technology market research firm Pike Research, are particularly important in remote areas, where there’s no (or only cost-prohibitive) access to grid power. In these places, base stations are often powered by dirty diesel generators. This means an even greater increase in clean-powered stations – to an estimated eight percent – in developing countries.

Accelerating the shift to solar and wind power generators, says the New York Times, is increased carbon legislation, price reductions in clean-power technology, and phone companies wanting to reduce high diesel fuel costs. In many cases, new clean-powered base stations in developing countries are using solar/wind hybrid options augmented by emergency backup systems in the form of a fuel cell or a diesel or biomass generator.

Fast Company boils it down: “[It’s] an obvious quick and easy score to reducing the impact of a cell phone network: It doesn’t need cabling, no fuel needs to be shipped to the location or even burned in a remote power station. It can also reduce the cost associated with connecting a base station to the larger grid.”

Image: U K

The post Calling on Clean Energy: Mobile Phone Base Stations Go Green appeared first on EcoSalon.

This week, developer Jim Gordon received the news he’s dreamed of hearing for nine long years – Cape Wind is a go. The U.S.’s first offshore coastal waters windfarm, comprising 24 square miles of turbines that promise to offset a hundred million gallons of oil every year, will be situated in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod. Not everyone is delighted at the news (NIMBYs included), and local residents are set for more legal wranglings before building work commences. Nevertheless, the success of the Cape Wind proposal is a milestone in America’s clean energy industry and is sure to catalyze other offshore windfarm projects.

So what will our coastlines look like in a future dominated by coast-hugging wind power? We can catch a glimpse by looking at Denmark’s Horns Rev 2 (91 turbines) or the impressively expansive Robin Rigg windfarm in the Solway Firth off the Scottish coast.

How would you feel about such a view in your backyard?

Further reading:

Offshore wind energy: clean, but anything but cheap – National Geographic.

List of proposed offshore wind projects in North America – OffshoreWind.Net.

Researchers study feasibility of giant deep-ocean wind turbine platforms – Physorg.

Image: phault

The post Cape Wind Gets Green Light: So How About One Near You? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Perhaps the luck of the Irish will help make green dreams come true when it comes to the country’s goal to shift away from fossil fuels. Situated at the end of the supply chain and currently 90 percent dependent on imported oil, Ireland hopes to get 40 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 – far exceeding the EU’s target of 16 percent.

But luck might not be necessary in a nation driven by an urgent need for employment. Ireland sees its financial difficulties and depressed economy not as a hurdle to going green, but a major motivator. Switching to wind power and other renewables would not only provide thousands of jobs, but stabilize dramatic swings in oil and gas prices. Additionally, Ireland’s prospects are looking far sunnier than its trademark misty gray skies.

“We have doubled our renewable energy. We can double it and double it again,” says Eamon Ryan, Ireland’s minister for communications, energy and natural resources. “It is the perfect answer to the recessionary blues.”

Of course, it’s not as simple as throwing up some wind turbines and calling it a day. Just as it is here in America, one of the biggest obstacles is an aging electrical grid – but a grid interconnector directly from Ireland to Britain is currently being built, and with an energy minister who’s devoted to renewables, more improvements are sure to come.

What’s the biggest thing this island nation has going for it? Shoreline, and lots of it. Ireland has enough land and ocean space to provide its own wind power and even have enough to export to other countries. Five offshore wind farm projects are in the pipeline and marine energy is a possibility in the future.

Ireland is looking beyond the estimated $1.33 billion price tag, seeing it as an investment in the future – for both its people and the environment. Perhaps we should sit back and take some notes.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

The post Green Isle O’ Ireland Sets Ambitious Goals in Green Power appeared first on EcoSalon.

Wind might be a favorite power source of the green energy movement, but winds across the United States appear to be slowing down and global warming may be the culprit.

These are the findings of a new study soon to be  published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The study has found that average and peak wind speeds, especially in the Midwest and the East, have been slowing since 1973. The states most affected are Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana with those bordering the Great Lakes experiencing the greatest wind speed changes.

According to study co-author Eugene Takle, professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University, the trend is showing at least a 10 percent drop over the past decade.

Whether this is a trend is not yet clear. The study’s authors are quick to acknowledge that there are many variables that must be accounted for: changes in wind-measuring instruments over the years, a variety of climate computer models tracking changes, and obstacles such as tree growth and new buildings near wind gauges. All of these factors could affect the study’s results and skew the data.

As a result, the study raises more questions than it answers. But given the growth of wind power as a source of electricity, further research into changing wind speed is important.

Image: pulguita

The post Slowing in the Wind appeared first on EcoSalon.