The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the Stimulus Package, has elicited a mixed reaction from the general public, ranging from strong support to vehement opposition.  However, according to a new survey from Pike Research, ARRA provisions dealing with Energy and Environment issues are significantly more popular than the Stimulus itself, garnering support from 56% of respondents, versus 41% who support the overall relief package.  These findings are analyzed in a new research brief that is available for free download on Pike Research’s website.

“One of the most intriguing survey conclusions, when we compared levels of support by respondents’ political persuasion, was that conservatives and moderates were far more favorable to Energy and Environment provisions than they were to the overall Stimulus,” says managing director Clint Wheelock.  “Among liberals, support for both the ARRA and its Energy and Environment provisions was about the same.”

Some of the most popular individual provisions for survey participants included:

• $6 billion for Environmental Protection Agency clean water initiatives – 63% support
• $11 billion for an electric “smart grid” – 61% support
• $6.9 billion for hazardous waste cleanup – 60% support
• $6.6 billion for energy efficiency and conservation improvements – 57% support

Even the least popular Energy and Environment provisions still drew more support from survey participants than the overall Stimulus, notes Wheelock.  These included $6.7 billion for federal building renovations (42% support) and $8.7 billion for residential weatherization programs (49% support).

Pike Research’s brief, “ARRA Survey Analysis,” analyzes results from a web-based survey of 1,041 Americans conducted in April 2009.  Survey invitations were sent to a nationally-representative and demographically-balanced sample of U.S. consumers.  A full copy of the research brief is available for free download on the firm’s website.

First let’s rewind the clock to 2007 when Greenwood County, South Carolina was attempting to address the emissions from it’s maturing landfill. It was not unlike the more than 2,300 landfills in the U.S. in this regard. It’s basic chemistry, decomposition produces various gases and the EPA has guidelines or how these are to be dealt with. In the case of Greenwood County, there was a rapidly approaching EPA deadline that was making this all the more critical.

Now enter Fujifilm Manufacturing who was looking for a cheap source of energy to power its 500 acre complex. With more than a thousand residents employed at Fujifilm, they are clearly an important member of the Greenwood community. Through a creative partnership with Methane Power LLC , the methane from Greenwood County’s landfill is piped a few miles to Fujifilm’s campus. The new energy source accounts for 40% of the site’s electricity and saves Fujifilm nearly 50% on their energy costs annually.

James “Jim” Voss, Methane Power’s President and CEO told us that the Fujifilm project was one of several U.S. projects the company has underway. “We have a number of similar projects where we are utilizing landfill methane to produce energy or, at a minimum, to destroy the methane to produce carbon credits. We are constructing an electricity plant in NC (Durham), and have active projects elsewhere in North Carolina and New York.” The approach that Methane Power uses is unique in that it does not own or run the landfills from which the methane is generated. Methane Power buys the rights to the methane and then resells it to end-users looking for alternative energy sources.

Capturing methane energy after a landfill is capped.

Sounds ingenious doesn’t it ?!? Take a problem such as landfill emissions and convert to a revenue source for the landfill operator and a cheap source of power for end-users. And, as a cherry on top, the end-user receives carbon credits for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Fujifilm expects to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 10% or more annually.

The EPA is fully on-board with LFGTE. They have an entire program dedicated to this opportunity and a website to assist with educating the public at-large. The EPA states that there are 480+ operational LFGTE projects and estimates that there are 520 additional landfills in the U.S. that are good candidates for this type of project

So why don’t we hear more about LFGTE? Jim Voss says it’s the result of several factors. He says that because Wind/Solar Energy projects are larger in scale, they tend to attract more of the major players and media attention. Not coincidentally, Wind/Solar Energy also receives significant financial incentives from the government. “GE, Bank of America, etc invest in wind because of the magnitude of the business and the size of each project.  They don’t invest at all in LFGTE — we’re a small, tiny portion of the business.  Hence, the “industry” is people like me — I don’t have the resources to promote anything other than my projects.  I’m not feeling sorry, mind you, because it is this very nature of the business which allows small companies to exist.”

The U.S. trails the E.U. when it comes to LFGTE for many of the same reasons we trail them in other areas of renewable energy. Jim states, “The EU has much more ambitious renewable energy goals which places a greater economic premium on these projects; and second, the underlying electricity prices and delivered thermal energy prices (ie, for natural gas) are materially higher.  Consequently, the developer can undertake the project with a much more firm and robust financial return — this makes it easier to attract debt and equity for project development.  The US is well behind in this market, and more other renewable energy markets.”

So to recap…solve the problem of landfill emissions, create needed revenue for the landfill operator, create medium-sized companies like Methane Power, provide cheap power to end-users and reduce greenhouse emissions….LFGTE sounds like a shovel-ready project just waiting for the Obama administration to endorse and fund.

Details on the Fujifilm project in Greenwood, S.C.

Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, delivered a "message of hope... message of change" from President Barack Obama on the issue of climate change.

EPA administrator delivers “message of hope” to G8 environmental meeting, committing the U.S. to the fight against climate change, in a major departure from the policies of former President Bush.

United States environmental officials, taking part in talks with the Group of Eight nations in Syracuse, Italy on Thursday, vowed that President Barack Obama would help bring about a ‘meaningful’ response to climate change.

“I bring from President Obama his message of hope, his message of change, his message of common purpose for the environment,” said Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“The U.S. government now fully acknowledges the urgency and complexity of climate change challenges, and we know full well that a meaningful U.S. response to this challenge is absolutely essential,” she said.

Obama’s stance marks a radical about-face from that of former President George W. Bush who refused to endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol binding wealthy nations to carbon cuts because he said it would endanger American jobs.

The current administration has made the fight against climate change a priority, and insists that protecting the environment will actually have a positive impact on the economy.

Currently, the US Congress is debating a bill that seeks to cut the country’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent from their 2005 levels by 2020. The Obama administration is also pushing for the introduction of a carbon trading system similar to the one already in place in Europe.

Obama is also set to host a meeting of world leaders from the 16 largest carbon emitting nations in Washington next week, in an attempt to clinch an international agreement in Copenhagen in December to extend the Kyoto deal beyond 2012.

The message that Jackson brought to the conference received warm applause from nations in attendance at the G8 meeting of environment ministers.

“It shows that the Americans attach a lot of importance to these discussions,” said Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner.

Pollution in China often obscures visibility in city streets.

European ministers at the conference continuously spoke about how important it is for the U.S. to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The ministers contend that it’s the only way that big polluters such as China can be expected to follow suit.

“The sooner the U.S. can specify, and be concrete in its position, the sooner we can expect some signals coming out of Beijing,” Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the talks in Copenhagen, told a German news service.

Jackson also scolded lobbyists who she said were attempting to derail the President’s attempt to fight climate change.

“I am hopeful and the president is hopeful that we are on the verge of opening a clean energy economy,” she said. “Certainly those with interests vested in the status quo will come up with horror stories to try to hold us back.”

The Earthday.gov website has not been updated since January 16. Earth Day is set to take place this Wednesday, April 22.

The U.S. Government website set up at www.earthday.gov, exclusively to encourage participation in Earth Day, scheduled for this Wednesday, April 22, has fallen asleep on the job.

With no updates since a few days prior to President Barack Obama moving in to the Oval Office, the website itself is lacking the basic information needed in order to facilitate the flow of information to the public which would bring about awareness to the environmental issues and scheduled events of Earth Day.

More than 1 billion people are said to take part in Earth Day events around the globe.

If you’re interested in taking part, and are seeking some real information, including how you can help, and scheduled events, make sure to visit the Earth Day Network or the website of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Perhaps a concerted effort by everyday citizens to voice their concerns to the White House about the official government Earth Day website failing in its task, can bring about a quick fix – if it isn’t too late. Here is a list of various methods to contact the White House.

Of course you wouldn’t feed an infant rocket fuel from a bottle, right?  Actually, you might be surprised to find that you probably have.

Government researchers recently found a chemical that is used as the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel present in 15 out of 15 brands of baby formula tested.  Don’t worry though; the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have a problem with the contaminated formula.

The chemical, perchlorate, at the levels found in the formula, have been deemed safe by the EPA.

Perchlorate is known to interfere with the production of thyroid hormones.  The chemical effectively inhibits the absorption of iodine.  But it’s okay that it’s in your baby’s food – because the EPA says so.

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found formula made with cow’s milk contained higher concentrations of perchlorate than soy formulas.  Unless a baby has an allergy or digestive problem with cow’s milk-based formula, it is what most are fed.

Two brands stood out with the highest levels of perchlorate.  Care to guess which ones?  The two brands that command 87 percent of the market share for baby formula had more than double the amount of the potentially dangerous chemical than other, less popular brands.

To compound the problem, drinking water in 25 states contains high levels of perchlorate.  If powdered baby formula is mixed with this water, parents could unknowingly be poisoning their children.

The Environmental Working Group has said the EPA’s recommended limit of perchlorate does not protect public health and downplays the risks.

So, who do you believe? The fact is that baby formulas contain perchlorate – the base ingredient of rocket fuel.  Scientist may debate about safe levels, but as a parent, do you really trust the EPA with your child’s health and safety?