photo courtesy of NOAA

Small, summertime hail storms in the Colorado Front Range could disappear by 2070, according to a recently published study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The study focuses on the effect of climate change on the smaller hail storms typically seen during the spring and summer seasons in the Front Range. Assuming climate-warming greenhouse gases continue to increase from the current atmospheric levels of 390 parts per million to the estimated levels of 620 parts per million in 2070, the hail produced from these storms may melt to rain before it ever reaches the ground.

While the prospect of fewer potentially damaging hail storms may excite the gardeners and farmers concerned about their plants and the handful of people who don’t own a Subaru and are instead concerned about the paint job on their ridiculously expensive, mostly useless sports car, the lack of hail may actually cause problems for the Front Range, says Kelly Mahoney, a research scientist at CIRES and the lead author of the study.

The Front Range is used to summer storms producing hail instead of rain, which means the area is used to experiencing a slow melt after a storm, not a sudden downpour. If the atmospheric temperature continues to rise and the hail melts into rain before hitting the surface, it could lead to problems of flash floods in the Front Range, according to Mahoney.

But, there are a couple reasons we shouldn’t be too concerned. First, maybe we will figure out some super-efficient alternative energy source that will basically eliminate greenhouse gases and rising atmospheric temperatures will no longer be a concern. Second, if that doesn’t happen, by 2070 we may have discovered things like floating houses, flying cars and teleportation that make the threat of flash floods laughable. Finally, if all else fails, there’s always the Mayan prophecies for the end of the world on Dec. 21 of this year, so who really cares about 2070?

Though Congress this year may be better known as the session that failed to accomplish anything, a report commissioned by three ranking members of the House shows this year’s collection of Representatives has cast more anti-environment votes than any other in history. The total averages out to one anti-environmental vote for every day in session in 2011. The votes were split by party, with 94 percent of Republicans voting anti-environment and 86 percent of Democrats voting pro-environment.

“The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless,” says Rep.

Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in a press release. “In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.”

According to the report, which was commissioned by Representatives Waxman, Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), “the House has voted 191 times to undermine protection of the environment.” Those votes have included blocking actions to prevent air pollution, disarming the Environmental Protection Agency when it comes to enforcing water pollution standards and Clean Air Act protections, addressing climate change, designating wilderness lands, allowing oil and gas development off the coasts of states opposed to offshore drilling and slashing funding — by 80 percent — for the Department of Energy to support renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“These votes are just a preview of coming attractions if the fossil fuel industries get their way and place more Republicans in Congress and the White House,” Markey says in a press release. “With that kind of cast, anti-environmental blockbusters will be the norm, sending more mercury into our kids, more air pollution into our lungs, and more carbon pollution into our atmosphere.”

“We have so many natural resource-type situations here, so we find ourselves in Colorado getting hit by these votes all kinds of different ways,” says Veronica Egan, executive director of Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a Durango-based environmental advocacy group founded in 1989 to make the case that seniors still enjoy wilderness areas. “I think probably the primary way is that there have been votes … to reject scientific findings, in other words to compromise the role of science in decision-making. And right up there with that is votes to block action on carbon pollution on climate change and planning for adaptation to climate change.”

Many of these measures were tacked onto other bills, and in a Congress that’s spent more time spinning its wheels than moving forward on anything, a lot of them didn’t pass.

“One of the things that we’ve been so painfully aware of in the environmental business is that we thought, of course, in 2008, ‘Oh boy, the Bush administration is gone and we’re going to see some progress,’ and we’ve been sorely disappointed along those lines,” Egan says.

The lack of strong environmental leadership has led to constant attacks on environmental legislation, even bills with decades of evidence to show they work, like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. Clean Air Act protections were hardest hit with 77 votes that undermined health-based standards and blocked EPA regulation of mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, incinerators, industrial boilers, cement plants and mining operations.

Since it was signed into law in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution by more than 70 percent, according to the recently commissioned report. The EPA estimated in another report titled “Empirical Evidence Regarding the Effects of the Clean Air Act on Jobs and Economic Growth” that the law has saved more than 160,000 jobs in just the last year, and prevented another 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days due to illness or disease caused or exacerbated by air pollution. The act has been heralded as an investment with better returns than Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway over the past 40 years by the National Resources Defense Council.

“Americans rely on our government to protect their families from the dangerous effects of pollution that can poison our air, water and environment,” says Berman in his press release. “This report puts Americans on notice: We must continue to fight efforts to erode the laws that protect our health and wellbeing.”

Activists opposed to genetically engineered foods are not singing the same tune when it comes to reaction to the Boulder County commissioners’ Dec. 20 decision to allow additional genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on taxpayer-funded open space.

On one side, leaders of the GM Know group are alluding to keeping up the fight in terms of voting down open space taxes and bringing in strong anti- GMO commissioners. But on the other side, GMO Free Boulder seems to have been pleased by aspects of the decision and is willing to work with farmers to find solutions.

After the commissioners’ unanimous vote on Tuesday to approve a cropland policy allowing genetically modified sugar beets to be added to the crops grown on county land (GM corn was allowed in 2003), anti-GMO activists said they weren’t surprised by the decision, but they differed on the next steps.

Scott Smith, co-founder of the grassroots group GM Know, told Boulder Weekly that “the Boulder New World Order is genetically modified organics” when asked about the commissioners’ decision to approve a cropland policy that allows for GM corn sugar beets, but no other genetically engineered plants.

“They saw the money to be made on sugar beets, and don’t see the health risks,” he says.

When asked about possible actions to pull back on taxpayer-paid open space purchases, Smith says GM Know would be holding a press conference on that topic in the next few days.

He described the cropland policy approved by the commissioners as being written by county open space staff and simply rubber-stamped by the commissioner-appointed Cropland Policy Advisory Group.

Another activist opposed to GMOs, Sarah Larrabee, told Boulder Weekly that one option is for voters to rescind money they have shelled out for open space purchases.

They say all six individuals running for commissioner seats being vacated by Ben Pearlman and Will Toor are opposed to GMOs, which could mean changes will be in the works after next year’s election.

Mary VonBreck, campaign manager for GMO Free Boulder, says her group had productive meetings with the commissioners and farmers in the last couple of weeks and reached some common understanding. She says that while she anticipated the “yes” vote on allowing GM sugar beets, she was pleasantly surprised by the commissioners’ decision to disallow other GM crops.

VonBreck adds that she was also encouraged by the commissioners advocating for Colorado’s congressional delegation to push for the labeling of genetically modified foods.

She says her group’s future agenda items, in addition to advocating for labeling, include removing GMOs from tax-funded school lunches.

VonBreck says her group doesn’t support pulling funding from open space purchases because of the decision.

“Politically, that was the best thing they could do,” she says of the commissioners’ decision to allow only GM corn and sugar beets on a case-by-case basis. “We kind of understood that sugar beets were in the bag. … Considering that politics is always a compromise, allowing genetically modified sugar beets, we saw that coming.”

VonBreck says a partial victory came when the commissioners decided to go against their staff and preclude other GM crops.

She adds that her group plans to work with farmers and try to create market opportunities that guide them away from needing to grow genetically modified foods.

“A lot of the discussions we started in the last couple of weeks with the county and the farmers made it into the discussion, so we were pleased with that,” she says, adding that “our way or the highway” is not the way to approach the argument.

“I don’t think either side likes being told that,” VonBreck says.

Six years ago, in the interest of protecting Colorado’s pristine wilderness areas while the national roadless area rule was being contested in court, the state began development of a roadless rule. Two drafts and 200,000 public comments later, local conservation organizations are now looking to scrap that rule and go back to the national roadless rule, which has since been validated twice by circuit courts, including the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in October. Not only is a state rule no long necessary, conservation groups say, the Colorado roadless rule doesn’t offer protections for Colorado’s forests that are as strong as the national rule. They’re putting pressure on the Obama administration to block the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule.

“The national rule, because it was so thoroughly prepared and it does include so many thoughtful accommodations for special needs for community safety and good forest management and healthy forest and road building for existing valid rights — because all that stuff is there, roadless areas and Colorado’s other needs are well protected under this newly affirmed national rule, so that’s the standard we need to uphold,” says Steve Smith, president of the board at the Wilderness Workshop. “The proposed Colorado rule diminishes protections, takes lands out of protection compared to the nationwide rule, so it’s not as strong. … It would end up with Colorado having a rule that was weaker than what other states have.”

Roadless rules provide specific directions for the conservation — in terms of road building, tree cutting and construction zones — of 4.2 million acres of National Forest lands in Colorado and 60 million acres across 39 U.S. states.

In response to criticisms that Colorado’s proposal didn’t offer tight enough protections, the U.S. Forest Service added an “upper tier” designation for lands in need of a high level of conservation. That distinction applies to 562,000 acres.

“As opposed to the 2001 rule, the Colorado Roadless Rule is tailored to Colorado’s needs of conserving land areas and encouraging economic development and job growth and continuing use,” a U.S. Forest Service document says about the Colorado Roadless Rule.

Colorado’s rule also provides an exception for the North Fork coal mining area, which includes parts of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, and for ski resorts that may want to expand.

After a 90-day public comment period this summer, the proposed rule was sent to the federal government for approval. That process is expected to conclude in 2012 with a decision on the rule.

The Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, Earthjustice, High Country Citizens Alliance, The Pew Environment Group, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Rocky Mountain Wild, Sheep Mountain Alliance, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Western Colorado Congress, and the Wilderness Workshop have been running ads requesting people to petition President Obama to overturn the state plan.

“Roadless forests are some of the most important areas in the state for our drinking water sources, for wildlife habitat, for backcountry recreation,” says Elise Jones, executive director of Colorado Environmental Coalition. “These are really some of the gems, and it’s really important that we have the strongest possible protections.”

Now that it’s been defended by the courts, the national roadless rule is the best tool to provide strong protections for the forests, Jones says.

“The vast majority of people who work in forest conservations would prefer not to have a state rule but to have a national rule that covers all the forests so that there’s consistent protections,” Jones says.

There’s a question of how other states might handle their own roadless rules, Steve Smith says, a process that could leave the doors open to development. So far, Idaho is the only other state that has written its own rule.

“Because we have something in hand that’s reliable, that’s solid, that’s good protection, we’re reluctant to give it up for who knows what,” he says. “In Colorado, we do know what’s proposed; that’s why the other half of our message is, if you are going to do a state rule in the name of customizing it, then make sure you get it right.”

These conservation organizations have submitted, both during the public comment period and after, suggestions they argue would strengthen the rule at least to the level of the national rule, such as clarifying the distance from town for wildfire buffer tree-cutting and requiring rehabilitation at construction zones for pipe line and power lines. The Colorado Environmental Coalition has also identified 2.5 million acres that qualify for upper-tier protection.

The conservationist groups have also called out 86 leases that were granted when the Bush administration put a hold on the roadless rule, and asked that those leases add explicit roadless stipulations, which require oil and gas companies to use any possible means to access oil and gas reserves without making a road and to reclaim the area afterward.

“We have to team up to be sure that we’re very clear, as a state, as citizens, as governments, which places are going to get some solid protection,” Steve Smith says. “If there is going to be a state rule, it must be at least as protective as the nationwide rule. It’s got to meet that standard.”

This week Repurpose Compostables announced the debut of their One Cup which, according to the press release, “requires no sleeve, uses 65% less CO2 than a traditional cup to produce, and can be composted in 90 days.” And to take it one step further, this 100% certified compostable cup is also made with FSC-certified paper.

Read more about it on Triple Pundit.

The Repurpose Compostables insulated cup won first prize for Sustainability at the Specialty Coffee Association Annual Show in Houston in October.

Now if they could just make a major breakthrough in the guilt associated with a salted caramel mocha.

By Charmaine Ortega Getz

It was sorrow that compelled Rosalie Bianco to act.

“I was in Grand County a couple of years ago,” she recalls. “It was breaking my heart to see all the trees dying from pine beetle infestation, and then watching all the dead trees logged and burnt, releasing all that C0 [carbon dioxide] in the air.” Bianco, a Boulder real estate agent on sabbatical, shared her concerns with friend Jeanne Scholl, then a conservation manager for Boulder County Parks and Open Space.

“We agreed there had to be some way to use that timber. I had this crazy idea that maybe it could be turned into pellets for stoves. Neither one of us knew anything about pellet stoves, but we figured if you were going to burn that wood and release that C0 , at least 2 it wouldn’t be wasted.”

The dead trees, Bianco learned, were free for the taking, although the pickup at forest collection sites in Colorado and delivery by logging trucks to a mill wouldn’t be cheap.

She traveled to 10 mills around the country, sought out the top three pellet-machine manufacturers, and discussed the challenges with engineers. In the end, a more energy-efficient machine was invented to replace the usual furnace-processing of trees.

According to the Pellet Fuels Institute, pellets are a cheaper, more carbon-neutral heating source than gas, oil, electricity or coal. In bulk, they’re more space-efficient than a wood pile, and leave only a small amount of compostable ash.

It took almost $3 million to launch New Earth Pellets — funded by personal savings and the investment of friends and kin who shared Bianco’s passion for the environment.

The tiny town of Silver Plume welcomed the new commercial mill’s 25 full-time jobs. New Earth Pellets recently opened a retail store and distribution center in Lakewood, where pellets and a variety of pellet stoves are sold, from fireplace conversion kits to free-standing units.

New Earth Pellets provides fuel, stoves, installation, instruction and the option of regular pellet delivery. Bianco says the company will also sell pellet-fueled furnaces and boilers starting in September.

It may seem ludicrous in August to be thinking about pellet stoves to augment or replace your current home heating system, but given that there may be a federal energy tax credit (up to $1,500) expiring at the end of the year, it’s not too soon to be thinking of such a purchase.

Also, the store is currently offering zero down with 100 percent financing on the purchase of a new stove, plus up to three tons of free pellets.

Bianco says she can use her EPA-approved stove even on “no-burn” days, and that her own Boulder home costs 275 percent more to heat with electricity than with her New Earth pellets, and 45 percent more to heat with propane.

You can figure out your own probable energy savings with an online calculator provided by the Pellet Fuels Institute, www.pelletheat.org.

More information is available at www.newearthpellets.com.

New Earth Pellets is located at 950 Simms St., Lakewood, and can be reached by calling 970-GO-GREEN.

CORRECTION: An Aug. 19 Boulderganic article, “Loving to grow,” incorrectly listed the contact information for the I Love to Grow nursery. The website is www.ilovetogrow.com, and the phone number is 303-736-9508.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

An Eco-Products customer since 2005, New Belgium was an early adopter of compostable cups for their events, but like many of Eco-Products’ clients, the brewery supplements its compostable cup use with conventional plastic products where waste diversion through composting is not available.  “Using recycled content cups from Eco-Products will allow us to cut our use of virgin plastic, specific to festival cups, in half,” said Bryan Simpson, director of media relations at New Belgium Brewery. “Sustainability challenges often require more than one solution, and we look forward to putting these new cups to use where the collection of our compostable cups is not available. This is an important part of our ongoing effort to limit the environmental impact of our operations and events,” Simpson said.  “What we are finding is thatour customers need multiple options when it comes to reaching their sustainability goals for food service,” said Bob King, CEO of Eco-Products. “The launch of this new cup is another step toward our goal of offering complete solutions in the form of products made from both renewable resources, as well as recycled content,” King explained.  Eco-Products’ line of recycled content cold cups is ideal for the food service buyer looking for an affordable green option that delivers on performance (strength and heat tolerance) while decreasing the use of virgin plastic resources.   The new recycled content cups complement Eco-Products’ existing line of products made from both renewable resources and post-consumer recycled materials supplied nationwide to restaurants, hotels, events, sporting stadiums, national parks and corporate cafes.  The new cups are offered in 9-, 12-, 16-, 20- and 24-ounce sizes and are available for custom design and branding.

By Steve Everly

McClatchy Newspapers (MCT)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The United States used more gasoline than ever in 2007 and far more than any other country. It seemed as if America’s growing appetite for gas would go on forever.

Well, it won’t — and things may never be the same.

Gasoline consumption has been down the last two years, in part because of the recession. Even when the economy picks up, three underlying trends mean the United States might never use as much gas again:

—New standards for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, will make U.S. vehicles more fuel-efficient.

—The growth in the number of U.S. vehicles, after surging the last 30 years, is likely to plateau. The country now has more than four vehicles for every five people, including children.

—Alternative fuels will grow enough to cover increased fuel needs.

As a result, the federal Energy Information Administration predicts that 2007 was the peak year for U.S. gasoline demand. Even in 2035, the last year of the latest long-term projections, motorists are expected to use less gasoline than they are now.

As unexpected as this trend was, there is widespread agreement that it is right.

“We’re on a slow but inexorable path away from petroleum. This is a big deal,” said James Williams, an analyst with WTRG Economics, an oil and gas consultancy.

In a recent speech in Washington, Rex Tillerson agreed.

“Motor vehicle gasoline demand is down, is headed down and is going to continue to head down,” said Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest oil company.

That decline is reverberating through the oil industry. Refineries now use only 78.5 percent of their capacity, the lowest level since the federal government began routinely collecting the information in 1990. Valero Energy, which once bought refineries enthusiastically, now snaps up ethanol plants instead.

And Chevron Corp. recently announced it was reorganizing its U.S. refining business, which could include selling or closing refineries.

One variable will be how quickly consumers take to alternatives and more-efficient vehicles.

When the new fuel-economy standards were being considered, a Gallup poll found 80 percent of respondents supported the idea, even though it could make vehicles smaller and more expensive. A Pew Research Center poll released last week found only 49 percent of respondents said they favored making energy a top priority, down from 60 percent a year ago.

Mike Omotoso, an analyst for the marketing firm J.D. Power & Associates, said many consumers are reluctant to pay more for alternatives such as electric hybrids, especially when gas costs less than $3 a gallon.

“People can have short memories,” Omotoso said.

Other analysts say $4 gasoline left a lasting impression. Mike Right, a spokesman for AAA, said consumers understand things have changed and higher energy prices weren’t a temporary situation.

“Everyone knows the era of $2 gas is over,” he said.

Paul Gilbert, a former area resident who is now retired in southern Missouri, makes regular trips to Kansas City in his pickup truck — trips that became especially pricey when gas prices spiked in 2008. Though gas prices have settled, Gilbert said they’re still too high, and he plans to buy a Honda Accord or Toyota Corolla.

“You either do what is right or keep on going down the path we’re going down,” he said. “People are starting to wise up.”

Americans have tried this before. In the 1970s after the OPEC oil embargo, the government imposed fuel-efficiency standards and other measures to slash fuel and oil consumption. The effort eventually was undone by plummeting oil prices and the popularity of thirsty SUVs.

The experience left a lesson that is playing out again. Forward-looking policies require patience and can be difficult politically, but they pay off, said Jay Hakes, a former head of the Energy Information Administration and the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence.”

“It’s a gradual thing,” Hakes said. “The really good policies are the ones that look five to 10 years ahead.”

A similar approach is showing results. Federal tax incentives for ethanol, though widely criticized, have helped increase production from less than 1 billion gallons in 1992 to 10.5 billion last year. That reduces by 5 percent the amount of gas the country needs.

The new fuel-efficiency standards won’t be fully felt for years.

Congress approved the measure in 2007, and the Obama administration toughened it by saying the standard must be fully in force by 2016 instead of 2020. Fuel efficiency must start climbing in the 2011 model year, and by 2016, cars are to average 39 miles per gallon and light trucks, including SUVs, must average 30 miles per gallon. The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 for light trucks.

How much fuel will that save? The 2011 models, according to federal estimates, will save 900 million gallons over their lifetimes. That’s not bad, but it amounts to only a day’s worth of U.S. oil consumption.

By 2016, the results are more impressive. All the vehicles produced under the new standards are expected to save 76 billion gallons of gas. That impact will build for a few more years, because it takes about 20 years to completely replace the nation’s vehicles.

Meanwhile, a decline in the number of vehicles owned by U.S. households will have an impact. From 1980 to 2007, 100 million vehicles were registered in the U.S., giving the country 844 vehicles for every 1,000 people. As a result, car travel nearly doubled to 3 trillion miles a year.

Last year, the number of vehicles in the U.S. dipped slightly, J.D. Power said, and just slowing the growth in vehicles should help prevent a surge in gasoline demand.

All of that doesn’t mean gasoline will stay cheap, because growing demand in countries such as China and India eventually will send prices back up.

And it doesn’t mean gas will disappear. The Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2035, petroleum still will provide 88 percent of the fuel for cars and light trucks.

The rest will come from alternative fuels — mainly ethanol, followed by electricity, natural gas, hydrogen and propane. Many analysts say alternatives will grow much faster than federal officials expect. That will depend in part on developing infrastructure such as stations to charge electric cars or dispense compressed natural gas.

Several alternate fuels could enjoy some growth, said Mary Beth Stanek, the director of environment, energy and safety policy for General Motors Corp. GM expects hydrogen to play a bigger role and has a second generation of hydrogen cars in the field.

However quickly alternatives are adopted, they mean less gasoline use — and a reshuffling of past expectations.

In 2005, the chief executive of the largest independent U.S. refining company, Valero, declared a “Golden Age of refining” and said the best was yet to come. Less than five years later, Valero has a new CEO — who says that age is over.

When Valero spokesman Bill Day was asked last week whether his company agreed that demand for gas will drop, he put it this way:

“It makes sense to us.”

———

(c) 2010, The Kansas City Star.

Visit The Star Web edition on the World Wide Web at http://www.kcstar.com

Eric Mack

DENVER – You might not know it from the major winter storms that have hit parts of the Rockies this winter, but Colorado’s winter tourism industry is under threat. A new report from the National Wildlife Federation says global warming is part of the reason for the unusual winter weather in the West. Climate scientist and report author Dr. Amanda Staudt says powder enthusiasts should be especially concerned.

“Aspen Mountain could see a 2400-foot rise in the snow line, which is as far as the snowpack extends down the mountain. And if that happens, many of the base areas at that mountain won’t even have any snow.”

Explanations for wacky weather can get complicated. A report in the journal Science this week explains that water vapor in the atmosphere plays a role in global warming. It may intensify, or sometimes moderate, the heating effects of carbon pollution. Staudt says El Nino is another factor scientists are investigating.

“If you go back and look at the data over the last century, we haven’t seen any trend in our El Ninos, we haven’t seen a big change in them. Right now, the science is out on that question and it’s an area where people are actively looking.”

Her report, “Oddball Winter Weather: Global Warming’s Wake-Up Call for the Northern United States,” is online at www.nwf.org. Staudt says the analysis of weather trends underscores the importance of cutting carbon pollution that has been connected to warmer global temperatures. According to NASA, 2009 is the second warmest year on record for the world.