He wa'a he moku, he moku he wa'a

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.”

- John Donne





Hordes of flies.  Manure stinks.  Feces and urine can possibly reach the ocean.  The methane from the cows will increase the rate of climate change.  We don't need an imported wasp.  Costco already sells cheap organic milk.  The cows will be fed GMO feed.  The milk will be shipped to O’ahu for pasteurization. 

Ag land should be used for Ag.  The Hyatt produces way more feces.  Maha’ulepu has always been ag.  Kaua’i needs a dairy.  Tourists are a bigger environmental problem.  Support local farmers.  Intense rotational grazing has been proven to increase soil fertility and carbon sequestration.  Food security...



What happened to our dialogue? 



Our island is the perfect size.  Because everyone, through one or two degrees of separation knows everyone else, word travels quick.  Rumors are rampant and dialogue is vibrant.  The smallness of our community means that we all really have the potential to shape policy through our discourse. Yet NIMBYism takes on a whole new meaning when the whole island is our "backyard."  That’s part of what makes it really exciting to live here. And the reason that I get motivated to spend a Friday afternoon every few weeks writing this blog. 

Whether you’re a farmer, a developer, a lawyer, or a hippy, and no matter what your political affiliation, I think that we can all agree on some fundamental issues.



• We all want clean oceans. 
• 

We all want locally grown food. 


• We all want to preserve open space. 


• We all want to keep Kaua’i beautiful.
• 

We all want to control our rampant growth.
• 
We all want to reduce traffic.
• 

We all want affordable housing.  

• We all want good jobs.  




• We all want energy independence. 

Not a single person on Kaua’i could disagree with any of that.  So why can’t we ever agree on any practical solutions to address those issues?

I think it's because we rarely encounter "perfect" solutions.  There is always a trade-off.  And we use those trade-offs to form the basis of our argument.  To use the dairy as an example: yes, it's far from perfect.  Every red con listed above is true.  But so are the blue pros.  Too often (and I am very guilty of this) we draw our line in the sand and launch a barrage of rhetoric at the other side.  While at the same time they're launching their own barrage at us.  And neither side pays any attention to what the other is saying.  That's not dialogue.  That's war.  And it's polarizing and ineffective. 

We're in this together.  We need a true dialogue.  We need a solutions based conversation.  We need a vision for the future and we need to pave a path forward.  The status-quo isn't working and the quality of life on Kaua'i is steadily declining.

Let's start with the dairy. 

I think we can all agree that as long as we’re consuming milk, we need a dairy.  We can externalize the environmental and ethical costs of milk production to distant lands, or we can do it at home and mitigate those real costs.  Despite the labels of happy cows on grassy pastures, any milk  (even organic) on Kaua’i comes from dairy cows that spend their entire productive live on a feedlot.  They eat corn, their manure goes into toxic holding pools, and there’s not a blade of grass in sight.  That status-quo is the alternative to any dairy proposition on Kaua’i.  We on Kaua’i have zero say over mainland based dairies.  If we’re drinking milk, then we’re contributing to a massive ethical and environmental problem. And it's best dealt with here at home. 

In the words of Wendell Berry: 
“An economy genuinely local and neighborly offers to localities a measure of security that they cannot derive from a national or a global economy controlled by people who, by principle, have no local commitment.”



While we can’t control where our Lucerne, Horizon, or Organic Valley milk comes from or the environmental ramifications of that milk, we do have power over a local dairy.  Local entrepreneurs have the potential opportunity to make a cost effective pasteurization process on Kaua’i.  As consumers, we have the opportunity to ensure that the cows are treated well.  And as neighbors, we can ensure that the dairy is following the proper procedures to ensure that manure won’t reach the ocean.

All of the pros and cons listed in the opening paragraph are true.  The most threatening one being the chance that manure could possibly reach the ocean. But to find a solution we need to continue to dig deeper. As a community we need to weigh the potential environmental concerns against the alternative. We can either continue to perpetuate the unsustainable cycle of importing milk from feedlots in refrigerated containers, or we can have grass fed cows that will defecate in an area that may one day run into the ocean.  That is our choice and the path forward is grey.  But, to get to an answer we need to have a real dialogue. 

You can mention the bio-mass plant, smart meters, GMO, or the dairy to anyone on Kaua'i and they undoubtedly have a strongly held opinion on it. That level of activity is inspiring and necessary. Now we need to use those strong convictions and the vibrancy of our dialogue to come together for a common vision of a sustainable Kaua'i.


We all agree on the end goal: a healthy, beautiful Kaua’i. So let’s work to eliminate polarization and push for a solutions oriented discourse.  It's the only way that we'll be able to achieve a truly sustainable island.



Please watch this TED Talk on how intensive rotational grazing has the potential to "green the deserts and reverse climate change." 

While not very related, I thought I'd share my favorite video of all time which explains the meaning behind the 'olelo no'eau I used for the title (a canoe is an island, an island is a canoe).  It's of a canoe built and raced completely by employees of Kamanu Composites.  For me, it's an example of what is possible with a shared vision. We won the race.

Bridging the gap

"As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.”
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (world’s largest scientific society), Monday March 17th

A few hours after the AAAS released their report on Monday, the mayor of Kaua'i presented the state of the county address:

"I’d like to take a few moments to recognize some great things that are happening all around our community… we’re seeing very promising signs of true recovery.  New businesses are coming to Kaua’i: Taco Del Mar, Sports Authority, Pier One, Ross, Safeway, Petco, Wall Greens, Jack in the Box, and guess what? Central Pacific Bank just opened a new branch in Kapa’a."
-Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr- State of the County Address, Monday March 17th


I listened to the Mayor's annual address with a profound sense of disappointment.  I think the mayor is a good guy, so my disappointment doesn't stem from any fault of his but rather from the system that we have.  There is a frightening gap between what science is telling us and what policymakers and politicians are doing.  Scientists, with increasing desperation, are sounding the warning bells while our leaders (with some exceptions, such as Brian Schatz) continue on with the status-quo. 

As a small business owner, I understand how financial realities get in the way of idealistic notions.  With $4 million in payroll raises the county is facing a budgetary deficit in the coming year.  And traditional economic theory says that the best way to raise money is to grow the economy.

Since the county of Kaua'i is funded from property taxes the simplest way to expand its revenue to meet the growing expenses is to promote growth.  Every new development means property assessments go up and the county receives more tax revenue. Which is why the mayor lauds the arrival of eight conglomerates (Taco Del Mar, Sports Authority, Pier One, Ross, Safeway, Petco, Wall Greens, and Jack in the Box) to our small island.   

However, other than providing cheap material goods (which the UN and other organizations explicitly say we need to consume less of) and raising property values, those stores do little for Kaua'i.  In fact, because the vast majority of the revenue raised by the stores will flow off-island, they will only increase economic inequality on Kaua'i and necessitate an expansion of government services.  For example, what happens to locally owned Natural Pet Hawai'i when Petco opens for business literally right next door to their Puhi storefront?  Whereas every dollar spent at a locally owned business generates up to seven times its value for the local economy, all profit at mainland owned Petco will flow off-island.   Petco will provide a few low income jobs, the recipients of which will likely have to rely on government assistance (whether food stamps, subsidized housing or healthcare, etc) for their survival and it will potentially put Natural Pet Hawai'i out of business.  We have enough abandoned buildings on Kaua'i (Borders, Big Save, etc) that we don't need anymore.  While the county's revenue will increase (more development equals higher tax revenue) the island will be worse off.  In order to support the growing inequality government is forced to expand and the cycle of chasing growth continues.

Our incessant growth is the root cause of our planetary issues: climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion, and growing inequality.  So, the idea that we can combat those issues by the economic expansion provided by growth is flawed.  The more we try, the worse those issues will get.  Which is why the mayor's state of the county address hit me so hard.  Change some of the details and it's the same speech that nearly every political leader gives at every opportunity.  Grow, grow, grow. 

As NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center recently published:

[under conditions] closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid… While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing… Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.

Remember, this is NASA.  It's not a liberal think tank or some guy on talk radio.  This is the nation's premier scientific agency saying clearly that civilization will collapse unless we reduce inequality and slow growth to a sustainable level.  This is exactly the opposite of what Kaua'i county and the rest of the world is doing.

So, what now? 

We need to come to terms with the fact that unsustainable growth is the root of our problem.  And that paradoxically we are making the planetary mistake of trying to solve that problem with even more growth.  We need to start listening to the near unanimous advice of every scientific agency on the planet.  We even need to heed the advice of the World Bank when they say that "the solutions lie in ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C world in mind.”

What does that mean for Kaua'i? Maybe in 2015 Mayor Carlvaho can give a state of the county speech that focuses on four pillars of a new county focus: energy independence, reducing emissions, food security, and reducing inequality.  They are inter-related issues and can be addressed in revenue neutral ways without growing the economy.  For example:

•  Hawai'i has the nation's second lowest property tax rates in the country.  Rates on high end homes need to rise so that we can lower rates on low end homes and make home ownership more affordable for the local community.  Therefore reducing inequality. 

• The ag dedication laws need to be reformed to comply with the intent of the law, which clearly states that: Agricultural use" means the use of land on a continuous and regular basis that demonstrates that the owner intends to obtain a monetary profit from cash income received by: (1) raising, harvesting, and selling crops.  No offense to biotech but the agricultural subsidy should apply only to land which produces agricultural products which are raised, harvested, AND sold on Kaua'i.  Which does not include biotech test crops.  In the last three years agricultural subsidies to biotech have been at least partly responsible for the complete loss of a $57 million county surplus.  Reformed ag dedication laws can result in increased county revenue and more incentive to land owners to rent to local farmers. Yes, we need to maintain a vibrant bio-tech industry, but not at the expense of county revenue or local food production.  More local food reduces carbon emissions, increases food security, and reduces economic inequality. 

• The Kaua'i Bus needs to be expanded to both reduce emissions from cars on the roads and lower our dependence on foreign fuel.  Funding for that expansion should come from increasing the gas tax.  More public transportation reduces carbon emissions and inequality while improving energy security. 

These are just three very small steps on the long road to true sustainability.  As Gandhi said, "the difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems."  Science is telling us what we have to do, and they are very clearly explaining the risks of inaction.  All we need to do is heed their advice.  It won't be easy, it won't be quick, and it won't be painless, but we have no other choice.  We need to move beyond growth.  

Shifting paradigms

"Our life is a long and arduous quest after truth."
-Mahatma Gandhi

I have this terrible habit of eavesdropping on conversations.  No matter who it is or what they’re discussing, I’m continually fascinated by what other people talk about.  And there’s no better venue for inquisitive ears than the airport.  The other night, as I was waiting for my flight back to Kaua’i, the mid-western family to my left was trying to deconstruct whether anyone had fed the chickens before they boarded their plane for Hawai’i.  I knew that conversation all too well, so my eyes and ears moved on to the guy directly in front of me doing an interpretive dance routine by the window.  While inspired by his bold expression of self in a public sphere, I felt a bit too intrusive, so I kept scanning.  To the far right, at the end of my 180 degree arc, I hit evesdropping gold with an “alternative” looking group talking about the potential Wai’ale’ale horizontal well project on Kaua’i.  They were expressing their disbelief that anyone on Kaua’i would consider drilling into the side of Wai’ale’ale.  One of the women said that she feels so strongly that she would be willing to go to jail to bring attention to the evils of the project. 



That’s when I stopped listening.  Not because I wasn’t interested in the conversation, but because  (as my wife likes to remind me) I’m incapable of thinking and listening at the same time.  I kept turning that statement over in my head: she would be willing to go to jail to bring attention to the “evils” of the HDD well.   There are a few acts of civil disobedience that I could potentially feel strongly enough about to risk jail time for, so I can understand and deeply respect that sentiment.  But, the HDD well is not one of them.  The irony is that me and the “jail-time” woman are probably very similar.  I would bet that: we both consider ourselves environmentalists, we have a nearly identical voting record, we are aligned on social and economic issues, we even have very similar diets.  Heck, I live in a yurt; the ultimate sign of my inner hippy.  Yet, I would guarantee that we are firmly entrenched on opposite sides of at least two other major environmental issues facing Kaua’i: biotechnology and smart meters.

For the next few days that query of opposition kept raging around in my head: how can two people have the same information, the same intentions, similar backgrounds and lifestyles, yet come to radically different conclusions on the greatest environmental questions of our island?



And I believe it comes down to a differing mental paradigm for decision making.  



I began realizing the importance of mental frameworks through my business, Kamanu Composites.  While all canoe builders are similarly motivated (a love for the sport of outrigger canoeing), we have gone down very different paths.  Since we started our business in 2007 we’ve had a simple framework for decision making: we feel strongly about local manufacturing and want to ensure that Hawaiian outrigger canoes are made in Hawai’i.  Every decision that we make is done so within the framework of progressing local canoe manufacturing.  If our motivation were based on profit, then we would’ve been outsourcing long ago.  With each decision, the burden of proof lies with local manufacturing first.

The decisions facing Kaua’i are obviously much more complicated than questions of “should we outsource this part,” or “should we license our design to that overseas builder.”   But, we still need a framework in order to make the right decisions. 

From my perspective, most Kaua'i environmentalists (those who have been loudest on a string of issues from the Superferry to Smart Meters) base their decision on the following paradigm: man and nature should remain seperate.  People see the degradation of our planet (and our island) and come to the conclusion that the best thing we can do is to get out of nature’s way. Preserving the natural environment simply means excluding us from it.  To use some of our island’s most recent issues as an example: the Superferry was an assault on the ocean; genetic modification is a clear assault on plants; smart meters, by emitting EMF, are an assault on molecular biology; a dairy in Maha’ulepu is an assault on the ‘aina; and a horizontal well drilled into the most pristine natural environment on Kaua'i, Wai'ale'ale, is an environmental offense of the highest order.



I sympathize wth that view, because that used to be me and many of the people that I most respect on Kaua'i are aligned with that.  I originally opposed the Super Ferry and GMOs. I even built my home to be off-grid because I felt that I could be part of the realm of nature.  

But, the awareness of climate changed forced me to change my perspective.  By separating ourselves from nature, all that we are doing is externalizing the true costs of our industry to places around the world.  Often, by saying “no” we are in fact saying “yes” to continued environmental travesties in faraway locations.

The clearest example is the HDD well proposed for Wai’ale’ale.  I think it’s safe to say that nearly all environmentally minded people on Kaua’i are opposed to the project. 

If we look at the Wai'ale'ale issue in a vacuum, as a static representation of the realm of nature without analyzing the periphery, then drilling a well in the side of one of the most sacred and culturally important mountains in the world is clearly a bad idea.  But, if we expand our view and look at the fact that our two current options for clean water in Lihu'e-Kapa'a (surface water treatment and ground water wells) are incredibly energy intensive and expensive, then the scenario changes.  Annually, it takes 1.7 million KWH of electricity to supply water to the East side.   On Kaua'i, we might not feel it directly, but the arctic refuge or war zone where our diesel fuel originated definitely feels it.  And the planet, through climate change caused by rising Co2 emissions, is being deeply affected.

The horizontal well, would turn the east side water system from one of the largest users of electricity on the island to one of the largest producers.  The combination of savings (by decommissioning wells) and production (through hydroelectricity) would eliminate somewhere around 4.3 million pounds of Co2 emissions. To put that into perspective, that's the carbon equivalent of planting 50,000 tress every year.*

So, if we change the framing to include global impacts, we have two clear options:

1) Say “no” to the well, and continue with the status-quo.  Pump our water up from the ground at a high energy cost which contributes to global destabilization. 

or,
2) Drill a hole in an environmentally sensitive area.  Which will result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 50,000 trees per year and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

I'm not saying that the environmental factor of carbon emissions should always be the deciding factor in decisions such as these (especially when there are deep underlying cultural factors).  Neither option is perfect, as each have significant drawbacks.  But, with the looming specter of devastating climate change and the effects of our rampant fossil fuel consumption, negative planetary ramifications have to be given the heavy weight that they deserve.



So, where does this leave us? 

I believe it's time for a new framework for decision making.  Our relationship with nature is not black and white and our decisions can't be made in a vacuum.  Humanity is pushing beyond the limits of Earth’s support systems and we need to figure out a way to live within our means.  That means framing our decisions based on the paradigm of reducing our impact on the planet by working towards sustainability and self sufficiency for our island.  That needs to be the goal, and every decision needs to be weighed against that.  We can’t continue to say “no” (smart meters, Maha’ulepu dairy, HDD well, etc) without looking at the global impact of our current status quo. 

Our role, in a functioning democracy, is to unravel the rhetoric and hyperbole until we get to some fundamental truths. And that can only happen through deep and deliberate dialogue and an awareness of what's at stake. 

In the fitting words of Michael Pollan:

"The gardener in nature is that most artificial of creatures, a civilized human being: in control of his appetites, solicitous of nature, self-conscious and responsible, mindful of the past and the future, and at ease with the fundamental ambiguity of his predicament- which is that though he lives in nature, he is no longer of nature. Further, he knows that neither his success nor his failure in this place is ordained. Nature is apparently indifferent to his fate, and this leaves him free-- indeed obliges him-- to make his own way here as best he can."



* This is a vague estimate.  The numbers used for the calculations are the following:
-.45 pounds of Co2 per KWH of electricity (a mix of Naptha and diesel)
- 85 pounds of Co2 soaked up by every tree (EPA)
- 892 kw produced by hydro through the HDD well

Makaleha Fire

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion."

-Henry David Thoreau

I started this blog after a propeller ripped through my pelvis, gluteals, and vertebral column.  My most vivid memory of the experience is waking up on the morning after the accident and watching the sun rise over Haleakala (aptly translated as House of the Sun) through my window at Maui Memorial Hopsital.  Sokchea was sleeping on a chair beneath the window and as the sun peaked over the mountain the room exploded with a golden light. 

That morning light changed my life.  While it might have been the endorphin infused high of completing my first marathon night of searing, indescribable pain or the simple fact that I was being intravenously pumped with more mind altering chemicals then ever before, but I think there was something else going on.  It was like the nervous laughter of relief that we let out after a near accident.  But multiplied by 1000.  My entire being was screaming out: "I'm alive."  That was the luckiest day of my life.  Not simply because I narrowly avoided death, but because it taught me how to live.  

That feeling is still there hanging around in the shadows of my mind.  But the only time it's palpable is when it's illuminated by the golden fire of the first or last light of the day.  If only for an instant, it shows me what I'm looking for. 

However, I spend the rest of the day as the embodiment of the beast that I railed against two weeks ago.  This week was consumed with insurance audits, reconciling a year's worth of canoe related expenses, paying the IRS, and preparing W2s for distribution.

Yet, as much as I'm overcome with the malaise of daily life, the sun inevitably sets. 

Smart Meters, one last time

The Garden Island Newspaper just published a letter of mine on why we need smart meters.  While it's a 290 word summary of my pro-SM argument, it doesn't address most arguments against SM.  So, here's some elaboration. 

1) The money would have been better spent on PV.  
KIUC spent $11,000,000 on the meters, half of which came from the federal government from a program aimed specifically at Smart Grid improvement projects.  So, only half of it would have been available it were spent directly on PV. 

 If it were possible to put $5 million towards household PV systems, at last year's average installation price ($5.3 per watt) that would get us about 1 megawatt of distributed electricity for our island. That's somewhere around 2% of Kaua'i's daytime energy needs. However, as soon as the sun sets those PV panels stop producing electricity, Yet, we all go home and turn on our TVs and lights, drawing 65  megawatts, all of which is coming from dirty oil. KIUC has to maintain a powerplant with enough capacity to supply all of that power. So, our single megawatt of added PV capacity basically did nothing in terms of making us energy independent.

One of the most important aspects of a smart meter in terms of renewable energy is its proven effectiveness in minimizing peak loads. With consumer education (showing people their power consumption) and time of use pricing, SMs have repeatedly been shown to reduce peak consumption by at least 20%. Using the same numbers we just used above, that's 13 megawatts (20% of 65MW) that shifts to the daytime (when we have the available power). That's the effective equivalent of spending $69,000,000 on household PV systems.  So, the answer is no, spending it on PV wouldn't put us any closer to 100% renewable power.

2) Low income people are hurt the most by time of use pricing. 
As I explained in my last post, our current system is incredibly detrimental to low income folks.  As distributed PV systems become more popular and cost effective, the cost burden of maintaining the grid falls on a smaller and smaller number of costumers.  Currently anyone can oversize a PV system on their house and have an electric bill of zero.  Under the current system, it makes financial sense for everyone to oversize their systems.  However, the more households that put up PV panels, the smaller the proportion of homes that are paying an electric bill and therefore contributing to the fixed costs of grid maintenance (power lines, administrative costs, power plant maintenance, etc).  Yet, those fixed costs are necessary to keep electricity flowing.  So those without the financial wherewithal to install PV are left footing the bill for the fixed costs of keeping the grid up and running.  Under this system, as more distributed renewable energy enters the grid, electricity prices will continue to rise for the dwindling number of households without solar.   A smart grid, enabled by smart meters, can ensure that we work around this fundamental problem.  As with any open market where prices are set based on supply and demand, a variable price structure will take the fixed costs of the grid into account and ensure that the price that KIUC buys and sell electricity for is the real, varying cost of electricity. 

Further, it's impossible to identify the major cost causers using analog meters.  The utility needs to maintain a spinning reserve in order to account for major spikes to the system.  So, a home that uses energy predictably and in small increments is cheap and easy to account for, while a commercial entity that has major and unpredictable energy swings adds a huge cost to the system.  With our current system, the inefficiencies of the big user are averaged into our system and we all pay the costs.  With a smart meter, that high cost user can be isolated and charged more for the energy spikes. 

And, many are using the argument that everyone has to shower and do dishes at night, and we can't penalize for that type of energy use.  Luckily on Kaua'i, turning on the water requires no electricity, and most homes on the island are now using solar hot water or gas, which also don't require electricity.  So, while time of use pricing will incentivize turning off lights and minimizing the TV at night, those efficiency measures are integral if we're going to be generating the bulk of our power from PV. 

3) Radiowaves are labeled as a carcinogen by the WHO. 
It is listed as a type 2b carcinogen, but that is the equivalent of pickled foods and coffee.  It means that they can't rule out the possibility of RF waves causing cancer.  But, as in all things, dosage is important.  We're surrounded by RF all day long, both natural and artificial. The American Cancer Society is careful to say that there is no evidence that SMs cause cancer.  Standing 9 feet from an SM that is on (2 minutes per day) exposes you to 250 - 1,250 times LESS RF than talking on a cell phone. That means that 10 minutes of cell phone usage is equivalent to standing near a smart meter for 24 hours a day for a year and a half. 

4) EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure makes some people sick. 
According to the World Health Organization, that's not true, and, even if it were, the power of an SM is miniscule compared to a cell phone.  From the WHO:
"A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.  The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF.   Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment. There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

Whereas EMF exposure has never been shown to get anyone sick, we know that the pollution from burning fossil fuels kills 34,000 people a year and puts 18,000,000 more in the hospital for respiratory issues.  Not to mention climate change and war.  

5) Those who advocate for a smart grid have been greenwashed by corporate propaganda. 
In my opinion, this point merits the most discussion.  I am weary of new technology and even more weary of the government telling us that that technology is necessary for us. It has been my biggest hesitation with smart meters.  But, there is not a large environmental organization on the planet that disputes the importance of a smart grid.  There are 100s of feasibility studies showing us the way forward to a world of 100% renewable power.  Every single one of them mentions the integral importance of a smart grid and demand response management (lowering our demand in response to price signals based on availability of electricity).  It took me awhile to come around, but there is simply no way for us to get to 100% renewable energy without a smart grid. 

6) But we're a co-op, and should share all costs. 
No.  When a small group of people are going against the will of the co-op in using an outdated technology that adds a huge cost to the system (outside of just meter readers), then those people should be charged for that cost.


Here's my letter published in TGI:

Vote ‘yes’ for energy independence
As Kauai begins a new year, we, as citizens, have a rare opportunity to make a difference in our energy future. In the upcoming KIUC meter fee election, we can either vote yes in support of sustainability and energy independence or vote no in support of business-as-usual and fossil fuels.

Crude oil prices have gone up 400 percent in the last decade. Add in the hidden costs of pollution, foreign wars and climate change, and it’s clear that we need to find a new energy source for our isolated island community. It’s time for us to strive for energy independence. We can’t continue to burn diesel fuel as our primary fuel source and we can’t transition to an island run primarily off renewable energy if we don’t have a smart grid in place.

It’s not about saving KIUC money on meter readers or bringing our utility bill down (because energy prices are going to continue to rise). It is about being able to accurately match the supply of electricity with the demand. It’s about flattening out the daily demand curve by promoting the use of electricity when it’s readily available (when the sun is shining) and discouraging it when it’s not (at night). It’s about shedding the stranglehold of oil on our isolated island community and minimizing our contribution to climate change. Most importantly, it’s about using the resources that we have (sun, wind, and water) to power our island. A smart grid, by enabling time of use pricing and furthering consumer education based on real time energy usage, is a necessary bridge to a sustainable future.

Those who opt out of a smart meter should be responsible for paying the direct costs associated with opting-out. Please vote yes in the KIUC election.

Luke Evslin
Kapahi

An Energy Revolution

Winter is the hardest time of the year.

Since all of our electricity comes from the sun, we have a finite amount of electricity.  It's determined by the angle of the sun, the cloud cover, and the length of the day.  On sunny summer days we have more power than we know what to do with.  When it's cloudy and the days are short (our average winter day), we're on severe energy rations.  At night, our battery bank keeps us running, but it only has as much power as can be filled up throughout the day.  While we do have a generator for back-up, we try our hardest to never use it.  So, our average winter night means no more than one LED light bulb on at a time, nothing plugged in or running other than the refrigerator and oven, and lights out at 10pm.  Unless it was sunny all day, we can't watch a movie or do laundry in the evening.  We can't use the toaster until the sun is shining.  The fan for our composting toilet has to be turned off from October - February.  I don't think much about using electricity in the daytime (because it's abundant) but every flick of the switch at night means I have a little less of a valuable commodity. 

After a life-time "on-the-grid," the lesson of finite electricity has been, by far, the most valuable experience of living "off-grid."  When you're living in a home connected by powerlines to a utility, you don't have to think much of where your electricity comes from or how much there is.  Up until a decade ago, things were simple.  Electricity came from the utility which, for the most part, burned an oil derivative or coal in order to produce it.  We, as consumers, were customers of the utility.  The more we consumed, the more they profited.  Like any traditional business model, it's in their best interest to sell us more electricity.  Every time we turned on a lightbulb, our meter would begin to spin and electrons would flow down the line from the power plant into our home.  The electrons were, for the most part, created in a large internal combustion engine which also created more than a dozen proven carcinogens and carbon emissions.  Every watt of electricity that flowed into our home generated a corresponding tick of the meter which was paid every month based on the value that the meter reader saw when he visited our neighborhood. 

When oil was cheap, the effects of climate change unknown, and distributed PV (i.e. rooftop solar panels) nonexistent, the system worked perfectly.  However, none of those are true anymore.  We are beginning to realize the true costs of oil and coal in the form of incessant foreign wars, climate change, pollution, oil spills, deforestation, and mercury poisoning.  We are running out of easy-to-access sources of oil, which has caused the price of crude oil to go up 400% in the last decade.  And, most disruptive to the model is the fact that anyone can install a photovoltaic panel on their house which promises to supply them with free electricity.  These factors are quickly necessitating a paradigm shift in our utility model. 

One of the main problems is that rooftop PV eats away at the bottom line of utilities.  A large portion of what we pay for electricity goes towards supporting the fixed costs of the grid (line and power plant maintenance, administrative costs, etc).  If the utility guarantees that they will purchase PV power from homes at a set price, then, assuming that the amortized price per KWH produced by a PV panel is less than it is to purchase from the utility (called grid parity, which it is in Hawai'i and the southern US)  it makes financial sense on an individual level for everyone to oversize their systems.  The excess power that they produce ensures that their meter runs backward enough so that they don't have to pay an electric bill.  However, this creates two related problems:

1) The sun isn't always shining.  So, the service that the utility provides is still necessary. They still need to maintain their power plants and the lines to your house.  When a cloud passes overhead or the sun sets, the utility then needs to crank up their generators to cover the sudden loss of power. 

2) The more homes that oversize their systems, the higher the burden of covering the fixed costs of the grid (line and power planet maintenance, administrative costs, etc) for the rest of the homes.  You still with me?  The fixed costs of the grid don't change as rooftop PV panels gain in popularity.  So, imagine an island of 100 homes.  There is a central power plant and everyone is connected to it.  That plant and the power lines cost $100,000 ($1,000 per home) per year to maintain.  One day an expert PV salesman shows up, and sells large PV systems to 10 houses.  Those 10 homes are no longer paying an electric bill, because the utility is paying them the avoided cost of fuel (which Kaua'i does) for their excess power or simply running their meter backwards (net metering) for every KWH they receive.  However, the utility still needs to maintain the same generation capacity, because peak power occurs at night and nobody is generating any solar power at night.  So, the overhead costs are now saddled on the remaining 90 homes ($1,111 per home).  As rates rise, the PV salesman is able to sell systems to 30 people the next year.  Meaning that only 60 homes are paying for the overhead of the system ($1,666 per home) which is factored into their usual rates (which also include variable price inputs like fuel).  Pretty soon, everyone but the lowest income group on the island now have oversized PV systems and those few remaining folks are footing the bill.  Rates have risen up to 20% in some places for those exact reasons.  This doesn't work.  Look at this recent example from HECO for what utilities are doing about it (limiting the expansion of solar). 

We're stuck in a world where the utility company charges the same amount per electron whether it came from oil or the sun.  Because of this, we have a dwindling customer base which will result in either the utility going bankrupt (and not being able to maintain the grid) or the lowest income families being pushed into destitution with higher rates. 

The system is inherently flawed and bound to fail. 

In order to live within our means, we need to incentivize electricity when it's readily available (when the sun is shining) and discourage it when it's not.  We have to change the way that we look at the flow of electrons.  Instead of a one-way line from utility to us at a set price, we need to democratize our energy so that electrons become a commodity which we buy, sell, and trade at a market price based on the current supply and demand.  We can very quickly revolutionize our island by becoming fully participatory members of a completely distributed energy system.  Our utility can transition from being an energy supplier, to being merely the middleman in a market of electrons. 

But it starts with smart meters. 

The fundamental problem with analog meters is that all we know about our electricity consumption is in a monthly total.  We don't know if we consumed that power when it was readily available (sunny day) or when it wasn't (late at night).  So all electricity outflow is priced at one rate, and all electricity inflow at another.  There is no way to distinguish between an electron that was generated on a sunny day on a PV panel in a field in Lawai or at night in the bowels of Port Allen in an internal combustion engine.  Daytime use can't be incentivized, and a variable fair market price for electricity which ensures that the overhead of the grid is being spread out evenly is impossible.  The one-way flow of information from analog meters ensure the failure of distributed renewables into our grid, and they maintain the status-quo of the traditional utility-customer model.

If we have any hope of realizing 100% renewables for Kaua'i, accurately pricing energy consumption and production based on supply and demand is a necessary first step. 

It's time to shed the strangehold of oil on our isolated island community and minimize our contribution to climate change by using the resources that we have (sun, wind, and water) to power our island.  A smart grid, by enabling time of use pricing and furthering consumer education based on real time energy usage, is a necessary bridge to a sustainable future.

*As always, I feel the need for a bit of a guilty disclaimer.  Being off-grid removes me from this system.  Instead of being a participatory member in a potential vibrant market of electrons, I become a self contained island.  When it's sunny and my batteries are topped off, my excess electrons are completely wasted.  Living off-grid is a relatively inefficient use of resources.

stop feeding the beast

"There's a lot of work to do if we are going to avoid the dangers that loom ahead, but in the meantime, whatever else we do, lets vow, whenever possible, to stop feeding the beast.  With every purchase you feel you have to make, buy it from a local retailer and if something is not available locally, buy from an independent retailer, not a chain.  When we do this together, we detonate a quiet bomb that has the potential to level the marketplace."
- AdBusters #91

When we first began sleeping in the Yurt we would be sung to sleep by a chorus of singing toads. Literally.  There's really no sound in nature (that I've heard) that comes close to the melodic sound of toads on a full moon.  We would lie in bed with our eyes closed letting the stress of the day drift away to that music.  And then, after a few months of nighttime bliss, a lone bullfrog set up camp in the pond closest to our house.  It would set off a periodic "buurrrgggg," followed by minutes of silence.  Then, just as we're about to fall asleep: "buuuurrrgg."  The intervals were spaced out just enough to ensure the maximum amount of irritability.  After a few nights a second frog showed up in the pond directly opposite of the first.  Now they would "buuurrgg" love poems to each other in newlywed delight at having stumbled upon their watery frog eden.  Apparently they hit it off, because within a few months we were surrounded by bullfrogs.  The melody of the toads was replaced by the comparable car horn of the bullfrog. 

Our night-time symphony turned into a cacophony of noise.  We couldn't sleep.  We couldn't think. At times it was too loud to even talk to each other.  Then, possibly because of a scarcity of food brought on by the hordes of frogs, they began eating our baby ducks.  We'd hear the scream of a duck and run outside to see its body being thrashed across the pond.  I'd jump off the deck just in time to have the eviscerated duckling give it's last bloody death throes in my hand.

And they continued to multiply.  Since my wife is Buddhist and I'm a fragile vegetarian incapable of inflicting death on an animal, we didn't know what to do. We researched different ways to prepare grilled frog.  I caught them in nets and transported them to the other side of the property.  But the noise kept getting louder, the duckling deaths continued, and we never got the nerve to fire up the grill.

And then the tables turned.  Nature in all its evolutionarily honed glory fought back.  First it was the toads.  We'd find a pile of toads drying out in the sun.  I'd pick them off of each other only to find an emaciated dead bullfrog at the bottom of the pile.  Nature's second wave of defense were the egrets.  They began stalking the edges of the pond using their sharp beaks to pierce all but the biggest of the frogs.  Then they would ingest them nearly in one piece.  Some days every egret in Kapahi must have been stalking for bull frogs on our land.

With the combination of food scarcity (they killed most of the ducklings), gangs of marauding toads, killer egrets, and a host of factors invisible to me, the population leveled out.  We still have a lot of bull frogs but the diminished noise (relative to its peak) is now almost unnoticeable.  The toads have laid off their attack and most of the egrets have gone on to greener pastures.  

Nearly every day I'm lucky enough to witness the balance of nature.  It's a constant redistribution of resources which ensures that no creature is dominant.  It's far more than a circle of life, it's a complex web where every component, from human to cat to duck to frog to bird to beetle to fungi to bacteria play a part.  Remove one aspect of the web and, like a massive Jenga, the whole structure teeters.

To my eyes, my yard appears to be thriving.  However, I know that she has a chronic illness.  The atmospheric concentration of Co2 is higher than it has ever been since the Hawaiian islands broke through the surface of the Pacific in a fiery burst of steam.  Every day it increases at a rate 14,000 times faster than in the last 600,000 years.  For the first time in history of the Earth, a creature is effecting every square inch of the planet.  Bill Mckibben has coined our anthropogenic influence on the planet as: "The End of Nature."  Not to mention the regional ecocide we have waged: from fracking in the North East, to underwater oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, to pesticide drift on the West Side.  In the pursuit of progress under the spell of an economic model named capitalism, we are in a war with Earth that she never evolved to balance out.   

While I'll never come close to understanding the infinitely intricate web of life beneath my feet, capitalism is a circle that is comprehensible.  Goods are mined from the Earth (whether through agriculture, deforestation, mountaintop removal, or oil rigs), pushed through the refining process of major corporations, and sold to us. Debt financing allows those corporations to expand indefinitely in order to be the low cost provider, and that same debt is paid off by the growth it creates.  Would you invest in a company that wasn't committed to growing? Would you buy a house that you knew wouldn't increase in value?  It's a paradoxical system that is dependent on infinite growth, yet reliant on a planet of finite resources. 

If capitalism is the beast, then we are fodder.  We spend our lives at work so that we can convert our paychecks into manufactured goods.  We complete the circle and, with our daily purchases, enable the corporations to continue to extract resources.  This cycle doesn't have the benefit of four billion years of evolution (as nature does). It has no balancing agents.  There will be no egrets or toads to save the day. As long as we keep consuming from unaccountable corporations, the ecocide will continue.  Exxon will dig deeper for oil.  A future president will put his stamp of approval on a Keystone pipeline to transport oil from tar sands to market.  Monsanto will continue to manufacture and market poison.  Cocacola will continue to dry up local aquifers and then move on leaving a wake of desecrated land.  Apple Computer* will continue to legally avoid paying $17 million per day in taxes.   The planet will continue to warm. All under the guise of progress. 

But we do control the inputs.  If I cut off water to my garden, the plants will wither.  If we "opt-out" of the system, then we stop feeding the beast.  We have options.  Every time we make a purchase, we are choosing who we are working to support.  Do we want to support a company that is legally bound to improving its bottom line for shareholders (any publicly owned corporation).  Or do we want to support a local artisan?  Do we want to buy from the low-cost producer of food, or from the family farm down the road who has been farming the same piece of land for hundreds of years?  Consumer choice is the greatest power that we have.  By leveraging the power of choice, we can starve the beast and begin to balance out the power of corporations.  


*Full disclosure: this was written on my Macbook (made in China).  I answered my Iphone (made in China) four times while writing it. The desk that the Macbook sits on came from Ikea (made in China). The screws in the deck that the desk is sitting on came from Home Depot (made in China).  As I said in my last post, we are all complicit.  Much of what I write is a pipe dream view of the world through a very small and idealistic lens.  But it's the only lens that I have and the only place that I know where to start.