Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends Policy Update: August 2014

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance legislation to put a price on carbon and return all or most of the proceeds to American families. We are pleased to support HR 5271, the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, “cap and dividend” legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in the House of Representatives on July 30, 2014.
We will be producing and distributing this occasional newsletter to keep others informed about developments with this bill and with other efforts to put a price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.
More information on the Van Hollen bill can be found at http://climateandprosperity.org.

In This Issue:

1. A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen
2. New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce
3. The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend
4. The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept
5. The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution
6. Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?
7. CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill
8. With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality

#1: A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (2 ½ minutes)

#2: New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce

“From the scorched earth of climate debates a bold idea is rising — one that just might succeed in breaking the nation’s current political impasse on reducing carbon emissions. That’s because it would bring tangible gains for American families here and now.”
Read the New York Times op-ed.

#3: The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend

“In short, the concept makes a lot of sense — in terms of promoting conservation, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases and supporting renewable energy — with the added benefit of making such a transition a bit easier for anyone with a valid Social Security number. It is the ultimate consumer-friendly approach to a rational U.S. energy policy with the chief shortcoming being that it doesn’t serve the agenda of any deep-pocketed special interest group and so may have trouble finding broad support in Congress.”
Read the Baltimore Sun editorial.

#4: The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept

“This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics, putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.”
Read the Washington Post editorial.

#5: The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution

“I’m a University of New Mexico student who works full time to make ends meet. I support this bill because I think we need to make the price of carbon-polluting energy sources reflect their true costs — in terms of the environment and our children’s futures, so we shift away from these sources to cleaner energy supplies. Secondly, I think regular people like me and my working-class family need to have help making the transition.”
Read the op-ed.

#6: Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?

“The bill would require companies to have permits to produce or import carbon-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The permits, instead of being allocated politically, would be auctioned off by the government, so they would get into the hands of the emitters who need them the most. A similar auction system drastically reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide—which causes acid rain—quicker and cheaper than experts expected.”
Read the full Bloomberg story.

#7: CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill

“The introduction of this legislation shows that we have moved legislators — especially Democrats — a long way toward revenue-neutrality in carbon pricing, as well the concept of returning revenue to households as dividends. This is an important step forward as we seek bi-partisan legislation, and we’re thrilled with Van Hollen’s bill from that standpoint.”
Read the CCL update.

#8: With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality

“One beauty of his proposal is that the income everyone receives would come with­out poli­tical or psychological stigma. The dividends couldn’t be criticized as reck­less govern­ment spending or money taken through taxation. Nor could they be called a handout to the ‘unde­­serv­ing poor.’ Dividends from common wealth would be a universal birthright, and that is a big part of their appeal. Chase down a copy of With Liberty and Dividends for All. It will challenge many of your assump­tions about what we can accomplish within a market economy and within the framework of the commons. The reverberations from this short, readable and profoundly original book will be heard for years to come.”
Read the full review.
CCAN encourages readers of Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included.
Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.

A 40% Clean Electricity Standard Would Put Maryland on the Cutting Edge

CCAN and our partners will be fighting over the next year to double Maryland’s commitment to clean electricity. Burning dirty coal, oil and gas for electricity remains the single largest source of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and so it’s essential that Maryland transitions as quickly as possible to clean, non-polluting sources. Our state’s current requirement is 20% clean electricity by 2022, and we want to double that to 40% by 2025. This 40% clean electricity standard would put Maryland on the cutting edge of renewable energy policy, and it would go a long way toward increasing national momentum behind a clean energy economy.
A 40% clean electricity standard for Maryland would incentivize enough clean energy capacity to offset about 10 coal-fired power plants, and it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 9.7 million metric tons per year. That’s the carbon equivalent of taking 2 million passenger vehicles off the road every year, which will deliver improved public health outcomes, cleaner air and cleaner water for Maryland and our region.
This 40% clean electricity standard for Maryland is ambitious, and in fact it is eminently achievable. The operators of our regional electricity grid recently released a study that examined the grid impacts of doubling current clean electricity levels in states in our region over the next decade. They included the cost of coping with the intermittency of wind and solar as well as the costs of major transmission upgrades that would likely be needed. The very good news is that the study concluded that grid “will not have any significant issues” if each state doubled its own clean electricity standards. In fact, the study found that we would reap significant benefits by accelerating our clean electricity generation, including maintenance of reliability, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and lower energy costs.
So, Maryland can and should get to 40% clean electricity as soon as we can, and that’s what we’ll be pushing for in the coming months. Stay tuned for updates and ways to get involved, and check out more on the campaign here: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/maryland/40-percent-rps/

Letter from the Director: Why I'm an optimist

Dear CCAN supporters,
They say you have to be an optimist to be an activist. So I guess I’m an optimist. Despite the admittedly dark days and setbacks that come with fulltime campaigning on global warming, I know that a totally clean-energy world is within our grasp in our lifetimes. I believe this with every fiber in my body. So yeah, I’m an optimist. And you should be too! Read through to the end of my column to see why.
But first, let’s not sugarcoat things. After a long career in journalism, I founded CCAN in 2002 because I had come to realize that nothing else – nothing – was as important as fighting global warming. We could cure cancer tomorrow but we won’t have good health if malaria spreads and heat waves and droughts leave us malnourished. We could end all wars forever, and we won’t have peace if warming-induced Frankenstorms like Sandy and Katrina batter our coastal cities. A wise scientist once said, “Climate is destiny. Change your climate and you change everything.”
Each time I read or hear of some new natural-world weirdness I look for the fingerprints of climate change and they are almost always there. The massive algae bloom in Lake Erie that recently contaminated the drinking water of more than 400,000 people in the Toledo, Ohio region? It wasn’t the heat this time. It was, according to a state official, the incredible increase in “extreme rain events” that have recently plagued Ohio. Scientists confirm that measurable and growing extreme precipitation events are being triggered by global warming in much of the country. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. But what goes up eventually must come down. And we’re learning that it tends to come down in bursts. Those bursting rain events this summer have swept record amounts of livestock waste and agricultural fertilizer into Lake Erie during concentrated periods of time that have in turn triggered unprecedented algae blooms that knocked out the drinking water to nearly half a million Ohioans.
Of course, similar disruptive events related to climate change are happening worldwide. A draft report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just released this week, states that climate change is now “severe” and “pervasive” and some characteristics of it are “irreversible.” The report is the scientific community’s starkest and most strongly worded warning yet of the dangers that lie ahead unless we act.
And so we must act. CCAN has never been busier in the fight to reduce carbon pollution in our region. We continue to battle the ridiculous and destructive proposal to build a fracked gas export facility at Cove Point in Maryland. We’re fighting drilling and new gas pipelines across the region. And we push just as hard for clean-energy solutions like offshore wind in Virginia and a mandatory doubling of clean electricity in Maryland.
But here’s the main reason — in addition to the historic People’s Climate March — that you should be an optimist despite the UN report and water contamination in Ohio and all the rest. On July 30th, prominent U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) introduced The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2014. I’ve never seen a more just and affective piece of legislation aimed at “de-carbonizing” the American economy. The Van Hollen bill puts a strong and transparent cap on carbon emissions, forces polluters to pay for any harm they do to the atmosphere, and rebates the collected money on a quarterly basis to every single American with a social security number. This idea could WORK. The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun agree. Now it’s our job to build a climate movement that persuades Congress and our President to embrace this policy before it’s too late.
Learn more about the Van Hollen bill at www.climateandprosperity.org. And stay tuned for exciting action alerts from CCAN throughout the autumn.
Your optimist,
mike-tidwell
Mike Tidwell

Natural Gas in Virginia: Dominion’s proposed pipeline and how we can stand together to fight back

Update as of November 13th, 2014:On October 31st, Dominion Resources submitted a pre-filing request to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, which asks them to begin the environmental review of the pipeline. Landowners, community members, and activists around the state are continuing to mobilize and fight Dominion’s FERC requests at every step of the process. CCAN has partnered with local groups on the ground to launch a petition to Governor McAuliffe asking him to renounce his support of the pipeline. Our goal is 10,000 signatures–help us reach our goal and stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline by signing here! 

As of November 12th, Dominion gave final notice and threat to sue the 189 landowners along the path of pipeline who have not issued permission for Dominion to survey their land. If you have received a letter from Dominion and need more information, please contact: info@augustacountyalliance.org.
 
As Virginians, we’ve been fortunate enough so far to be free of fracking—the dangerous process of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.
But just because we aren’t on top of the Marcellus Shale or Utica Shale basins, doesn’t mean we’re not connected with our neighbors battling fracking wells in their backyards, or that the dangers of our nation’s natural gas boom aren’t already threatening Virginia.
Dominion Resources recently partnered with Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and AGL proposed a $5 billion, 550-mile pipeline that would cross through Virginia to connect natural gas production in West Virginia to consumption in North Carolina.
Starting in West Virginia, Dominion’s Atlantic-Coast Pipeline (previously known as the Reliability Pipeline) would enter through Highland County, heading into Nelson County and across the Shenandoah Valley on its way to North Carolina. The pipeline would also have an extension connecting to Hampton Roads. The  proposed route would go through the George Washington National Forest and the backyards of Virginian families.
Leaks, explosions, and other accidents are not unlikely for a project of this scale, and hundreds of Nelson County residents raised their safety and environmental concerns last week at Dominion’s first public meeting in Nelson County.

Here’s a close up of the contested route, provided by groups helping to organize local residents to fight back:

The proposed route of Dominion’s Reliability Pipeline, a $2 billion, 450-mile pipeline that would cut through Virginia on its way from West Virginia to North Carolina.

I think a more reliable project wouldn’t include the risk of gas leaks and explosions. A smarter investment would be putting that $2 billion into energy efficiency, wind, and solar energy for our region.
Instead, it’s very clear that Dominion is moving too far, too fast towards natural gas, yet another dangerous fossil fuel — and one comprised mostly of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas known to leak at high levels during the fracking process.
In fact, Dominion Virginia Power’s Integrated Resource Plan proposes 6-7 new fossil fuel plants in Virginia over the next 15 years, and Dominion Resources (DVP’s parent company) is fighting hard for a $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas export facility in Cove Point, Maryland. It’s clear that this pipeline is one major piece of Dominion’s region-wide push to keep us locked into climate-harming fracked gas for decades to come.
Unless we stop it.
Groups of concerned citizens across the Commonwealth are banding together to resist this pipeline—and to resist all dangerous, new natural gas pipelines and infrastructure that are a threat to our state.
Please check out the following organizations that are coordinating regional resistance to the pipeline and supporting homeowners along the proposed routes. Join their mailing lists for immediate updates on the pipeline routes as they continue to unfold:
Friends of Nelson County

Shenandoah Valley Network

  • Serves Augusta County, Frederick County, Page County, Rockingham County, Shenandoah County, Warren County
  • Working to protect and sustain the rural landscapes, communities, and ecosystems of the Shenandoah Valley by working with strong local citizens’ groups, promoting smart local land use, and effective land protection strategies
  • http://www.svnva.org/

Augusta County Alliance

Highlanders for Responsible Development

  • Highland County, VA
  • Highlanders for Responsible Development is a citizens’ group that promotes stewardship of Highland County’s unspoiled landscape, natural resources and exceptional quality of life. We support policies and activities that are based upon informed community discourse, democratic decision making, prudent land use and sustainable economic development.
  • http://www.protecthighland.org

Visit us back here for more updates as they unfold. CCAN will be keeping all eyes on the pipeline route and the proposal process to make sure we inform supporters with the first opportunity for public comments and other actions we can take statewide to stop the pipeline.
For updates on the pipeline project: http://www.nelsoncounty-va.gov/pipeline-information-and-updates/

Maryland Study Shows that Protecting Our Health Requires Keeping Fracking Out

Children with unexplained nose bleeds. Babies born with birth defects. Workers sickened by exposure to toxic, tiny silica particles. These are just some of the health impacts linked to the fracking already happening in states from Texas to Colorado to neighboring Pennsylvania.
On Monday, the O’Malley administration released a study, prepared by researchers at the University of Maryland, aimed at assessing the potential public health impacts of allowing fracking in Maryland. The findings are alarming and, health experts are saying, only scratch the surface of the harm our communities could face if this volatile, toxic form of drilling were allowed in Maryland.
I’ve summarized below three main things every Marylander should know about this report.
The O’Malley administration is taking public comments on the report through October 3rd, so click here to take action today.

#1 Fracking is likely to cause serious harm to the health of Maryland residents and workers.

The table on the left summarizes the overall “hazard” rating that the UMD researchers assigned to each impact category they considered. Air pollution is one of the major health concerns, along with workers’ safety, the burden on local health care infrastructure, and negative impacts on the mental and social health of communities, for instance through increases in sexually transmitted diseases, crime, traffic injuries, and substance abuse.
Dr. Gina Angiola, a retired obstetrician and board member of Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, summarized in response, “This report confirms that unconventional natural gas development has the potential to cause both short-term and long-term health impacts, some of which may be irreversible.”
Air pollution is of particular concern because fracking operations emit a variety of toxins linked to cancer, birth defects, and respiratory illnesses. The study underlines that peer-reviewed research is beginning to emerge linking air pollution associated with fracking to “increased risk of subchronic health effects, adverse birth outcomes including congenital heart defects and neural tube defects, as well as higher prevalence of symptoms such as throat & nasal irritation, sinus problems, eye burning, severe headaches, persistent cough, skin rashes, and frequent nose bleeds” (p. xx) among people living within 1,500 feet of gas drilling facilities.
Or, as the Think Progress news headline on the Maryland study summed up, “Fracking in Maryland Would Threaten the Health of Anyone Who Breathes Nearby.”

#2 The Maryland health study only scratches the surface of the risks we could face, leaving more questions than answers.

To add important context, the health study was released as part of a fracking review process initiated by Governor O’Malley in 2011. Through an executive order, the governor placed a defacto moratorium on fracking in Maryland and ordered a series of studies aimed at determining whether or not fracking would pose unacceptable risks to the state’s public health, safety, environment and natural resources. The 2011 executive order originally set a deadline of August 1, 2014 to complete this review; after much delay, a final report is now expected from state agencies this fall. From the start, the process has been compromised by insufficient funding, rushed timelines, and incomplete or flawed studies.
The health study falls clearly into the rushed and incomplete category. Rebecca Ruggles, director of the Maryland Environmental Health Network (MdEHN), said following the report’s release, “Marylanders should not become the next guinea pigs for testing the gas industry’s impact on people. This report should be viewed as Maryland’s first, not last, inquiry into health impacts. The work is not complete.”
For one, the study’s scope was highly limited by insufficient funding and a rushed timeline. For example:

  • The study looked only at potential health impacts in Western Maryland — even though gas basins lie underneath 19 Maryland counties statewide, and the impacts of gas compressor stations and other fracking-related infrastructure could extend statewide.
  • The study didn’t look at the costs of lost work and school days due to illness, or of the increased demand for emergency and other healthcare services.
  • The study didn’t adequately address how our farms, food and livestock would be impacted by potential soil and water contamination.
  • The study didn’t consider the health impacts of worsening climate change – the #1 long-term health threat we all face – due to emissions of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, health experts, including the study’s authors, caution that medical knowledge on the health outcomes related to fracking is still “extremely limited” (see the summary of limitations on p. 100 of the report).
Comprehensive epidemiological studies of fracking’s health impacts are few and far between, or only in the beginning stages in places where drilling already occurs. Aaron Bernstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University warned in February that scientists “really haven’t the foggiest idea” how fracking impacts public health, primarily because of inadequate research and monitoring to date.
While the University of Maryland study includes 52 recommendations for minimizing the potential health risks of fracking, these recommendations fail to address all of the safety concerns raised by the report. Furthermore, there is little to no scientific evidence proving that recommended steps — such as setting drilling wells back from homes by only 2,000 feet — would be sufficient to protect our health.
Underscoring this point, Dr. Jerome Paulson, MD, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment and a professor of pediatrics at George Washington University wrote in a June letter to Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Environmental Protection, “There is no information in the medical or public health literature to indicate that [unconventional gas extraction] can be implemented with a minimum of risk to human health.”

#3 To protect Marylanders’ health, Governor O’Malley must keep our state’s fracking moratorium in place.

Healthstudyemail“First, do no harm.” It’s a basic tenet of medical practice, and it’s a tenet that Governor O’Malley and his successor in office must apply when it comes to fracking and the health of Marylanders.
Given the alarming emerging evidence on the risks fracking poses to our health, and the many unanswered questions, Governor O’Malley must keep Maryland’s fracking moratorium in place. By doing so, the governor will be keeping his promise to ensure a science-based decision on fracking. As long as we don’t have the full answers we need and deserve on the health dangers, no fracking should happen in Maryland — period. At the bottom of it all, our health is worth far more than the short-term profits of the oil and gas industry.
Click here to submit a public comment on the health study and urge Governor O’Malley to keep our fracking moratorium in place.

Eastern Shore Wind Farm vs. Naval Air Station: Take 2

For a second time this year, a proposed wind energy farm on Maryland’s Eastern Shore is being pitted against a nearby naval air station. The ongoing fight between the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (PAX River) and Pioneer Green’s Great Bay Wind Energy Center has been a false choice between military readiness and renewable energy. “Win-win” solutions are readily available, and they should be implemented quickly so that the entire state can enjoy the benefits of clean energy and a thriving economic base.
In both cases, first in the General Assembly and most recently in Congress, legislation has been introduced that would delay the project indefinitely, in effect killing it. At stake is a land-based wind industry on the Eastern Shore, our ability to meet in-state renewable energy goals, and even the state’s leadership on climate change.
With nearly four years and $4 million invested, Pioneer Green’s Great Bay Wind Energy Center project in Somerset County is shovel-ready. The project would bring 25 turbines, nonpolluting electricity to power about 45,000 homes, and hundreds of jobs to one of the state’s most impoverished rural jurisdictions—plus more than $200 million in local investments. Tragically, the most recent attempts in Congress to scuttle this wind project threatens to erase those benefits and put a chill on future investments in the state. A no-go message to industry could also potentially jeopardize an estimated $1 billion in future wind projects on the Eastern Shore.
The ostensible problem is the wind turbines’ proximity to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (PAX River). Across the Chesapeake Bay in St. Mary’s County, PAX River operates sensitive radar equipment for testing military aircraft. Because impediments to the radar involve spinning — not stationary — blades, Pioneer and the Navy negotiated a solution: turning off the turbines whenever PAX River needed that. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study indicated that 800 hours per year of such “curtailment” would be a viable solution; Pioneer agreed to turn off the blades 950 to 1,500 hours a year. The stopped turbines won’t give away any top secrets: Wind generators run only 30 percent of the time anyway. More significantly, Pax River often announces its tests, and it launches weather balloons before and after to calibrate radar.
During Take 1 of this controversial fight, the General Assembly passed legislation in April setting a 15-month moratorium on land-based wind farms because of the concern over conflict with PAX River operations. Fortunately, after receiving thousands of emails and letters, Gov. Martin O’Malley vetoed that legislation. “The real threat to Pax River is not an array of wind turbines on the Eastern Shore but rising sea levels caused by climate change,” the governor said. Indeed, to help combat climate change, Maryland has set a goal of supplying 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022. At present, the state is about halfway towards its renewables goal, but reaching the final target and potentially higher future targets will require more on-shore wind. These clean-energy goals helped draw Pioneer to our state.
But in late July, Sen. Barbara Mikulski took new steps to stymie the project, adding language to a defense appropriations bill that would delay it until completion of another MIT study — even though the negotiated agreement already brings PAX River and the Navy back for more discussion as needed when MIT issues its report.
Also in the background have been fears that the wind project could make the PAX installation an easy target for base realignment and closure, or BRAC. But retired Air Force Col. David Belote — who developed the rules for siting renewable energy for the military and worked for two years as a direct report to the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense responsible for overseeing BRAC preparation and execution — has testified that he sees “zero danger” to PAX River and “no reason to move” the base’s sensitive radar equipment. In fact, Col. Belote stated that “Pax River… is unlikely to close as long as [the Department of Defense] owns airplanes and radars and, therefore, conducts radar cross-section testing–the cost to move or duplicate [the testing radar] would be astronomical, and with a curtailment agreement, there’s no reason to move it.”
All of this is not to undermine in any way the vital economic and national security role that PAX River plays in Southern Maryland. Many checks have long been in place to protect Pax River:

  • The Defense Department (DoD) already has to sign off on any project. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 created a clearinghouse for energy project developers and DoD to work together “to prevent, minimize or mitigate” adverse effects on military operations and national security. By law, the DoD cannot sign off on any agreement that jeopardizes national security. DoD called the Pioneer-Pax agreement a “feasible and affordable mitigation measure.”
  • In 2012, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill that requires any wind farm within 46 miles of Pax River to get approval from the Public Service Commission. That way, the state can weigh in on economic effects of the project. Pioneer still needs to get the required Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

Some say that Pioneer can simply wait for the MIT study to be completed and then begin construction. A key problem with these attempts at delay, however, is that they jeopardize Pioneer’s ability to get federal tax credits. If Pioneer has to wait for the MIT study, its eligibility for the credits would expire. In addition, the project needs to execute a final interconnection agreement with our electric grid operators. Indefinite delay makes that agreement nearly impossible to execute, which means that the project would need to restart that 5 year process. These delays threaten this project and the state’s ability to attract future projects because no business can work with such uncertainty.
In its 2013 assessment of the impact of climate change on military installations, the DoD said, “Climate change will have serious implications for the ability of the Department of Defense to maintain its natural and built infrastructure and to ensure military readiness.” The greater threat to our national security is not a wind farm but climate change — which the wind farm would begin to address.
“Win-win” solutions are available today. The curtailment agreement negotiated between Pioneer and the Navy allows the wind farm to move forward now, and the terms of that agreement will bring the two sides back together after MIT completes its latest study to find a more permanent solution. Federal and state officials should welcome renewable energy projects rather than throw up last-minute roadblocks for companies that have invested much, compromised as needed and complied with every requirement.

VIRGINIA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON EPA’S CARBON REDUCTION PLAN

Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has just wrapped up a series of listening sessions last week, eliciting public feedback on the EPA’s new draft rules for carbon reductions for existing power plants. These rules, known as the Clean Power Plan, or “111(d)” as policy wonks call them, are the signature components of the President’s Climate Action Plan and are designed to make America the leader in the fight against climate change by reducing the nation’s CO2 by 30% by 2030. (In case you’re wondering, 111(d) is the code section of the Clean Air Act which gives the EPA the authority to regulate CO2). Virginia’s specific carbon reduction target is 38% below 2012 levels by 2030.
The DEQ listening session took place in Henrico on Thursday night. Four speakers representing various co-operatives and the VA Chamber of Commerce spoke in opposition of the draft rules, a modest effort and fine showing if it were not dwarfed by the 24 citizens and environmental representatives speaking passionately about the need to support the rules and fight against climate change.
As expected, the dirty polluters spouted the familiar tired arguments: efforts designed to cut carbon pollution would increase rates, reduce jobs, and stymie economic productivity. These arguments fly in the face of numerous studies suggesting that smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency can actually provide a cool billion dollars in energy savings for Virginia customers, while adding 21st century jobs and providing a spark to the clean energy economy.
Further, reducing harmful carbon pollution from our environment has the added benefit of improving the public health of the commonwealth’s 8.2 million residents. While Virginia has much to be proud of, its capital city of Richmond winning the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s “Asthma Capital” award not once but TWICE should be enough to give rule-makers pause.
If that weren’t enough, coal’s pollution has a well-documented disproportionate effect on many minority and other low-income communities. In fact, the NAACP recently released a stunning report highlighting that 68% of blacks in America live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Our friends at Virginia New Majority provided much-needed and oft-overlooked testimony to this disparity during the Henrico hearing on Thursday.
And oh by the way, rising seas, devastating storms, punishing droughts, and other climate disruptions will be mitigated by reducing carbon pollution in the environment. Added all up and the benefits v. harms of the Clean Power Plan are as lopsided as the 24-4 representation DEQ witnessed at its listening session in Henrico.
DETAILS ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN
EPA outlined four “building blocks” for states to use in order to meet the carbon reduction goals. These four options are available for states to use and experiment with, allowing each state maximum flexibility in determining which mechanism, and to what extent, the state should use to achieve its goal. The building blocks are:
1)      Heat rate improvements at coal-fired power plants,
2)      Shifting dispatch from coal to natural gas,
3)      Increasing renewable and nuclear generation, and
4)      Increasing demand-side energy efficiency
Building block number two for the state’s consideration, swapping coal for natural gas, is akin to a Vicodin addict swapping the pills for a steady diet of Jack Daniels. Gone is the Vicodin addiction, as well as the pain temporarily, but the long-term effects of severe alcoholism can be equally as damaging, if not more-so, than the initial problem.
Our nation’s longtime dependence on coal has been a danger to climate stability. But a fast switch to natural gas as the solution to the coal dependency is not the answer. Methane leakage from the production, transport, and usage of natural gas accounts for nearly 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, ranking 2nd behind CO2. Over a 100 year period, methane emissions are more than 20 times more potent of a climate change pollutant than CO2, which makes a switch from coal to gas seem more like a dodge than a direct attempt to solve the climate problem.
Virginia has incredible untapped potential for efficiency, solar, and particularly offshore wind. These resources need to be fully tapped before other options are considered.
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The draft EPA rules were first announced on June 2, 2014 and made official on June 18, 2014. Since then, DEQ has organized listening sessions to provide feedback on the rules. EPA asks that all entities (citizens, businesses, government agencies like DEQ, etc.) to submit comments back to EPA by October 16, 2014.
Thereafter, EPA will develop its final and binding carbon reduction rules to be released in June of 2015. Virginia will have one year, until June 30, 2016, to provide EPA with a detailed State Implementation Plan, outlining how the commonwealth will achieve its carbon reduction goals.
Virginia has the option of achieving the goals on its own, or by joining a multi-state collaboration like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). If Virginia decides to join RGGI, a collaborative with proven success and one in which CCAN steadfastly urges the state to join, it will have until June 30, 2018 to do so and outline its intention to achieve the goals under the final rules proposed by EPA.
All states have until 2030 to achieve its state-specific carbon reduction goals – until 2032 to ensure the carbon reduction goals are met under three years averages for 2030, 2031, and 2032. CCAN will be there every step of the way to ensure Virginia makes the right decisions for our climate.

Stop Gas Exports Rally Video-Watch and Share!

On July 13th, 2014 over a thousand people converged in Washington DC as part of a growing movement to stop fracked gas exports, and dangerous fracking that fuels climate change.
Dominion’s plan to build a massive $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas export facility at Cove Point on the Chesapeake Bay threatens communities across Maryland and the region with an expanding network of fracking wells and gas infrastructure — all to ship gas overseas at the carbon pollution impact of coal.
Learn more and take action at www.stopgasexports.org.
 

Video Credit: Peter W. Jackson

Cove Point: Calvert County Citizens Keep Up the Fight

I joined CCAN’s staff three weeks ago today and since day one I’ve been inspired by the “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over” spirit the community members we have the honor of working with bring to their work. That spirit is nowhere more visible to me than in the work of the Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community, the citizen group that formed in opposition to Dominion Virginia Resources proposed liquefied natural gas export facility at Cove Point.
CCAN’s Southern Maryland Organizer, Jon Kenney, and I spent Monday in Calvert County, meeting with some of the leaders of CCHC. Inspired by last Sunday’s rally and undeterred by the construction work that has already started on Cove Point Road, CCHC’s leaders are ramping up their call on Governor O’Malley to step in where federal regulators have failed to and order a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). A QRA is a basic and customary type of safety assessment that would determine the extent to which an accidental explosion or other catastrophe at the plant could put CCHC’s members and their neighbors in danger.

Water park abutting Dominion's plant.
Water park abutting Dominion’s plant.

The reality of what’s at stake if the Governor ignores the citizens of Calvert County really hit home for me Monday. Jon and I went for a drive through Cove Point Park – a beautiful park that shares a fence with Dominion’s plant. Jon told me that this park – with its two playgrounds, baseball diamonds and crowded water park – is the place where kids in Calvert County go to play. And it shares a fence with the plant. Imagine the horrific scene if there were an explosion like the one that occurred at an LNG facility this spring in Plymouth, Washington.
And I met Leslie Garcia, one of the creative minds behind CCHC. With her husband, Leslie has been putting blood, sweat and tears into renovating their home – a home I had a hard time leaving after an hour, let alone 20 years. They feel like they’ll have no choice but to leave if Dominion wins. They’re in Dominion’s backyard: their home is less than a 5 minute walk from the overlook facing Dominion’s current import platform and a short drive from the plant. Imagine locking the door and walking away from the home you’d hoped to live the rest of your life in because you know that staying is too dangerous.
View from Solomon's Island, looking towards the future site of Dominion's pier.
View from Solomon’s Island, looking towards the proposed site of Dominion’s pier.

Before leaving, we walked along the pier at Solomon’s Island, looking out over the scenic Patuxent River towards the Thomas Johnson Bridge – Dominion plans to build a temporary pier next to the bridge for the loading and unloading of construction materials. And right next to it, one of the largest, most productive, and most beautiful farms in Calvert County – Dominion plans to use the field abutting this farm for the loading and unloading of construction materials coming off of the pier. Imagine the scene.
Construction may have started on Cove Point Road, but that doesn't mean this fight is over.
Construction may have started on Cove Point Road, but that doesn’t mean this fight is over.

As we drove through neighborhoods on our way home, we noticed that a bunch of the old Cove Point lawn signs (“Cove Point: We need answers!”) had started to disappear. The construction work on Cove Point Road has gotten some folks started thinking this fight is over; Dominion has already won.
But the members of CCHC will tell you that it isn’t, that too much is at stake to stop fighting now. Just a few days after our visit, CCHC members traveled to Annapolis to join 52 organizations and residents for a press conference urging the Governor to protect the safety of Calvert County residents and order a QRA. As the fight against Cove Point continues, CCAN will be supporting CCHC at every step – whether that’s on the streets, in the media or in the courts – and what an honor it is for us to do so.

Rite of Passage

This is a feature story in the summer issue of Orion magazine.
Sometimes travel is mandated, sometimes it is endured, but often it is undertaken for the sheer pleasure of seeing new places or visiting old friends. Sometimes we travel on foot, sometimes by plane, sometimes all it takes is a book or a good imagination to carry us away. What does travel mean, and how does it shape the course of a day or a lifetime? This spring’s double issue of Orion includes a special section exploring the idea of the journey, and we’re pleased to share one of the features with you here. To read the full special section, six features in all, subscribe to Orion and let the journey begin.
ABOVE THE ROCK canyon wall, the sun winks into morning view, drowsy and golden. The light pours onto the mute Rio Grande, soon finding our tent just yards from the bank. The slanting rays gradually find the sleeping face of my son, Sasha.
He’s fifteen years old. Not quite a man, but almost. We’ll be visiting colleges this time next year. He’s not a boy, either, although he looks consummately boyish in the innocence of slumber. I see the Little Leaguer in his face, and the kindergartener. In sleep we catch the last youthful poses of our children.
And at this moment, I wonder yet again why I brought Sasha to this wilderness place. Part of the answer is simple. I’ve traveled the world—the Amazon, the Serengeti, the Alps—and for me this is the most haunting and beautiful landscape on earth. We are in absolute backcountry: the Chihuahuan Desert canyons of “Big Bend Country,” literally that giant bend of the Rio Grande that separates west Texas from northern Mexico. The same sun washing over Sasha’s closed eyes is rousing the cliff swallows into song two hundred feet away. Around us, a million desert flowers go all electric in late-March bloom—red ocotillo, purple verbena, the magenta blossoms of cholla cacti. In the riverbank shallows, a longnose gar sloshes though the willow grass, hunting frogs.
Quietly, I slip out of the tent and catch a glimpse of a desert hawk winging hundreds of feet overhead, above the canyon. From up there, that hawk can see the nearby Chisos Mountains to the northwest, towering to nearly eight thousand feet with the deep-green cover of alpine woodlands. Below the peaks, that hawk can see the vast expanse of desert floor, all cactus and scrub, spreading north, south, east, west. And arching through it all is the pale green ribbon of the Rio Grande. But what that hawk doesn’t see are very many human beings.
I discovered the place fourteen years ago by accident. A newspaper editor asked me to visit Big Bend National Park, the twelve-hundred-square-mile jewel on the Texas side. The editor’s question: Why do so few Americans visit this most lovely of places? The reporter’s answer: It’s at the end of the earth, not on the way to anywhere, and surrounded on three sides by harsh and hostile Mexican desert.
But it’s beautiful. Shockingly so. And therein lies the problem in bringing my son—still-sleeping Sasha—to this place. It seems almost cruel. So many of the living things we’re here to celebrate, all across this landscape, are stressed out, dying, or migrating away from here. Like politics, all global warming is local. By roasting our common atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we bring chaotic change to regional ecosystems like the Big Bend region. Here scientists and fifth-generation ranchers and native people all tell the same story: unimaginable recent heat waves, freakish cold snaps and, above all, drought.
Just since I was last here—when Sasha was in diapers back home in Maryland—the place has changed. The pinyon pines in the Chisos range had not yet experienced “mass mortality” due to chronic lack of water. And the lechuguilla, a signature species of the desert, had not yet been flash frozen in huge numbers during the unheard-of cold spell of 2012. When Sasha is my age, fifty-one, this ecosystem will almost certainly be a distant memory, barring some global clean-energy miracle in the next few years, a rescue that seems less likely with each passing month of international inaction and domestic denial. So I struggle: Is this healthy? Is it right what I’m doing here, bringing Sasha to this place?
That morning in the canyon light, I’m bird-watching from the riverbank when the brightening day finally wakes up Sasha. “Hey, what’s for breakfast?” he asks. I hear his sleeping bag unzipping, his teenage voice turning to his favorite teenage subject: food. “Eggs and tortillas,” I say. “Outstanding,” comes the reply.
Within an hour we’ll be in a canoe, paddling through this still-rich land where the lechuguilla and pinyon pines are trying their best to recover and the roadrunners and tarantulas and mountain lions are all still here in good numbers, despite recent climate shocks. The Big Bend region, like the Amazon rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef, is an incomprehensively vast ecosystem still teeming with the life of the Holocene and our nearly twelve-thousand-year run of stable climate. Over 450 species of birds—more than in any other U.S. park—still live or pass through Big Bend National Park.
But we’re not voyeurs here, drawn to that shortsighted product of the global travel industry, see-it-while-you-can tourism. We’re here to see it, yes. While we still can, yes. And to bond in the delights of desert camping. But for me there are deeper, more elusive motivations. I have come to the place I love most in the world, with the person I love most, in order to . . . what? Apologize? Ask for forgiveness? Find some new hope in an unexpected fresh insight? All of the above? What, basically, do we say to our kids in the face of astonishing loss in the natural world? How much of that loss do we even want them to know about, to discover and love, as it changes and exits? What do we owe our kids? What do we owe these places? How do we even talk about all this?
WHEN SASHA WAS four years old, in 2001, I walked away from a twenty-year journalism career to become a full-time activist on global warming. The transition was not easy for him or me. I launched a nonprofit organization, raised money, hired staff, and worked nearly nonstop. Frequently reporters would call me at night or on weekends to discuss the latest terrifying scientific study on Arctic ice melt or rising storms. More than once I hung up the phone only to finally notice my little boy, fire truck in hand, looking up at me from somewhere in the room. “Are we all going to die, Daddy?” he’d ask.
“No way,” I’d say, swooping down for a hug. “No way. We’re going to fix this thing, I promise.” And off he’d go, building another Lego house, with windows and chimneys and always—always—lots of solar panels on the roof, just like our house. He assumed all homes had solar power. He assumed all dads talked on the phone about the end of the world, and then said not to worry.
It was a schizophrenic time, those early days of parenting and climate activism. I tried to manage Sasha’s relationship with nature, discouraging him from watching in-depth nature programs on TV, not wanting him to fall too much in love with all that. But we also hiked and camped and fished, a lot. I took him to the woods whenever I could. It’s my passion. And all his life Sasha heard me talk about Big Bend country. About this desert ideal in faraway Texas, and how I was going to take him there one day.
And then that day came. Sophomore year of high school. Spring break. Better go now before girls and college and career intervene. So we loaded up the backpacks, bought carbon offsets for the long trip, and boarded a flight at Reagan National. New sunglasses dangled from straps around our necks. High above the plains of central Texas, however, with nary a cloud below our plane, I realize something: I don’t have a plan for unspooling the big messages I had assumed—and hoped—would come from this trip. Thankfully, they began unspooling themselves.
“Look at that,” Sasha says, pointing to hundreds of pumpjack oil wells spread thousands of feet below us.
“Nineteenth-century energy,” I tell him.
“And what’s that?” he asks, pointing to an apparent matrix of rocket launchers.
“Fracking for gas,” I say. “Twentieth-century energy.”
And then, further west, I spot the series of awesome white lines, full of spinning giant blades. “Your century, Sasha,” I say, as the wind farms pass below our plane, working with haughty gracefulness in the Texas breeze. “Yours.”
We finally land in El Paso, along the northern edge of the Chihuahuan Desert, and head southeast by car. Tiny ranch towns soon give way to nothing but creosote bush and towering yucca, dust devils and lost burros. When the two-lane state roads finally run out five hours later, we enter Big Bend National Park. And it’s everything I remember.
“Did I exaggerate? Did I exaggerate?” I ask my son. He’s too busy shooting photos to talk much. The camera spoke softly, click after click, as giant agave plants float into view in golden, brittle poses. Then come the arroyos, violently beautiful in the distance, carved by a million flash floods. Then the Chisos Mountains, phantomlike, forested, painted in shadows. Click. Click. Click. And then swaths of red-blooming Indian paintbrush, punctuated with javelina tracks and the den doors of a strange desert rat that miraculously never, ever, drinks water. “You did not exaggerate,” Sasha says.
The camera’s clicking is a memory cue for me, reminding me of a speech Bill McKibben gave in 2005, addressing a group of climate activists gathered at Middlebury College. “Fight like hell,” Bill told us. “But be a witness, too. Go see the whales, the rainforests. There’s no guarantee we’ll save them all. Memorize this great world, the one we were born into. Tell others in the future. Their mistakes might be fewer if they know the greatness we once saw.” This had always been a central if unspoken part of this trip to Texas, of course. And it explained most of the trips to the woods during Sasha’s childhood. Be a witness, my child. Don’t forget these things.
And so on our first full day at Big Bend National Park, we race to the top of the highest mountain, Emory Peak, and toss off our backpacks. There, from nearly eight thousand feet, we look down on an absolute kingdom. It tumbles and flows below us, down from a crown of pinyon pines to a robe of scrub oaks and desert flowers to a labyrinthine floor of cactuses stretching to the Rio Grande and off into Mexico. We are at the summit, Sasha and I, at last, where mountain lions roam amid rare Carmen Mountain white-tailed deer.
And if only it had ended right there—if only the story had been exclusively about life that day, and not also death. But the path back down the mountain does not lie. It meanders past bright-orange metal signs put there by rangers: FIRE DANGER EXTREME and HIGH RISK OF WILDFIRE. Sasha photographs these too. Click. Click.
The first decade of the twenty-first century was one of the driest in Texas since record-keeping began. And 2011 was the driest single year of all for many parts of west Texas. Like a vise, the trend of severe drought, intensifying over the last half century, is clamping down here. Scientists say rising temperatures are to blame. The hotter it gets, the greater the evaporation, sucking moisture and life right out of the land.
I hear the sound of cracking twigs and crumbling pine bark under our boots as we walk through our first long stretch of dead woodlands that day. It is worse than a graveyard. The bodies are unburied: bleached pinyon torsos countless and eerie all around us. They fill narrow valleys and cover the tops of foothills in vast patches amid the still-green survivors. The dieback of these pines is happening all across the American West, affecting everything from black-chinned hummingbirds to black bears. At the edge of one maze of dead trees, we break for water. I had worked up a little speech for years. “Remember when you were little,” I say to Sasha, “and how I always told you we were going to solve global warming?”
“Yeah,” he says. I pause and then tell him, for the first time, about McKibben’s speech. Sasha is ready, I figure. Fifteen years old. “The wind farms just aren’t coming fast enough,” I say. “We’re going to lose a lot on this earth.”
But like Santa Claus and sex, we both know he’s understood the truth long before. It’s good to have it out of the way, nonetheless. “Yeah, I know,” he says, packing up his camera, ready for the final hike down to camp. “And I’ll remember,” he says. “I’ll remember.”
SASHA IS A WONDERFUL son: honor student, junior varsity baseball pitcher, Eagle Scout. Best of all, right now, he’s totally into this intense and adventurous trip west with his dad. But he’s still a teenager. Ten months earlier, right before turning fifteen, he told his mom and me not to bother getting him a birthday present if it wasn’t an iPhone. If we loved him, he said, we’d get him one. So we got him an iPhone.
After sunset, lying on our backs below a brilliant desert night sky, billions of stars above, the hallelujahs fill my ears as if from a choir. Sasha and I are side by side, stunned into silence by the celestial display. And his phone has no signal. None. Blessedly. For the entire week. Same with mine.
So we are able to float, undisturbed, into the infinity of outer space. That’s what it feels like on a moonless night in west Texas. It’s not stargazing here. A dense curtain of brilliant dots is pulled from horizon to horizon, each dot saying, “Touch me. Touch me.” At night, lying here on your back, you are in outer space. We spy a blinking satellite. We find Saturn, Orion’s belt, and Cancer. Ursa Major leads us to Polaris, the North Star. “Whoa!” I say, pointing to another impossibly long shooting star.
It’s midway through our journey, and this has always been part of the plan: to show Sasha the best star display in America and perhaps the world. It’s a counterweight—timeless, cosmic—to the earthbound challenges and intermittent sadness of this one desert expanse on a tiny planet in a lonely solar system. I can feel the cool sand against my back. “Is it bad,” Sasha asks, “that I wish I were watching March Madness basketball right now?” He pulls out his phone. “Don’t you wish we could know the scores?”
IF YOU WANT to take the long view of matters here and yonder, then Ten Bits Ranch is one of those word-of-mouth places worth wandering into. A self-styled eco-refuge just outside the western border of Big Bend, it’s run by two geologists who are also amateur paleontologists and off-the-grid enthusiasts. Solar panels power the whole ranch, including the lamps in the cantina that light up an amazing collection of dinosaur bones under glass. There are vertebrae from duck-billed hadrosaurs and tail bones from mammoth Jurassic crocodiles, all found on the five hundred acres here. We’ve come to Ten Bits to wash up between camping trips and to learn about low-carbon life in the desert. But mostly we’ve come to explore a mysterious cliff dwelling on the property, used by Apache, Comanche, and older Archaic tribes for millennia.
It’s another cool, blue-sky morning in the desert when we leave our cabin, walking past bleached cattle skulls nailed to fence posts. The ancient Indian settlement is a quarter mile away, up a gentle slope along the southern side of a low mountain. Our hearts are pounding as we scramble past the final few boulders and red-blooming ocotillo to arrive at this unmarked and little-visited place. The shelter is simple and primitive, consisting of a long, deep rock overhang. But evidence of habitation is everywhere, including cylindrical mortars in the rock floor, worn in from centuries of pounding grain with hand-held pestles.
We stand on the ledge, facing the distant Rio Grande, and imagine the people who once lived here. The south-facing overhang was for winter shelter, anthropologists believe, offering protection from the cold north wind. In summer, it would have been too hot here, too exposed to sun. I think of all those people. All those winters. They slept, daydreamed, argued, laughed, made love, belched, snored, and cried right here—for thousands of years, with only a crude shelter from wind, a bad shelter from rain, and no shelter from cold.
Reflexively, I begin looking for an arrowhead. I always do whenever I think I have any chance. I scatter small rocks with my toe. I peek under boulders. I talk while I hunt, trying to stay on message. “The thing is,” I say to Sasha, “this climate change we’re seeing worldwide is going to affect more than just plants and animals pretty soon.” His teenager impatience starts coming through. “You’re about to tell me life is going to get hard for all people soon, aren’t you?”
“Well, yes.”
“But that civilization will carry on somehow, even if it’s hard. These cliff dwellers endured under hard conditions.”
“Yes,” I say.
“Well here’s what I don’t understand,” he grumbles, standing on the ledge and pointing to Ten Bits Ranch in the distance. “See all those solar panels?” There were eighteen of them, polycrystalline, big, providing three kilowatts of power, enough to run a kitchen, lamps, a water well, iPods, all in the middle of nowhere. “Why,” Sasha asked, “can’t ExxonMobil just become the Exxon of solar? Can’t these companies make a profit building solar farms?”
“Yes.”
“So why don’t they do it and just get off of oil?”
“Because Exxon can make more money with oil right now. Bigger profits.”
“So this whole thing—Katrina, Sandy, drought—is about Exxon making slightly higher profits for a few more years until god knows what happens to the climate?”
“Yes.”
“Dad, how are you losing this debate?”
“We’re not losing it,” I say. “We’re just not winning it fast enough.”
“What’s it going to take?” he asks. “Just what in the world is it going to take?”
“I don’t know,” I tell him. “I don’t know.” I keep saying it. Until I stop saying it.
“Holy cow!” I shout. The stone in my hand is not an imposter this time. It’s not a mere triangle-shaped rock with coincidental sharp edges. It’s an arrowhead. Carefully worked. Chipped, flaked, pointed. I found an arrowhead.
THE WEEK, too soon, roams to a close as we head back toward El Paso, our dusty tent and backpacks stuffed in the trunk. I feel a restlessness lift from me. I’ve finally done it. I’ve taken my son to this place. And now I’ll never come back here again. I know it. Not me. I have my memories. I love those memories. Why risk them with another return?
“What?!” Sasha exclaims when I tell him this. He’s appalled. “You’re crazy not to come back. I’m coming back. And I’m staying longer. As soon as I can.” From the passenger seat, he’s shooting some final desert photos.
And then I see it in his face. He has the same bug I’ve had for a decade and a half, but in a different way. He just finished touring a beautifully imperfect place. A place in transition. But he’s not sad. He’s not bummed out, perhaps despite my best efforts. He has a different starting point than I do. Born in 1997, all he’s known is a fast-changing, impermanent earth. So the world seems less fragile to him, I think. More elemental. Rock, sky, sand, life. It will all be here whenever he returns. And, if pressed, I think he would call that hope.