EIS rules out 'Green Guam'

This week Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn said the U.S. will incorporate "green technology" to help meet the military's needs. "Our collective investment in wind, solar, hydroelectric and wave-generated power will make Guam an environmental leader among Pacific islands," he said.

But Lynn's statement is at odds with what the EIS says: Alternative energy sources were considered but discarded for baseload supply as this supply must be extremely reliable. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and there is no currently available economical power storage medium to augment them.

The EIS assessment on the inability of alternative energy to meet the military's needs was included in a comment section. An individual wrote: "Please use solar and wind power. The equipment is available and affordable and the investment will pay for itself." (Vol 10, Individuals Part II, page 264 or web site comment 1349)

Here is the EIS response to that comment:

Thank you for your comment. Alternative energy sources were considered but discarded for baseload supply as this supply must be extremely reliable. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and there is no currently available economical power storage medium to augment them. Also alternative energy is very costly. Per the December 2009 “Watts & Volts” newsletter published by the IREA of Colorado, a very sunny state, “A recent study by Tufts University economics professor Gilbert Metcalf states, ‘Solar power currently costs 3.5 to 4 times the price of conventional power,’ but when stripped of subsidies and preferential tax treatment, ‘solar power is between 570 percent and 887 percent more expensive to produce than coal power.” We realize coal power is not available on Guam, but this demonstrates that solar power is not cheap. Both solar and wind require duplicative investments, one for the alternative energy and another for the conventional backup.DoD, however, is mandated to provide a certain percentage of power via alternative energy. So, for new installations, solar water heating and photovoltaics would be considered for new installations. In addition, new DoD development would strive to achieve at least LEED Silver, requiring energy conservation be built into the new facilities. Conservation is the best alternative energy source!

The EIS selective math reference is suspect and its counterpoint to the comment is incomplete. The EIS framed its answer in terms of baseload, which means the minimum amount of power needed for all power needs. Alternative energy is, for now, mostly supplemental.

Moreover, the person who wrote this comment didn't ask about baseload; all this person wanted was for the military to use alternative energy. The EIS writers decided to not only talk down to this commenter but blow smoke as well.

The EIS is correct in that initial investment in solar is high and the government, obviously, can't use tax credits. But all the lack of tax credits does is to extend the payback period, it doesn't eliminate it. There are other benefits as well that aren't easily calculated

If the military reduces its need for power via solar that in turn reduces the need for additional power generation capacity, and since it is the military's goal to make Guam 'green,' rejecting solar on the basis of something someone at EIS HQ Googled is not sound planning.

The EIS response doesn't rule out alternative energy use. There's a DOD requirement that a certain percentage of generation come from alternative sources, but the overall message here is not "Green Guam," but more of: The DOD will meet minimum requirements.

The EIS response is also not the "Green Guam" message that Lynn and the White House has been handing out, a cornerstones of the PR offensive. It illustrates how out-of-control this buildup is. It has too many moving parts and no one understands how they all work together.

Green Guam? Don't bet on it

Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn, who was on Guam this week to sell the buildup, said the U.S. will incorporate "green technology" to help meet the military's needs.

"Our collective investment in wind, solar, hydroelectric and wave-generated power will make Guam an environmental leader among Pacific islands," he said, according to a DOD press release.

I seriously doubt it.

Let’s start with wind power.

Guam is small and wind turbines are huge. (The photo above shows a 747 superimposed on a prototype offshore wind turbine: Source.)

Offshore wind turbines will likely be visible from the island. (And how far offshore can they built considering ocean depths?) The generators may also make enough noise to be audible from land. The tourism industry won't be happy.

Some other questions: Will offshore windfarms impact coral or ocean life? Close some areas for boating?

Onshore wind turbines seem unlikely because of their height, in the range of 200 to 260 feet. Onshore or offshore, a wind turbine will be the tallest structure Guam has ever seen.

Solar power is by far the best option, but has the DOD incorporated solar in its planning? Can DOD officials point to any buildup-related construction that has begun or will soon begin with solar planned?

Solar has so much potential. In this year’s Solar Decathlon sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy sponsors, student teams from around the globe built 20 solar power houses on the National Mall of their own design. The technology is astonishing, and the enthusiasm of the young students I spoke to gave me genuine hope for our future.

But solar panel technology is expensive. A 2-kW system “which will offset the electricity needs of an energy efficient homes, will cost about $8 to $10 per watt ($16,000 to $20,000),” according to DOE.

Wave energy is interesting but may raise some environmental issues, including conflict “with other sea space users” such as recreational boaters; the potential for toxic release or accidental spills from fluids used in these systems, among other things. (Source cited below)

And where would the wave energy systems be built? Along DOD property or in areas in civilian control?

Lynn’s remarks may sound good but these are not easy to adopt alternatives. Technical, policy and emotional issues abound, assuming the military actually seeks the opinion of Guam's residents.

Wave energy: OCS Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Programmatic EIS

Bordallo is unconcerned with Pågat

The video is from a recent protest at Pågat, a special and beautiful place. The stirring music in this video resonates with emotion.

The map below offers another view of Pågat. The arching lines show the trajectory and distance of different caliber military weapons fire. The U.S. plans to turn Pågat into a live firing range and the People of Guam are protesting it. (Map source KUAM)

Pågat isn’t just a place that’s important to Guam. It is important to America. The National Trust for Historic Preservation included Pågat this year on a list of America's Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places. It wrote this about Pagat:

On the northern coast of Guam, ringed by sheer limestone cliffs, lie the remains of an ancient village of the Chamorro, the indigenous people of this island, which is now a U.S. territory. The archaeological riches at Pågat are significant: more than 50 mounds (or middens) containing evidence of day-to-day life and some 20 sets of lattes—limestone pillars, crowned by capstones, that once supported dwellings made of wood and thatch. To see all of this requires heroic stamina. A hike along the trail to Pågat cuts through dense jungle and makes a steep descent past a sinkhole cave filled with freshwater pools. Access to the site and the integrity of its archaeological resources may be threatened by the U.S. military's plans to relocate about 8,600 Marines and 9,000 dependants from Okinawa to Guam.

The people from Washington who delivered the news this week about Pågat would never accept a firing range near their own homes and their families. They most certainly would not let it destroy a historical site. They would protest and fight it with every ounce of strength. And they know it. But this is how the U.S. acts when there are no political consequences, a fact that is as true for Guam today as it was 64 years ago this month for the displaced people of the Bikini Atoll.

After the U.S. had relocated the residents of Bikini to another atoll, U.S. Senator Carl Hatch (D-NM) visited them and said this: "The President knows the sacrifice you have made and he is deeply grateful to you for that."

Hatch then gave the islanders some gifts; a collection of things, some of which may be have been purchased in an airport gift shop. "A pipe, a cigarette holder, matches, a carton of cigarettes and a complete set of photographs of the atomic cloud over Bikini,” reported the New York Times on July 16, 1946.

History doesn’t record what the Bikini islanders thought of these gifts, the matches, the cigarettes and the photos of atomic bombs exploding. But people on Guam may begin to imagine.

The U.S. is treating the People of Guam as it treated the People of Bikini. Guam is not being given a choice as it faces a great loss, and what it will get in return is equally empty thanks.

Bikini residents had no voice and no one in Washington to speak for them. Guam has U.S. Rep. Madeleine Bordallo.

But Bordallo isn't seriously fighting the military's plan for Pågat; there is no resolve in her words.

In Bordallo’s “statement on the Final EIS,” she thanks Nancy Sutley, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Jackalyne Pfannenstiel for visiting Guam. “The fact that these high-ranking officials are visiting Guam is much appreciated and shows the commitment of the White House in hearing our island’s concerns.” Why Bordallo would show appreciation to these messengers or inflate their status in Washington is misleading.

The only person in this group with White House influence is Nancy Sutley, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. She appears to focus on clean energy and conservation. It is nonetheless gratuitous, as well as meaningless, for Bordallo to suggest that the White House is showing "commitment" to hearing Guam's concerns as they prepare to use Pågat as a firing range.

In Washington, Robyn and Pfannenstiel are mid-level appointees who probably aren't on the White House’s email list for senior advisors. They work for Defense in any case. They were sent to the island not to negotiate but to deliver bad news. They are part of the Obama administration’s Blue Collar appointee workforce.

Bordallo has no power in Washington, but she does have a platform, a voice and means to get a message out. But because Bordallo supports the buildup and appears too close to these officials, her language is not of protest.

On the matter of the Pågat firing range, this is what Bordallo wrote:

“I remain concerned that the Navy still has significant work in addressing the selection of the Pagat cliff line as the preferred alternative for a firing range. I still believe that Tinian is a preferred location for this training.”

Is that the best she could write? That she remains “concerned.”

Bordallo is muting her language because she is not seriously concerned about Pagat.

If Bordallo cared about Pågat she would have written:

“I oppose the use of Pågat for a firing range. It is unacceptable to the people of Guam.”

That would have been start.

Bordallo’s next step should have been to call someone from The National Trust for Historic Preservation Trust to join her for a press conference about Pågat.

To the reporters assembled Bordallo could say:

I want to tell you about a place that is beautiful and sacred to the People of Guam, it is called Pågat, and it is about to be turned into live firing range by the U.S. military. It is something that will scar Guam in many ways, and it is the type of action that no one – no one on the mainland, not in any community, would accept. Why should it be different for Guam?

And then she would show the reporters the video above and the photos below so that they may begin to understand what America does not yet realize.

Buildup in America

Politico this week published a column by U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) that argued that the U.S. should take its $14-$16 billion in Guam buildup spending and instead “build in America.”

Hutchinson appears unaware that Guam is a United States possession, territory, politically disfranchised colony, and the place where “America’s Day Begins."

This prompted a sharp retort from Acting Governor Michael W. Cruz to Hutchinson about Guam’s true status and sacrifices. His point was deserved but ephemeral.

Hutchinson’s mistake about Guam’s status is nothing compared to the colossal mistake of allowing live military firing ranges on Guam, now planned for Pagat, or stripping Apra Harbor of much of its coral or overpopulating the island.

Hutchinson is on the Senate Appropriations Committee and is the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee and is challenging the military’s plans for Guam as well as the its entire premise of the Pacific and European base strategy. She writes:

Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has shown otherwise. Having U.S. troops in Europe did not deter the Russians from conducting military operations against Georgia in 2008. More recently, the U.S. military in South Korea did not deter North Korean aggression against a South Korean naval vessel.

Hutchinson knows enough about Guam to understand that the buildup is “problematic” for the island, and writes:

This proposal is fraught with significant environmental concerns, insufficient infrastructure, an implausible timeline — and staggering costs, now estimated at $16 billion. With these considerable barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored.

Hutchinson doesn't help herself by arguing that the buildup should be “right here on American soil,” and treating Guam as if it were something else. But in doing so, Hutchinson is just revealing, restating or otherwise highlighting the degree of insensitivity, callousness and ignorance in Washington about Guam. It is why the U.S. is putting its firing range in Pagat and could care less, truly, what Guam thinks about it. Guam is being reminded by Hutchinson where it really stands. Honesty comes in many forms and here it is.

Hutchinson's lack of knowledge about Guam's relationship to America is of no consequence in Washington because few know better. But what does matter here is Hutchinson's attack on the very rational for the buildup, something that has been rare in Washington. She is taking this position as a member of the Senate committee that has a lot to say about where the Defense Department spends its money.

Many military bases in the U.S. have been closed, often to local opposition because of the loss of jobs. Hutchinson probably suspects that spending billions on new military facilities on the U.S. mainland, instead of on a politically disenfranchised Guam, may appeal to a broader number in Congress, especially at a time when more stimulus dollars are needed.

It is possible that the Guam buildup fight may have finally arrived in Congress.

Guam’s greatest economic asset

The biggest anchor to economic development on Guam is its government. As its largest and best paying employer, Guam’s government has a supersize primacy in the island’s life and this distorts its decision-making process about its future.

In round numbers, Guam’s total public and private sector payroll is about 60,000 people; of that number about 15,000 receive government-connected paychecks. Federal employment accounts for about 3,600 of that government number.

The military buildup’s demand for additional services will increase the government payroll but this will come at a price. By growing its reliance on the U.S. military, Guam's government is also giving the military more control, directly and indirectly, over the island's future. But this loss of control is coming at the same time Guam's potential to shift away from military dependency is increasing.

Guam’s most important economic asset isn't the military but the increasing number of well-educated young men and women who have made a deliberate decision to remain on the island, despite other options.

Those who remain or return to the island may see their decision as a part of a strong commitment to the island. A larger purpose is assigned the decision. These young people aren’t just thinking about their future, but the island’s future as well and there may be many in this group who appear to oppose the buildup.

To oppose the buildup is to make a statement of faith and self-reliance; it is a bold imagination of possibility. And faith in the possibility of a future apart from the military is more important than an actual economic plan because without former, the latter is impossible.

Putting aside the issues of the buildup’s impact on sustainability, environment, what are the alternatives to the buildup?

Analysis of economic alternatives is where all discussions about Guam’s future seem to fall apart. People can’t imagine something other than the military and tourism as a potential economic pillar. But there may be another option.

Guam’s most underutilized asset may be its communication infrastructure; it’s a hub for undersea cables and its online communications services, I suspect, are among the best in Oceana.

Guam ability to develop its virtual infrastructure, coupled with its proximity to Asia and time zone advantage (relative to the U.S. mainland), seems to offer some possibility for development of businesses that can provide virtual and regional services.

Developing a different kind of future will take a government that can think well beyond a military-dependent future to how it can create a climate that can turn Guam into the Pacific’s mini-Silicon Valley. That will take a government leadership that pushes itself to be creative, imaginative, and forward-thinking about the future. But it is difficult to see how a government focused on counting the buildup dollars is capable of providing inspired leadership on this front.

But the raw ingredients for Guam’s alternatives are there. It begins with a supply of young men and women who have deliberately committed to the island, their home, and by opposing the buildup, are also making a courageous statement about their future. It is no small thing in a place such as Guam to oppose entrenched powers. But as been said for time immemorial, fortune, or in this case, the future, favors the bold.

Disasters-R-Us

First, the news: Obama cancels/postpones Guam trip ...

How ironic that one environmental disaster, the Gulf oil spill, has led to the cancellation of a trip by the president to hear of Guam's environmental disaster in the making.

Does anyone see the connection between the BP oil spill and a plan to dredge 50 or 70 acres of coral to make a parking space for an aircraft carrier?

This is the second time that Obama has put off this trip. The odds are dropping that he'll ever visit and learn first hand....

Guam war reparations and the buildup

A lot of shockingly horrible things happened to the People of Guam during the Japanese occupation in World War II. The U.S. compounded it by prematurely cutting Guam off in 1951 from any reparations settlement with Japan, forcing them to appeal to Congress. To write almost anything on this topic is to enter a difficult zone of deep feelings, but the timing of a pending war reparations action in Congress needs examination.

U.S. Rep. Madeleine Bordallo issued a press release this week saying she has critical support to include a war reparations bill, the Guam World II Loyalty Recognition Act (HR 44), in a defense spending bill that is due for consideration.

The war reparations bill will be attached to HR 1536, the National Defense Authorization Act, which also funds part of the buildup. Legislatively, the buildup and reparations are linked.

Bordallo, and other political leaders, have long pushed for reparations, but if Congress is ready to approve reparations after years of delay is it happening because the hearts of lawmakers are now in a different place? Or is it because the most critical point in the buildup planning process is about to arrive?

The U.S. is set to issue a final Environmental Impact Statement in July and then its “Record of Decision” of it 30 days after. That means there will also be no time to really assess how the government has responded to the 10,000 comments it has received before the EIS is approved.

The U.S., if anything, seems to be pushing ahead rapidly on the buildup and is awarding millions of dollars in construction contracts.

On the issue of the build-up itself, what changes has the government made that addresses some of problems raised about it?

The governor asked for a slower buildup timetable, but there’s no evidence that the U.S. has agreed to it.

Dredging Apra Harbor? A U.S. official recently warned that they don’t see an alternative.

Live firing ranges?

There are hundreds of other issues, including opposition to the buildup in total.

But on some of the high profile buildup questions, the only black-and-white concession appears to be a promise not to condemn private land for the buildup -- but is this victory? The U.S. is still free to acquire land from owners willing to sell. All that has changed is the price of the land. The Guam government, in turn, looses leverage in its argument that the military should make better use of the land it now has.

Clearly, the buildup has given Bordallo an opportunity to press ahead for war reparations. (These are payments to both survivors and children of war survivors who have died in amounts that appear in the range of $7,000 to $25,000.) But how do you begin to assess the impact of the war reparation payments on either the buildup’s support or opposition? It may have have no impact. The reparations issue is so old that it may be perceived as absolutely apart from the buildup. But if you flip the question around and ask how people would feel about the buildup if reparations are rejected by Congress, then the answer might be different.

As I pointed out at the start of this post, the issue of war reparations is deep and the extent of its linkage to the buildup is not something that I can speculate on. I write from Washington, not from Guam, and all I can say for certain is that in my town there is a political calculus to everything.

[A related and interesting read: Guam war reparations is not a liberal boondoggle]