Eye-Catching Designs Made from Recycled Plastic Bottles
The company sells a range of eco-friendly items like leggings, rash guards, and board shorts that are made using recycled post-consumer plastic bottles. There are currently 16 causes represented by distinct marine-life patterns, from whale shark research and invasive lionfish removal to sockeye salmon monitoring and abalone restoration.
One such organization is Get Inspired, a nonprofit that specializes in ocean restoration and environmental education. Get Inspired founder, marine biologist Nancy Caruso, says supporting on-the-ground efforts is one thing that sets Waterlust apart, like their apparel line that supports Get Inspired abalone restoration programs.
"All of us [conservation partners] are doing something," Caruso said. "We're not putting up exhibits and talking about it — although that is important — we're in the field."
Waterlust not only helps its conservation partners financially so they can continue their important work. It also helps them get the word out about what they're doing, whether that's through social media spotlights, photo and video projects, or the informative note card that comes with each piece of apparel.
"They're doing their part for sure, pushing the information out across all of their channels, and I think that's what makes them so interesting," Caruso said.
And then there are the clothes, which speak for themselves.
Advocate Apparel to Start Conversations About Conservation
Waterlust's concept of "advocate apparel" encourages people to see getting dressed every day as an opportunity to not only express their individuality and style, but also to advance the conversation around marine science. By infusing science into clothing, people can visually represent species and ecosystems in need of advocacy — something that, more often than not, leads to a teaching moment.
"When people wear Waterlust gear, it's just a matter of time before somebody asks them about the bright, funky designs," said Waterlust's CEO, Patrick Rynne. "That moment is incredibly special, because it creates an intimate opportunity for the wearer to share what they've learned with another."
The idea for the company came to Rynne when he was a Ph.D. student in marine science.
"I was surrounded by incredible people that were discovering fascinating things but noticed that often their work wasn't reaching the general public in creative and engaging ways," he said. "That seemed like a missed opportunity with big implications."
Waterlust initially focused on conventional media, like film and photography, to promote ocean science, but the team quickly realized engagement on social media didn't translate to action or even knowledge sharing offscreen.
Rynne also saw the "in one ear, out the other" issue in the classroom — if students didn't repeatedly engage with the topics they learned, they'd quickly forget them.
"We decided that if we truly wanted to achieve our goal of bringing science into people's lives and have it stick, it would need to be through a process that is frequently repeated, fun, and functional," Rynne said. "That's when we thought about clothing."
Support Marine Research and Sustainability in Style
To date, Waterlust has sold tens of thousands of pieces of apparel in over 100 countries, and the interactions its products have sparked have had clear implications for furthering science communication.
For Caruso alone, it's led to opportunities to share her abalone restoration methods with communities far and wide.
"It moves my small little world of what I'm doing here in Orange County, California, across the entire globe," she said. "That's one of the beautiful things about our partnership."
Check out all of the different eco-conscious apparel options available from Waterlust to help promote ocean conservation.
Melissa Smith is an avid writer, scuba diver, backpacker, and all-around outdoor enthusiast. She graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in journalism and sustainable studies. Before joining EcoWatch, Melissa worked as the managing editor of Scuba Diving magazine and the communications manager of The Ocean Agency, a non-profit that's featured in the Emmy award-winning documentary Chasing Coral.
"1999 was quite a while ago, particularly in the natural gas pipeline area. So much has changed. So much has changed in our entire industry, of course, since then," McIntyre told reporters at a Dec. 21 FERC meeting, according to The Hill. "But it would be hard to find an area that has changed more than natural gas and our pipeline industry."
Indeed, beginning in the 2000s and booming after the Energy Policy Act of 2005, fracking has opened up massive industry demand for interstate pipelines.
And before those lines are built, they must receive a permit from FERC. Gas pipelines crossing international borders, too, by law require a FERC permit and have become increasingly common along the U.S.-Mexico border in the aftermath of the passage of constitutional energy sector privatization reform in December 2013.
Tierney's report, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), emphasizes the role fracking has played in the spike of FERC pipeline approvals.
"From 2007 through 2016 alone, FERC approved 234 gas pipeline projects, more than half the number approved since the Policy Statement was issued in 1999," reads the report. "These projects amounted to 121 [billion cubic feet per day] in total incremental capacity approvals, with 10,250 miles of pipe estimated to cost approximately $51.2 billion."
In particular, the report zeroes in on the role of Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale basin, which saw a total of nine interstate pipelines approved in 2016 alone. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data from 2015, the Marcellus and its neighboring Utica Shale basin in Ohio are responsible for 85 percent of U.S. shale gas production since 2012.
'Good Governance'
The Analysis Group report is in agreement with McIntyre, who formerly served as an industry lawyer representing pipeline companies. The firm posited that, due to deep industry changes since the agency last issued a permitting statement in 1999, it is time to look at the policy with a fresh set of eyes and a new perspective.
"The motivation for FERC to review its pipeline certification guidance and policy is similar to what it was in 1999," wrote the Analysis Group. "At that time, FERC was considering evidence and insights about changes then underway in the gas industry that, in the Commission's view, warranted evolution of FERC's policies on certification and the pricing of new construction projects."
McIntyre argues that it is a matter of "good governance" to listen to concerns among stakeholders and incorporate those into a new set of policies for pipeline permitting going forward.
"It's a matter, we believe, of good governance, to take a fresh look at this area, and to give all stakeholders and the public an opportunity to weigh in on what they believe should be changed to our existing policies," The Hill quoted McIntyre as saying. "But I guarantee you, whatever it is, it will be open and transparent and thorough, and we will invite the views of all stakeholders to ensure that we are doing everything we can to accurately and efficiently assess the pipeline applications that we receive and the process."
Perhaps the most vocal FERC critic, the group Beyond Extreme Energy, has said that it does not trust the agency and remains skeptical of what it will do in the months ahead on the 1999 policy.
"If FERC were an agency which truly put the public interest first, the announced plan to review their process for approving pipelines would be a welcome development," the group said in a press statement. "But facts don't lie: over the past 30 years FERC has granted permits for all but two proposed interstate gas pipelines. It is a rubber stamp agency, and it has been this through both Democratic and Republican administrations."
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), a trade association for gas pipeline companies, has said it is open to the review of the 1999 policy, expressing in its press release little trepidation of the implications for the gas pipeline industry.
"The interstate natural gas pipeline industry welcomes the opportunity to provide input when FERC initiates its inquiry into whether the 1999 policy statement can be improved upon," Don Santa, president and CEO of INGAA, said in a press release. "The ability to site and construct this critical infrastructure has enabled the United States to benefit quickly from the natural gas supply unlocked by the shale revolution."
"We believe that it will be demonstrated that the 1999 policy statement has withstood the test of time quite well. The criteria specified in the policy statement continue to provide FERC with what remains a robust framework for evaluating the range of questions that must be addressed in determining whether a proposed pipeline meets the public convenience and necessity."
For their part, Tierney and her Analysis Group have called on FERC to look back at its mandate as expressed in 1999, which read: "In considering the impact of new construction projects on existing pipelines, the Commission's goal is to appropriately consider the enhancement of competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, the avoidance of unnecessary disruption of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of eminent domain."
Reposted with permission from our media associate DeSmogBlog.
Why is this proposal so controversial?
Sec. Perry has asserted that "the resiliency of the electric grid is threatened by the premature retirements of ... fuel-secure traditional baseload resources." While exact details are not known, the rule Perry has proposed would "make whole" electric generators that can store 90 days of fuel on-site.
This means that even if those plants cannot make money in their respective markets (because other generators can provide electricity more cheaply), they will receive extra payments from the grid operator to recover their operating costs and provide a "fair" return on equity to plant owners. According to FERC Chair Neil Chatterjee, the extra money to keep those plants running will come from electricity customers in the affected areas.
Perry's rationale is that by storing 90 days' worth of fuel on-site, these plants make the power system more reliable, because they can run even if emergencies or disasters affect other fuel sources such as natural gas pipelines. Therefore, they should receive support that enables them to keep operating.
However, because this policy would benefit only coal and nuclear power plants—the only types that store fuel on-site—it has been interpreted as an excuse to subsidize plants that are struggling to compete. No shortage of ink has been spilled on this proposal, most of it very critical.
The counterview is that our electricity system is changing. The average U.S. coal plant is 45 years old, which is near the end of its expected operating life, and the average age of our nuclear fleet is 37 years old.
Some experts point to an analysis by the Rhodium Group that shows fuel supply to be responsible for only 0.00007 percent of electricity disruptions. Opponents of Perry's proposal argue that other available options, such as wind and solar power, are cheaper and cleaner than coal, and will produce power at more stable prices.
Moreover, under the Federal Power Act, FERC is not supposed to favor one form of generation over another. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has called the proposal "a massive subsidy." Other critics say the way to promote reliability and resilience in a competitive energy market is to create a new market for that service and let everyone bid to supply it.
What does FERC do?
FERC is an independent federal agency that regulates rates for cross-state transmission of our main energy sources: oil, natural gas and electricity. It also is responsible for reviewing siting for natural gas pipelines; creating and enforcing reliability standards for interstate electricity transmission networks; and monitoring and investigating energy markets. Most local aspects of the energy system, such as retail sales and billing, are typically overseen by state public utility commissions.
FERC also produces market reports, predictions and analyses of issues such as expected wholesale energy prices and the changing mix of power plants that supply our electricity. It has the power both to create and to enforce rules governing energy markets under its purview.
Who serves on the commission, and how are they chosen?
At full strength FERC has five commissioners, who are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate for five-year terms. It is designed to be a bipartisan independent agency, so no more than three commissioners can be from the same political party, and each commissioner has an equal vote in regulatory matters.
FERC and its commissioners are not overseen by the Department of Energy, but DOE can participate in its deliberations as a third party and can propose rules for the commission to consider.
Don't states also regulate electricity prices?
FERC regulates interstate wholesale electricity markets, in which electricity crosses state lines. Retail prices, which are what most customers see on their bills, are regulated at the state level. Retail prices are set differently in different parts of the U.S., and sometimes even within states. However, FERC's wholesale pricing rules ultimately shape the prices that retail electricity suppliers are allowed to charge consumers.
For fully regulated areas, such as the Southeast, rates are proposed by utilities and then must gain approval from the state's public utility commission. Some states have deregulated their electricity markets and allow customers to choose their power provider. In these areas, providers have more latitude to set their own rates, but the assumption is that market competition will keep rates low.
An Energy Department study on grid reliability, released in August, concluded that coal and nuclear power plants are struggling because they are being undercut by cheap natural gas and renewable energy and low growth in electricity demand. It also noted that "merchant" plants—those that compete based on price in deregulated states—accounted for a majority of recent early retirements. DOE's proposal is limited to such plants, mainly in the Northeast and Midwest.
If FERC issues a rule that would subsidize coal and nuclear plants, can opponents do anything about it?
Opponents' main recourse would be to sue in federal court. No lawsuits have been announced yet, and none is likely to be filed until FERC issues a decision. But a joint letter opposed to the proposal from a group of strange bedfellows, including the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Wind Energy Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, signals that resistance could be significant.
Joshua D. Rhodes, Ph.D. is a Research Fellow at the Energy Institute and the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin.
Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.