The final standards for hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), one of the last industries to be regulated by MACT, was just published in the Federal Register on February 16 and officially goes into effect on April 16, 2012. The rule (“Utility MACT”) had been long awaited; the USEPA began developing it 11 years ago. According to federal NESHAP, affected facilities have 3 years from the effective date to comply, although the USEPA may add an additional year, if felt to be necessary. This MACT rule offers a cautionary tale of how economics is being and will likely be used in the future by the USEPA to determine rule effectiveness in other areas and industries, as well.

Upon the release of the final rule, there was a huge public outcry. Some pundits on TV cited this as proof that the USEPA is “out of control” given that this is probably the most expensive rule that the USEPA has ever promulgated (and a cost borne exclusively by the power industry). But what was not said was that the USEPA calculated that the rule’s financial benefits are much greater than its costs. Affected sources, mainly coal-fired power plants, must implement Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) strategies to reduce HAP emissions. The main HAP being regulated (but not the only one) is mercury, a powerful neurotoxin that can cause reduced IQ and delayed development to those exposed to it, particularly the young. The avoided lost productivity of children through adult years, deaths, and medical costs are the main components of the benefits. Because the main exposure route of mercury is through accumulation in fish, it is not just a small population downwind of a coal-fired power plant that is at risk of adverse impacts, but a much wider swath of potential victims. This USEPA’s economic approach of analyzing health effects and its cost on US society is demonstrated here.

The Utility MACT rule, which the USEPA estimates will affect about 1,100 coal-fired power plants, would reduce mercury emissions by about 90% compared to uncontrolled plants, as well as large reductions in emissions of other HAPs, including other metals. The USEPA estimated that the cumulative annualized cost to comply with the rule will be about $9.4 billion in 2015, representing less than 3% of power company revenue. Costs are estimated to decline after that.

Like most MACT standards, this one contains emission limits (90% reduction in mercury emissions and similar reductions of other HAPs) to bring all existing applicable sources up to the standards of the top 12% of existing facilities. For mercury, the best solutions are scrubbing with lime or carbon injection, followed in either case with a fabric filter (baghouse) to capture the resulting slurry. The USEPA estimates that about 56% of applicable power plants already operate the control equipment (scrubbers and/or baghouse) needed to comply, although many may need to be incrementally upgraded to meet the new emission standards. These control technologies are not new or in any way experimental. They have worked to reduce mercury and other metal emissions not only in coal-fired power plants, but in other operations (i.e., waste incinerators), as well.

The controversy lies with many of the large majority of affected facilities with emissions that are well above the standards. The U.S. has many aging coal-fired power plants, and owners need to make an economic decision of whether they should invest perhaps millions of dollars in the technologies needed to comply while the operating equipment may be near the end of its useful life. Both the USEPA and industry groups agree that some coal-fired power plants will therefore shut down because of this rule, possibly leaving communities with limited sources of power. Predictably, they disagree on how many plants would be shut down and what regions, if any, may be at risk. The USEPA believes that the rule will ultimately lead to more jobs, mainly in building and installing control equipment, than would be lost by plant shutdowns. Industry groups disagree.

Another disagreement is on costs. The USEPA estimates that, on average nationally, electricity costs will rise just over 3% in 2015 because of the costs to comply with the Utility MACT, or around $3-4/month. That cost rise will drop in subsequent years. The effects will vary by state, being smallest in California where coal-fired power plants are already regulated and highest in the Plains states which tend to have older plants and have not been less regulated for air emissions. For readers not in the power industry, it is likely that the costs of MACT compliance will be passed through in electricity costs. Therefore, an energy conservation/efficiency program would be quite beneficial.

As discussed earlier, the Utility MACT’s final rule was just published in the Federal Register on Feb. 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304), with the rule officially going into effect on April 16, 2012. Facilities have 3 years from this date to comply, although the USEPA could add an additional year if deemed necessary. A number of industry sources say that 4 years is not enough to plan, decide on an approach, design, procure, install, and test the necessary technologies to reliably comply. Therefore, controversy about this rule will continue in the future and likely through the compliance years of 2015-16.

Get more useful information in our blog:

www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————–

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on air quality rules, and is not a substitute for legal or other specialty advice. CCES experts can assist you in technical strategies to comply reliably with the new and other MACT and air toxics regulatory standards.

February 14, 2012

Occasionally, when I tell people at a professional or social event that I am a climate change engineer, I get scorn – from climate change skeptics. Perhaps you’ve met such people, too, when you identify yourself as working in the environmental or sustainability area. I divide such people into 2 groups: those idealistically anti-climate change or the environment and those who are unsure, but swayed by what they hear from political pundits. For the former, I simply change the subject. Nothing I say, no amount of proof will change their views. They are so convinced that they will deny proof as a conspiracy.

But for the other group the question really is: has it been proven that climate change exists and is a manmade phenomenon? Such questions are asked because they have heard from some who believe that climate change has not been proven.

The only response I have is based strictly on science. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this believe that manmade emissions of GHGs at least contributes significantly, if not is the main factor, to climate change. This is not a 51:49 majority of scientists or even a larger 70:30 majority. According to a recent UN poll, it is a 98:2 majority that agree with this contention. And for anything in any realm to get 98% agreement is very rare! Remember, these are scientists devoted to studying the topic, not TV pundits without scientific credentials who are out to stir controversy for ratings. If you were ill, who would you listen to, your doctor or a pundit? Scientists in the area are the ones we should listen to on matters of science. I can’t find the source, but I read of a study of papers published in refereed scientific journals. In the 10-year period from 1996 and 2005, there were about 950 such papers about climate change. Every one showed proof of the view that climate change exists and/or manmade emissions of GHGs causes this. Not one article in a scientific journal showed any proof of the opposite view.

Finally, let’s look at the logic. Scientists determined that GHGs are capable of capturing radiation and release the energy as heat back in the 19th century! The concentrations of these GHGs in our atmosphere have increased – by direct measurement. The increase of CO2, the most common GHG, corresponds strongly to the increased use of fossil fuels on the planet (such as proliferation of the automobile), and corresponds with the temperature rise we are all seeing in terms of climate change. These relationships have been determined by these scientists of the highest credentials to be strong.

Climate change skeptics are in many places, including the workplace, and may affect the opportunity to grow a “green” or sustainability program. Knowing how to answer such skeptics in an intelligent way is an important factor to keep your program growing.

CCES can help your company grow your sustainability programs and engender support from employees, stakeholders, etc. Contact CCES to help you see the benefits.

February 7, 2012

The CCES Blog often contains tips to reduce your energy usage and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as cost effectively as possible. Here’s another such tip. Take a hard look at your mechanical equipment, mainly pumps. If they are more than a decade old, they may well be oversized for its function, reducing energy efficiency and raising its costs rise.

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but until recently most engineers oversize their design of pumps by 10-20% “just in case”. Add that to the equipment manufacturer recommending a model that may be oversized by an additional 10-20% (to better ensure it perform adequately at the customer’s facility) and you have a pump that is significantly overperforming its need. In addition, given decline in manufacturing rates, a pump may not need to operate at such a high rate anymore. In fact, there are many examples of pumps that operate flow controls to reduce the flow into it of the item to be transported to achieve the desired rate. However, the pump is still operating at full load. This is like having to use your brake to drive a car to get somewhere because the accelerator is too strong.

Not only is this a waste of electricity, but this also leads to greater costs in maintenance and potential replacement of the equipment quicker than planned.

There are three potential solutions to this problem. First, when replacing a pump, re-evaluate its actual needs given new plant realities and with less overdesign. Second, purchase as energy efficient a pump as available. Remember that a majority of its life cycle cost is the electricity it uses in your plant over a lifetime. Finally, purchase new a pump with a variable frequency drive (VFD). This allows you to operate the pump not only at its maximum frequency, but also at alternative (lower) ones, which, if they can do the job, will save you money. In addition, flow restrictors (which cause a pressure drop-caused loss of efficiency) would not be needed anymore. Industries are reporting savings of hundreds of kilowatt-hours and thousands of dollars per year by right sizing even a single pump and using a VFD. For certain industries that pump large quantities of liquids or solids for processing, this alone could result in a very large reduction in percent electricity usage.

CCES and our energy experts can help many types of facilities evaluate your energy usage and provide options to reduce energy usage and costs significantly.

January 31, 2012

Though some US municipalities are beginning to address it, climate change adaptation or how an entity will cope with the likely incremental increases in temperatures and precipitation (both greater rainfall and droughts) is not discussed much in board meetings or other strategic sessions. The trends are real and no longer something that can be delayed to a future generation. A recent Weather Channel survey showed twice as many all-time high temperatures compared to all-time lows. Certainly the news is full of stories of greater intensity hurricanes, tornados, and storms occurring more often.

But there is action on the global front about climate change adaptation. The Global Adaptation Institute has developed a Global Adaptation Index (GAIN). The U.S. is ranked 8th in the world with a particularly high “readiness” quotient because we already have a well-developed business infrastructure. Many countries that are smaller, more geographically vulnerable, or have fewer safeguards have a much lower GAIN ranking.
Industries and companies are addressing adaptation in future plans – some to strategize to minimize disruptions and some as an opportunity for enhanced business. Here are two examples from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Network Rail, which overseas railroad operations in the UK, studied the operational impacts of increased heat and precipitation and issued a report last year. They identified several issues in the future that would need to be addressed, such as employee and passenger heat stress (reducing the former’s productivity and requiring more frequent railway efforts for the latter); an increase in railroad track buckling (requiring more frequent speed restrictions throughout the system); and increasing frequency of storm surges and flooding (risking the efficacy of certain trackside equipment and damaging stations and tracks and embankments and their equipment). With this information, Network Rail will identify particular regions of concern and develop strategies to reduce losses in these catastrophic cases (i.e., raise certain equipment above ground).

BASF has been conducting research in several areas related to climate change and is slowly introducing new products, such as crops that can adapt to more extremes in temperature and rainfall, a polymer that can help a dike resist the forces of braking water, and a polymer that can sit in the soil and absorb, hold on to, and gradually release rainwater in regions that get little rain, but get high volumes when it comes. These and other products will eventually be commercialized to help many countries and individuals adapt to climate change and also help their business bottom line.

CCES and our experts can help your company assess the worthiness of potential green building projects for your existing and new buildings with a proper gaps analysis.

Green building has had its ups and downs lately. Many professionals complain about the USGBC’s LEED standards, ranging from it’s too expensive and difficult to get certification to it does not truly result in sustainability. The number of projects in the LEED pipeline has reportedly stagnated lately. Some have talked about putting out new competing standards or simpler ones that will gain interest from more building owners.
But green building and LEED are here – at least for now. Here are some trends that have been reported to occur in 2011 and likely to continue into 2012.
1. The Economy – With the real estate industry and new building construction still stagnant, the focus of green building has shifted to the greening of existing buildings. Owners of existing buildings believe that there is “more bang for the buck” of upgrades to meet LEED requirements with a payback in terms of raising revenues (rents) and property values.
2. Recognition of water issues. Given the growth in extreme weather events in the last few years, there is growing awareness of the issue of flooding and stormwater control, which can be addressed by green roofs and rainwater recovery systems. In some parts of the U.S., there is a growing fear of water shortages. Therefore, water conservation technologies will grow in popularity.
3. Outdoing conventional energy savings. To make a splash and to respond to rising energy prices, more building owners are considering alternative energy, not just wind turbines and solar cells, but geothermal and aquifer air temperature control systems, too. If appropriate, designed right and with the right incentives (government and utility), such a technology can reduce energy bills substantially, a major cost for tenants and make the “green” buildings very competitive.
4. Performance, not design. Given the investment in smart technologies and design, it is important to demonstrate that these systems actually work in real time as advertised and designed. It is not enough to just purchase an advanced technology. Commissioning and other testing is needed and insisted on to demonstrate that it is actually performing as assumed. The USGBC and other entities are waking up to the need for continual superior performance.
5. Government buildings – Governments are becoming one of the biggest segments for green buildings, ranging from the US Army in Afghanistan to the federal government making a bona fide effort to build new or refurbish to LEED standards, as practical, to a growing number of school systems retrofitting “green” for the health and well being of students and teachers. A growing number of local government policies mandate “green” initiatives in new govt buildings.
CCES and our experts can help your company assess the worthiness of potential green building projects for your existing and new buildings with a proper gaps analysis.

Changing one’s ways or implementing new initiatives is difficult. It’s inconvenient. This seems especially true in the U.S. in recent years. Thus, the reluctance to implement smarter, cleaner strategies. Businesses in other nations have demonstrated that clean approaches – in operations and also in business strategies – have been successful in meeting the challenges of the global recession. Now there is a U.S. industry that can be a model for companies across the business spectrum to add value while addressing sustainability concerns, and that is the automobile industry.

For decades “Big Auto” did things the same old way, ignoring the fact that technology and consumer preferences were changing and that more people no longer wanted to drive gas guzzlers, whether because of rising gasoline prices or concern with the environment. Perhaps they thought they can affect consumer attitudes with advertising.

The results for U.S. auto makers were disastrous. By failing to be more sustainable, U.S. automakers weakened their bottom line and lost their lead position in global sales. GM was rescued from potentially going totally out of business by a federal bailout with oversight that insisted the company make the type of cars that people had requested for years. Chrysler, besides getting bailout money, was taken over by a European buyer, infusing their sustainability experience. While Ford was not bailed out, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and also began to build more fuel-efficient cars that they had been fighting for decades. Although some Americans are unsure about climate change, Big Auto finally learned that addressing sustainability helps consumers get more value from their car, which everyone supports. All 3 firms have improved sales and the bottom line. Even SUV sales have improved recently, but for models with better gas mileage.

Which other U.S. industries have not addressed changing technologies and consumer preferences and can use the U.S. auto industry as a model? One that comes to mind is the power industry, as major electricity producers have fought new regulatory initiatives and renewable energy. Power companies have the opportunity to gradually replace their oldest, dirtiest power plants with cleaner energy, but many appear reluctant to do so.

An example is the new draft mercury rules for power plants. The US EPA, after listening to industry and environmental sectors, crafted new rules with an economic analysis that estimates both avoided deaths and emergency room visits that could be caused by this rule, based on current scientific knowledge, and the overall national economic gain. Instead, power companies are lobbying against this bill and even pushing Congress to pass a bill preventing the US EPA from passing new rules. Some have intimated that plants may shut down and perhaps potentially deprive areas of electricity.

It may seem counterintuitive, but smart federal rules that represent compromises between industry and environmental groups and based on current health-based, scientific knowledge and economic analysis, may be the best thing for the power and all industries. Such efforts result in a “level playing field” for all companies and a more satisfied public, both in terms of health cost savings, energy independence, energy source choices and risk, and environmental concerns. With all the debate in the last few years about federal health care legislation and record health insurance costs, it is certainly non-partisan and in everybody’s interest to enact laws that can reduce factors that lead to fatalities and the need for health care, based on current knowledge.

There is also the case of “unwanted consequences” by squelching smart legislation. An example for all industries is federal climate change or “carbon” legislation, which did not pass Congress. Failure to enact uniform legislation does not mean that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not regulated. Instead they are regulated in a “quilt” of rules in different states, regions, and even cities. The Northeast U.S. has the “RGGI” rule for GHG emissions from power plants there, while California’s new AB-32 has demanding rules for many industries. And then there are rules that only indirectly affect carbon emissions, such as “green building” rules and renewable energy standards. Even federal GHG rules are not gone. First, the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98) requires a variety of industries to report (not reduce) their direct emissions. Finally, the US EPA will be required to pass legislation to reduce GHG emissions through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Required? Yes. Several courts have ruled that GHGs are a “pollutant”, and the CAA requires the US EPA to regulate all pollutants. But, the CAA is not the ideal way to legislate reductions of compounds with no direct, health-based effects. Rules based on the CAA may impact some industries harder than others compared to specific GHG-based rules (theory of “square peg in a round hole”).

The writing is on the wall for many U.S. industries, including the power industry. Change positively with the times, seek consumer preferences, and work with new technologies and together with the government and there is a chance to benefit from the available transition to clean energy and benefit the bottom line. A New Year’s Wish for 2012.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on draft rules. CCES experts can assist you in strategizing to comply reliably with these new and other regulatory standards.

It’s the beginning of the calendar year, a time when many environmental professionals begin to gather their 2011 environmental data to generate reports that your regulatory agencies require. How much fuel did your stationary combustion sources burn in the past year? How many times was a certain condition exceeded in the past quarter? Were there any accidental releases this year? If so, were they addressed promptly? Data used to determine your facility’s compliance status vis-à-vis all applicable environmental requirements has the end game: “Did we have any violations to result in NOVs (Notices of Violation) or fines this year?” Environmental compliance was seen by management as a back office operation to minimize costs, and not as an integral part of conducting business. Data had limited uses, but never studied to optimize practices or to understand its effects on company business prospects. No fines? You’re fine.

But forward-thinking businesses are now thinking differently about environmental metrics. Customer and shareholder preferences, regulatory pressures and process optimization require detailed environmental and sustainability data. New environmental software exist to make the gathering and analytical processes easier and smoother. Environmental metrics must be taken more seriously now to give direction to where your firm is heading. ISO 14001 and its companion guidelines and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have been major drivers in this movement.

Every company or facility has individual needs and systems and cannot be pigeon-holed into a single approach. However, there are some universal values to ponder. One is the critical need for planning. One must spend significant upfront time to determine what data needs to be collected and what is the value of such measurements – not just to EHS, but to other departments and stakeholders (customers, government, etc.), too. For example, you may collect fuel usage data to compute emissions, but that data is also useful to your Production and Business departments. You don’t want to waste your time and resources collecting useless data. In this effort it is critical to involve the right people from other departments, such as IT, Finance, Production, etc., so everyone is on board with the data, how it’s collected, and its potential meaning. Make sure that your data adds value to achieving everyone’s ultimate goals. Make sure collection and treatment methods are consistent with those used by other departments or company facilities, as well as with global standards, so your data and results are not questioned.

You and your company will benefit in 2012 if you can devote some time to assess and optimize your environmental or sustainability data planning and gathering system. This is a good time to begin meeting with IT and other department reps to overhaul your environmental data management system, to modernize it, and add business value.

CCES has the technical experts to assist you in assessing your environmental or sustainability data and to recommend ways to bring more value to the data available. Our experts are familiar with a number of different software to manage your data reliably and save you time and money.

January 4, 2012

It’s the beginning of a new year. Just as people develop personal new year’s resolutions for self-improvement which, we hope, we’ll stick to, people should develop company or professional new year’s resolutions, too. What can you do to improve your effectiveness for your company, which will, as a result, make yourself more valuable to your company (when hard decisions have to be made) and benefit your company to, at least in part, put off those potential hard times? Maybe more important, what can you do for your firm that has measureable value, so you can point to the effort and say “I saved the (company/department/facility) $X last year and here’s the proof.”? Working for big firms, that was always a stumbling block for me. I felt I had achievements beyond my goals to benefit my company, but had trouble putting it into undeniable dollars and cents metrics. What can you do to help yourself professionally this year? I maintain one area that meets these criteria is to work to improve the company’s energy efficiency, whether it’s your own or your department’s or entire company’s energy profile. You can demonstrate real gains and translate them into financial savings and other benefits.

An energy efficiency assessment of operations has many advantages – from a business point of view – for any company, big or small. Of course, one such advantage is cost savings. An energy efficiency assessment and implementation of “low hanging fruit” is just about guaranteed to save your company money. One way to achieve this is to work with your Purchasing Department to institute a policy that all new equipment purchased has the Energy Star label, if applicable. This joint EPA/DOE program ensures that you will be saving electricity or fuel use compared to the typical equipment of that type. A lighting study also has a strong return on investment.

But do note that while improving the efficiency of your operations vis-à-vis electricity usage is positive, another item to examine is conservation. Are there areas/times where operations using electricity can be eliminated altogether? While it is a pain to request people shut off lights or computers in areas they are leaving, look into requesting movement sensors that will turn off lights automatically if there has been no movement for a certain amount of time. Reducing usage by 20%, 50%, or more is great, but reducing usage by 100%, even for a short amount of time, is even more powerful.

Besides direct monetary savings, helping to institute an energy efficiency program for your company has other benefits, such as meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction, goals, raising employee morale, and improving the productivity of your company. After all, how does a company best beat the competition, by being more efficient?

CCES has the technical experts to assist you in assessing your energy usage and in recommending strategies to be more efficient and reduce usage. Our experts can also translate those strategies into implementation and into determining real financial savings and gains.

December 28, 2011

Like everyone, I have thoughts and wishes for 2012. Besides personal ones for me and my family, I have one I wish to share with you, my fellow environmental professionals. My wish for 2012 is that we go back to the way it was about a decade ago or so and live in a society that makes decisions based on facts and science rather than based on innuendo and to please those who yell the loudest or have the best lobbyists. Need an example. There are many. But just a few days ago I was watching a political discussion show and a “panel” of experts declared the EPA as “out of control” because of their new draft mercury rules, without speaking of what those rules were. They conveniently did not mention that the rule contains an analysis showing a net economic benefit to our country of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, they can critique the analysis; that’s fine. But to criticize a rule just because it’s a rule and not its merits is what I am talking about.

We should make decisions for our society and our country based on the best science, and not worry so much about pleasing constituencies. Decisions should not be made based on short-term gains (for the next election cycle), but, instead, for the long-term benefits for the most people. Yes, in all decisions (i.e., new rules, allowing a project to move forward or not), some people or some businesses get hurt and some prosper. But if these decisions are transparent, based on science and not hearsay, and made for long-term benefits, then businesses and people have a chance to adjust positively to even those decisions that may initially have adverse impacts. In the last decade, so many societal decisions have been made (and even more delayed or avoided) based on pleasing a small (either loud or wealthy) constituency, and this should be ended.

And I hope that businesses, governments, and other institutions begin in 2012 to be more innovative and take more smart risks. I detect in these past few years (especially since our recession) organizations have hesitated to make logical, wise decisions. The status quo is easier than doing something new or different, even if likely to be beneficial. The fear of what may happen to decision makers because of a decision maybe failing to meet all goals is paralyzing growth in this country. I hope that organizations will stop blocking otherwise logical plans that are not quite perfect and use smart analysis to fix and improve a bad situation – if it happens. It is only with a changing approach like this that U.S. businesses can innovate, become more competitive, and save money at the same time; and governments, universities, etc. can better serve its stakeholders.

I’m hoping that in 2012 all science-based professionals, such as the readers of this blog, begin to get greater respect and recognition than the non-science educated people whose decisions affect our companies, country, and our careers.

Let me know your thoughts!

I hope you, your family, friends, and colleagues have a Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2012 from CCES. And I hope we can be part of the coming year for you, as well.

December 2011

The year-end holidays are a time for big meals, family, etc. But we should always keep the thanks in Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, etc. Here are some statistics to drive home the importance of sustainability and for the holidays. You probably heard the news story about a month ago that the Earth’s population has just reached the 7 billion mark. But there is another statistic that did not make the news even more sobering. According to the IPCC, of the 7 billion people a little over 1 billion live “like us”. That is, we eat 3 full meals a day, own our own car (and maybe more than 1 and a boat, too), have a roof over our heads where we can easily burn fuel or use electricity with a click of a button to control the temperature, go on vacation, and use many “things” to make life easier (i.e., TVs, smartphones, laptops, etc., etc.). And even if some of these billion plus people do not physically have all of these, it is only by choice. Yes, we in the U.S., Canada, Western/Central Europe, Japan, Australia, and parts of other countries are all high resource and energy users. This is not a guilt trip. We have been given this opportunity to have access to these. They are affordable, so we consume and use.

But this statistic leads to two important points. According to several demographers, the expected world population in 2050 – less than 40 years from now – is expected to be 9 billion. OK, what’s a couple of billion more mouths to feed, particularly if most will live on subsistence diets, will not own cars or climate-controlled homes, take vacations, etc.? But the kicker is that it is believed that by 2050 the number of people who will be “like us” will increase from a little over one billion to 3 billion! 2 billion additional people will live in bigger homes, drive cars, use laptops, refrigerators, clothes washers, TVs, smartphones, etc. This will occur mainly in the “BRIC” countries as they grow and people move to the middle class. We are already seeing many people in China giving up their bicycles and buying their first automobiles, where both the infrastructure (the roads) and the environment (the air) are not ready for this big increase in automobile usage. Therefore, sustainability is a must for us. How can we refuse these additional 2 billion people having seen how “we” live to live “like us”, too? But how can we provide the extra energy, water, and resources for all of these new items for these additional 2 billion people? We must redouble our efforts to be sustainable or our natural resources will be so scarce as to put us in another recession (or worse) or lead to war or protests.

And, how does that initial statistic relate to the holidays? If you are reading this article, you are most likely in the one billion out of 7 who live a high energy lifestyle. No matter what may be troubling you (and I am sure that it’s legit), always be thankful that you have access to 3 full meals a day, a comfortable home, means of transportation, access to the Internet, TV, and gadgets galore, etc. Be thankful that you are not part of the 85% of the world’s population that do not have access or cannot afford all of these pleasures.

Happy Holidays to you and your family from CCES.