Skip to content

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
Photo by Jacob Mathers on Unsplash.

Representative Jesse Petrea has introduced state legislation (HB 748) that will shift the burden of proof to the State when landowners wish to assert ownership rights to coastal marshlands.

Common law public trust doctrine holds that the lands regularly submerged by the ebb and flow of the tide are owned by the State and held in trust for the benefit of the people. In 1981, the Georgia legislature codified this principle in the Protection of Tidewaters Act which establishes the State of Georgia as the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the State, except where private title can be traced to a valid British Crown or State land grant.

It is appropriately difficult for property owners to successfully produce the documentation needed to trace an unbroken chain of title to a Crown or State grant.  Most of these grants date back to as far as 250 years ago when Georgia was a British colony. Among the requirements for proving ownership status, the grants must still exist, be legible, and must specifically convey tidewaters. Most Crown grants were subject to stipulations such as the cultivation of rice, mandating that the property reverts to the Crown if grantees should fail to adhere to the terms.

Currently, marsh-front property owners can petition the State to recognize their ownership of marshlands by submitting supporting documents to the Georgia Department of Law for official verification.  HB 748 would place an arbitrary 60-day time limit on the Attorney General to verify the claims. If the Attorney General cannot decide within this short period, the law would consider the claim valid by default putting the onus on the State to prove in court that the petitioner does not own public trust marshland. 

Passing this bill would hamper the State’s ability to employ necessary due diligence in evaluating claims affecting public trust lands, thus increasing the likelihood of dubious claims succeeding.

Some might wonder if unleashing a potential land grab of Georgia’s coastal marshlands matters since Crown grant marshlands are covered by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA).  It matters if a constituency of private landholders grows large enough to successfully lobby for policy changes that weaken environmental regulations perceived to impinge on their property rights.     

...continue reading "Why a Bill Expediting Private Ownership of Georgia’s Salt Marsh is a Bad Idea"

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"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Why are we Building New Gas Stations?
Photo by Simberto Brauserich.

On July 16, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners voted to change the zoning of a portion of the historic Bethesda Academy’s 635-acre tract of rural land to allow for the construction of a gas station. Despite appreciable opposition from neighboring residents, the vote was unanimous. There was no indication that anyone (other than Enmarket and the Bethesda Academy Board of Governors) wants or needs another gas station in this picturesque corner of Chatham County.

There are many reasons to object to the depressingly routine practice of changing zoning for the sole purpose of accommodating a landowner’s speculative attempt to maximize the financial rewards of land ownership – often by proposing unneeded projects. However, I would like to focus on the folly of defacing a treasured landscape with, of all things, a gas station.

In the not-too-distant future, gas stations will become obsolete, and thousands of abandoned stations will blight the country. As hard as it is to imagine the disappearance of this ubiquitous fixture of American life, the writing is on the wall due to the widely anticipated rapid adoption of electric cars.

General Motors recently announced that by 2035 all their vehicle models will be electric. By 2030, VW expects 50% of US sales to be electric vehicles, and Ford says all their cars sold in Europe will be electric. Be ready for more such announcements as car companies scramble for a share of a burgeoning global market for electric vehicles.

Here in Georgia, the Korean automaker, Kia, which produces 340,000 vehicles a year at their Troup County factory, is investing $25 billion to transition their production to electric cars. Encouraged by this development and the in-state presence of several related businesses, Governor Kemp launched a new initiative to boost the expansion of the industry in Georgia.

“Georgia has a proven track record of investing early in the resources and infrastructure needed to connect it to the world and develop jobs of the future,” Kemp said. “The Electric Mobility and Innovation Alliance will ensure that our state is positioned to continue leading the nation in the rapidly growing electric mobility industry.”

...continue reading "Why are we Building New Gas Stations?"

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

When discussing climate change, U.S. Representative Buddy Carter is fond of reminding his colleagues and his constituents that his district encompasses the entire coast of Georgia, as if this fact imbues him with an especially acute understanding of the issue. 

If only it were true. But alas, Mr. Carter consistently opposes legislative measures to curb the greenhouse gas emissions causing the climate to overheat.

Just last week, he appeared before the House Rules Committee (link to video) to oppose the reversal of the Trump administration’s rollback of an Obama-era rule that requires oil and gas companies to use the best available methods to control methane leaks.  

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. While not as long-lasting or as abundant in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is 84 times more potent in the short term. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of climate change would recognize the importance of employing every means at our disposal to cut methane emissions and quickly approve this measure.

All we get from Carter is confounding doublespeak about his concern for how climate change affects the Georgia coast and how doing anything about it hurts the economy.

Carter’s sophistry confused some of the committee members at first, but his insidious brand of climate denialism became more apparent the more he spoke.

...continue reading "Congressman Buddy Carter’s Climate Denialism on Full Display"