Skip to content

Author: David Kyler

Published on

Forum Addressed Climate-Change, Clean Energy and Federal Support for Needed Improvements

Congressional candidate Wade Herring attended and commented. Representative Buddy Carter was invited but did not attend.

On October 13th the Center for a Sustainable Coast [CSC] hosted a public forum focusing on the climate crisis and new federal funding support for expanding the use of clean energy to help curb heat-trapping fossil-fuel emissions.  The event, featuring both live and virtual speakers, was held at the Savannah Cultural Arts Center.

Welcoming participants and providing background on the climate issue, CSC’s co-founder and director, David Kyler told the audience, “It is revealing that a recent survey by the Yale Climate Communications Center reported that although well over two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either important or urgent, more than 60% of those who prioritize the issue say they seldom if ever talk about it. That is a major reason why we are here this evening—to ensure that the public talks about the climate crisis and, equally important, supports political actions required to make a rapid transition to the clean-energy economy.”

Headlining the forum program was Kate Cell, Senior Climate Campaign Manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Referencing a number of statistics and graphs, Cell provided an eye-opening view of alarming climate impacts predicted for the next 30 years, based on the latest scientific research.

According to Cell, “The impacts of climate change are already being felt across the Southeast and in particular in its coastal communities. But there is time to decarbonize our economy and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Based on modeling done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, flooding and temperature increases will cause billions of dollars in damage along Georgia’s coast by mid-century.  Tens of thousands of homes will be uninhabitable due to frequent flooding, and unbearable heat will occur as much as six weeks a year—seven times more often than now—which could be cut by a third or more if quick actions are taken to curb heat-trapping emissions. Unless these emissions are reduced, by 2100 temperatures will be life-threatening for about three months a year in coastal Georgia.”

When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August and President Biden signed it into law, some $370 billion in federal funds became available to speed the urgently needed conversion to clean power sources and energy-efficiency upgrades.

The Center’s Savannah event was scheduled in view of the mid-term election approaching, as this unprecedented injection of funding provides urgently needed opportunities for taking climate action. Timely efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions will help restrict the destructive effects of flooding, drought, and extreme heat that threaten humanity here on the coast and elsewhere.

Also speaking was Brionte McCorkle, director of Georgia Conservation Voters, who is working to secure a more just and sustainable future by electing pro-environment candidates and holding elected officials accountable for their actions and voting record. McCorkle’s comments focused on the diverse array of federal supports offered under the Inflation Reduction Act. She elaborated on funding and tax-credits available for individuals, small business, and communities interested in improving energy efficiency, the production and storage of clean energy, and other upgrades and clean-energy technologies that will employ thousands of people in the years ahead. 

“For Georgians to secure the greatest benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act, state legislators and local elected officials will need to take notice and take action to revise policies that impede the used of these federal supports,” McCorkle emphasized. 

Continuing, she added, “The Inflation Reduction Act is the most significant legislation in U.S. history to tackle the climate crisis. Georgia communities and households that want to address climate change often lack the resources and support to do so. The IRA is a significant catalyst for action that will provide Georgians jobs, savings, and other benefits. The funding provided by this act will help lower energy costs for households and businesses all across Georgia and create manufacturing jobs for American workers. The old way of doing business in Georgia doesn't have to be the only way. The IRA is a catalyst for the clean, secure, and healthy future we all want for our children and grandchildren.”

Panelist Dr. Jim Reichard, a full faculty member at Georgia Southern University’s Department of Geology, gave a quick but comprehensive overview of the science behind climate change, including what is causing it and why commonly heard denials about theses causes are unfounded. 

Afterwards Dr. Reichard said, “Science has shown that modern global warming and climate change are being driven by human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels. This has led to more intense droughts and heat waves and extreme weather events. For coastal Georgia, we will also have to face accelerated sea level rise and the risk of more powerful hurricanes, all of which will have serious economic impacts. At this point our best course of action to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and climate change is to reduce global carbon emissions by quickly transitioning to low-carbon economies.

Center board president Steve Willis provided the audience with a broad perspective on the historical significance of our predicament and decisions that must be made to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. After the event, Willis said:

“Although the self-inflicted global warming crisis is probably the greatest threat humanity has ever encountered (including nuclear weapons), the harnessing of the inexhaustible power sources of wind, sun, and tides--which is the necessary solution to global warming--may be the greatest and most desirable opportunity we have ever had.  Let’s do the smart thing before it’s too late.”

During the question-and-answer period, Democratic candidate for Congress, Wade Herring made some comments, and later he shared this statement: “I was grateful to attend the forum hosted by the Center for a Sustainable Coast on the evening of October 13, 2022, to learn more about the imminent threat posed to coastal Georgia by climate change, but also to discuss the positive actions that we can take to prevent damage to this beautiful place where we live. When I am elected to Congress, I will work hard to make sure that the First District gets its fair share of infrastructure funds, as well as the sustainable energy investments from the Inflation Reduction Act. These investments mean jobs for Georgians, a thriving economy, and protection for coastal Georgia that we are grateful to call home. I do not understand why Buddy Carter voted against both of these important bills which are so important to the First District. Carter continues to demonstrate that he is out of step with what matters to the people of this District.

From 2018 through mid-October 2022, a listing of Center letters and opinion columns published in Georgia media outlets features over 150 items explaining timely CSC positions on issues related to climate and clean energy. A complete, updated list of these items is available by contacting the Center at susdev@gate.net.

The October 13th forum was the fifth Savannah event Sustainable Coast has organized in the past decade to build support for effective action on these issues by cultivating well-informed, open public discussion.

A video recording of the event will be available. Please contact the Center at susdev@gte.net .

Published on

Of the multiple challenges America now faces, one is most fundamental: achieving a responsible balance between individual freedom and urgently needed pursuit of the common good.

Our nation’s future has been repeatedly threatened by self-destructive periods of neglecting the public interest – intentionally or not – when our sense of liberty is degraded by divisive antagonisms, especially when fueled and exploited by callous, power-hungry leadership, in both the private sector and public.

In part, this unhealthy pattern stems from a misunderstanding of the country’s legacy, founded in rebellion against abusive authority, which established sanctified status of the individual. It has been further distorted by excesses in the American character derived from rhetoric praising self-sufficiency, famously captured in Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.” This preoccupation with individual pursuits has weakened social cohesion as well as respect for the crucial role of government in advancing justice and equality.

Compounding these interwoven disruptive influences is the historical record of harsh injustices imposed on African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities – both here and abroad – too often shamefully condoned and implicitly sanctioned by institutions professing devotion to the dignity of human life.

As a nation, our struggle with these protracted hypocrisies now culminates while we confront other profound challenges that must be overcome. Any path forward requires that America finally cast off this chronic tribalism, now being propagated anew through self-destructive acts of partisan delusion that threaten our democracy.

These circumstances demand us to question how we apply our individual abilities – whether to fabricate and defend unfounded assertions that victimize scapegoats unfairly blamed for alleged deprivations, or to insightfully reexamine and revitalize our commitment to the unifying ideal of collective strength through diversity and equality.

Despite the sacred bonds of society being frayed by the reckless turmoil of selfish agendas that thwart humanitarian principles, we can – and must – resolve to advance America’s founding aspirations – extinguishing the malignant perils of exploitation, distrust, and violence – by healing our nation through the disciplined practice of respect for our common humanity.

Many now wonder if it is still possible to restore America’s aspiration to cultivate a durable, equitable future. The answer largely depends on our collective ability to honor the life-enriching interconnections and interdependencies among humans – not only fellow Americans, but all who share the blessings, and limitations, of Earth’s prolific but vulnerable abundance.

We must now thoughtfully dedicate our liberties to prescribing and diligently serving the common good.

Published on

Small-Scale Clean Energy Must Be Georgia's Priority

Submitted to the Georgia Public Service Commission, July 19, 2022

by Center for a Sustainable Coast     

We share the concern of many others that despite the alleged financial advantages of energy efficiency, these claims are not well-founded because Georgia Power’s proposed Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) maintains the status quo that has hidden costs and risks jeopardizing the public. If this Georgia Power plan is approved, more fossil fuels and higher utility costs will be unjustifiably imposed on its customers who have already suffered the financial burdens of the company’s past mismanagement of energy projects. Moreover, the plan does not ensure sufficient reliable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which is essential to curbing the most destructive impacts of climate change.

Decentralized Facilities Serve the Public Far Better Than Costly Corporate Projects That Are Vulnerable to System Failures

The most fundamental issue, effectively masked by preconceptions assumed in preparing the plan now under review, is the crucial distinction between a corporate-dominated, capital-intensive approach in contrast with a decentralized, “distributed-system” strategy, wherein the energy-generating and storage capacity is primarily owned by energy consumers, not stockholders.

States that have been most successful in achieving clean energy goals are those that have incentivized residential and small-scale commercial solar installations. In these cases, rates paid for all energy are uniform, so that when combined with tax credits, revenues from the sale of excess power at market rates enable these small-scale systems to recover their total acquisition costs in less than five years.

Contrast those installations and their benefits to energy customers with the capital-intensive model being advanced by this plan, which advocates massive ‘solar farms’ that occupy vast areas of land and are implemented as an industrial-scale investment returning income to stockholders, not consumers. These projects cost millions of dollars, which once invested under routine PSC approval are guaranteed a handsome return, yet the vast majority of energy users will remain under the yoke of their substantially greater monthly billing obligation, including repayment of the corporate utility’s capital project costs, plus profits to stockholders.

Moreover, beyond the injustices and inefficiencies caused by abandoning a more equitable, cost-effective policy remedy offered by decentralized facilities (demonstrably proven in other states) the capital-intensive corporate model is also more vulnerable to blackouts and brownouts because there are fewer (and more distant) installations providing power to the energy network (grid). When one or another of the few major power-generating facilities in existence is compromised, the whole system may be jeopardized, and service becomes unreliable.

Similar conclusions can be drawn when comparing centralized energy-storage facilities with those that are distributed among millions of households. As the conversion from fossil fuels to clean energy progresses under a decentralized strategy, the availability of small-scale storage devices will flourish – as both site-based installations at homes and small businesses as well as the cumulatively substantial mobile storage capacity provided by plug-in, interconnectable batteries of tens-of-thousands of electric vehicles integrated into a “smart grid”.

This diverse and decentralized power-storage network would ensure a far more reliable, resilient, and stable energy supply than the capital-intensive system now being proposed. If any single large energy-storage facility became inoperable or disconnected from the grid, without a robust, decentralized (owner-based) array of facilities with comparable cumulative capacity, the whole system would suffer, especially during periods of peak demand.

Natural Gas Leakage & Mandatory Monitoring

Overdue attention must also be given to resolving the methane-leak problem inherent in the use of natural gas. These leaks are not acknowledged in unconditional claims that natural gas is a clean substitute for coal. Yet, energy analysts consistently assert that leaks of more than 2% of natural gas during extraction, processing, distribution, and/or end-use will completely negate any benefits gained by burning natural gas instead of coal, because the leaked gas will produce the equivalent heat-trapping effects in the atmosphere. (Methane has far greater heat-trapping effects than carbon dioxide, making relatively small natural gas leaks costly and counterproductive.)

Studies have shown that many gas-based systems exceed the two-percent leakage limit when they are evaluated throughout the entire cycle, from extraction to end-use. Until and unless the natural-gas systems being advocated and used under this plan are evaluated and continuously monitored to ensure they do not exceed the leak-limit, such systems should not be approved or sanctioned as part of Georgia’s energy-production portfolio. Without rigorous, mandatory use of leak monitoring and assessment safeguards applied to natural-gas energy generation, the state cannot reliably achieve greenhouse gas reductions that are essential to curbing the destructive effects of climate change.

~ David Kyler, Center for a Sustainable Coast

Published on
Development on Jekyll Island succumbing to shoreline erosion.

(Center Founder and Co-Director, David Kyler, prepared the following statement for a public hearing convened on December 14 regarding the Jekyll Island Authority's (JIA) Master Plan Update. The JIA commissioned a Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment published in 2018 which concluded Jekyll will reach its functional capacity by 2021 - Now! Yet the Draft Master Plan Update (MPU) under consideration avoids directly confronting the issues of overcrowding and overdevelopment and promotes commercial or residential redevelopment of land that is currently used for recreational purposes. We have joined the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island and 100 Miles in asking the Legislative Oversight Committee to reject the MPU and place a moratorium on development until a detailed, forward-looking Capacity Plan is adopted by the JIA Board.)

Fifty years ago, in the early years of the worldwide environmental movement, the landmark book, Limits to Growth, became central in shaping my core values as a graduate student in environmental planning and policy.

Limits to Growth used innovative computer modeling to predict, with impressive accuracy, some of the most troubling predicaments we’re now facing, as massive human activities damage the world’s natural systems and threaten Earth’s habitability.

I encountered the challenge of environmental limits throughout my life’s work, first in two decades as a regional planner at what is now Georgia’s Coastal Regional Commission, and subsequently over the last 24 years working as an environmental advocate at the Center for a Sustainable Coast.

Limits are particularly significant on a barrier island such as Jekyll, where geographic boundaries impose absolute constraints, limits now being further restricted by rising sea-level caused by climate change.

On the regional planning staff, to control and mitigate growth we commonly advised local governments in zoning methods used to manage development, practices that are conspicuously lacking on Jekyll Island.

What is especially troubling on Jekyll is the absence of accountable controls that prevent threats to the health and sustainability of treasured natural resources that are fundamental to quality of life, and thus the unique value of the island as a state park.

Attempts to protect environmental quality by limiting the portion of land eligible for development have been defeated by the changing use of those developed areas, leading to escalating density – including higher and larger buildings that blatantly conflict with the tranquility for which Jekyll is renowned.

To serve the legislative charter establishing Jekyll Island State Park and honor obligations to the public, the JIA must adopt specific limits on development, which can be – and will be – legally enforced. Without these limits, the master plan update fails to achieve its fundamental purpose.

Published on
Wetlands marked for destruction to make room for Frederica Road realignment.

In issuing permits for projects that disturb or alter the Waters of the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in protecting the nation's water under the federal Clean Water Act.

But the Corps repeatedly fails to fulfill its legal obligations to enforce regulations.

The Clean Water Act's [CWA] purpose is to restore the waters of the country – rivers, streams, and – to a lesser extent – wetlands. Defining those waters subject to regulations known by the term "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) has been controversial. Due to the water-quality benefits of wetlands, there's been growing support for expanding the WOTUS definition to include more wetlands than previously recognized under the law. Under the CWA, the Corps regulates the disturbance and filling of wetlands that are defined under WOTUS.

Unfortunately, agricultural and land development interests have reinvigorated and funded resistance to expanding the regulated area under the CWA. In some cases and in some districts, this political resistance appears to be influencing both Corps permitting and subsequent court decisions, weakening protections of vital public resources and quality of life.

Certain kinds of projects are eligible for permits that are less thorough than requirements for others. For instance, government-funded road projects are eligible for a "regional general permit' [RGP] that can be issued without public review or environmental assessment. Likewise, individual docks that serve a single residential lot are eligible for a "programmatic general permit" [PGP], if they are not located within, or too close to, historic districts, national parks, or other features having special public purposes. A recurring problem is the Corps' failure to conform to the eligibility requirements for these RGPs and PGPs. This inappropriate issuance of special expedited permits removes safeguards provided by regular permitting, such as a public hearing and environmental review.

...continue reading "A Troubling Pattern Of Faulty Regulation On Georgia’s Coast & Beyond"

Published on

On June 17, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommending the issuance of a rocket launch site operator’s license to Camden County. The last step in the process is for the FAA to release a Record of Decision (ROD) expected sometime this month. The Center sent the following letter condemning fundamental flaws in the environmental review that the FAA should correct by conducting a Supplemental EIS before making a decision. You can read the entire EIS online at the FAA's website.

Antares rocket failure October 28, 2014.

General Wayne Monteith, FAA Administrator

Associate Administrator FAA/AST

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20591

General Monteith:

I am writing to restate and expand upon concerns previously conveyed in our comments, and others, expressing well-justified alarm about glaring deficiencies in FAA’s review of Spaceport Camden.

For the sake of brevity, in these comments, I will limit remarks to four prominent areas of factual negligence and faulty assumptions related to the EIS that are both careless and misleading.

1.       Launch trajectory and hypothetical rocket characteristics – According to the most qualified opinions available, the launch trajectory proposed is implausible if not impossible to deliver payload in achieving a viable orbital mission. It appears that the manipulated launch-angle used in the EIS, and consequentially applied in the state’s consistency review, was improperly assumed for the convenience of attempting to reduce the hazard-zone for a launch failure during the initial stages immediately after launch. The misguided nature of this proposal is revealed by the absence of any precedent for small rockets using such an angle of trajectory to support the attainment of an orbital mission. Please clarify if and when such a small-rocket orbital launch has ever been done successfully, or if the notion is just theoretical conjecture.

Regarding the small size of the hypothetical rocket, why does the EIS describe storage at the site for what amounts to some 28 years of small-rocket fuel supply? This strongly suggests the hidden intention to transition to the use of larger rockets that require far more fuel, once licensing is obtained for a site approved based on a fantasized small rocket allegedly having smaller risks.

...continue reading "Letter to FAA Outlining Defects in Review of Spaceport Camden"

Published on

In observance of Independence Day, we are posting this letter to the editor by Center Co-Director, David Kyler. It was originally published in the Savannah Morning News in July 2020.

Photo by Fabian Fauth on Unsplash

In the barrage of recent events, Independence Day invites self-reflection on the history and values associated with this hallowed holiday.

Diverse expressions of dissent related to COVID-19, racial issues, and national interest have exposed contentious rifts in America’s identity. Ironically, these conflicting viewpoints are commonly derived from aspirations embedded in the nation’s origins – foremost, individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Americans are renowned for independent thinking, articulated in the landmark 1841 essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance.” Resisting conformity and following one’s instincts as perceived in an “every-man-for-himself” world have been espoused for much of our history.

Related residual views still predominate among various divisive groups, serving as a vaguely understood basis of self-respect. Yet, intertwined social, economic, and technological changes that have occurred since these tenets of American identity were formulated require that we adapt them to new circumstances.

Personal liberty in the 21st century depends on a respectful society that requires tempering the excesses of a “frontier ethic” whose practitioners are often skeptical of science and hostile toward others – including racial minorities and migrants.

Abandoning fantasized freedoms is essential if we hope to restrain COVID and other diseases, restore our ravaged global environment, and establish lasting social justice.

Achieving an equitable, interdependent society with mutually beneficial opportunities requires that past prejudices and antagonisms be cast aside. A revitalized sense of the common good must inspire our vision.

To honor America’s ideals, we must struggle for independence from the oppressive dogmatism that degrades our country’s worthy prospects.

Published on

Various planning updates are underway on Georgia's coast: the comprehensive plans for Chatham County and its cities, the Coastal Regional Plan, and the Jekyll Island Master Plan. Coastal plans must address the increasingly urgent causes and consequences of climate change to achieve community and regional planning benefits in making critical decisions that influence our future.

Over the past five years, climate disruption's dangerous impacts and causes have stirred well-founded public awareness and concern. Our rapidly growing understanding of the scale and significance of the causes of climate change and their grave consequences will be renowned as the fundamental "paradigm shift" of the 21st century.

Surveys consistently conclude that a majority now recognize that human activities are causing worldwide environmental degradation, which is of such urgency and magnitude that we must soon bring them under control or irreversibly impair the planet's life-support systems. Yet, until now, decades after these perils were well-known within the global scientific community, the plans of coastal Georgia's cities and counties have made little or no mention of climate change.

The only references to climate disruption in Georgia's coastal plans have concerned the rising sea level. These were limited to reactive adaptation, such as flood-control projects and flood-risk rating compliance. They were also all based on historical events, rather than the escalating science-based projections linked to global heating.

The current planning updates for coastal communities must acknowledge the urgency and acceleration of these hazards.

Moreover, planning must prioritize actions that reduce the cause of these accumulating hazards – namely, the emission of greenhouse gases – and protection of critical areas, both developed and natural, to the greatest extent possible. The alarming fact that some 43 percent of coastal Georgia residences are within the 100-year flood plain substantiates concern about escalating flooding.

Overdue recognition of climate-change impacts and causes in local and regional plans will have a critical advantage in an array of decision-making.

Furthermore, incorporating these considerations in planning documents, better positions our region in competition for imminent federal funding to support climate-related projects. Examples include flood-control infrastructure, clean-energy implementation, and power-transmission grid upgrades.

...continue reading "Timely advice to the planning authorities in coastal Georgia"

Published on

Many have observed the depletion of credibility in daily discourse – causing a disturbing decline in fact-based consensus.

Without a fundamental sense of shared reality, how can we collectively – as a community, state, or nation – anticipate and respond to imminent threats and opportunities?

Perplexity about this predicament was renewed when I recently learned of terminology – accepted by a federal court – for describing a rocket explosion as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”  This devious euphemism for an event threatening death and destruction epitomizes the abuse of language that accelerates an alarming abandonment of truth.

The impoverishment of facts that afflicts our political institutions has brought us to the brink of environmental destruction. Consider that science has verified the human causes of climate change for more than two decades. Yet, many elected officials still thwart actions to confront them, thereby propagating the serious consequences of rising temperatures. 

...continue reading "Earth Day Must Become Truth Day"

Published on

March 8 was the deadline for Georgians to comment on a justifiably controversial project proposed in Camden County, known as "Spaceport Camden." If approved, this spaceport would be the only such facility in the U.S. ever sanctioned to launch rockets over privately owned and occupied property. Moreover, the "hazard zone" for launching includes the world-renowned Cumberland Island National Seashore, part of which is a federally designated Wilderness Area.

Since 1997, under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been authorized to review major federal permits to determine if they are consistent with Georgia's Coastal Management Program. DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) is currently engaged in evaluating Spaceport Camden.

Accordingly, CRD invited public comments on the agency's proposal to issue Coastal Consistency Certification. If certified by CRD/DNR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which administers spaceports under U.S. law, would have to decide whether to license Spaceport Camden. Most agree that without state certification, FAA would be less likely to grant the license. 

As objectionable as the project certainly is for jeopardizing humans, wildlife, valuable homesites, tourism destinations, and rare natural resources, there is a less apparent but closely related reason to oppose the spaceport - the appalling lack of detailed information to evaluate such risks responsibly. After years of unsubstantiated claims about the spaceport's benefits, compounded by incomplete, contradictory, and illogical review of the project, fundamental questions remain unanswered.

For instance:

...continue reading "Why DNR Should Give Spaceport Camden a Thumbs Down"