SEARCH

By Jean Thilmany* When disasters strike around the world, the Water Mission rushes in to provide safe drinking water. In 2021, the nonprofit served more than 260,000 survivors of ten disasters, including an earthquake in Haiti and a historic winter power-outage in Texas. Ukraine was not on that list of calamities. It will be this year. When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, it launched a massive exodus from the country. Families, especially women, children, and seniors, fled to nearby nations like Poland, Moldova, and Romania. Those countries already had modern sewer and sanitation systems, and their citizens—like those in Ukraine—did not think much about water. Water flowed from taps, and toilets took care of waste. But as Water Mission arrived, it found that its relief efforts, to quickly bring drinking water and sanitation to thousands of refugees, were “unlike anything we’ve ever done,” said George Greene IV, Water Mission’s president and chief executive officer. His parents founded the nonprofit twenty years ago. “Churches and groups are normally running from nine in the morning until five at night in these places, like everywhere else,” said Greene. “Then, all of a sudden, they open their doors to bring in twenty refugee families and their utility bills increase, and their systems come under threat of breaking.” Many churches and civic organizations that have taken in Ukrainian refugees are located in rural areas and rely on underground septic tanks, he added. Wastewater is cleaned and treated, becoming available again. “Water Mission is pumping out septic tanks for these groups. The freed-up room will help them get ahead of the increased burden on their area’s infrastructure and prevent problems in the future.” Greene says. Meeting Emergency Needs But the nonprofit did not end its aid efforts there. As part of its work in developing countries, Water Mission builds small, efficient water-treatment systems and latrines that are then operated by local officials and groups. The setup for those systems is fast and easy, Greene said. When Water Mission officials assessed the refugee situations in Poland, Moldova, and Romania, they realized they should construct the water-treatment systems and latrines they have been building in developing countries. “We stock water treatment systems, so why not tailor those to the needs of the countries taking in Ukrainian refugees?” Greene said. “We’re problem solvers,” he added. “We don’t have a silver bullet that’s the answer to every problem, but we can adapt our programming to fit the needs. With disasters, you have to respond quickly.” The Water Mission has employees in Poland who were easy to mobilize and could work in the three countries. And there were other nonprofits to collaborate with. “When disasters happen, you see groups come together that are referred to as clusters, which coordinate WASH [water, sanitation, and hygiene] efforts,” Greene said. “We engage with all the other WASH players within those clusters. … Water is a solvable crisis.” “In the United States, we solved the problem more than 100 years ago with the advent of sanitation systems,” he said. But there is much work to be done—more than half the world’s population doesn’t have access to a toilet, and public toilets in developing communities can quickly become dirty and riven with disease, Greene said. Bringing Relief into Ukraine The Water Mission’s relief efforts are not restricted to Ukraine’s neighbors. The group is also working directly in Ukraine. In keeping with its mission of tailoring the solution to fit the needs, the nonprofit asked aid groups operating inside Ukraine about their greatest needs. Their response was to help get people out of the country. Water Mission promptly donated three nine-person passenger vans. The vans heading into Ukraine are filled with food, fresh water, and medical supplies, which drivers drop off in hard-hit communities. The drivers then load the vans with refugees and drive them to safety. “Towns and communities have been devastated,” Greene said. “The expectation is that even more of this type of equipment and aid will be needed in the future.” Maintaining systems is also a priority. To keep water running in the communities it serves, Water Mission partners with companies that supply parts for those systems. These include generators that provide the power to pump and clean water. “Those types of generators aren’t needed yet in the countries taking in Ukrainian refugees, but that could easily change,” Greene said. “Moldova is concerned Russia will cut off its natural gas supply. Suddenly, they’d have hospitals with no power, and they’d need to request backup generators fast. To get those quickly and on demand would be a tough dynamic.” One of Water Mission’s corporate partners is Polar Power Inc., which makes generators and has a branch in France. The wheels are moving between these two entities, and the nonprofit will be quick on the ground with power generators, should Moldova need them, Greene added. Launched by a Hurricane Water Mission’s swift response to Ukraine’s refugees stems from its 20-year history and its background in engineering and chemistry. It started with the 1998 arrival of Hurricane Mitch, the second-deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record. Greene’s parents, Molly and George Greene, were operating an environmental engineering company in Charleston, South Carolina, when they heard about the devastation in Honduras. They flew down to offer their engineering skills. The Greenes received requests for multiple water treatment systems but were unable to find existing systems that would work, so they built their own. In Honduras, they were shocked to discover a river that was a deep brown color of chocolate milk and filled with toxins and bacteria. Even after the Greenes’ newly built water systems went into operation, the wary locals still refused to drink the water. So, the Greenes drank their purified water to prove its safety. Four years later, they founded the Water Mission to respond to clean water and sanitation crises around the world. Over the past two decades, the organization has provided safe water, sanitation, and hygiene solutions in fifty-seven countries. More than 400 staff members work around the world in permanent country programs, Greene said. Cleaning Water Around the World Water Mission currently has more than 400 disaster and community development projects underway. One project close to Greene’s heart brought safe water to three refugee camps in Tanzania that are home to 250,000 displaced Congolese and Burundian refugees. The average stay in a refugee camp is between fourteen and seventeen years, Greene said, adding that Water Mission began work in the three camps about six years ago. The project at the Nyarugusu, Nduta, and Mtendeli refugee camps is also the world’s largest solar-powered pumping solution. Solar-operated systems may cost more to construct, but the ongoing costs are much lower than those for fuel-powered pumps. Greene said the solar-powered system pays for itself in under two years when compared to diesel fuel. And, of course, the sun is available everywhere, whereas diesel fuel has to be continually brought into the camps. The Water Mission has gone on to drill six deep wells at one of the camps. The wells started operating in 2019 and now bring chlorinated drinking water to about 150,000 people, Greene said. “Drilling wells for well water was never done before at this scale or in these conditions,” he said. Whether for disaster relief, as in the three countries close to Ukraine, or for community development, such as the Tanzania projects, Water Mission’s solutions are simple and robust. “When it comes to water projects, we see a lot of charities doing the work where they see the need,” Greene said. “But people can’t tackle solutions they haven’t been trained to deal with.” So how long will the Water Mission stay in Poland, Moldova, and Romania? “As long as it takes,” Greene said grimly. “We’re not going to leave until the fighting stops and Ukrainian citizens can return home. Even then, we’ll start to build water-treatment systems in areas where they were bombed out.” *Jean Thilmany is a freelance writer living in St. Paul. She writes about engineering issues.

By Jonathan L. Wharton, Ph.D.* Connecticut may be located in southern New England in the US, but it’s also part of the New York City tri-state area, where urban redevelopment and suburban growth are significant concerns. The population demands, especially in the last couple of years with many New Yorkers relocating to the state because of COVID-19, has led local and state officials to consider several transit-oriented development proposals (TOD). By building new and redeveloping existing residential and commercial projects near public transportation hubs, TOD projects can help mitigate overdevelopment and traffic congestion. But officials and residents who favor TOD face various barriers to having TOD proposals come to fruition partly because of Connecticut’s local political power (or home rule) structure and the lack of regional efforts to address overdevelopment. Smart growth strategies, like transit-oriented development, foster planned communities and address sustainable approaches to redeveloping older cities and new development in many suburbs and outer suburbs, or exurbs. These living, working, and commuting options allow mobility for residents across various communities. Most importantly, they do not need to rely on constant use of personal automobiles as residents can often bicycle, walk, or take public transportation. Ultimately, TOD proposals allow officials and developers to build or revitalize around train stations, bus stations, and ferry terminals. Connecticut will receive significant federal transportation funds ($5.4 billion) from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden in November 2021. Part of the appropriations will help finance new development around existing and new commuter train stations, especially along the new Hartford Line from Massachusetts to New Haven, which connects Metro-North commuter trains to New York City and Amtrak’s northeast regional lines. With additional state bonds, Connecticut is planning to add a new Enfield station and Windsor Locks station to the Hartford Line, which is near Bradley International Airport. Eventually, a direct bus route will serve between the train station and airport. Affluent West Hartford was also considered, and may be in future plans for a new train station in its Parkville commercial area and Elmwood neighborhood. Developers are especially interested in building new apartments near a proposed station in this upscale Hartford suburb. Community leaders and organizations as well as state and local officials are aiming to make new train stations in TOD hubs with federal funds and state bonds. These investments can help address suburban sprawl and car congestion in the future. If state and local stakeholders are successful, their initiatives could also serve as a case study in urban renewal and as an example of shared governmental financing, public transit, and green development policymaking. But many of these development concepts are new approaches for many residents, compared to what other states and localities have already accomplished with smart growth planning. New Jersey and Maryland as TOD Models Nearby states like New Jersey and Maryland have strategized around their existing transit hubs. Their state governments emphasized future growth proposals that would revitalize specific areas near public transportation. Officials also identified where new growth would develop near current or future transit communities. Both New Jersey and Maryland experienced significant sprawl or overdevelopment concerns, especially in their suburban and exurban municipalities. Traffic, sprawl, and mobility became chief concerns for many residents and officials. In the 1990s, these states proposed smart growth and sustainable strategies to address future growth. In addition to TOD projects, they also targeted where new and revitalized growth could be centered across a number of urban and suburban counties. Officials also advanced various moratoriums to prevent overdevelopment in protected areas. Most importantly, Maryland and New Jersey officials at all levels of government incentivized policies and funding towards specific projects that were sustainable. Grants, loans, and zoning variances attracted various developers and investors to develop and revitalize in many communities. In Newark, New Jersey, officials rebuilt parts of their downtown with workforce housing for local educators through a newly developed “Teachers’ Village” community near the city’s major bus exchange and nearby main Newark Pennsylvania Train Station. Then-Mayor (and current US Senator) Cory Booker emphasized these kinds of themed urban village concepts, which I researched and wrote about when I lived in New Jersey’s largest city. Future Newark plans include new TOD development around the northern edge of downtown, adjacent to New Jersey Transit’s Broad Street Station. These Newark examples point to TOD projects and revitalizing an urban downtown. Smaller New Jersey cities, like Rahway, already had a bustling New Jersey Transit train station centered in its downtown. But some fifteen projects have been constructed or renovated because it was designated early-on as a New Jersey Transit Village. More and new development has taken place around the station, especially in the last decade as a result of local, county and state grants, loans, and zoning changes. Maryland’s largest cities, like Baltimore, classified areas as TOD projects especially near area light rail train stations. Suburban and exurban communities between Baltimore and Washington, DC were also identified for Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) for directing aid to specific areas. Plus, the state’s University of Maryland houses a sustainable think tank, the National Center for Smart Growth, that drafts proposals and various studies on economic development approaches. Connecticut’s Limitations Unlike Maryland and New Jersey, Connecticut remains at a development crossroads. For a state that does not offer an accredited graduate planning program, urban and suburban development approaches are often lacking. Connecticut is also void of county power and regionalization, whereas New Jersey and Maryland were able to institute sustainable development approaches decades ago through shared governance. When Connecticut did away with county government in the 1960s, local governments’ home rule or local authority became more powerful. This included municipal decision-making on planning and zoning of local projects, even though county power was already limited. Connecticut’s municipalities vary on development proposals, but many towns maintain rigid, single-use zoning for specific single-family housing residential development. Often, lot sizes may be acres per house, unlike urban or more traditional suburban house tracts that allow for multiple-family housing units or commercial zoning use. Recently, Connecticut officials have been debating housing proposals, zoning approaches, and TOD models. Many opponents or NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) advocates and progressive housing supporters have politicized various state policy proposals addressing housing and TOD proposals. HB 5429 in the Connecticut General Assembly, for example, would allow the state to have development as-of-right housing near public transportation hubs. There would also be a specific percentage (at least 10%) of affordable housing in new TOD developments. There has been supportive lobbying for the bill by organizations and leaders like Partnership for Strong Communities’ Kiley Gosselin and DesegregateCT’s founder and Cornell University Professor Sara Bronin. Ultimately, Connecticut officials must address home rule authority and shared governance approaches—along with sustainable development proposals. But the bipartisan HB 5429 proposal has some state lawmakers against the bill because it would allow developers not to go before a public hearing or a town zoning board for building approvals. Republican State Representative Kimberly Fiorello has argued that TOD housing is not a right because it is subject to market demands. Some Democratic lawmakers, including State Representative Jonathan Steinberg, have voiced their concerns against the proposal because it limits home rule decision-making about developments near Metro-North train stations. Some counter that opponents of the bill are against affordable housing options and public transit modalities, particularly in wealthier Fairfield County shoreline towns. No surprise then, committee hearings and editorials for the bill have been dramatic—both for and against the legislative proposal. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost among the debates about HB 5429 and other TOD proposals is that Connecticut retains a strongly local-centered government process. Home rule by local officials is powerful and state government is limited, even when it comes to TOD strategies. Besides, Connecticut has largely developed itself based on local zoning laws that limit various development approaches. Even the state’s transportation financing has come under fire by public transit and urbanist advocates. Ultimately, Connecticut officials must address home rule authority and shared governance approaches—along with sustainable development proposals. Federal funds can be a start to smart growth and TOD proposals, but Connecticut’s state and local officials will also have to consider how other states have been successful with such projects and evaluate home rule best practices for future sustainable development. *Jonathan L. Wharton, Ph.D. is the School of Graduate and Professional Studies Associate Dean and teaches political science and urban affairs at Southern Connecticut State University. He served on New Haven’s City Plan Commission, and his state and local government research centers on economic development in the New York City tri-state area.

By Mark Newton* Electricity is a fundamental lifeblood of our 21st century lives—and few of us could imagine living without it. With electricity fulfilling such a huge part of our daily needs, we often expect it to be provided by large, powerful energy companies operating on state sponsored infrastructure. But the need for such companies to compete economically and provide huge amounts of power often means they resort to the cheapest—and dirtiest—methods of doing so. However, changes are afoot. The reduced cost and increased efficiency of renewable technologies means people can now uncouple their power supply from the energy giants. Across the globe, communities are banding together to create their own energy networks, or mini-grids. What is a Mini-Grid? A mini-grid is a miniaturized version of the national grids which power our countries. Often, they are separate from the main grid and are designed to serve specific homes or communities. Since they are not required to power entire cities or states, they have much lower energy generation requirements and come in a series of shapes and sizes. Some may power dozens of homes, while others could potentially power thousands. In theory, a mini-grid could be powered by any power source, but the lower energy demands of mini-grids also makes them ideal for renewable energy, such as solar and wind. By taking advantage of such technologies, communities across the world, including underserved ones, can benefit. In particular, mini-grids can help to provide electricity to isolated rural communities or make life more affordable for neighborhoods in bustling metropolises. Solar Solutions One of the most common forms of mini-grid is the “community solar project.” This involves groups of households coming together to purchase solar arrays on a larger scale. Participants within the mini-grid can either pay for part of the array and receive their contribution back in energy credits (reducing their energy bills) or join a subscription-based system. The subscription model is much more common and is like a traditional energy contract. Homes within a certain radius of a community solar project can subscribe to the mini-grid and receive clean electricity from it. With this approach, the subscriber does not own any part of the mini-grid themselves but helps maintain it with their payments. This is great for renters or for people whose homes are impractical for their own solar panels. This differs from a normal “green power program” which has also become increasingly popular. With green power programs, homeowners can elect to receive a larger share of their power from renewable energies. There is a common misconception that green power programs provide power directly from renewable sources. Instead, they merely include a larger proportion of green energy within their mix. Of course, these companies still function on a for-profit basis, and their green energy is often priced as a premium product. Within a renewably sourced mini-grid, the electricity is usually provided at a hefty discount. As well as being potentially cleaner and cheaper, mini-grids provide other benefits. By being positioned geographically closer to their end users, mini-grids can generate and transfer power at a lower voltage, without needing to “step down” the electricity to a distribution voltage. Often power is lost in this process, and it also requires extensive infrastructure such as power cables and substations. All this needs additional land, expenses, and equipment insulated with sulfur hexafluoride—a potent greenhouse gas. Power for the Disadvantaged However, mini-grids are not simply a money-saving project for middle class, environmentally conscious suburban communities. Localized, clean power has the potential to benefit hugely different people across the globe. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, by 2016, around 133 million people were served by off-grid renewables, with about 2.1 million people connected to solar mini-grid networks. Growth was especially large in the Global South. Between 2008 and 2016, mini-grid users tripled to nearly 9 million across Asia and grew six-fold to 1.3 million across Africa. Central to mini-grids' potential is their ability to electrify previously off-grid communities, such as rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Many of these communities rely on fossil fuel generators or other dirty sources for electricity, which are expensive, unhealthy, and require logistical efforts. Even if communities are connected to national grids, there is often not enough power to go around, resulting in blackouts. Mini-grids can help bolster these communities with cheap, clean energy. For example, projects such as SolShare in Bangladesh have used “Internet of Things” devices to connect separate solar arrays into one complete network. This allows the surplus generated to be sent to other households, even if they do not own a panel themselves. Other digital technologies are also being used to better develop mini-grids. Organizations such as Village Data Analytics have been using satellite imagery and machine learning algorithms to identify rural African villages which could most benefit from mini-grid electrification. Their platform can spot buildings, identify markets and hospitals, and generally direct renewable energy companies to the best spots for mini-grid installation. Information about such communities is often lacking even within their own national governments. But some of the world’s most developed cities can also benefit. For example, in New York City community solar projects have been established in traditionally deprived neighborhoods to offset living costs. The Solar One project aims to add solar panels to residential buildings in underserved districts of the city. The money saved from the mini-grid will then be used to subsidize free high-speed Wi-Fi for the residents, around 16 percent of which lack an internet connection. The recent coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the impact this “digital divide” can have on education and opportunities. But there are challenges to mini-grids. Starting and expanding local projects often requires expensive equipment, such as batteries and smart power management software, which can lead to high initial costs. Despite their grassroots nature, mini-grids often require capital from investment groups to get off the ground. Although platforms, such as the UK’s Community Energy England, exist to make things simpler, access to finance is still one of the major hurdles. Another hurdle is regulatory. Developing a mini-grid comes with a plethora of bureaucratic and technical specifications to ensure the safety of the mini-grid. Although such specifications are often streamlined for developing nations, existing regulations can put off potential users and increase the cost, or risk to mini-grid investors. But what is clear is that the world is on the cusp of an energy revolution. Instead of being passive consumers of anonymous power coming through wall sockets, many consumers are now mobilizing to ensure they benefit from cleaner and more ethical electricity. If nothing else, the spread of mini-grid shows that the stranglehold of major power companies can be broken to the benefit of all, especially disadvantaged communities. In a way, they can literally provide “power to the people.” *Mark Newton is a Berlin-based freelance journalist and researcher originally from the UK. After specializing in conflict and security studies, he has recently shifted his focus towards sustainability and environmental concerns.

By Rick Laezman* In addition to causing vast human suffering, Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine is trampling Europe’s energy and climate plans. The impact of Russia's bold and unprovoked invasion of its neighbor, Ukraine, cannot be understated. The violence and physical destruction, blatant disregard for national sovereignty, and the brutal displacement of millions of innocent civilians have shocked the world. The war has also created political and economic uncertainty for neighboring countries and the globe, with insecurity about a wider war rippling through the European continent and the West. Expanded fighting is not the only fear. An extended conflict, and the way nations including Russia respond to it, are dramatically affecting energy markets. The impact on an oil-based economy is easy to see. Much less clear is the impact the war will have on nations' plans to wean themselves off oil. Phasing out Fossil Fuels Russia's European neighbors have been earnestly moving away from fossil fuels for many years. Germany, for example, has adopted a policy known as “Energiewende,” the ongoing transition to a-low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply, which will guide the country on a path to phasing out nuclear power and coal and getting 50% of its energy from renewables by the year 2030. Denmark aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030 and plans for renewables to cover at least half of the country’s total energy consumption by 2030. On a broader scale, the European Union’s (EU) Green Deal will reduce net GHG emissions by at least 55% from 1990 levels by the year 2030, and reach no net emissions of these gases by 2050. Late last year, at the COP26 Climate Summit, more than forty countries agreed to phase out the use of coal. With all these examples in mind, the nexus between the war in Ukraine and the rest of Europe's energy needs may be unclear. After all, one of the primary objectives of powering up entirely on renewables is to establish so-called "energy independence." It is fair to ask, then, why or how nations that have fully embraced renewables and are on a near-term path to becoming fossil fuel-free would be impacted in the least by Russia's actions. The answer is in the wording. Being on a near-term path implies that nations have not yet completely weaned themselves off fossil fuels, and in this regard, Russia plays a vital role. Despite their efforts and intentions, European nations are still predominantly reliant on fossil fuels. According to Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, as of 2019, the EU was still only getting about 15% of its energy from renewables. The bulk of its energy continues to come from a mix of oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and coal, in that order. Despite their efforts and intentions, European nations are still predominantly reliant on fossil fuels. The continent also does not generate most of the energy it consumes. Instead, most of its power is imported. According to Eurostat, the EU gets about 60% of its energy from imports. Most importantly, most of the imports come from Russia. It is the continent's largest energy supplier, accounting for 27% of the oil, 41% of the natural gas, and 47% of the coal that is consumed there. This has also not been by accident. For many of the nations that are on a path to clean energy, gas from Russia was intended to support their transition. Moving from an economy fueled by fossil fuels to one that is powered by new clean energy sources takes years. Sufficient capacity from renewable generation must get regulatory approval, obtain financing, then undergo construction. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, for example, was approved by Germany to supply additional natural gas to support the country as it pursues its “Energiewende” objectives. This hard reality presents a challenging political dynamic for a continent that is appalled by Russia's behavior, wants to take punitive action against it, and does not want to indirectly finance the war with the proceeds from its own purchases of Russian fuel. Can Europe punish Russia without punishing itself? Conversely, will a more rapid divorce from Russian oil, gas, and coal facilitate an even more rapid transition to clean burning renewable energy? The responses so far have been mixed. On February 23, one day before Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his military to invade Ukraine, Germany paused the certification of the above-mentioned Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The 1,200-kilometer pipeline running under the Baltic Sea, which has already been built, would double the capacity of the existing Nord Stream supply line, bringing the total capacity for the two parallel conduits to 110 billion cubic meters of natural gas delivered to Germany every year. In announcing a pause of the certification, effectively stopping any fuel from being transported across the newly built pipeline, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who had previously resisted linking the pipeline to political events, said that "the situation today is fundamentally different," in reference to Russia's aggression. The decision was perilous if not politically correct. Germany relies on gas for about one-quarter of its energy consumption. Almost all of that is imported, and nearly half of those imports come from Russia. To compensate for the loss in supply, Germany made some quick decisions. On March 20, barely a month after pausing Nord Stream 2, Germany's economy and climate minister, Robert Habeck, announced an energy partnership with the Emir of Qatar that includes the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as well as cooperation on renewables, saying “It’s the Ukraine crisis which has brought me here.” The deal is designed to find a replacement for Russian gas and shield the country's consumers from skyrocketing prices. Also in March, Habeck announced a tentative plan to partner with Norway to build a pipeline for blue hydrogen as a secondary replacement for Russian gas. Both decisions will help the country replace fuel supplies, but they will not get the country any closer to its clean energy goals because both fuel sources, LNG, and blue hydrogen, are considered fossil fuels. Other countries have taken similar steps. The Italian government recently announced plans to phase out the country's heavy reliance on gas imports from Russia “within thirty months” and a 50% reduction by late spring. It has not specified how it will do this. On March 25, the United States announced a joint effort with the European Union to deliver an additional 15 billion cubic meters of LNG to Europe this year and another 50 billion annually by 2030. The controversy has also sparked discussions in many of the affected countries about reconsidering plans to phase out nuclear power and even coal. Making a Clean Break Not all are pleased with these responses. In his keynote speech to a Sustainability Summit hosted by the Economist on March 21, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “This is madness,” in reference to nations hastening to replace Russian oil and gas with other fossil fuels. “Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction,” he added. However, at the same time, nations are also taking a more aggressive approach toward clean energy in their response to the Ukraine invasion. On March 8, the European Union announced the outline of a plan to make Europe independent from Russian fossil fuels, starting with gas, well before 2030. To achieve this goal, the EU proposes to develop a plan, called REPowerEU, that will increase the resilience of the EU-wide energy system based on two pillars. The first pillar involves diversifying gas supplies by using higher LNG and pipeline imports from suppliers other than Russia, plus larger volumes of biomethane and renewable hydrogen production and imports. The second pillar will rely on faster reduction in the use of fossil fuels in homes, buildings, industry, and power systems. This will be accomplished by boosting energy efficiency, increasing renewables and electrification, and addressing infrastructure bottlenecks. The EU notes that existing proposals are already on track to reduce annual fossil gas consumption by 30%, equivalent to 100 billion cubic meters (bcm), by the year 2030. Under the new proposals, fossil fuel reduction and energy diversification could be achieved even faster. According to the EU, member nations could remove at least 155 bcm of fossil gas use, which is equivalent to the volume imported from Russia in 2021. Nearly two-thirds of that reduction could be achieved within a year, ending the EU's overdependence on a single supplier. Member nations are also taking their own independent actions. For its part, Germany has stepped up its clean energy transition. Just two days prior to announcing its LNG and blue hydrogen deals, Climate Minister Habeck announced a comprehensive program for energy efficiency measures, and in February, German policymakers began considering legislation to rapidly accelerate the expansion of wind and solar power, bringing forward a target to generate almost all the country’s electricity from renewable sources by fifteen years to 2035. The Long View The Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced all responsible nations of the world to make some very difficult choices. None are pain-free. Natural gas and other fossil fuels were to play an integral role in the transition to a carbon-free energy landscape. Sufficient renewable capacity cannot be created in a snap. Nor can fossil fuels be eliminated right away. However, the politics of aggression does not respect environmental concerns or well-intended plans to transform the way the world consumes power. Nations must make painful choices. Just as the outcome of the way remains uncertain, time will tell if the European leaders have acted prudently in their difficult endeavor to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable differences. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has been covering renewable power and other related subjects for more than ten years.

A new study out of Université de Genève (UNIGE) and the University of Queensland's Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI) in Australia suggests a novel solution to one of the world’s largest waste streams—waste leftover from mineral processing. In fact, according to the researchers, this novel solution could simultaneously reduce mineral-processing waste and the over-exploitation of global sand reserves, a practice that tends to occur in areas, such as shorelines, that are best left undisturbed. So, less waste and more sand? How is it possible? The researchers’ findings, released this month in the report, Ore-sand: A potential new solution to the mine tailings and global sand sustainability crises FINAL REPORT, refer to left-over waste from mining extraction that has been crushed and from which potentially harmful substances have been removed. The team coined the term, ore-sand, to describe this by-product and its suitability as a sand replacement in the cement industry, for instance. The research team examined tailings produced from iron ore mining in Brazil. After looking at chemical properties and refining operations, they could show that some of the waste stream destined to be mining residues could replace sand in construction and industry, in a manner similar to that of recycled concrete and steel slag. Follow-up will require collaboration with aggregate producers and other industry players to demonstrate ore-sand's ease-of-use, performance, and sourcing process. Other factors to be examined could be CO2 emissions from transporting the material, additional revenue value to ore producers, local demand and so on. With global sand usage at billions of tons annually, due primarily to demand from urban development, “ore-sand” production could significantly impact the environment by lowering the global need for sand mining and by turning harmful ore mining residues into industrial products, thus contributing to a more circular and sustainable economy. Source: Science Daily Release - Solution to world’s largest waste stream

The Hyo Jeong International Foundation for the Unity of the Sciences (HJIFUS), the sponsoring organization of The Earth & I, convened the Twenty-Eighth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS XXVIII) in a virtual format on April 12–13 EDT. The conference explored cutting-edge solutions to environmental problems, based on conventional scientific approaches. Attendees from across the globe, representing different scientific disciplines, were greeted with welcoming remarks by HJIFUS Chairman Dr. Douglas Joo and an address by Dr. Sun Jin Moon, representing her mother and HJIFUS Founder Rev. Dr. Hak Ja Han Moon. Both exhorted attendees to freely share their latest findings with a collective sense of responsibility for the Earth’s well-being. Said Dr. Moon, “Life as we know it hangs in the balance of our conscious choices and actions. The interdependent fate of humanity and the Earth is a direct result of not knowing who we are and why and how we are living. We need to have the knowing, enlightenment, the knowledge, and sacred wisdom to know the heart of all life on Earth is the heart of the Divine love of the highest power.” The overall conference theme was, Investigating Pathways to Resolve Environmental Challenges, and the session topics were grouped under three sub-themes: Addressing Climate Change: Strategies to Achieve “Net Zero”; Manufacturing Materials for Eco-Friendly Products; and Engaging the Public in Tackling Environmental Problems. The keynote speaker was Nobel Laureate, Dr. David MacMillan, James S. McDonnell Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Princeton University, who presented novel catalytic methods that can help balance human needs with environmental sustainability. Prof. MacMillan led participants from different fields along his career path in organocatalysis, a journey that eventually led to his receiving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2021. “Organocatalysis,” he stated, “has found application in the recyclable plastics economy.” He cited the work of Professor Bob Waymouth of Stanford University and Dr. James Hedrick of IBM, who have developed organocatalytic processes that break down polymers to their “component monomeric building blocks.” These monomers, he explained, “can then be transformed back to polymers,” a process with the “potential to render plastics completely recyclable and sustainable.” Regarding the future of organocatalysis, he said it is critical that we “keep developing more and more sustainable catalysis. And in this context, this is going to have to be fueled by things such as organocatalysis and biocatalysis, but also photocatalysis, electrocatalysis, and even base metal catalysis, as an area that’s going to be extraordinarily important as we continue to grow as a population.” “The next big idea (based on catalysis),” he said, “can come from anywhere in the world.” In Session 1, Addressing Climate Change: Strategies to Achieve “Net Zero,” there was significant debate on the topic, “Negative Emission Technologies to Reduce Atmospheric Carbon,” which was presented by Dr. Eric Larson, Senior Research Engineer at the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University. Dr. Larson spoke on the importance of implementing various technologies, with a focus on carbon capture and storage, toward achieving net-zero by 2050 in the United States. Follow-up discussion on the topic began with Dr. Thomas Valone, President of the Integrity Research Institute, who stated the importance of removing the “excess 830 gigatons [of CO2] in the atmosphere now, which is contributing the most to global warming.” This was in contrast to a comment by Dr. Takahiro Hiroi, Senior Research Associate at Brown University, who stated how the Earth “temperature-wise, is in a small ice age right now” and that we should “be careful in trying to control CO2 levels artificially” and instead focus on more natural pathways to reduce atmospheric CO2. Prof. Larry Baxter, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University, responded by stating that it is “not the level as much as the pace at which the CO2 level is changing” and cited the necessity to be “aggressive in trying to manage it.” The focus of the third and final session moved from promising technological innovations to policy making and educational initiatives that can better engage the public. Speaking on the topic, “Promoting Grassroots Action on Environmental Issues,” Dr. Bruce Johnson, Professor of Environmental Learning & Science Education, and Dean, College of Education, University of Arizona, brought attention to the importance of basic attitudes toward nature that environmental education must address. “Preservation and utilization,” he stressed, “are not necessarily correlated.” In commenting on Dr. Johnson’s presentation, Dr. Dilafruz Williams added that “self-transcendent values rather than self-enhancing values are more effective for environmental action.” Environmental action, she added, “requires expansion of the notion of education beyond the four walls of formal schooling.” In closing the conference, conference chairs presented summaries of presentations and commentaries. Participants commented on the unique forum that the conferences provided for discussing interdisciplinary approaches to environmental issues. The convenience of the virtual global platform, provided by iPeaceTV, allowed them to attend from their homes and offices in India, the UK, Japan, Korea, Africa, Europe, and the US.

“I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy … and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation — and we scientists don’t know how to do that.” – Gus Speth, former United Nations Development Programme (UNEP) Administrator, 2014. Already globally recognized each year as Earth Day, April 22 was officially declared by the UN as International Mother Earth Day in 2009. This day is one of many days and initiatives, such as World Wetlands Day (February 2), that the UN has established to address environmental issues. One such environmental project, not widely covered by the mainstream media, is the UN’s Faith for Earth Initiative, a global coalition of interfaith actors that work together to focus faith resources on the environment. Referring to the UN’s resolve in 2008 to focus more attention on “interreligious and intercultural dialogue,” the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) declares on its Faith for Earth Initiative website that “spiritual values for more than 80% of the people living on earth have been driving individual behaviors.” It follows that spiritual values drive behaviors toward the environment, as well, and thus the Faith for Earth Initiative was born in November 2017. The initiative’s mission is “to encourage, empower and engage with faith-based organizations as partners, at all levels, toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and fulfilling the 2030 Agenda.” Its vision, “a world where everything is in balance,” is based on eight “shared values” that spell CREATION: C: Communication — Effective communication at all levels between all stakeholders. R: Respect — All spiritual and religious beliefs are respected. E: Empower — Empower and engage all stakeholders. A: Act — Act in coherence with individual reflection and communal beliefs. T: Transform — Transform people’s behavior for a more responsible lifestyle inspired by their own faiths. I: Inspire — Inspire innovative approaches to achieve the 2030 Agenda. O: Organize — Organize knowledge and other resources related to faiths and sustainable development. N: Network — Build a strong network between the UN and faith-based organizations. According to the UNEP, the initiative’s success will require trust-building between what the UNEP calls “the perceived secular values of the UN” and the values of the faith actors. Part of its strategy will be to engage local communities of faith, as well as establish a top-level “Coalition for Creation” to influence environmental policy. Sources: UNEP - Environment, Religion and Culture in the Context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN - Earth Day, UNEP - Faith for Earth Initiative

Refugees not only suffer trauma as they flee from war and disasters, but once they reach safety in a refugee camp, they face the need for a daily water supply. Here is how the UN catalogs those needs. Four liters is equal to a little more than one gallon (1.06 gal). A refugee camp should have one water tap for every 80 to 100 individuals. Otherwise, there should be one communal well or hand pump per every 200 refugees. Each camp household of five needs the following five water containers: one 20-liter, two 10-liters, and two five-liters. Camp schools need to stock three liters of water per student. Camp feeding centers should stock 20 to 30 liters per person. Camp outpatient health centers need to stock five liters per visitor. In-patient centers need at least 40 to 60 liters per patient. Wells should be located more than 30 meters (32 yards) from latrines and other possible contaminant sources. A minimum of one water source quality test should be administered per 5,000 beneficiaries per month. Source: UNHCR Water Brochure

As reported in Nature, researchers at MIT have developed a heat engine, with no moving parts, that is as efficient (40%) as a steam turbine in converting high heat into electricity. Their heat engine is actually a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cell—not unlike a solar panel’s photovoltaic cell—that “passively” converts photons from a high-temp source into electricity. The MIT team's heat engine can generate electricity from heat sources between 1,900 to 2,400°C, or as high as 4,300°F. According to the study, TPVs convert mostly infrared wavelength light to electricity via the “photovoltaic effect,” enabling energy storage [1, 2] and conversion [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] that uses “higher temperature heat sources than the turbines that are ubiquitous in electricity production today.” The team’s cells use “band-edge spectral filtering” to achieve their engine’s higher efficiency, using back-surface reflectors to reject unusable radiation back to the heat emitter. The study’s authors hope that cells such as theirs can be “integrated into a TPV system for thermal energy grid storage to enable dispatchable renewable energy,” creating a way for thermal energy grid storage to reach efficiency and cost levels that will enable decarbonization of the electricity grid. As a result of their achievement, the researchers imagine that a “proliferation of (Thermophotovoltaic Electricity Grid System) TEGS could ultimately enable abatement of approximately 40% of global CO2 emissions,” by way of decarbonizing the electricity grid and enabling CO2-free electric vehicle charges. They believe that a TPV efficiency of 40% means that TEGS are now feasible, as are other applications in “natural gas, propane or hydrogen-fueled power generation [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], and high-temperature industrial waste heat recovery.” Source: Nature

The Third International Conference on Science and God (ICSG III), sponsored by the Hyo Jeong International Foundation for the Unity of the Sciences (HJIFUS), brought together scientists, researchers, and academics for two days (April 10 –11 EDT) in a virtual format to discuss their investigations into unexplained (anomalous) phenomena that call for a postmaterialist worldview. Possible applications for new technologies were explored in such areas as healing, energy generation, and restoring the relationship between humans and the natural world. In his welcoming remarks, Dr. Douglas Joo, Chairman of HJIFUS, explained that the ICSG series was launched in 2020, “opening the door to unconventional, ‘frontier science’ approaches to broaden our search for the most promising solutions to environmental problems.” In greeting the participants, Dr. Sun Jin Moon, daughter of HJIFUS founder Rev. Dr. Hak Ja Han Moon, conveyed her mother’s hopes for the conference. “Thanks to scientific development, we can now hope to unveil the world that lies beyond matter and even encounter God, the Ultimate Cause of the universe. My expectation is that ICSG will explore what has not been touched on by traditional science and play a meaningful role in diffusing myths about the relationships between the environment and human beings; between mind and body, psychology, and physiology; and spirituality, and so on. By doing so, ICSG will contribute to the opening of a new history of science and enhance the ways by which we can restore the environment.” The umbrella theme of ICSG III was, Environmental Restoration in the Era of Frontier Science. The session topics were arranged under three subthemes: Heralding a New Scientific Revolution; Applications of Frontier Science in Addressing Environmental Challenges; and Frontier Science Perspectives on Our Relationship with the Natural World. The keynote address was given by Dr. Lisa Miller, Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University Teachers College, who spoke on “Exploring the Unknown: Where Is Science Leading Us?” Prof. Miller, also founder and director of the Spirituality, Mind, Body Institute, explained how humans are out of rhythm with the universe and, as spiritual beings, need “awakened awareness” to align their brain wavelength to that of nature. She suggested that human beings try to develop a “self-sense of being one with nature” in one “sacred field of consciousness.” Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, Emeritus Professor of Human Physiology at the University of Oregon, and President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences, followed by speaking on the topic, “Characteristics of the Postmaterialist Era.” She emphasized the heralding of an era where mind and consciousness are “first-order,” and material reality is secondary. She cautioned that humans are not “hard-wired for unity” due to “brain filters” and that “mindfulness and meditation” are useful tools for increasing compassion and selflessness toward nature and human beings. It is important, she said, that we shift from a materialist to a “postmaterialist” perspective to achieve environmental restoration. In the same session, Dr. Helané Wahbeh, Director of Research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Neurology at Oregon Health & Science University, stated that research has led her to the understanding that so-called anomalous—deviating from what is normal—phenomena, such as clairvoyance, ESP, etc., are commonly experienced by people in all walks of life. Her presentation laid out a body of research supporting the occurrence of various types of experiences, from “remote viewing” to modes of healing, such as “distance healing” and “Reiki.” The second session began with Dr. Christina Ross, Biophysicist at the Wake Forest Center for Integrative Medicine, who spoke on the topic, “The Biophysics of Energy Medicine: Effect of Polarity Therapy / Subtle Energy on Cellular and Molecular Function,” in which she elucidated the use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) on cells for the treatment of pain. She received substantial funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The second presentation was titled, “‘Breakthrough Energy Technologies Derived from New Paradigm Science,” given by Dr. Thomas Valone, President of the Integrity Research Institute, during which he emphasized the need to explore various types of clean energy production technologies to address global warming. In the final session, Dr. Gary Schwartz, Professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona, spoke on “A Vision for Earth’s Future Arising from Frontier Science.” He mentioned some unexpected synchronicities, which greatly piqued the interests of the participants and brought about a vibrant discussion. In applications to relationships between humans and the environment, Dr. Schwartz states: “The fact remains that the existence of super-synchronicities implies the active and intelligent participation of some sort of a universal mind in everyday life. The implications of emerging source science for human growth and transformation, and, by extension, our evolved co-stewardship of the Earth, expands our perspective on the process of guidance, organization, and design of all systems at all levels, be they scientific and technological, educational, and clinical, personal, and professional, political, and societal, legal, and spiritual, environmental, and global. The idea that we are part of an integrated, holistic, greater reality, and that we co-create with this greater reality what we experience, regardless of whether we are aware of this fact or not, touches all aspects of life.” Participants appreciated the unique opportunity that the conference provided for discussing new paradigm, interdisciplinary approaches to environmental issues.

Red clover is a distinctive perennial herb common in Europe and Asia and now naturalized in the Americas. It goes by different names, such as pal-gan keullobeo in Korea, trefle des pres in France, and trifolium pratense in the scientific community. By any name, it is trusted to benefit human, animal, and soil health. Here is how the world sees it. How the world sees red clover In Iraq, red clover is used as an expectorant and to treat asthma and bronchitis. In the US, it’s grown for soil health and used to treat cancer, the skin, and sores. It’s also used to fight cancer in the UK, Spain, Australia and elsewhere. In Spain, it is used for catarrh (mucous backup in the throat). Need a good sedative? People in Eurasia and the US use red clover for that purpose. In the Western Hemisphere, Amerindians use red clover for eye health and for burns. Europeans like to use it for dyspepsia and other digestive complaints. The people of Turkey use red clover—they call it kirmizi yonca—as a tonic or an alternative (an herb used to gradually restore bodily functions) for spasms, scrofula (glandular swelling) and as a sedative. Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

It’s called “Biological Invasion Costs”—the price tag on dealing with invasive species—and simply put, it’s a lot of money. The National Invasive Species Information Center of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares some gargantuan global figures. Worldwide, since 1960, managing biological invasions has cost about $95.3 billion. During the same period, the damage cost of the invasions was more than $1.13 trillion. Like most everything else, invasion-associated management and damage costs are rapidly rising. Proactive, pre-invasion management spending is 25 times lower than post-invasion management costs. Countries all over the planet are declaring a National Invasive Species Awareness Week. In the US, it was February 28-March 4. There are more than 6,500 invasive species established across the United States. Sources: USDA National Invasive Species Information Center, U.S. Department of the InteriorIndian Affairs 2022 National Invasive Species Awareness Week