Ohio lawmaker compares clean energy to the Bataan death march

Senator Bill Seitz
Senator Bill Seitz

Ohio State Senator Bill Seitz of Cincinnati (courtesy of The Columbus Dispatch)

When the Ohio GOP leadership introduced SB 310 last month, they intentionally tried to sideline Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) from the process. We know that Sen. Seitz has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. He has previously likened the clean energy standards to “Joseph Stalin’s five-year plan,” and he routinely labels his opponents as “enviro-socialist rent-seekers.” But this time he outdid even himself.

Last Wednesday, April 9, Sen. Seitz turned a Senate Public Utilities Committee hearing on SB 310 into a three-ring circus. First, during the middle of testimony from Aaron Jewell, a US Army veteran who fought in Iraq, Sen. Seitz reportedly got up, pulled out a pack of cigarettes, and walked out of the room to take a smoke break.

He came back into the session halfway through the testimony of Dan Sawmiller, a Senior Campaign Representative for the Ohio Beyond Coal Campaign with the Sierra Club. Mr. Sawmiller also served with the Ohio National Guard from 2000-2008, during which time he worked as a combat engineer in Iraq.

Mr. Sawmiller served with 485 other guardsmen and women to clear some of the most dangerous parts of Baghdad of improvised explosive devices, in order to make way for the movement of additional troops and supplies. At least one of his fellow servicemen did not make it home.

During his testimony, he detailed the work he did in Iraq. “I explained how my combat experiences drove my passion to work on energy efficiency and national security issues,” he said. “This drove me to work with the Sierra Club.”

But rather than showing respect and gratitude for his service and simply debating the facts of the clean energy law, Mr. Sawmiller explained that Sen. Seitz made outlandish comments that are offensive to those who have served in our military.

“The Senator referred to the current law as being on the Bataan death march for clean energy,'” he explained. “The more I think about what was said, the more offended I get as a combat veteran.”

Let that sink in for a minute. According to an elected representative of the people of Ohio, a policy that has lowered electricity bills, stimulated economic growth, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and helped spark a clean energy sector that employs more than 25,000 people is on par with an internationally recognized war crime that killed 10,000 American and Filipino soldiers. Not only is such a statement utterly absurd, it insults the memory of the men who died (and those who survived) either on that march from Bataan or in the nightmarish prison camps that followed.

Did I mention that April 9 marked the 72nd anniversary of the surrender at the Bataan Peninsula and the first day of this horrific six-day march.

While Sen. Seitz may dismiss the connection, there is a reason why the United States military has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into renewable energy and energy efficiency – it saves money and, more importantly, lives.

Fossil fuel boosters love to claim that hydraulic fracturing will allow the US to drill its way to energy independence. But, as Brad Plumer explains,

Even if, one day, the United States produces enough oil to satisfy its own needs, it still won’t be entirely “independent” from the rest of the world. That is, the US economy will still be vulnerable to supply shortages or turmoil in the Middle East (for instance). There’s a reason for that. Oil is relatively easy to trade on the global markets.

Because oil is fungible international commodity, the US military will continue to maintain a vital interest in it. In a 2010 article, Roger J. Stern estimated that the US spent at least $6.8 trillion to secure oil reserves from 1976-2007. He calculated that the military costs of securing oil supplies from the Persian Gulf “exceeds the value of Gulf petroleum exports in all years except 1990 and the value of US petroleum imports from the region by roughly an order of magnitude.”

In other words, the US government is spending substantially more money to secure Middle Eastern oil reserves than the oil itself is worth. Stern concluded that, rather than trying to increase the supply of oil, we should curb demand by investing in energy efficiency, as this strategy “would address the core problem.”

Our reliance on fossil fuels has a direct impact upon the performance and flexibility of the armed forces. At least 70% of all tonnage on the battlefield is fuel, leaving the military highly vulnerable to energy market volatility. According to the Department of Defense, the military spent $13.2 billion on fuel for its operations in 2010. Due to the difficulty of delivering fuel to forward operating bases, fuel costs can often exceed $400 per gallon.

This dependence on fossil fuels also creates operational challenges. Infantry soldiers in Afghanistan carry 26 pounds of batteries on missions to power their equipment. This weight hinders their mobility and increases the physical strain on their bodies. That’s why Tremont Electric, a Cleveland-based clean energy company, is working with military contractors to integrate their kinetic energy device, the nPower Peg, into body armor.

And just as Napoleon once said that an army marches on its stomach, today’s military runs on its fuel and water convoys. These convoys are highly vulnerable, however, and became a favorite target for militants in Afghanistan and Iraq. The DoD reports that at least 3,000 US soldiers and military contractors were wounded or killed in raids on such convoys from 2003-2007. This breaks down to roughly one casualty for every 24 convoy trips.

Veterans like Dan Sawmiller and Aaron Jewell are well aware of this intimate connection between energy security and national security, as they saw it every day on the streets of Baghdad. But Sen. Seitz has chosen to demean their service and ignore their voices, because he serves the interests of ALEC and its funders in the fossil fuel industry.

“Clean energy has proven to be a great deal for Ohio’s homeowners and businesses,” Mr. Sawmiller said. In a letter sent yesterday to Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina), he called on the GOP leadership “to demand respect for the sacrifices that Ohio’s soldiers have made for generations” asking for a more dignified way to debate legislation.

If you are also tired of the Bill Seitz’s continued insults and bloviating, take a stand. Call Sen. Seitz’s office at (614) 466-8068 or send him an email demanding that he apologize to our veterans and stop his mindless attacks on Ohio’s clean energy standards.

If you care about water, you need to worry about energy production

lakeshore power plant
lakeshore power plant

FirstEnergy’s Lake Shore power plant, which is slated to close this fall, sits along the shore of Lake Erie on Cleveland’s east side. Thermal pollution from the plant has historically prevented the waters near the site from freezing over in winter (courtesy of WKSU.org).

This article is cross-posted from Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

Saturday was World Water Day 2014. This year’s theme centered on the water-energy nexus, a topic which has become increasingly important in recent years.

According to the United Nations, energy production currently accounts for 15% of global water use, a number which is projected to grow to 20% within the next two decades. In the US, this number is significantly higher; the US Geological Survey estimates that electricity production alone makes up 49% of all water use.

Unfortunately, people tend too often to overlook the water-energy nexus until a catastrophic event happens. Water plays a vital role in the entire lifecycle of energy production, and it remains extremely vulnerable to the deleterious consequences that may arise from each step in the process – from extraction to refining to generation to distribution and beyond.

We know, for instance, than at least 20% of streams in West Virginia are heavily degraded due to mountaintop removal mining, an incredibly destructive form of coal extraction. In addition, we have seen several recent mishaps at other stages the process, whether it was the massive Freedom Industries chemical spill on the Elk River (refining), Saturday’s oil tanker spill outside of Houston (distribution), or the major coal ash spill on the Dan River.

Thermal pollution and water quality

But there exists another, less understood impact of energy production on freshwater resources – thermal pollution. The US gets 91% of its electricity from thermoelectric power plants; this category largely includes nuclear power plants and plants that run on fossil fuels. Thermoelectric plants generate massive amounts of heat during electricity generation process. This heat builds up within the plant and forces plant operators to draw in huge amounts of freshwater to cool the generators.

water withdrawals for power production

Daily water withdrawals for power production by state. As the map shows, water use is particularly high in the Great Lakes region (courtesy of the US Geological Survey).

Once-through cooling systems, which take in water once for cooling and then discharge it back into waterways, make up 31% of the US’s power plant fleet. These systems require 20,000-60,000 gallons of freshwater for cooling per megawatt hour (MWh) of energy produced. As a result, the Sierra Club estimates that power plants suck up more than 135 trillion gallons of water (PDF) each year for cooling alone.

This staggering total exacts a serious toll upon aquatic environments. Dicharged water temperatures are, on average, 8-12ºC warmer than the intake temperatures. As Madden, Lewis, and Davis noted in a 2013 study,

Aquatic organisms are highly dependent on specific thermal conditions in aquatic environments; water temperatures above or below optimal thermal regimes can cause stress or even death.

Such thermal pollution can negatively alter aquatic ecosystems in a number of ways. It can reduce the solubility of oxygen, stymie animal growth rates, change nutrient cycling processes, and increase the toxicity of chemicals like heavy metals and pesticides. Accordingly to Madden, Lewis, and Davis, increasing water temperatures by 7ºC has been shown to halve key biological processes, such as growth and reproduction. It’s no surprise, then, that power plants are responsible for the deaths of trillions of fish each year.

How water quality affects energy production

Interestingly enough, however, elevated water temperatures can also harm the efficiency of thermoelectric power plants. As water temperatures increase and stream levels drop, both the suitability and availability of cooling water decreases. During the severe heat wave that struck Western Europe in the summer of 2003, France saw its nuclear energy capacity fall by 7-15% for five consecutive weeks. This event marks a harbinger for our future in a warming world.

Climate change will reduce thermoelectric power production

According to a 2013 article in the journal Global Environmental Change (paywall), climate change will ensure that river temperatures increase significantly for a large swathe of the planet, while low river flows (lowest 10th percentile) will decrease for one-quarter of the global land surface area. Throughout much of the US, mean river temperatures are projected to increase by at least 2ºC, while high water temperatures will climb by 2.6-2.8ºC.

This spike in high water temperatures will be particularly critical for power plants, as they will occur during the period at which both water temperatures and energy demand are highest – the peak of summer. The Clean Water Act sets restrictions on the maximum temperature of water withdrawn and discharged by power plants; while the specific thresholds may vary by state, the temperature is commonly set between 27ºC and 32ºC. Research shows that more than half of all power plants with once-through cooling systems already exceed these numbers, demonstrating the vulnerability of the electricity system to global warming.

Using these numbers, van Vliet et al projected the impact that climate change will have on thermoelectric power plants (paywall) due to the combination of higher water temperatures and decreased river flows. They found that summer capacity for these plants will fall by 4.4-16% from 2031-2060. Moreover, these plants appear extremely sensitive to major reductions (greater than a 90% drop) in output as a result of global warming; the same study concludes that these events will increase nearly three-fold.

The Great Lakes region appears particularly vulnerable to falling electric output in a greenhouse world due to its heavy reliance on an aging fleet of coal-fired power plants. The National Climate Assessment notes that 95% of the Midwest’s electricity generating infrastructure (PDF) will likely see declines in output due to higher temperatures. As climate change increases stress simultaneously on aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and electricity production, potential conflicts over water uses will almost certainly increase among stakeholders.

Those of us who wish to protect our vital freshwater resources, like the Great Lakes, cannot afford to focus solely upon this sector, given its inextricable links to other areas. We need to worry as well about the stability of our climate and the makeup of our energy system. Renewable energy technologies use substantially less water than fossil fuel plants and will help shift us away from carbon-intensive energy sources. A 2012 study shows that if the US invests heavily in energy efficiency and renewable energy production, by 2050, water withdrawals and water consumption for energy production would fall by 97% and 85.2%, respectively. This shift would save 39.8 trillion gallons of water.

If we want to truly be stewards of our freshwater resources, we need to act as stewards for our climate.

Watch this year’s crazy winter unfold in 64 seconds

polar vortex image
polar vortex image

Surface air temperatures over the contiguous United States on January 6, the day the polar vortex slammed into the eastern half of the country.

The vernal equinox, which marks the official start of Spring for the Northern Hemisphere, may not come until the middle of next Thursday (March 20), but according to meteorologists, this year’s winter ended on February 28. While you may not agree if you live in the Midwest or Northeast and look outside today, meteorological winter occurs from December-February, the three coldest and snowiest months of the year for the contiguous United States.

Thanks to this new handy video from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), you can now watch the crazy winter weather from the last two months unfold in just 64 seconds:

As you can see, there was a stark difference between surface air temperatures in the eastern and western US. While persistent influxes of frigid Arctic air have made it bitterly cold in the eastern US, the western US has experienced a remarkably mild winter, reflected by the frequent appearance of orange and red hues. While Detroit is experiencing its most miserable winter on record, both Las Vegas and Tuscon have seen their warmest winters ever, contributing to the persistent megadrought in the Southwest.

All told, the December-January period was just the 33rd coldest on record for the lower 48 states, and it’s unlikely that the entire December-February period will even break into the top 10 coldest winters on record. And, as NCAR notes, the Arctic spells have been interspersed by periods of unseasonably mild weather. Baltimore saw its mildest winter night on record, while it reached a balmy 63°F on December 21 in Cleveland.

So while it’s been cold as hell for those of us east of the Rockies, things could have been a whole lot worse.

Major questions remain over ‘FrackGate’ scandal after Kasich’s reversal

john kasich

This piece was written by Brian Kunkemoeller of the Sierra Club Ohio Chapter and cross-posted from Ecowatch

john kasich

Governor Kasich may have come out against fracking in Ohio’s state parks, but his actions have done little to qualm concerns about the state of environmental oversight in the state (courtesy of The Toledo Blade).

Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich reversed his position on fracking public lands in response to public outcry about the events surrounding recently released information about the state’s collusion with the oil and gas industry to conduct a shady pro-fracking PR campaign. Last week, Gov. Kasich announced that he is opposed to drilling in state parks, but the biggest concerns are still unanswered as a cloud of controversy still lingers.

“FrackGate”

In 2011, we watched as a state legislature seemingly smitten by the industry passed legislation opening public lands to fracking with handshakes and applause, despite polls showing that 70 percent of Ohioans were opposed. Ohio Sierra Club members and others had risen to the occasion by writing letters and giving testimony, but the Governor signed the bill into law, which at that time seemed to seal the fate for Ohio’s public lands.

In 2012, the Ohio Sierra Club filed the first of many open records requests to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) looking for e-mails between the agency and the industry and how the language of the public lands fracking bill was written. The agency didn’t respond, forcing our first lawsuit (and not our last) simply to obtain public records from the ODNR. One of the things we discovered in those e-mails was that the Ohio Oil and Gas Association had been one of a select few invited to make edits to the legislation as the bill was making its way into state law.

Late last year, amid silence from the administration on the status of opening public lands to horizontal fracking, Ohio Sierra Club filed another public request under Ohio records law. It was this request that yielded the now-famous collusion document as well as the e-mail invite from the Governor’s office that named several targets, including Robert F. Hagan (D-Youngstown), in what the state representative has since coined “frackgate.”

Stories about this will be written and re-written, as the depth of this story is only beginning to be seen. How far down the rabbit-hole the state administration has gone will always be a topic of speculation. Unless, of course, there is an investigation.

Ohio’s PR agenda

There is no question that ODNR is actively silencing and opposing Ohioans concerned about fracking. This is the same agency who recently ignored repeated requests by the citizens of Athens and county commissioners alike who were simply asking for a public hearing about proposed fracking waste disposal wells. The ODNR met citizens in Portage County with armed guards and dogs, giving a brief lecture about the history of oil and gas in Ohio and refusing to answer questions about the wells in question.

Most disturbing, citizens in Darke County (hometown of Director James Zehringer) held expert panel events about fracking, only to have handouts made by ODNR staff discrediting their information delivered to and distributed by the County Commissioners office. Ohio Rep. Jim Buchy (R-Greenville) even made a website that features videos of the ODNR staff discrediting the citizens’ concerns alongside Energy In Depth—the industry’s new pet PR firm.

How are public funds being used for these purposes? How much state officials’ staff time is being used to do PR, and by whom? What is the agency’s relationship with Halliburton, America’s Natural Gas Association and JobsOhio? When did the ODNR start working with Energy In Depth and what is their relationship?

Where does our state regulatory agency end, and the fracking industry they regulate begin?

State Reps. Hagan and Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) submitted a letter to Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder requesting legislative hearings and an investigation in to the ODNR’s agenda. If House Speaker Batchelder denies these requests, Ohioans will be forced to draw their own conclusions about whether or not the oil and gas industry has infiltrated the public process.

In fact, if there is no investigation, the public has every right to draw some very serious conclusions.

Kasich’s conundrum

The governor made stunning comments when he announced his reversal. First, that he didn’t believe that the “regulatory framework was mature enough” for fracking in parks. Second, this is why he never appointed the five-member Oil and Gas Leasing Commission before the deadline to approve public lands leases. (About that public lands leasing commission—the nominations were made by the Ohio Oil and Gas Association themselves during an e-mail exchange with the ODNR)

These are two very interesting statements.

One: if the regulatory framework is in fact not mature enough, then he apparently perceives that fracking isn’t safe enough for our public lands. The obvious question is: if it’s not safe enough for our public lands, is it safe enough for our communities? Does the governor agree that the ODNR seems incapable of regulating fracking and knows all too well about their sweetheart relationship with industry? Here’s the take from Sierra Club President David Scott:

“It seems Governor Kasich is coming to his senses after being caught up in the ongoing ‘FrackGate’ scandal. The governor now admits that the ‘regulatory structure’ is not ‘mature’ enough to allow fracking in Ohio’s parks. We agree. But the Sierra Club and our 2.4 million members and supporters understand that what is too dangerous for our parks is too dangerous for other public lands or our backyards. And everyone will agree that public officials shouldn’t be colluding with the oil and gas industry to force fracking down our throats.”

Two: is this actually about the severance tax? A Columbus Dispatch article earlier this week quotes Tom Stewart vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, “We would never compromise our position on the severance tax to get concessions on state land.” So, what Stewart is saying is that he’s not going to sue the governor for not making the appointments he wanted for the Ohio Oil and Gas leasing commission because he would rather pass a tax bill that the Ohio Oil and Gas Association admittedly wrote.

This is the real crux of the governor’s position. It explains why he’s holding off on making appointments to the leasing commission. It also explains why he left himself an out when he said he “holds the right to revisit” his opposition to fracking public lands. He’s using Ohio’s public lands as a bargaining chip.

Yes, it’s indeed a dubious business to dance with the fracking industry. Disclaimer: severance taxes on extractive industries aren’t necessarily a good thing.

So, what’s all of this severance tax business about anyway? Well, it’s actually really important and it’s become a very serious problem for the governor, though no one seems to be talking about how FrackGate and the severance tax are very much connected (except for Tim Kovach).

While already fighting an uphill battle to show job growth from fracking is anywhere near par with projections—Kasich is being outright stifled in his efforts to draw even a modest tax on the industry and follow through on his promises for Ohioans to actually benefit from fracking. Disaster struck for Kasich when Speaker of the House William Batchelder soundly defeated the Governor’s severance tax proposal that would have lowered income taxes for Ohioans and at least partially resolved significant questions about Ohio’s budget. All of that despite the fact that the Governor’s bill would have kept Ohio’s fracking tax among the lowest in the nation.

Batchelder immediately came back with Ohio Oil and Gas Association’s own Trojan horse severance tax, that marginally increased the tax from 2 percent to 2.25 percent, but grants other tax subsidies which the Ohio Legislative Service Commission shows would amount to an $8.5 million dollar loss for the General Revenue Fund [annually], including a $1.1 million dollar loss to the School District Property Tax Replacement Fund. If passed, Ohioans would lose out on any actual benefit from fracking, period. Kasich is being just plain out-dueled by his radical counterparts in the statehouse and their friends at the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

Oddly, the governor might be in a ripe position to fight back. A moratorium on drilling and a full investigation of ODNR’s relationship with industry would certainly get their attention.

One thing is for certain—FrackGate has Ohio on notice, and the people are watching.

6 takeaways from the ODNR fracking memo scandal

fracking well
fracking well

A fracking well looms large above eastern Ohio’s rolling hills (courtesy of Inhabitat).

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has found itself in hot water after the Ohio Sierra Club obtained a document that showed the agency planned to actively promote oil and gas drilling in Ohio’s state parks. The memo details ODNR’s plans to actively counter opposition from environmental groups, which it labels as “eco-left pressure groups” and “skilled propagandists,” by collaborating with industry allies and like-minded third parties, including the Ohio Oil and Gas Alliance, Halliburton, and the US Chamber of Congress.

I don’t feel like spending an entire post responding to the document; there are plenty of stories about it already. Plunderbund has an excellent piece on the scandal, which is well worth reading in full:

While the document displays a startling collusion between the fossil fuel industry and the agency that’s supposed to regulate it, one should expect little more from the Kasich administration and its allies in the Statehouse. The Ohio GOP has devolved into little more than a mouthpiece for the industry at this point.

Just last month, Tony Stewart, the president of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, told the Dispatch that it “came up with the methodology” behind HB 375, the GOP bill to rewrite Ohio’s tax laws for the industry. The bill, which makes Gov. Kasich’s original proposal look downright progressive, guarantees that Ohio would continue to give away its natural resources for pennies on the dollar.

Despite the inherent risks associated with fracking, the Ohio GOP seems far more interested in colluding with the industry that protecting the health and well-being of its constituents and the environment of our state. The state has bent over backwards to import fracking wastewater from Pennsylvania – trucking in more than 100 million gallons in 2011 alone – despite the fact that injection wells have caused more than 100 earthquakes near Youngstown. ODNR also allows fracking companies to dispose their waste, which can contain the radioactive element radium, in municipal dumps; the Ohio Environmental Council has labeled this practice “dump and glow.”

I just have a few additional thoughts to share on this story:

  1. This story does not reflect well on John Kasich, who has consistently tried to position himself as a “compassionate conservative” and seems to fancy himself a Republican leader in the model of Ronald Reagan. Having your administration actually develop a list that demonizes environmental groups and Democratic State Senators as “adversaries” who are attempting to “create public panic” and must be taken down comes off as a hell of a lot more Nixonian than Reaganesque.
  2. Memo to Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols, part 1: If you are trying to distance yourself from a politically damaging story by claiming that the Governor’s office was unaware of what ODNR was up to, maybe it’s a bad idea to call the environmentalists who raised this issue “extremist groups.” It’s tough to distance yourself from a document by parroting its language and implicitly endorsing it.
  3. Memo to Rob Nichols, part 2: Oh, and you’re probably going to need to do a better job explaining why 8 members of the administration were invited to a meeting to discuss the strategy that exact same day that the document was drafted. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.
  4. If the Ohio GOP honestly believes that moderate environmental groups like the Ohio Environmental Council and NRDC are “extremists” and “propagandists,” they really need to get their heads checked. I guess when you’re that far to the right, all center-left environmentalists look like “enviro-socialist rent seekers,” to quote Senator Bill Seitz.
  5. I have my doubts that administration is only pushing drilling in state parks “to ensure a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all,” as the memo claims. It’s hard to believe that the same elected officials who are going out of their way to keep Ohio’s oil and gas severance taxes substantially lower than any other drilling state – willingly forgoing at least $800 million in tax revenues – are pushing fracking because “it will provide millions of dollars to restore deteriorating park and forest infrastructure.” It’s all about better bathrooms, folks.
  6. Lastly, it’s laughable that ODNR lists friends of parks/forests groups and communities who live near state parks/forests as “allied audiences” who would share the same goals as the administration. As I’ve noted in the past, the people who bear the greatest burden from natural resource extraction are those communities sitting on the front lines. Yet, despite the fact that fracking has damaged at least 360,000 acres of land nationally since 2005 (including more than 1,600 in Ohio), neither Governor Kasich’s bill nor HB 375 specifically sets aside a single dollar from severance taxes on the industry for affected communities. I’m just a tad bit skeptical that a group of lawmakers who ignore perhaps the single most important tenet of good natural resource governance is going to oversee fracking in a way that will cause no “disturbance” to our common, public heritage as Ohioans.

The restoration of wetlands is a major victory for the Great Lakes

9 mile wetland restored
9 mile wetland restored

Restoration of the Nine Mile Wetland in the Euclid Creek watershed (Source: Cuyahoga Soil & Water Conservation District)

Cross posted from Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

Given the spate of bad news for the Great Lakes recently – from declining lake levels to toxic algal blooms to microplastic pollution to the threat of an Asian carp invasion – it may be hard for people to find any good news on the health of these vital bodies of water.

Fear not. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a census of the nation’s wetlands every five years, and the latest report includes great news for the Great Lakes region – total wetland extent in the region expanded by 13,600 acres. As Sarah Goodyear wrote at Next City:

[S]ome 13,610 acres of coastal wetlands were added to the eight-state Great Lakes region between from 2004 and 2009. Given that the total wetlands acreage in the Great Lakes watershed is 8.5 million, that may not seem like a lot. Plus, some of that acreage comes from receding water that has exposed land. But it nevertheless represents a positive trend that stands in contrast to the rest of the country. During the study period, 360,720 acres of such wetlands disappeared across the nation at large.

History of wetlands destruction

The recent effort to conserve wetlands has reversed a centuries-long trend. When Europeans reached North America in the early 1600s, approximately 221 million acres of wetlands covered much of what would become the United States. Due to rapid clearing of these ecosystems to make room for settlements and provide timber for the expanding country, Americans cleared 118 million acres (53.4% of the total wetland area) by the early 1980s.

Unfortunately, Ohio stood at the forefront of wetland destruction. From the 1780s to the 1980s, the state lost 90% of its total wetlands, trailing only California’s 91% loss. This number includes the astonishing destruction of the Black Swamp, which once spanned much of the northwestern corner of the state. In just 25 years (approximately 1860-1885), a wetland that covered an area roughly the size of Connecticut completely disappeared.

This wave of wetland degradation and destruction has its roots in our consistent tendency to undervalue the important services wetlands provide. As The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History notes, early settlers in the Western Reserve (present day Cleveland) viewed their initial settlement along the Cuyahoga River as “a miasmic, disease-ridden swamp.” This view of wetlands was eventually codified into law; from 1849-1860, Congress passed a series of Swamp Land Acts, which gave 15 states control over all wetlands in their territories – a total of 64.9 million acres – for reclamation projects.

Benefits of wetlands conservation

As time has passed and more research has been done, however, it is increasingly clear that wetlands are among the most important ecosystems on Earth.

Wetlands provide a myriad of benefits. They serve as crucial refuges for fish species; research suggests wetlands can have fish populations that are 4-10 times more abundant [PDF] than other ecosystems. They also improve water quality. The degradation of coastal wetlands significantly compromises the quality of water in the surrounding areas, creating $16 billion in losses from pollution every year. Additionally, wetlands act as important buffers against coastal storms and floods. The conservation of the wetlands along the Charles River near Boston prevents $40 million in flood-related costs annually. Overall, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the economic value of the world’s wetlands [PDF] at $17 trillion.

Clearly, the addition of 13,600 acres of wetlands to the Great Lakes region represents a major victory, particularly in light of their continued destruction worldwide. Since the 1980s, for instance, human activities have destroyed 35% of remaining mangroves, a form of tropical coastal wetlands.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Much of the success in this are stems from the work of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), a federal initiative that President Obama established in 2009. The GLRI has provided more than $1 billion to enhance the Great Lakes region over the last five years. These funds have and continue to go to protecting wetlands throughout the area, including the restoration of wetlands along the Euclid Creek.

Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc. recognizes the important services that our wetlands provide, particularly the role they play protecting the quality and quantity of our water resources. We celebrate the expansion of coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes region in recent years and support ongoing efforts to strengthen our coastal ecosystems through programs like GLRI, and we remain committed to educating people on the vital role that wetlands play in keeping our Great Lakes great.

Climate culprits: 7 countries account for more than half of global warming

national global warming share

Probably the single largest hurdle to negotiating a new global climate change treaty to replace the defunct Kyoto Protocol is the question of culpability for global warming. Determining who caused the crisis and, accordingly, who should shoulder the burden for reducing emissions has been a fly in the ointment since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in 1992.

During the negotiations over Kyoto, developing states argued, quite effectively, that developed countries must lead the way in emissions reductions, because they took advantage of cheap fossil fuels to drive their economic growth. This debate led to the division of countries into two major groups in the final treaty. Annex 1 countries (OECD members plus “economies in transition,” which were largely former Soviet bloc states) committed to reducing their emissions to varying degrees, while non-Annex 1 countries (developing states) were exempted from making emission reduction commitments.

This distinction outraged many policymakers in the West and all but ensured that the US would never ratify the agreement. Although President Bill Clinton actually signed Kyoto in 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 to endorse the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated that the body would never ratify a treat “unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance.”

Twenty odd years later, the debate continues to linger today. The question of who are the climate change culprits is front and center as the parties to the UNFCCC work to develop a successor treaty by the end of the 2015 Paris Conference. While developed states note that China is now the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, developing states point out that Western countries and Japan dominate cumulative emissions totals since 1850.

A new study in Environmental Research Letters (open access!) will help to shed some additional light on the discussion, though I imagine it will do little to change the tenor. In the article, the authors aggregate the total greenhouse gas emissions for each country from 1906-2005; using these data, they then attribute to each country its associated proportion of total observed global warming during this period (roughly 0.7°C).

The study is unique because it accounts not only for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, but also from land use changes, non-CO2 GHG emissions, and aerosol emissions, which tend to have a cooling effect.

Unsurprisingly, the authors point their fingers at the usual suspects. The top seven emitters – the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany, and the UK – account for 63% of the observed warming. The US claims the largest share, by far, accounting for 0.1517°C or 21.6% of total warming. Second-place China (which passed the US as the annual emissions leader in 2007), is responsible for 0.063°C, less than half of the US’s share. Overall, the top 20 emitting countries are responsible for 82% of warming.

national global warming share

National contributions to observed global warming from 1906-2005, including emissions from all sources.

While this outcome would appear to bolster the US’s argument, the authors dive further into the data and make the picture murkier. If you just account for fossil fuel use emissions, the list changes significantly. Land use changes, particularly deforestation and agriculture, make up 65% of Brazil’s emissions, while they are responsible for an astounding 86.7% of eighth-place Indonesia’s total contribution.

Moreover, the picture changes dramatically when the authors calculate emissions per capita. As the map below shows, developed states end up bring responsible for a far larger share of total warming than developing states. China and India, for intance, go from second and fourth place on the total warming list to 19th and 20th, respectively, in per capita emissions. The top eight states for per capita warming are all Annex 1 countries, as are eight of the top 10.

warming per country per capita

The share of observed global warming for each country on a per capita basis.

The authors devote a considerable amount of attention to the issue of per capita emissions and climate inequality. They note that, in order for us to keep total warming below 2°C in a world with 9 billion people, we would need to maintain per capita warming below 0.22°C. Multiple developed states already significantly exceed this number, emphasizing the importance of reducing their “luxury” emissions to make room for emissions from the developing world. The UK and US produce 0.54°C and 0.51°C of warming per billion people, respectively, which is more than twice the maximum rate the planet can sustain.

The data also do not account for outsourcing of emissions from the developed world to the developing world. The latest draft of the IPCC’s Working Group II report states that, while developing countries have increased their annual emissions to 14 gigatonnes per year, approximately 2 gigatonnes of those emissions stem from producing goods that are exported to the West. Accordingly, the cumulative and per capita share of emissions would change dramatically if we accounted for these trends.

As the authors note,

Balancing the current inequities in per-capita contributions to climate warming across countries may be a fundamental requirement if we are to make the changes necessary to decrease emissions and stabilize global temperatures.

This study will not end the discussion on who must reduce emissions and by how much – far from it. But it does provide further data to inform the debate, and it makes it clear that, despite recent changes in emissions trends, the developed world bears most of the responsibility for our existing climate crisis.

Ohio can’t afford the GOP’s massive giveaway to the oil & gas industry

fracking well ohio
fracking well ohio

A hydraulic fracturing well looms large over the Ohio countryside (courtesy of Ideastream).

In March 2012, the Ohio House of Representatives introduced HB 487, a bill which included changes to the way that Ohio taxes oil and gas extraction in the state. Ohio’s current system of regulating oil and gas production was implemented in 1972. Almost everything about the energy sector in the United States has changed drastically in the last 40-plus years; I wish I could say these regulations were included.

Ohio’s existing severance tax

Ernst & Young analyzed Ohio’s existing severance tax and Governor Kasich’s proposed changes (PDF) in 2012. E&Y compared Ohio’s tax policy to that of seven other oil and gas producing states. Of the eight states, Ohio has by far the lowest effective tax rate (ETR). The state’s combined ETR of 1.8% is 80% lower than the average in the seven other states. Based on a 2011 analysis from Policy Matters Ohio, this tax rate has cost the state millions in foregone tax revenues. From 2001-2010, the  value of the oil and natural gas extracted within the state was $8.38 billion. But Ohio collected a mere $26,017,858 in taxes – equal to 0.31% of the market value. That’s not at typo. Using these numbers, Policy Matters projected the amount of severance taxes that Ohio would collect from shale gas production from 2012-2015, compared to five surrounding states. Of the $10.77 billion in estimated value, Ohio will capture just $39.8 million in taxes. Compare this number to West Virginia and Michigan, whose 5% tax would bring in $538.4 million.

The Kasich proposal

Clearly, Ohio’s current severance tax sucks. Governor Kasich’s plan was supposedly introduced to rectify this issue. The proposal would have doubled severance taxes on oil from conventional, vertical wells to $0.20 per barrel and altered the tax on natural gas from vertical wells to the lessor of 1% of the market value of the gas or $0.03 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). It would have also priced oil and gas from horizontal wells, which is produced using the controversial hydraulic fracturing method, separately. This oil would have been taxed at 1.5% of the market value for one year, then at 4% for the lifetime of the well. Natural gas from fracking wells would have been taxed at 1% across the board. E&Y’s analysis found that this proposal would have increased the effective severance tax rate from just 1.8% to 2.7% overall; however, Ohio would still have the lowest tax rate in the region. Under Kasich’s proposal, Ohio’s ETR for an average oil/gas well would be just 40% lower. What a relief.

Ohio Republicans strike back, introduce HB 375

And yet, Ohio Republicans balked at Kasich’s plan. During budget deliberations, the plan was completely stripped out of the bill. Recently, Ohio Republicans finally offered up their alternative to Kasich’s proposal. State Rep. Matt Hoffman (R-Lima) introduced HB 375 on December 5. Shockingly, the bill has overwhelming support from the oil & gas industry.

Thomas Stewart, head of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, issued a statement saying the bill “includes a sensible modification of the severance tax based on actual well economics.”I’m not sure what energy economics textbook Mr. Stewart is reading from, but suffice it to say he’s just a tad off the mark. Headwaters Economics issued a report in 2012 that included a list of 12 recommendations for crafting fiscal policies for the oil and gas sector. HB 375 goes against every single recommendation. So let’s compare the bill to just three of these recommendations.

1. Maintain a high effective tax rate

Headwaters argues that it is essential for states to keep a high ETR on their mineral deposits, because it provides additional resources to mitigate the impacts of drilling and allows them to invest in long-term economic development.

kevin bacon dancing

Even 1980s Kevin Bacon knows that the oil & gas industry isn’t footloose (courtesy of People Magazine).

Contrary to fear-mongering from industry reps and the Ohio GOP, the oil & gas industry is not going to flee the state and give up concessions just because the state increases slightly its pathetically low severance tax. As Headwaters notes, Montana had an ETR of 4.6% for oil and gas in 2011. Neighboring North Dakota, in contrast, keeps its rate at 9.9%. Despite this, North Dakota has seen significantly more drilling activity, and Montana’s poorly-designed tax policy cost the state $60 million in foregone tax receipts in 2010 alone.

The minerals sector is not directly comparable to other economic activities, like the service sector. Oil and gas producers migrate to where the oil and gas deposits are, not where taxes are lowest. The industry is not, in economics parlance, particularly footloose. If it were, then Texas and Alaska, where tax rates are 8.2% and 25%, respectively, would not be leading producers. There is simply no valid evidence to suggest that slightly higher severance tax rates will keep companies from drilling here.

Yet, HB 375 institutes tax rates even lower than Kasich’s proposal. It would lower the tax on conventional gas from $0.025 per mcf to $0.015 per mcf. It also repeals the regulatory cost recovery assessment fee passed in 2010 to offset the costs of land reclamation. And, for horizontal wells, it introduces a severance tax of 1% of the value of net proceeds from oil/gas sales for 20 months; this tax then increases to 2%.

2.Remove “holiday” incentives

Several states have production tax “holidays” during the early days of oil and gas production. The logic behind these tax holidays is based on the fact that, for conventional wells, there is a lengthy gap between the drilling phase and the production phase (when the oil/gas is actually flowing). This gap can be upwards of two years for vertical wells.

But this model does not apply to horizontal wells. The drilling phase for a horizontal well is compressed, and the production phase typically jump starts thereafter. The majority of oil/gas from horizontal wells is extracted during the the first two years, after which production drops precipitously – by more than 60% in just one year in most cases.

shale gas production cycle

This image from the EIA charts the production cycles of shale wells across five different shale plays.

By providing a five-year tax holiday, HB 375 effectively ensures that Ohio will forfeit the overwhelming majority of tax revenues from its oil and gas deposits. By the time that the tax rate increased to 2% in year six, it’s entirely likely that drillers may have simply moved onto the next well.

3. Guarantee adequate local share in revenue collections

A central tenet of good oil/gas policy is to guarantee that the benefits of the fuels are adequately shared with communities on the front lines of extraction. As I’ve written before, the US isn’t somehow immune to the impacts of the natural resource curse. Far from it. One can find evidence of the resource curse from horrifically high mortality rates (PDF) in Appalachia to skyrocketing crime rates in North Dakota to groundwater pollution from fracking in multiple states to increased damage to infrastructure in Texas.

HB 375 does nothing to support front line communities. Ohio’s past two biennial budgets have taken a toll on local governments. Ohio Republicans balanced the state budget by holding onto tax revenues that should have been returned to local governments. The 2014-2015 budget reduces the amount of money local governments will receive by $1.4 billion. HB 375 simply exacerbates the issue further. Under the proposal, the funds raised would go to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to cover the costs regulating the industry, remediating abandoned wells, and conducting geological surveys for the industry. Any additional funds would go to reduce personal income taxes. This policy would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and leave those directly affected by drilling on the outside looking in.

HB 375: Great for the industry, terrible for Ohio

All told, Policy Matters Ohio found that HB 375 would cost the state $620-800 million over the next decade, compared to the Kasich proposal (which is far from ideal policy). The bill amounts to little more than a giant handout to the oil & gas industry. Ohio’s current oil/gas severance tax is a 40-year old relic of terrible policymaking. It would be a challenge to make a policy that’s worse.

Somehow, Ohio Republicans have crafted a bill so terrible that it gives existing law a run for its money. If you were looking to develop a policy that took the full advantage of our natural resource endowment and benefited ordinary Ohioans, you could hardly do worse than HB 375. But, on the other hand, if your goal was to benefit the wealthy, well-connected, and your political benefactors, you would be pressed to outdo HB 375.

This bill is egregiously bad policy. Naturally, I expect it will be on Kasich’s desk by the spring.

The resource curse is coming to town

The discovery of oil deposits has, in many ways, been a curse for Nigeria's Ogoniland province, which has been plagued by environmental degradation and civil conflict (courtesy of Reuters).

The discovery of oil deposits has, in many ways, been a curse for Nigeria’s Ogoniland region, which has been plagued by environmental degradation and civil conflict (courtesy of Reuters).

Oil and natural gas from shale will be a “game changer” for Ohio, one that “has given fresh life to energy development,” according to Jack Gerard, the president & CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. The Plain Dealer has matter-of-factly stated that the boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in states like Ohio is “expected to create thousands of jobs and add billions to the state’s economy.”

That expanded oil and gas production will generate myriad economic benefits is largely taken for granted in most circles. For the most part, opponents of fracking for oil and gas have focused almost exclusively on the potential environmental consequences, such as water and air pollution, radioactivity, and an increased risk of earthquakes.

But a new study from Headwaters Economics has thrown some cold water on this conventional wisdom. What if, instead of bringing socioeconomic development to energy-rich areas, oil and gas production could actually make these communities worse off?

The natural resource curse

This concept, the so-called “natural resource curse,” has long been studied in international relations and environmental circles. Several studies have demonstrated a strong connection between natural resource abundance and stymied economic growth on an international level, particularly in the developing world. In a 1995 paper, Sachs & Warner concluded that reliance on natural resource dependence can decrease economic growth by around 1% per year.

natural resource dependence and growth rates

This figure, from Sachs & Warner (2001), charts the relationship between natural resource dependence and economic growth rates from 1970-1989. As it suggests, those countries whose economies depend heavily on natural resource exports had lower real growth rates during this period, and vice versa.

There are several reasons (PDF) why natural resource wealth and dependence could harm socioeconomic development. I will outline three below.

First, a boom in natural resource extraction can increase price levels throughout the economy (PDF), raising a country’s exchange rate. As a result, resource wealthy states tend to have higher costs for export goods, reducing their competitiveness on global markets.

Secondly, higher real wages can create an incentive for individuals to forgo employment in other areas to pursue opportunities in the extractives industries. This reliance upon extractives can crowd out investment in manufacturing, limiting the ability of the industry to become more efficient over time. These outcomes can harm innovation and entrepreneurship (PDF), which may create long-lasting ramifications for the economy.

Thirdly, resource-dependent countries are highly susceptible to rent-seeking behavior and the pathologies that can come along with it, such as political violence, up to and including civil conflict. As de Soysa and Binningsbø (paywall) put it:

Resource rents apparently create factional political states, where rent capture allows politicians to survive by dispensing rents, rather than making hard choices about reform. Political survival dictates profligacy and waste, rather than providing public goods.

Rather than investing in important public goods, leaders of resource-rich states can simply make direct payments to important elites or buy off potential challengers. Resource revenues also tend to accrue to state, rather than staying in source communities. As a result, while some actors will benefit from extraction, the communities on the ground tend to suffer the effects without reaping the rewards.

The lure or resource rents can also drive groups to try to capture control of the state. As a result, a plethora of studies have shown that states dependent on natural resources experience higher rates of internal political violence (paywall) and a greater risk of experiencing civil war.

six western states oil and gas income levels

The study explores the effects of oil and gas development on socioeconomic development in six states from 1980-2011 (courtesy of Headwaters Economics).

The resource curse comes to the United States

But while the negative consequences of resource dependence are well-known for the developing world, the same cannot be said for the Untied States. In order to investigate the long-term impacts of using oil & gas extraction as an economic development policy, Headwaters analyzed the effects of an early 1980s oil boom in six Western states: Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The study explored the long-term impacts of the boom on social and economic development from 1980-2011, analyzing data from 207 counties in the states.

While many observers consider the oil and gas boom to be a positive development in the West – the curren oil boom in the Bakken shale has helped lower North Dakota’s unemployment rate to just over 3% – Headwaters’ findings challenge this perception. Rather than contributed to sustained, positive outcomes, these counties actually experienced many of the same consequences of the resource curse that I outlined earlier.

First, the authors found that the counties most dependent on oil and gas extraction actually had lower levels of per capita income during this period. These counties saw per capita income levels decrease by $7,000, on average. One reason for this outcome may be that boom towns typically see the cost of living skyrocket in the short-term, which can raise prices and offset income gains. In Fort McMurray, the heart of Alberta’s tar sands industry, for instance, the population has tripled in recent decades. The formerly rural area, which is now bursting at the seams, has the highest housing prices in Alberta, and is deficient in 70 of 72 quality-of-life indicators.

Secondly, the study suggests that the resource sector can have a crowding out effect. The lure of the extractives industries, which have lower education requirements, tends to lower the percentage of adults with a college education. Those counties that were most heavily invested in oil and gas had, on average, 2.5% fewer college-educated adults than the rest of the sample counties. And the environmental consequences of resource extraction are well known.

Thirdly, the authors note that “the longer a county has been specialized on oil and gas, the higher the county’s crime rate.” This outcome would seem to reflect the fact that natural resource dependence leads to rent-seeking behavior and increased levels of violence. Most oil and gas boom towns are chock full of young men. The flood of young men into the Bakken shale (where they outnumber women by nearly 2-1 in some areas) has driven up crime rates by as much as one-third in Montana and North Dakota. Many women have reported being sexual harassed and feeling increasingly threatened due to the changing demographics.

The study fails to examine the environmental and public health impacts of resource dependence. However, other studies have shown that coal-mining communities in Appalachia have significantly higher adult and child mortality rates (PDF) than other communities in the region.

While the authors of the Headwaters study are careful to point out its limitations – causality cannot be proven and the results are unique to the sample areas – it does provide a cautionary tale to officials who are hoping to cash in on their region’s natural resource endowments.

Oil and gas extraction can be a way to jump start a stagnant economy in the short-term, as the study suggests. But states need to ensure that they are taxing resource extraction appropriately and investing these tax revenues in public goods for the communities on the front lines. Though bending over backwards for the oil and gas industries – as Ohio’s Republican lawmakers appear all too eager to do – may benefit some well-connected individuals, many more in these communities will suffer in both the short- and long-term.

Oil and gas deposits can be important endowments, but they don’t constitute a real development strategy. States need to think twice before putting all their eggs in one basket.

Africa’s Great Lakes were central to human evolution

victoria falls

Cross-posted from Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

great lakes of africa map

The Great Lakes region of Africa (courtesy of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science).

If you’ve ever felt inexplicably drawn to Lake Erie or any of the other Great Lakes, you’re not alone. In fact, that attraction is hardwired into your genes.

Last month, two UK researchers published an article titled “Early Human Speciation, Brain Expansion and Dispersal Influenced by African Climate Pulses” in the online, open-source journal PLOS One. The piece explores a variety of close linkages between climatological variability and human evolution throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. It focuses, in particular, on the East Africa Rift System (EARS, for short), which is home to the bodies of water that make up the Great Lakes of Africa.

Africa’s Great Lakes region is home to several of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world. The lake system includes Lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi, along with several other smaller bodies of water. These lakes are the lifeblood of the region and are home not only to the world’s largest waterfall, Victoria Falls, but also to the headwaters of the Nile River.

In the article, researchers Susanne Shultz and Mark Maslin sought to determine what factors contributed to the punctuated nature of human speciation and dispersal from East Africa. They focus, in particular, upon a particularly important period for human evolution, which occurred roughly 1.9 million years ago. This period gave rise to the Homo genus and witnessed a series of major migration events from East Africa into Eurasia.

Schultz and Maslin noticed that several of these major “pulses” in human evolution corresponded closely to the appearance and disappearance of the East African Great Lakes. As a result, their research probed this connection more deeply. Their results suggest a close relationship between the growth and decline of the EARS lakes and significant steps forward in human evolution:

Larger brained African hominins colonised Eurasia during periods when extensive lakes in the EARS push them out of Africa. Taken together, this suggests that small steps in brain expansion in Africa may have been driven by regional aridity. In contrast, the great leap forward in early Homo brain size at 1.8 Ma [million years ago] was associated with the novel ecological conditions associated with the appearance and disappearance of deep-freshwater lakes long the whole length of the EARS.

As this article suggests, Africa’s Great Lakes are more than simply natural resources that serve economic, social, political, cultural, and ecological purposes. They are, quite literally, engrained in our DNA.

victoria falls

Victoria Falls lie along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

Yet, tragically, these lakes and the people who depend upon them face a host of threats. The region has experienced extremely high rates of deforestation in recent decades due to unsustainable economic development, ongoing conflict, illicit logging, and dam construction. Annual rates of deforestation in the Congo River Basin doubled during the period from 2000-2005.

The ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has displaced millions, forcing many of them to encroach upon protected areas. In Africa’s oldest park, Virunga National Park, rates of illegal logging have reached 89 hectares (220 acres) per day (PDF). And the Gibe III dam in Ethiopia is drying up Lake Turkana, threatening the livelihoods of tens of thousands of indigenous peoples.

Despite being home to 27% of the world’s freshwater, less than two-thirds of people in the Great Lakes region have access to improved water sources. Climate change is expected to exacerbate this issue even further. The IPCC projects that the total number of Africans facing water stress will climb to 75-250 million by the 2020s and 350-600 million by the 2050s.

But you don’t need to sit by and watch these Great Lakes dry up. Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.™ has been working to provide access to clean water for children in Uganda for the last three years. This winter, the organization will undertake three new projects to ensure that the children at St. Bonaventure Primary School and the Family Spirit AIDS orphanage can take advantage of their human right to clean water.

Just as East Africa’s Great Lakes are a part of our DNA, so too is access to clean water and sanitation an integral part of human development. We can all take small steps to ensure that we are protecting this human right for people at home and around the world