I am confident that, with Earth Day on the immediate horizon, the nation’s biggest publications have begun to compose those bannerheads that will run on April 22, as the whole news media takes up its annual tradition of, for a day, fixing its gaze on environmental issues. For one day, we will collectively turn our eye to the issue of sustainability, reading retrospectives on the environmental movement, which trace its genealogy, and connect the movement’s past to its present and future, or op-eds on environmental degradation, carbon emissions, and water scarcity. However, I have always found the practice of celebrating the Earth—that blue and green rough-skinned globular object we ride through space—one day a year to be somewhat offbeat. Throwing the Earth a party which, in terms of scale and magnitude, might resemble a Queen’s Golden Jubilee arouse in us the same sense of purpose, excitement and focus as, say, the theme of monarchy, royal nuptials. Admittedly, likening Earth Day to a celebration of the Queen’s fiftieth anniversary trivializes what the day is, and the evocative purpose it serves—Earth Day represents a day on which the world can unite not only in common purpose, but on which humanity can publicly express and reflect on its support of conservation, helping to further embolden and revitalize a movement whose object is to turn “sustainability” and “conservation” into household terms. This analogy does, however, illustrate a point: the Earth deserves more than a Day.

John Viera, Director of Sustainable Business Strategies at Ford Motors, recently contributed an article to GreenBiz plotting the trajectory of sustainability education in America, creating a cultural climate conducive to the growth of sustainability into a corporate imperative. Although, for the most part, the target of Viera’s analysis is rather narrow, his conclusions throw an interesting light on the future of sustainability in American business and education, and implicitly addresses the fleeting attention we pay to the Earth on its day, answering the question, “What happens after Earth Day?”

Focusing, in part, on how The National Environmental Education Act put in place a framework to create an American education system whose curricula is not only underpinned by an acute sensitivity to environmental issues, but, as such, transmits knowledge to students which would allow them to adapt to many of the external forces (from blustery commodity markets and the prospect of resource scarcity to environmental degradation and climactic shifts) driving and shaping America’s burgeoning green economy, Viera takes notice of how well-suited today’s students are to confront the sustainable future facing businesses.  He writes, “Our schools and teachers have instilled in younger generations an unprecedented appreciation from the environment,” the upshot of which is a generation of people (Viera’s focus, naturally, is on MBA grads) capable of steering the engines of economic growth when those engines are no longer running purely on gas.

Intertwined with Viera’s analysis, discussing how today’s students are better prepared to lead America’s economy into a greener future, is an implicit observation acknowledging a still-emerging value shift toward sustainability, which, although, perhaps to some, may appear transitory, will eventually define and in some way undergird and structure all decision making (at every level, from individual to nation-state) in the 21st century. However, to this end, Viera notes that “a sustainable future will only be possible as new generations understand the complexities of sustainable business.” Quite right.

What Viera misses directly, as a result of his narrow focus, but seems to suggest generally, is that in the age of globalization humanity can only confront the environmental perils with which it is faced (extending from resource scarcity, including fresh water scarcity, to broader climate concerns), if one, sustainability goes global, and two, if education does its part to inform, and help continue to prepare students for a sustainable future, not just in business, but in life. In essence, education must do its part to ensure that every day is Earth Day.

As this year’s 17th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, resulted in yet another stand-off among today’s leading nations, there are plenty of reasons to share in the embitterment and despair shadowing the climate change community. And while the Durban discussions did lead to a few positive outcomes –the Green Climate Fund and a sustained forum for discussing the issue, for example—the conference, unsurprisingly, was another failure of the global community to come to an agreement of how to slow the heating of the planet. The conference did, however, heed a rather constructive lesson: the climate change issue exceeds the realms of the climate community. This isn’t necessarily a newsflash, of course, but it brings into focus a new question: who is equipped to handle the climate crisis?

In a recent New York Times article, Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman for California’s Air Resources Board, poignantly stated, “Progress is going to come from the bottom up, not the top down.” The proactivity of regional climate commitments such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which incorporate public stakeholders, private business, non-governmental organizations, and individuals have shown that bottom-up strategies are well-positioned to make meaningful contributions in combatting climate change. Additionally, industry specific agreements have been instrumental in identifying and mitigating their own contributions to the increasingly unpredictable climate. 

Let’s consider the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).  The ACUPCC has emphasized the importance of higher education taking a new lead by preparing for and responding to impacts and implications of climate change that include unprecedented effects on infrastructure, ecosystems, energy and water supplies, food production, national security, and people’s livelihoods.  With the US Census Bureau reporting that there are 4,495 higher education institutions in the United States and with college enrollment having increased 38% between 1999 and 2009, the ACUPCC has a unique opportunity to develop cutting edge solutions and best-practices in the fight against climate change.

The opportunities of the ACUPCC also stem from its immense market (which is partly the beauty of being in the higher education sector). The ACUPCC currently has 674 signatories, representing some 5.8 million students. This means that 5.8 million individuals are being exposed to and are, willingly or unknowingly, participating in climate change fighting strategies in the form of physical projects, collaboration, or simply, attendance. These educated individuals will then (hopefully) take these practices into their workplaces and everyday lives. This is what I call serious bottom-up climate change fighting.

Real significance also lies in the reconciliatory nature of commitments and initiatives like the ACUPCC. These types of agreements are the so called “middle-men and women” between the bottom and the top. So while the annual climate talks are productive in their own right, they’re not the end-all, be-all in climate change. And as we ring in 2012, let’s not take with us the baggage of another unsuccessful international agreement, and instead recognize that those of us in higher education are equipped to make a significant impact in combatting climate change.

To read more about the First Annual APUS Sustainability Summit, visit Dr. Boston’s blog and read his article about the event.

In recent years, organic produce has increasingly become part of the diet of health-conscious consumers.  Various bean sprouts and alfalfa sprouts are found in many salads and sandwiches at cafes and restaurants.  Despite the surge in popularity, some consumers are beginning to feel uneasy about eating sprouts due to the recent European E. coli outbreak.

According to a Reuters article, the outbreak has primarily centered in Germany, and has resulted in about 2,300 infections and 23 deaths.  German officials originally pointed to Spanish cucumbers as the source, but further investigation led to the possibility of bean sprouts from a German farm in Lower Saxony being the culprit.  Two previous outbreaks, one in Japan in 1996 and the other in the U.S. in 1997, were both linked to sprouts.  According to scientists, the warm, moist growing conditions are also “ideal incubation ground for any microbe.”

The German farm was shut down and studies were conducted on the sprouts, but the results came back as negative for E. coli.  Although acquitted, “Officials cautioned that just because the results were negative on these sprouts, it doesn’t mean that previous sprouts weren’t contaminated, highlighting the difficulties in pinpointing an outbreak that’s several weeks old.”  Other experts, such as Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, were outraged at what they see as incompetent handling of the investigation on the part of German officials and feel the source of the bacteria should have been discovered already.

While some consumers may be hesitant to eat sprouts after the recent E. coli outbreak, others will be undeterred because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks.  According to the International Sprout Growers Association website, “Scientists have studied sprouts for centuries to better understand their high levels of disease-preventing phytochemicals, and how they contribute to better health, from prevention to treatment of life-threatening diseases.” 

So, are sprouts safe?  Study the resources attached to this article to make your decision.  Additionally, if you are thinking about growing sprouts in your spare time, check out the safe growing tips at the Savvy Vegetarian website.

In April 2011, The Princeton Review partnered with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to publish the Princeton Review’s Guide to 311 Green Colleges.  The Review evaluated colleges and universities on their environmentally-related policies, practices and academic offerings.  The rating, on a scale of 60-99, demonstrates whether students have a healthy, sustainable campus life; how a school is preparing students for employment in a clean energy economy; and how environmentally responsible a school’s policies are. The Review asked 703 voluntary school participants to answer questions created in consultation with ecoAmerica, a non-profit consumer research group.  Questions covered ranged from “What is the percentage of food expenditures that go toward local, organic or otherwise environmentally preferable food?” to “Does the school have an environmental literacy requirement?”  The 311 schools chosen for the book received scores of 80 or above in the assessment. 

College applicants using the guide will find a wealth of information about each of the schools.  In addition to the standard application, admission and financial aid information, each school profile contains “green highlights” and “green facts” detailing campus environmental and sustainability initiatives, as well as availability of environmental studies programs and green job career guidance.  Also included are a glossary of 40+ “green” terms and acronyms and a listing of schools with “green” distinctions such as LEED-certified buildings. To learn more, or to download the free guide, visit http://www.princetonreview.com/green-guide.aspx.

Wesley Holmes earned his Masters of Science degree in Environmental Policy and Management from APU in February 2010, graduating with honors.  For his final project, Wesley began researching the green elements associated with APUS’ new Academic Center which is anticipated to receive LEED Gold certification later this year. As part of that project, Wesley created the APUS Green Building Blog which he maintains on a regular basis.  The blog is full of information related to the APUS Academic Center, green building in general, and Brownfields sites in particular.  Earlier this month Wesley attended the National Brownfields Conference in Philadelphia and submitted the following article for publication on the APUS Sustainability Blog.  

Thickness map of Marcellus Shale. Image from Geology.com, http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml.

Over the course of the three day event, the National Brownfields Conference offers dozens of educational events, round tables, town halls and training sessions. Learning opportunities range from the State of Sustainability in Local Governments to Leveraging Tax Incentives for Sustainable Revitalization to Utilizing Social Media in Brownfield Development. Days before the event I was looking over the schedule trying to pick which sessions I wanted to sit in on. The Marcellus Shale presentation immediately caught my eye. The Marcellus Shale Formation is a rock formation found deep within the Appalachian Basin that contains large pockets of natural gas formed by the decaying organic matter embedded within this ancient formation. As the organic matter has broken down over millions of years it has produced pockets of natural gas. There is currently great excitement about the potential yield of natural gas contained within the Marcellus Formation.

A few facts about the Marcellus Shale Formation
• 390 Million Years Old
• Covers 95,000 sq miles over 7 states
• Contains estimates as high as 500 Trillion Cubic Ft of Natural Gas

Natural gas operations are growing rapidly in the United States, with increasing exploitation of natural gas reserves being a cornerstone of both Democratic and Republican energy proposals. Natural gas burns cleaner than traditional fossil fuels such as oil and coal, presently it is easier to get to, it’s cheaper, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. has a lot of it. But could this rush to development of a cleaner, cheaper fuel source result in creating as many problems as it helps to address? Adjoining the rapid growth of natural gas projects, there is increasing concern and debate about the safety of the practices used to harvest this fossil fuel of the future. Daily reports of environmental impacts are emerging near natural gas development sites in the form of harmful air emissions, watershed impairment and even earthquakes. In response to these reports, legal challenges are being brought forth by environmental advocacy groups and landowners alike. How appropriate that this year’s National Brownfields Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should also be held in Philadelphia, home to both the second largest natural gas deposit known in the world, the Marcellus Shale Formation, and the largest emerging market of natural gas production industry and its associated controversies.

Of primary concern among environmental advocates, landowners and watchdog groups is hydraulic fracturing, the primary method utilized to harvest natural gas deposits. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking, first used commercially by Halliburton in 1949, utilizes a mixture of chemicals, water and sand injected at high pressure into rock formations to cause fissures in these formations that allow natural gas pockets to merge and be extracted more efficiently. One of the chief concerns surrounding the fracking process is gas infiltration of groundwater supplies near fracking sites. An issue popularly highlighted by the documentary Gasland. Additionally, there is much concern about the residual waste left behind after a well is dry and a company’s undisclosed proprietary fracking mixture is removed and what happens to that waste water once it is removed.

Most recently the biggest shakeup in the fracking industry surrounds reports showing a troubling correlation between hydraulic fracturing and a high occurrence of earthquakes happening in Arkansas, a correlation disturbing enough to prompt a unanimous vote by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) to temporarily suspend injection well operations. In early March 2011, Shane Khoury, deputy director and general counsel for the commission, said Arkansas Geological Survey researchers had found enough evidence to request an immediate shutdown of two well locations near Greenbrier, Arkansas, where a series of 800 minor earthquakes culminated in a 4.7-magnitude earthquake, the most powerful reported in the state in 35 years.

Compounding these issues is the conspicuous lack of regulatory oversight for these practices as well as a bipartisan political effort to keep scrutiny off fracking at the federal level. This lack of EPA oversight dates back to the Bush/Cheney administration’s 2005 National Energy Bill that exempted fracking from EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a provision now known as the Halliburton Loophole (a dubious provision given Vice President Cheney’s history as the CEO of Halliburton. Despite the uncertainties of environmental impact, business is booming!

Number of Shale Well Permits Issued in Marcellus Region
• 2005 – 4 Permits Issued
• 2009 -  1,984 Permits Issued
• 2010 – 3,314 Permits Issued
(Data Provided by Brian Clark of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, National Brownfields Conference, 2011)

So when I saw that there was going to be a presentation on what is being billed as the largest natural gas operation in North America, the new gold rush, the future of energy in America, I had to sit in. And I wasn’t alone. I got there 15 minutes early and seats were filling. By the time the presentation started, there was standing room only.

Right before the session started a woman walked by and offered me a piece of paper. It was a collection of excerpts from a New York Times investigative series by Ian Urbina called “Drilling Down.” It presents a laundry list of environmental hazards, air pollution, radioactivity, and specifically water quality hazards associated with the fracking process and the waste water generated and released. For example, very surprisingly, the state of Pennsylvania is the only state that allows drilling waste water to be released to regular sewage treatment plants and on to rivers with residential sewage. The brief was compiled by Protecting Our Waters. Looking it over I was thinking “Great, this is what I wanted to hear about. We’re going to get some assurances and explanations on how these troubling issues are being addressed”.

The panel arranged on the dais was an ideal group to provide answers to my questions. The moderator was Brian Clark, a rep for Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, a large attorney and government relations firm. Representatives from two of the largest developing interests in the Marcellus region, Daryl Grieger with Williams Midstream, one of North America’s largest natural gas gatherers and processors, and Walt Hufford of Talisman Energy, owner of the largest number of well sites in Marcellus were also on the panel. Also on the panel were Don Zuch from Hull and Associates, a project development and engineering company and Denise Brinley of the Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection (PennDEP). With such a large gathering of industry professionals, legal experts and environmental management agencies, I thought, “Okay, time to get down to business.”  Alas, explanations and assurances were not on the agenda.

What followed over the next hour and fifteen minutes was not a clarification on the environmental impact associated with natural gas exploitation or what these titans of the industry were planning to do about it. The expert panel was not there to discuss water quality concerns, safety issues, regulatory schemas, or even earthquakes. What my fellow attendees and I were treated to was nothing less than a sales pitch. A good pitch, but a pitch none the less, centered on how we could make a fortune through the acquisition of Brownfield properties throughout the Marcellus region, taking advantage of all the tax benefits and incentive programs surrounding those properties, and then leasing those properties to natural gas developers for well sites.

Well site during active drilling to the Marcellus Shale formation in Upshur County, WV in 2008. Image from West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/09/09/epa-seeks-information-on-fracking-chemicals/.

The selling points were all there. For example we were implored to consider how small the landscape footprint of these well sites are after the admittedly sizeable operation it takes to set them up; going from a substantial acreage for the equipment, buildings, drill rig and trucks to set up the well, down to just a small Christmas tree size pump once running. It is easy to see that, following the set up phase, the landscape footprint is rather tiny, especially when compared to slides depicting the squat Eifel Tower appearance of land based oil rigs and the truly astounding engineering marvels of massive offshore oil derricks. This small footprint is even more appealing when we see how new side well drilling techniques allow us to tap areas hundreds of miles wide underground from one tiny little site on the surface. “Think of the green space we can save” they lauded.

And what of Brownfields? This was a Brownfields conference after all. How can natural gas development help us with our millions of acres of contaminated lands left over from industrial boom times past?  In response to this unspoken question, the panelists presented a series of maps that clearly showed a collection of Brownfield properties right smack dab in the areas surrounding the old Pennsylvania steel towns and rust belt capitals that are already perfectly situated for natural gas operations. Just as the old factory sites needed to be saddled up to river and rail access to move the ore and steel, so to do these properties bring all the necessary ingredients for hydraulic fracturing. Water sources to feed the fracking and rail to ship out the gas container cars.

You can see the appeal can’t you? Our moderator through up his hands in desire, “Wouldn’t you just love to be sitting on these old derelict properties, today?!” The rep from the PennDEP Brownfields division was conspicuously excited at the prospect. As these old sites were abandoned and deemed contaminated they often fell to the states, who are now rife with them, like the store owner with a warehouse full of the latest hot toy that turned out to be covered in lead paint. I half expected her to jump on the table, spin her cane and shake her Derby in the air barking “We got tainted properties here! Tainted properties for sale! Prices so low you’ll think I’m crazy! Step right up and get your derelict factory today!”

I have to admit it all sounded pretty good. But what about this compilation of environmental hazards I was handed at the start of the meeting? We have not covered these issues yet. Then, before they even invited those with questions to form an orderly que at the microphone stand, she was already there, the same woman who handed me the leaflet of environmental concerns. It was not until this moment I realized she was not with the illustrious professionals on the dais. My realization was confirmed when the entire panel looked at her and frowned; cheerful throughout out their presentation, there was a visible collective sigh from the panel and a slumping of shoulders at the appearance of this naysayer. 

She led in with a summary statement of some of the highlights of environmental hazards, the toxic chemicals in the fracking compounds, the groundwater seepage, and the allowance of discharge of these materials into Pennsylvania waterways. Her delivery was polite. But losing patience, somewhat quickly I thought, our moderator twice blurted in “Do you have a question? Do you have a question?”  She had two very pointed questions: “Are any of you going to address the environmental threats being regularly discovered about this process?” and “Shouldn’t we wait for the full impact review before setting off this massive expansion of the practice?” The answers to her questions came from one of the energy company reps and from the PennDEP rep. From the energy company: “It’s not like we want something to happen. Will things happen? Yeah probably, but people need energy.” and   from the PennDEP rep, about waiting for a full impact analysis: “No, we want these Brownfields bought and this is an industry that wants them.”

Another participant asked, “Has anyone done a carbon footprint analysis of these operations, considering all the trucks and development and shipping?” There was another sigh and slump of shoulders. The answer: “No, but that’s a good question, we’ll look into it.”

And then the presentation adjourned. As I pondered over what had just transpired I realized that not only did there remain the still unanswered questions about the environmental impacts, but now I had new questions. Part of the pitch was that these efforts were going to generate jobs and bring new use to Brownfield properties. That looks to be true. But I started to think about the part of the presentation where we looked at just how small the pump sites are after the initial set up. The pictures showed a lot of people working on those sites to set them up, the drilling and piping, the building of infrastructure associated with the startup of an operation. But the after shots, the ‘operation phase’ pictures, show no one, just a solitary pump fixture the size of a Christmas tree. So it seems all those busy bees on the set up of the rig are temp jobs. Where’s the long term job growth?

Later that evening I found myself still reflecting on what had been said in that session. What had I taken away? What I heard was that natural gas production was booming and fracking is the industry preferred means to harvest our future fuel. The attitude is “full steam ahead, there is money to be made and we will address the environmental concerns as we go.”  What this means for the cash strapped states and communities around the Marcellus Shale is a much needed new revenue stream, some job growth and an outlet to redirect Brownfield properties to new use. But what kind of new use and what foundation are we laying for our future? After all natural gas is still a fossil fuel; it will inevitably run out. Its favored nomenclature in the political arena is as a “bridge fuel.” something we can turn to until renewables are “viable technologies”.

I think it is unintentionally poignant that this proposal was delivered at the National Brownfields Conference. America is covered in millions of acres of contaminated and abandoned properties. Properties, that at one time brought the jobs and money that built towns and communities, jobs and, in many cases, whole towns that are now gone, and that is sad. It’s a piece of American heritage that we have seen slip away over the last fifty years, and what is left behind is abandoned infrastructure and land and water so polluted that it is unfit for habitation. But what created these Brownfield properties? In 99.9% of cases it was not deliberate. Most people would not actively poison their local communities. What drove the degradation of these environments was the rush to growth, the mad dash for opportunity that prompted loose regulatory frameworks to attract business. When the rust belt and steel towns seized upon their natural bounty to build communities and schools and jobs out of the land and earth around them it was always in good faith. They didn’t know what they didn’t know about the long term affects of pollution. We know better now.

As we go head long into this new natural gas boom I hope people will take a lesson from the bullish but well intentioned industrial drive that built our now abandoned historic communities. In our rush to natural gas development, are we relying on the same shortsighted thinking and resistance to the admittedly slow scientific process which created the millions of acres of Brownfields we gathered in Philadelphia to discuss? As we “re-purpose” our old industrial sites for new industrial uses, and inject the earth with unknown proprietary compounds, under unprecedented pressures, with as yet unknowable but inevitable environmental consequences, we may well be laying the ground work, not for revitalization, but for the re-browning of our Brownfields.

For additional information about the Marcellus shale, visit the following websites:
• National Geographic – Special Report: The Great Shale Gas Rush, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-rush/
• National Geographic – Mapping a Gas Boom, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022-mapping-a-gas-boom/
• EPA Hydraulic Fracturing, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm
• “Cornell Study Finds that Shale Gas Emissions Exceed Coal Emissions (April 14, 2011), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/idUS299327959820110413

In a January 19th open letter addressed to President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China, a coalition of environmental leaders encouraged both presidents to acknowledge the current climate crisis and make it a priority to address the situation through mitigation strategies.  Signed by representatives from 23 leading environmental groups (including among others Sierra Club, Earth Policy Institute, 350.org, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network), the letter notes that the United States and China “dominate world carbon emissions” which has been a well-publicized fact. 

The letter provides both leaders with daunting statistics that would make even the most skeptical environmentalists cringe.  For example, signatories cite the World Health Organization’s estimate that the Earth’s warming climate contributes to more than 150,000 deaths each year.  They further note that scientists predict that some 1/5 of all living species could be driven toward extinction by mid-century if the current climate situation is not alleviated. 

The letter calls for a “wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent (based on 2006 levels) by 2020” and notes that if we are to reduce carbon emissions to 350 parts per million in the atmosphere (the level “top climate scientists” state is safe for humanity), such a “mobilization” must be quickly forthcoming. 

The United States and China both face the daunting task of transforming their energy systems to migrate away from reliance on fossil fuels.  Both leaders have made overtures toward addressing the problem of energy efficiency in their respective nations but critics are quick to claim that this is simply political lip service paid to an issue that is gaining traction among citizens of both nations.  The Chinese are operating in their 11th Five Year Plan and are soon to develop and implement their 12th.  Experts note that in both plans, “the Chinese government has put in place a number of policies to improve energy efficiency, encourage diversity of energy sources, establish targets for renewable energy, and establish timelines for reducing carbon emissions.”  While this is a positive step in the right direction, these same experts concede that “the impact of China’s energy use on the local and global environment and energy security will be significant.”

President Obama has taken some steps toward weaning the American people from fossil fuels.  The White House website for Energy and the Environment notes that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) “included more the $80 billion in the generation of renewable energy sources” and touts the Administration’s steps toward developing more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances, homes, and vehicles.  Considering the magnitude of the nation’s “addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels,” however, it is no wonder that many environmentalists are still critical of the Obama Administration’s environmental efforts. 

The date of the open letter addressed to Presidents Obama and Hu coincided with Hu’s official state visit to the U.S.  President Hu was in Washington from January 18 to 21 where he and President Obama discussed several items.  As reported by The Washington Post, however, the high level discussions focused on economic issues, global security, and China’s poor human rights record.

After years of preparation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to execute a new set of rules that have the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States.  On January 2, 2011, the EPA’s Tailoring Rule takes effect which aims to target the largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

To fully understand the impact of the Tailoring Rule, it is important to understand its origins which really began in 1970 with the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The Clean Air Act sought to curb atmospheric pollution that was found even 40 years ago to have a negative impact on the environment and human health.  Various pollutants are acknowledged in the CAA as detrimental.  The CAA contains a permitting function which seeks to regulate the volume of pollutants as identified within the CAA.  In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants that are covered under the CAA.  At that time, the EPA undertook to determine whether such greenhouse gas emissions were subject to the CAA permitting regulations. 

In March 2010, as a result of the EPA’s research, the agency determined that such emissions are subject to CAA permitting regulations.  The agency identified six GHGs as most detrimental: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).  Additionally, the agency determined that vehicle emissions as well as emissions from stationary sources (defined by the EPA in 1981 as “any building, structure, facility or installation which emits or may emit any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act”) are some of the largest contributors of these emissions.  As a result, the Tailoring Rule was established as a means of addressing the largest emitters of six of the most detrimental greenhouse gases (listed above). 

Due to the logistical difficulties associated with millions of facilities applying for CAA permits all at the same time, the execution of the new EPA rule has been divided in three phases.  In the first phase (January 2 to June 30, 2011), the EPA will target the largest stationary emitters of the six specified greenhouse gas emissions.  During the first phase of the process, the EPA will target existing and certain recently-modified facilities that emit at least 75,000 tons of GHGs per year.  Based on EPA estimates, under the new rule, stationary sources “responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions…will be subject to permitting requirements.”  During the second phase of the program (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013), the EPA will begin expanding the permitting regulations to facilities that are significant emitters but not the largest which will be covered during the first phase.  During the second phase of the rule’s execution, new construction projects will be scrutinized to ensure that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for carbon emissions have been considered and utilized during the planning and construction phases.  Phase three of the rule requires the EPA to undertake another rulemaking to conclude no later than July 1, 2012 to explore additional steps for executing the permitting rules of the CAA. 

While stationary sources of emissions are subjected to a lengthy process under the Tailoring Rule, vehicle manufacturers will be required to take swifter action.  In April 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration issued the first national rule limiting GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.  The new requirements of limited GHG emissions from these sources take effect on January 2, 2011 which is the earliest date that 2012 vehicles meeting the new standards can be sold in the United States. 

Many question the effectiveness of the EPA’s Tailoring Rule and the process the agency has put forth for enforcement.  On his blog, Law & the Environment, for example, Seth Jaffe bluntly states that he does not have much confidence in the EPA’s ability to follow through with the program.  The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) state earlier this month that the EPA’s analysis vis-à-vis woody biomass under the Tailoring Rule is based on “bad science” and “jeopardizes renewable energy investment, jobs, [and] production goals.”  Nathanael Greene, blogger for Switchboard, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) staff blog, steadfastly rejects NAFO’s claims, however, noting that the new rules will create some initial hardships for the forest management industry and could be the reason why NAFO is claiming EPA’s analysis is faulty.  As is natural with a new rule of this nature, certain individuals and industries will be pleased and certain others will take issue with the legislation, depending on how the intended process and outcome will impact their specific interests. 

When President Richard Nixon signed the CAA in 1970, he said, “’I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America.’”  In the 40 years since the signing of the CAA, the United States has made notable progress toward maintaining and preserving “clean water and open spaces” but has made little significant progress toward substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Perhaps it is the unprecedented “newness” of the rule that has many questioning its legitimacy.  If the EPA is to follow through with its mission and uphold the specific elements of the CAA, however, the Tailoring Rule seems to be a step in the right direction.  Only time will tell if the new rule is effective but individuals concerned about environmental pollution from vehicles and stationary sources are optimistic.

Last week, several American Public University System (APUS) staff members from the school’s Instructional Design and Development office and the Office of the President presented at the 16th Annual Sloan Consortium International Conference on Online Learning in Orlando, Florida.  The Sloan Consortium (often called simply “Sloan-C”) “is an institutional and professional leadership organization dedicated to integrating online education into the mainstream of higher education, helping institutions and individual educators improve the quality, scale, and breadth of education.” More than 1,400 individuals attended (some virtually via Sloan’s live streaming feature) this year’s conference.  Attendees included representatives from other fully online institutions, ground-based colleges and universities, and schools with blended programs. 

The presentation, titled “Going Green Online,” detailed the ways in which APUS has capitalized on its online format to make significant progress in mitigating its carbon footprint.  The theme for this year’s conference was “The Power of Online Learning: Stimulating New Possibilities” and the group discussed the ways in which online universities can make a tremendous impact in combating climate change, a practice that is still relatively new to the online learning community.  To date, APUS is the only fully online school to sign the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.  Stressing the effectiveness of online instruction in helping to reduce a school’s carbon footprint, the presenting group provided best practices to help interested schools of all formats (online, blended, or on-ground) get started with their own sustainability programs.  The unique session topic was well-attended and was a great fit for the conference theme of “stimulating new possibilities.”