by

Who’s afraid of the big bad solar panel?

by Shana Kessler

Widener University

Who’s afraid of the big bad solar panel? Apparently firefighters in Delanco, New Jersey (among other locations, but for the sake of this blog we’ll stick to this hot spot); they are not educated on how to handle fires in buildings equipped with solar panels. The result of this fear is the destruction of a Dietz & Watson warehouse that firefighters let burn for 29 hours. The warehouse was topped with 700 solar panels, that did not in any way, shape or form contribute or cause the fire in question, but due to their inadequate skills in handling solar paneled buildings they simply let the warehouse burn.

Well, that’s neither fair nor true to say exactly. They did work to keep the fire from spreading, and they did get people out. They simply did not put the fire out because they did not know how to dig a hole in the wide section of roof that was available to them. What can be done about this problem, then, as more and more structures are equipped with solar paneling? The solar industry knows of the issue, and agrees that the only thing they can do is educate first responders, especially firefighters, on solar panels. Many of their fears are based on mere speculation with no actual evidence to support, and therefore with the proper tools, legislation, and education they can learn to navigate the rooftops of solar-powered buildings without the irrational fear of electrocution.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-firefighters-are-scared-of-solar-power/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow

 

by

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in NY

by Morgan Wieziolowski

Widener University Political Science Major

New York State has decided to support a new initiative by the RGGI or Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to cap major power plants on their environmentally damaging gas emissions. The proposed changes in the initiative would cut these gas emissions by 2.5 percent per year, cutting overall gas emissions that damage the planet’s climate by 20 percent within ten years.  This is not a new topic for New York or any state. The state of NY was one of the first ten states that supported the RGGI when the gas emission cap was first adopted. The RGGI is hoping that other states in the region will push for use of green energy and carbon pollution reduction. The Northeast has a growing concern for the devastating affects the pollution causes to the global climate. This topic is fresh in everyone’s minds due to the recent devastation caused by Super Storm Sandy, and the State and local governments are not letting the environment sit on the back burner this time around.

RGGI is also supposed to boost the State’s economy. Within the first two years of participation in the RGGI there is the possibility of created 16,000 jobs and increasing economic output significantly. Investing in stronger, more effective RGGI would be very beneficial for the State of New York, not only for the environment, climate, and power sources but also for the job stimulation, creation of new technologies and economic prosperity. Governor Cuomo has “committed” to strengthen the cap and ultimately push for a better economic policy. I think this is a great example of public policy in play with environmental issues. The state is already participating in the cap and prevention strategies but they definitely can be strengthened. Governor Cuomo stated he wants to do this, but has not actually laid out a plan of clear action to ensure these changes. I guess we will have to wait and see, but for the most part I like the RGGI and what it’s trying to do for the carbon pollution problems.

by

The PA DEP & Problematic Pits

by Sarah Cox

Widener University Political Science Major

Clearly the gas drilling industry has many concerns when it comes to environmental safety as well as how human health will be affected. Range Resources Corp. has dug a retaining plastic covered pit next door to a small Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania farm. The pit is bigger than a football field and can hold 15 million gallons of water for shale-drilling purposes. As expected, the once peaceful neighborhood is in upheaval around the noisy, smelly and dangerous pit. These pits are susceptible to spills of chemical water, which makes them extremely dangerous to the farm land around them.

The fact that the State Department of Environmental Protection is letting this pit stand is slightly disheartening. Why will the DEP fight to block smaller, open top pits, but not these larger pits? These large pits are designed for transfer stations, which means heavy truck traffic will be driving in and out of the neighborhood location, often spilling chemicals and releasing air pollutants if the tanks are not sealed properly. Even more concerning is the fact that there are seven Range sites like this one in the DEP’s data base and all seven have received at least one state violation. These environmental violations are usually focused around improper waste handling, which is exactly what you would want in your back yard and around your kids, right?

Industrial sites such as these pits do not belong in residential or agricultural based areas.

by

Fracking Fee Is NOT Enough

by Paul Berger

Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

I am one that is definitely against fracking, but the way I see it, is that it is something that cannot be stopped, only slowed. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) says that the Impact Fee from the drilling of the Marcellus Shale will not be as beneficial to Pennsylvania as much as it is other states. If PA decides to stay with the impact fee that they created in 2012, the environmental and fiscal costs leave little room for profit. The solution that the PBPC are suggesting is to impose a 4% tax on drilling of new wells. These kinds of numbers will generate 1.2 billion dollars per year by 2020, which is three times the current fee. They go on to talk about how other states like West Virginia and Texas have these taxes in place, and their benefit will increase as production increases, while other states like Pennsylvania will not see an increase in profit. If PA keeps this fee instead of the tax, they are going to leave millions of dollars in revenue that could be used for schools, infrastructure and healthcare. If fracking is going to be something that cant be stopped, then why not benefit from it economically and help the state in other ways, even if it will destroy the environment

http://www.phillytrib.com/cityandregionarticles/item/10698-policy-center-reports-marcellus-shale-not-beneficial.html

by

Will Mayor Nutter make Philadelphia’s Environmental Dreams Come True?

by Aubrey Dangelo

Widener University Political Science Major

Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter recently unleashed a plan called Greenworks Philadelphia, which is aimed at creating environmental sustainability and lowering the city’s energy expenditures. Part of the plan involves a new law that has already been enacted called the Building Energy Benchmarking Law. This new legislation would require the owners of commercial buildings in Philadelphia that exceed 50,000 square feet to report their energy usage for online, public disclosure, and businesses in Philadelphia have until October 31, 2013 to comply with this law without the imposition of fines. This is all part of his strategy aimed at making Philadelphia the most environmentally friendly city in the United States by the year 2015. Among Nutter’s extensive list of objectives are claims to double the number of green jobs in the city between now and the year 2015, save taxpayers money, cut traffic congestion, clean the air, beautify neighborhoods, and improve Philadelphians’ diets. That’s quite an ambitious goal, if you ask me.

Whether or not Nutter fulfills all of these commitments, his plan is sure to have a significant impact on Philadelphia’s environmental practices, and some progress has already been made. Some recent accomplishments that Mayor Nutter boasts are a reduction of energy use in government buildings by 7 percent, an increase in alternative energy use from 2.5 percent to 14 percent, and nearly 90,000 trees planted since 2008. While it is important that the people and businesses of the United States make some drastic changes to their environmental practices, it is somewhat ridiculous of Mayor Nutter to attempt to make Philadelphia the “greenest” city in the U.S. in such a short amount of time. School budgets are being slashed left and right, and out of the nation’s ten most populated cities, Philadelphia has the highest rate of deep poverty. People with incomes below half of the poverty line make up 12.9% of Philadelphia’s populace. Nutter’s goals are well-intentioned, but perhaps a bit hasty.

http://articles.philly.com/2009-05-09/news/25274642_1_sustainability-program-sustainable-development-green-initiative
http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-28/business/40834349_1_energy-efficiency-energy-star-greenworks-philadelphia
http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/mayor-nutter-releases-greenworks-philadelphia-2013-progress-report/

by

An Opinion Primer on Syria

by J. Wesley Leckrone

Associate Professor of Political Science

Widener University

As Congress prepares to deliberate on President Obama’s request for limited military strikes in Syria the following might help clarify the various positions on the issue.

First – if you’re not too sure about the whole Syria situation check out Max Fishers’ “9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask” from the Washington Post.

Nickolas Kristof of the New York Times argues for military action from a human rights perspective in “Pulling the Curtain Back on Syria”.

Thomas Friedman, in Same War, Different Country (New York Times), argues that the problem is a lack of pluralism in the Middle East and that nothing we can do will help solve the problem in Syria.

Finally, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal gives a conservative opinion opposing military strikes in “Why America is Saying No.”

Finally “Shift in Congress Undercuts Support for Syria Strike” from the Wall Street Journal shows how more libertarian Republicans and less conservative Democrats in Congress have changed the body’s perspective on military action.