It's the Environment, Stupid.

A Food Security Must Read

2008-10-12T10:46:00.003-04:00

If you don't know who Michael Pollan is google him. Then read his books, specifically his most recent, An Omnivores Dilemma and In Defense of Food.

If you're not a book reader, you should be. But if you want the abbreviated version of these books as well as Pollan's well thought out proposals to remediate the current food crisis we're in (yes there is a food crisis) read his contribution in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

It is a letter addressed to the president elect, warning the lucky winner that food will be forefront on the agenda, even though it hasn't once been mentioned during the campaign trail. Pollan's propsed strategies of a revised food policy make sense. They are smart, logical, are in all probability sustainable, and they fly in the face of everything that's been in place for the past 50 years.

Pollan points out that business as usual in our current model of cheap fossil fueled, monocultured agriculture can not continue. Hopefully someone out there in governmental bodies and administrations will listen to reason more so than to lobbyists, as our food security may depend on it.

LEED vs. Green Globes

2008-08-27T09:28:00.002-04:00

I had known OF Green Globes, but didn't really know anything ABOUT it. So I decided to look into it and find out how it compared to LEED (which I am very familiar with - I looked at comparing the existing building versions as that's what I work with).

Here's what I found out:
Green Globes is a software based, online tool for green building certification. In the United States it is run by Green Building Initiative (GBI), a non-profit organization. The relationship here is similar to LEED (the green building certification tool) being developed and managed by USGBC.

The origin of Green Globes stems from the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in 1996, which was developed for use in the UK and Canada. In 2000, the system went online and is now known as GEM (Global Environmental Method) in the UK and is sponsored by the RICS Foundation there. In Canada, it is run by BOMA Canada and is known as ‘Go Green Plus’. In the US is it Green Globes, run by GBI.

Recently, Jones Lang LaSalle acquired ECD Energy and Environment Canada, the software developer of the online tool, Green Globes. It is likely that JLL will pursue Green Globes certification for buildings they own and operate. (GBI and BOMA Canada retain licensing rights to develop and distribute their respective versions, within their respective countries.)

Costs:
It costs $1000 to register one (1) building under Green Globes Continual Improvement for Existing Buildings. At the end of the evaluation process it costs $4000-6000 for an independent, third party assessment.

The process:
Using a free 30-day trial access I was able to access the online Environmental Assessment for Existing Commercial Buildings. It is a essentially a 22 page questionnaire/survey covering energy, transportation, water, waste reduction and recycling, site management, air and water emissions, indoor air quality (IAQ), purchasing and communication. It is completed online only and is very user friendly.

Each question is weighted with points (in all totaling up to 1000). The overall rating is tracked as questions are answered. The overall rating however is based on a percentage, not on total points. This way there are no penalties for questions that are not applicable (ie. Answering ‘no’ on water efficient Irrigation questions will not be counted against you if you do not have any landscaping). I have attached the survey (the downloadable version does not include points.)

The Green Globes System automatically generates a report based on your answers. The report lists where the building stands in each major category and lists suggestions for improvement in order to gain a better score. There are four rating levels that buildings can achieve – 35-54%, 55-69%, 70-84%, 85-100%.

Compared to LEED:
The categories and areas addressed within each standard for building operations and maintenance are similar. However, the LEED process is far more stringent than Green Globes in a few areas, whereas Green Globes is a lot more user friendly than LEED and easier overall.

LEED has minimum standards that must be met in order to begin the certification process, and requires detailed documentation for every point pursued. Green Globes does not require any ongoing documentation, but it may be required as proof of compliance during the third party assessment.

Each standard utilizes the Energy Star Portfolio Manager application. LEED asks that you generate your own number (and requires a minimum number); Green Globes incorporates it as part of the survey.

Green Globes is not necessarily easier to achieve than LEED, but the certification process is simpler and it has a greater range for all types of buildings, even those that may not be ‘high-performance’ buildings.

Green Globes has a greater allowance for different locations and different building types, in that your project is not penalized for non-applicable points.

Each managing organization (GBI, USGBC) continually assesses and upgrades their green building certification tools based on user feedback and expert input.

While neither requires professional certification or accreditation, LEED has an exam for accredited professionals for each version (ie, NC, EB). Green Globes only requires their third party assessors to have specialized training.

The total cost for Green Globes, not including facility improvements, is around $5,000-$7,000 (registering the building, and third party assessor verification) for any sized space; LEED costs $12,950 for the process (registration, plus $12,500 for certification for members) for more than 500,000 square feet.

Is one better than the other? Depends on who you are and why you want to go for it. Both are reputable green building standards. Right now, LEED is getting all the press and is being written into legislation. LEED isn't perfect (I don't think anyone at USGBC proposes otherwise), and neither is Green Globes. Neither should be treated as a green building bible, but should be treated as guidelines to help in the process to green your building.

Eco-terror hits the wrong target

2008-03-04T21:13:00.007-05:00

I'm not a fan of eco-terror. In fact, I think it is a very ineffective form of protest and gives environmentalists a bad name.

For example, take the latest from radical enviro group, Earth Liberation Front, or ELF. ELF took credit for torching a couple of multi-million dollar homes in Woodinville, WA. Their spray painted message was, "Built Green? Nope black!" The destruction was reportedly intended to dispute the green claims of the expensive houses.

The houses, I'm guessing, were specifically targeted because they're part of "Street of Dreams" - an annual event where high end show-homes are built, furnished, toured by the public, then sold to rich people. (No one was living in these houses at the time because they were still on display.)

Now, I'll be the first to slam McMansions, irresponsible development and sprawl (as I have before in this blog). But I completely disagree with the ELF strategy in destroying this development because it isn't green enough or because the houses were encroaching on wetlands. If anything the developer should be praised for using and featuring green building techniques such as pervious sidewalk materials and supplies made with recycled content. Houses are constructed every day with zero regard to green building (I have no doubt there are many going up just down the street.) But these Street of Dream homes actually had green elements.

I grew up not far from Woodinville. Back in the day it was a few modest neighborhoods, a couple of restaurants and a big ol' nursery called Molbaks situated among a whole bunch of trees and empty acreage. Now there are big box stores, a multi-plex movie theater, many more neighborhoods, and a whole bunch of Starbucks (and Tully's.) Molbaks is still there, but the trees are long gone.

The Street of Dreams mansions are really just a byproduct - and now casualty - of this larger development. The ELF doesn't seem to care about the severe expansion of the Microsoft compound in nearby Redmond (which incidentally is a major contributing factor of the influx of new money in the area.) And they don't seem to care about the mini-McMansions and cookie cutter developments on the other side of Redmond, in Issaquah - a much grander slaughter of the tree-scape, with more roads built, more stores and parking lots built, and more sub-developments built than in Woodinville. (That's just my observational opinion, you'd have to check with the King County planning department for real numbers there.)

Unfortunately most of America is made up of car friendly, development hungry, individuals who all want their own piece of the pie. The public process seldom rules in favor of small growth or even smart growth. Battling this system isn't easy, but it surely won't be won by torching big houses. It is going to be won through educating developers and planners and those making the decisions about building better, building smarter and building greener.

(The photo above is from the AP article.)

Crate&Barrel introduces Eco-line

2008-02-27T10:00:00.005-05:00

Well hot damn! Crate&Barrel has introduced an eco-friendly line of sofas and chairs.

Now, I'm not a big Crate&Barrel shopper myself. I'm on the e-mail list because I bought a wedding present for a friend who registered there. But I thought I'd click through the e-mail ad and have a look-see.

The Ross Sofa says:

Certified sustainable, kiln-dried hardwood frame
Seat cushions are filled with soy-based polyfoam, wrapped in a blend of goose down, feathers and corn-based fibers, and encased in downproof ticking
Back cushions are a blend of goose down, feathers and corn-based fibers encased in downproof ticking

That all sounds like a bunch of eco-fluff with zero backbone, so I clicked on their main enviro page to see if there was any further explanation. That's where I found it - FSC certified. Good. That means something. Stopping the use of petroleum based foam for corn and soy based alternatives. Also good (debatable in some circles, but good.)

Even cooler is the packaging. That white bleached board used in C&B signature boxes is going to be phased out, and all those shopping bags are going to be made with "30% post-consumer material." The tissue used to wrap the breakable stuff is "100% recyclable" made with "70% post-consumer waste."

While their eco-verbiage leaves a little to be desired it is definitely a step in the right direction for the retailer. I probably won't start shopping there because of it, but the folks that LOVE their Crate&Barrel now have some eco-options at no extra charge.

Masses clueing in - green isn't all that easy

2008-02-10T13:04:00.000-05:00

It looks like the days of shiny happy greenness are waning.

A couple of recent NY Times articles (yes, my media publication of choice lately) feature the problems with going green.

"Don't Let the Green Grass Fool You" takes of look of some of the contradictions in suburban living. And then there's "In Many Communities, It's Not Easy Going Green." Among other frustrations, one would-be-green do-gooder refuses to buy CFLs because she heard her neighbor spent $600 on the things.

Another NY Times article on CFLs "Making Small Sacrifices for What they Believe is Right" totally slams the CFL and features families that have grudgingly and unhappily made the switch.

Okay, yes, the grander media hype pushing the green phenomena has made it seem that going green can be easy. Unfortunately these same stories gloss over the practical realities behind all green actions. What they don't say is, "this is better, but frankly, there's still going to be drawbacks. There are compromises you'll have to make and you may have to do a little research as to what green alternative works best for you."

No one is saying (except the New York Times article) that you have to replace all your kitchen appliances right now. Yeah, if you do that it's going to be a chunk of change, and chances are it's not going to pay back any time soon. But, if your fridge kicks out or you're going to upgrade your AC unit anyway, well, yes, you should buy the most energy efficient brand out there.

Unfortunately these non-inspiring articles may have a counter-effect and could sway people against going green. Media outlets should educate the public in the realities of going green, but should also say WHY there are problems. By turning people off and discouraging small steps, we're only going to go backwards. Doing nothing, will result in nothing. However, small steps are good and will create the demand for new technologies and improvements that really will make it cheaper and easier to go green.

Why aren't candidates talking about climate change?

2008-02-08T17:06:00.001-05:00

A commenter asked me (in a may-be-a-spam-comment kind of way), "Why aren't candidates talking about climate change?"

Well, alex9852 (or whoever it is trying to get me to go check out an Earthlab poll mentioned on LiveEarth.org), here's what I think.

I think candidates aren't mentioning climate change, frankly, because the press hasn't asked them to.

When/if they are asked - for the republicans, it's a moot point. They have been instructed by their campaign managers to either push the energy angle (ie. nuclear, clean coal and hydrogen) or stay skeptical (climate change does not exist).

The democrats are too worried about the effects of Obama's 'multicultural persona' (a term the NY Times used for him in a recent article about the youth vote) or how Hillary's shedding a tear will impact voters. With all that who has time to worry about the (media picked) issues, much less the issue of climate change?

Whatever color state they're trying to appeal to, candidates on both sides have their stance on climate change at the ready just in case global warming makes it back to a top issue (the media thinks) Americans care about. In most cases, these stances will include a general, vague, and all encompassing 'call to action' without anything concrete behind it.

The good news? Whoever makes it to the oval office in the end will have no choice but to deal with it.

More good news? As has been shown over the past 7+ years, federal support isn't necessary to make a difference in the 'fight against climate change' (although a little national policy help would be nice.)

Tornadoes not linked to climate change

2008-02-07T10:31:00.000-05:00

I was reading about the devastating tornados that tore through several southern states earlier this week in the NY Times, and they reported that climate change has nothing to do with the monster storm:

Tornado experts said there was no evidence that the deadly storms were related to global warming or anything other than the clash of contrasting cold and warm air masses that usually precedes such events.

And these tornado experts should know a thing or two about climate science and associated scenarios. Maybe they agree with the governor of Tennessee, who was quoted in the Times article as saying, “The wrath of God is the only way I can describe it.”

Whatever the cause, many people and communities are going to have to rebuild their lives. Perhaps they can follow the lead of folks in Greenburg, Kansas. After being hit by a tornado last May, this rural town has united around the decision to rebuild green.

State of the Union and the Environment

2008-01-29T15:32:00.000-05:00

Bush's speech writers mentioned climate change - once - in a teeny section about energy in the State of the Union Address.

Not nearly as creative as last year's linking fighting climate change to fighting terrorism, but the speech writers did manage to imply federal support of clean-coal and hydrogen technologies without actually coming out and saying so, then sandwiching the 'n' word in between (in the same sentence as renewables)...

Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.)

The speech writers did also include a bit about supporting a post-Kyoto agreement (of course, again, without naming names), yet, still standing strong on the U.S.'s 'we're not going to unless they do' platform.

Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)
This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. (Applause.)

Of course I'm not quite sure how the U.S. is going to be a leader in developing this cleaner technology, which will free us from our dependence on foreign oil - we're either going to have to spend more money on education to increase our social capital, or loosen immigration laws to bring in others to do it.

Australia Signs Kyoto Protocol

2007-12-03T13:27:00.000-05:00

Australia has signed the Kyoto Protocol. The country was only one of two nations in the world (yes, the entire world) that hadn't yet done so. The U.S. (surprise, surprise) has been the only hold outs to date.

Is this big news? Politically yes. It sends a message to the world that folks down under are now onboard with this whole climate change thing. However, signing it after the fact is just kind of lame. (I would say the same thing about the U.S. if we decided to also hop on the bandwagon after all this time.)

These talks in Bali are looking beyond Kyoto. The protocol, as it stands now, is only in effect until 2012. Carbon trading systems and the CDM/JI functions laid out in the protocol have turned into a host loopholes and get out of jail free cards for CO2 emitters, and countries bound by the protocol are continually finding it difficult to meet the (arguably conservative) emission reduction guidlines.

Curbing global warming, it turns out, isn't as easy as curbing acid rain. Climate change mitigation has turned out to be a political, economic, and logistical slow dance that has gone on for far too long already. It will, no doubt, continue to slug along with little progress as diplomats across the board will battle over whose economic development is more important.

The good news, however, is that this is still a hot issue in the media. Major news networks, especially in the U.S., are covering climate change and global warming topics, keeping awareness on the top of public mind (at least for now). Some international mega-corporatations have been making small changes voluntarily, if nothing else to capitalize on this awareness, but making change nonetheless.

I would like to see some real progress and binding agreements take place beyond Kyoto, but this will require full cooperation and a commitment to action among all nations.

(Reporter, Andrew Revkin, commented about the Australia signage on the NY Times Dot Earth blog.)

Check Out Green Options...

2007-10-04T22:48:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'll be coming back... however, I've been spending all my blogging time lately over at Green Options. I promise to get back to ranting at It's the Environment, Stupid. sooner rather than later... there's been some developments that have peaked my interest lately - mainly on the globalization front...

Infrastructure Failure in America

2007-08-03T13:23:00.000-04:00

America's infrastructure is aging. More and more people, sprawling development, and the accompanying traffic are burdening the Army Corps of Engineer's boom (and related developments) of the mid to late 20th century. Now, with ever rising costs and reduced funding/taxes for public projects, compromises and trade-offs are made and only the things in worst shape are attended to.

Evidence of this is all over the place - power grid problems and blackouts, the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the steam pipe explosion in New York, the levee breach in New Orleans.

Unfortunately the blame falls on the agency responsible for infrastructure upkeep. Very rarely are the fingers pointed in the direction of politicians or government officials who make the money decisions and choose what gets funded.

Using NYC as an example - utility company Consolidated Edison has become the scape goat for an aging infrastructure over a century old.

Last summer they took the heat for power blackouts in Queens that lasted over a week in some areas, which created a pocket of very angry residents and business owners. Even the mayor stepped up and shifted any blame off of himself onto ConEd.

Now the utility company is under fire again for a steam pipe explosion in midtown Manhattan a few weeks back. There was a helluva storm that morning, wreaking havoc on the subway and just about everything else.

To ConEd's credit, the New York Times reported that ConEd checked the area where the pipe blew earlier that same day, with nothing to indicate it would fail hours later. After the damage was assessed, ConEd requested that people who were sprayed by the blast to turn in their clothes and accessories for reimbursement, since there was asbestos was found in the muddy debris.

Weeks later the big question still circulating throughout the papers is, "how could ConEd let something like this happen?" However, the question really should be, "what is the city's plan for upgrading its infrastructure for the next century?"

That said, I don't want to undermine the tragedy of these infrastructure failures. Lives have been lost, and many have been injured. There has also been property damage with financial repercussions. This only strengthens the need to re-prioritize spending and put money into preventive maintenance, in addition to infrastructure upgrades to avoid future catastrophes.

With a burgeoning population of upwards of eight million people, New York City will need a bit more than some pretty, new buildings and hybrid taxis if it intends to remain a top player in the global economy.

Discovery Acquires TreeHugger

2007-08-01T16:17:00.000-04:00

No. It's not selling out. It's making a smart, strategic move. I'm talking about the announcement today that Discovery Communications has acquired TreeHugger.com.

TreeHugger.com was the little start-up that could. A brilliant, entrepreneurial risk that (finally) paid off. I don't know the details of the contract, but from Graham's statement at TH and the press release in my inbox, I got the impression that TH will maintain control over a lot of the content and will help shape the online community for Planet Green.

For Discovery it means that they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Like when Google bought You Tube. Google tried video, but they sucked at it. They realized You Tube had a good thing going - and well, if you can't beat 'em....

Many media outlets and others who are trying to capitalize on the green wave are having a hard time catching up and making inroads in an increasingly saturated community. The Discovery acquisition of TH will benefit both parties and will create an opportunity for the TH message to move beyond the enviro-niche and onto the masses. After all, isn't that the goal?

Will things change at TH? Sure they will. Will everyone like it? Probably not.

I say: Congratulations to Graham and the TH team.

Read Graham Hill's comment on the acquisition at TreeHugger.com

Will be back soon...

2007-05-06T22:40:00.000-04:00

Lately life has been getting in the way of blogging - but never fear, I'll be back to regular postings soon... very soon...

New York's Green Agenda

2007-04-24T11:31:00.000-04:00

NY has been in the news recently for pushing forward a green agenda.

New NY gov Eliot Spitzer is going back to the ol' Carter mantra and calling for conservation. He's proposing a combo of legislation and regulations to get the state to consume less energy by 2015. Although the details haven't been revealed, the NY Times reported that these will include stricter energy standards for appliances, and upping the ante for energy efficiency on (so-called) green buildings. There's also talk about building/installing renewable energy generation facilities.

The reasoning for this is simple - by using less energy the state will save money. Well that, and Spitzer won't be forced to be the bad guy in proposing to build new power plants, even though he's already proposed legislation to make NIMBY a non-issue in locating "clean" power producing facilities (besides, by the time the state will need more power plants the Gov will have moved on to bigger and better things...)

In other NY news - NYC mayor Bloomberg revealed his big green plan for the city yesterday. However, this plan will need some serious cash (with some projects it could be in the ballpark of $200 mil a year). One revenue generating proposal involves a toll for drivers coming into Manhattan (based on a similar scheme in London). The PlaNYC (that's what they're calling it) is very, very, very ambitious and includes proposals for several gigantic projects:

One proposal calls for investments of $200 million a year from both the city and state to create a financing authority that would assure the completion of major projects like the Second Avenue subway. New authorities, with representatives from the city, state and private industry, would push for improved energy efficiency in new buildings and for the replacement of energy-guzzling power plants.

The city also would encourage the construction of platforms over railyards and highways to create land for housing. In addition, the plan would open 290 schoolyards as playgrounds, eliminate city sales taxes on energy-efficient hybrid vehicles, increase the number of bike paths and cultivate mussels to suck pollution out of the rivers.

n another measure, the city would plant more than 1 million trees in the next 10 years. It would offer incentives — intended to capture storm water runoff — for larger and deeper sidewalk tree pits and green roofs.
The plan calls for zoning changes in many neighborhoods with access to public transportation that would allow for larger homes and a higher density of housing, although such changes are often resisted in those neighborhoods.
It pledges that every New Yorker would live within a 10-minute walk from a park, and it calls for small public plazas in each community board district that does not have a park.
It would replace or modernize diesel-powered school buses in the city fleet and offer incentives to get heavy diesel trucks off the road. And it would commit city funds to clean up 7,600 acres of so-called brownfields, where soil has been polluted by chemicals or industrial materials. Some of the land would become parks.

It is a lofty vision for NYC, but I think it is just what this city needs. It goes back to a question I've asked before here, how do we rebuild the already built up environment?

NYC doesn't have the luxury of space as nearly every square inch has been built upon, yet the city is an ever changing place even despite these existing infrastructures (and perhaps because of them.) There is a lot of development and redevelopment going on, and neighborhoods across the five boroughs are being revitalized (or destroyed depending on whose side you're on). But this redevelopment does need direction and a vision and it sounds like Bloomberg is stepping up to provide just that.

Military Advises - Climate Change is a National Security Threat

2007-04-17T18:34:00.000-04:00

You know it's getting serious when the military makes a public statment saying that global warming is threatening national security.

The new study entitled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" was put together by a non-profit research center, CNA Corporation, with help from their advisory board made up of retired, high ranking, military officers.

Even though the military officials that advised on this report are retired (and one tends to get a little freer with one's speech when one's job isn't on the line) they recommend that "[t]he U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability."

From a military perspective climate change and the scenarios that go with it become a geopolitical issue destined for conflict. By acting now and realizing the global nature of anticipated effects of climate change we could reduce the risk of future conflict.

The military is already one of the largest purchasers of wind power and invests in green technology research, mainly because it will save them money, but they often do these things on the down-low and don't make a big fuss or issue big reports on the matter.

Their conclusion here - that climate change is a threat to national security - should perk up the ears of the whitehouse. Afterall, GW alluded to something like that in his state of the union address, but it was rather vague and not at all straightforward as and one had to read between the speech writer's lines to put two and two together.

Via Green Options; ENS

Wal-Mart Responds to Article About The Whole Backing Down From Organics Thing

2007-04-14T17:05:00.000-04:00

Jeff over at Green Options (my blog home away from home) has posted Wal-Mart's response to BusinessWeek about their recent article:

A representative of the company passed the letter along to Green Options, and we've published it in full below. Wal-Mart's efforts to "green" its products and operations will have an enormous effect on the supply of and demand for more sustainable options in the marketplace, so we believe this conversation about the company's commitments needs to happen through a broad range of media channels.

I recommend reading the letter posted in full by GO (it basically says the BusinessWeek article misrepresented Wal-Mart, and that Wal-Mart is still committed to selling organic items while staying true to their Always Low Price guarantee.)

Wal-Mart Backs Down from Organics

2007-04-12T11:52:00.000-04:00

The big box retailer's big green push has faltered. Wal-Mart has cut back or cancelled its orders for organic produce because customers just weren't buying.

This has left a lot of farmers in a lurch and leaving Wal-Mart to rethink their business model.

A Business Week article reports that Wal-Mart's strategy turned out to be a big flop. Even though a percentage of Wal-Mart customers make more than $75,000, they still go to Wal-Mart to find bargains, not shop for organic produce.

The retailer's existing customers tend to be very price-conscious and may not be willing to pay a premium for organic foods. On the other hand, consumers who go to stores like Whole Foods Market (WFMI) or Wild Oats Markets (OATS) are less price-sensitive and may not be lured to Wal-Mart with low prices.

Wal-Mart's traditional business model that has made them king in the low price retail department turned out not to work as well with organic produce or the people that grow it.

Wal-Mart is known for its hardball tactics with suppliers, driving costs as low as possible and regularly switching suppliers to get the best price. That kind of attitude can alienate farmers, especially organic ones, who tend to plan their crops years ahead of time.

Last I heard, Wal-Mart sells more than just organic produce in their super stores. So while this may be a set-back in the 'be green' category, there are still many avenues the corporation can take to maintain their place on the Fortune 500 list (2nd) and keep moving forward with their environmental efforts.

Rockies Get in the Solar Power Game

2007-04-10T17:50:00.000-04:00

And by Rockies I mean the Colorado Rockies - not the mountain range, the baseball team.

I talked about the SF Giants putting solar panels up on their stadium - now the Rockies are getting into the game. Jeff McIntire-Strasburg over at TreeHugger featured the new Rockies solar array. Here's what he has to say:

While some will argue that such moves primarily power the teams' PR efforts, the educational benefits of such stadium additions could be profound. Baseball parks are a familiar, even friendly, environments for many Americans, and displaying solar power in such venues could make renewable technologies seem a bit less foreign to many fans. Play ball!

Recycling Hits the Streets in NYC

2007-04-05T15:12:00.000-04:00

Last April on a visit to my hometown of Seattle, I blogged about blue recycling bins next to regular garbage cans on downtown street corners. I remarked, "Wouldn't it be great if this option were available on all downtown sidewalks in all downtown areas?"

Well, NYC is giving it a shot with a new pilot project in all five boroughs. The Spring 2007 Public Space Recycling Pilot will run from April through June featuring green and blue bins in select areas. The green is for newspapers and magazines. The blue is for bottles and cans. A public awareness campaign promoting proper usage of the bins will surround the targeted areas on phone kiosks and bus stops.

If all goes well we could see green and blue bins city wide - however, given the behavior of New Yorkers, I'm guessing a lot of trash is going to get thrown into the recycling bins. I think a lot of out of towners and transplants from eco-friendly cities will recognize what goes where, but unless there's a place for garbage right next to the recycing bins, it may not work as expected.Hopefully that won't deter officials from thinking about extending the pilot or implementing the plan on a wider scale.

Message to Developing Nations: You're Screwed

2007-04-02T11:06:00.000-04:00

Check out this article from Sunday's NY Times, "Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms".

The article focuses on how rich countries are working out ways to adapt to their changing environments, and how poor countries, which can barely address their current problems, are at a great disadvantage and as a result, will suffer disproportionately. The article also draws attention to special environmental and climate change funds intended to help lower income countries deal with climate change. However, the conclusion reached in the article is: it simply won't be enough and developing nations will be left on their own.

I agree with this sentiment. Climate change is just another in a long list of problems plaguing the world where the poor will be disproportionately affected.

The only way to make any foreign aid money go farther is to incorporate climate change adaptation measures into current efforts of reducing poverty, increasing access to clean water, improving agricultural practices, and reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria (etc.) Of course it is easier said than done but not only will the poor suffer greatly as a result of climate change, so too will the global economy, and that will affect everyone.

The Brundtland Report 20th Anniversary

2007-03-29T11:04:00.000-04:00

One of my biggest pet peeves is how people (mainly experts, government officials and journalists) throw around the Brundtland Commission Report definition of sustainable development to explain sustainability in an environmental context.

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The definition is rarely quoted as it appears in the report and it is often applied in situations that emphasize environmental conservation without taking into consideration any social or economic aspects. A reading of the (lengthy) report reveals that sustainable development must include all three elements - environmental, social and economic - in order for this definition to be achieved.

(On a side note: the other thing that bugs me is how the term sustainable development is (wrongly) attributed to originating in the report, as is the concept of itself. The term was first used in international dialogue in the World Conservation Strategy in 1980, the concept I believe was introduced in the international arena in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Read my definition evolution here.)

Of course this is not to minimize the importance of the Brundtland Report and the commission's work (the commission was created in 1983 - the report came out five years later in 1987). It really was the first of its kind to draw broad links between environmental, social and economic concerns and it made international policy recommendations accordingly.

It also provided a strong platform for the concept of sustainable development to jump to a higher level. It prompted the UN to call for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, the event that churned out the precursor to the Kyoto Protocol and Local Agenda 21 (local efforts at environmental conservation and clean-up actions globally).

On the 20th anniversary of the report's release the World Business Council on Sustaianble Development (WBCSD) has come out with a report of its own, "Then and Now: Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the "Brundtland Report.""

The WBCSD report gives an accurate summation of the Brundtland report and focuses on how the WBCSD has stepped in to fill void of the business voice in the sustainable development arena and what steps they're working on in moving towards the future. While it is primarily a nice self-promotional piece, "Then and Now" does highlight positive efforts and initiatives the WBCSD and their member companies have achieved over the years.

Still, 20 years later, nearly everything in the Brundtland report (including messages of caution and precaution regarding climate change) applies today - which can be viewed as both positive (tremendous insight and forward thinking) and negative (we've done little as a global community to remedy these concerns.) With this recent resurgence of popularity for enviro concerns, I think we're seeing a little more effort from governments and policy makers to address the issues that have been put off for too long.

National Association of Manufacturers - a Green Wash?

2007-03-26T10:44:00.000-04:00

Normally I'm pro-business and am constantly advocating for the environment and economy to live happily ever after, but I was a little skeptical after reading this news brief from Environmental Leader, "NAM Wants Balance Between Environment and Economic Growth".

NAM is the National Association of Manufacturers and they've just submitted comments to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding their thoughts about climate change policy. The NAM press release on the matter states:

The NAM advised leadership to find a balance between protecting our environment and continuing to grow our economy... NAM recommended that any climate change proposals must be flexible, global in scope, pre-empt state climate laws, transparent, considerate of our economy and viewed in context of an overall energy policy. Additionally, any proposal that does not anticipate global participation will be doomed to simply transfer the emissions from one country to another. Moreover, the NAM explained that climate change policy should be viewed in the larger context of an energy policy.

This statement obviously is a dig at the whole developing-nations- must-also-pull-their-weight-or-we're-not-going-to-play-either argument (in line with the current White House mantra on climate change policy).

However, upon reading through NAM's Energy Security for American Competitiveness Legislative Proposal there really is no goal at environmental protection, but rather to preserve the nation's right to cheap and readily available energy.

They call for greater participation and integration of the Department of Energy through partnerships with educational institutions and the DOE national laboratory. (This could be a good thing.) They also call for an extension of the R&D tax credit (good thing) and an evaluation/analysis of existing regulations to determine their energy effectiveness (good thing).

The proposal also calls for the extension of tax credits for renewable power sources and incentives for wind and solar farms (good) and suggests that the government expedite coal leases, expedite approval for new nuclear plants, approve drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and increase offshore oil exploration (not so good, really not good, and not so enviro friendly).

Unfortunately, while I see their point and need for cheap electricity to supply the manufacturing industry, the lights are blinking GREEN WASHING on this proposal. They know that climate change/global warming and enviro concerns are a hot button right now and they're spinning appropriately - but clearly their focus is not on anything but convincing the feds to keep energy prices cheap.

Something more powerful than Barry Bonds...

2007-03-20T16:49:00.000-04:00

The San Francisco Giants are planning to install solar panels on their stadium to generate power for the grid.

Together with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) the SF baseball club has partnered to put in 590 solar panels that'll generate 123 kilowatts of power - however all that juice won't be used for the stadium's electricity needs, it'll benefit the city instead.

I think this is a pretty darn cool idea, although it doesn't seem like an awful lot of power I suppose every little bit helps - and maybe it'll give the press a little distraction from the whole Bonds/steroid scandal.

Via Green Options from the Examiner

And speaking of water...

2007-03-19T18:53:00.000-04:00

If you live in NYC you can support the United Nations World Water Day through the Tap Project.

This Thursday, March 22, dine at a participating restaraunt (click here for a full list) and add a buck to your bill which will go towards UNICEF efforts at helping children around the world get access to safe drinking water.

Project Bottled Water

2007-03-19T18:17:00.000-04:00

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has taken on a new mission: Project Bottled Water.

Project Bottled Water is a study on the safety of bottled water and their first project is gathering data on labels. So if you've bought a bottle o' H20 tell the folks over at EWG about it.

Click here to submit your bottled water label info.

Go Green for St. Paddy's Day

2007-03-17T14:25:00.000-04:00

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a "be green on St. Patrick's day" push. Sure it's a little cheezy - but if you're wearing green may as well be green too. Right?

A quick Google search revealed a few items of note for those playing up the green theme:

ConEd sent out a press release that got picked up by CSRwire.com (among other places) pushing their green power, or ConEd Solutions where customers can opt to pay a flat fee on their power bill and the utility company uses that money towards purchasing wind power and other alternatives.

Wal-Mart got a little plug on CNN Money (among a few other places) for customers to "truly go 'green'" with organic offereings from the retail giant.

The University of Nebraska gave the "go green" a nutritional spin asking students to eat more green (and thus healthy) on the 17th (and I don't think green beer counts.)

Verizon Wireless program Hopeline asked for unwanted cell phone donations in a "go green" effort - the phones will be reactivated and put to use in needy communities or recycled responsibly.

And well, then I'm down to about the 5th page in the Google search... maybe next year the enviro-green link will get more play on the Irish (American) holiday.

The Army Corps of Engineers came up with a bad idea

2007-03-15T12:04:00.000-04:00

Insurance agencies take note: The Army Corps of Engineers is telling people to build in flood plains.

"Nationwide permits" which are issued by the Corps to regulate activity in wetlands and other water areas are updated every five years. You might apply for one of these permits if you wanted to change the course of a small stream on your land; if you're a developer and want to fill in some wetlands; or if you're a mining company and want to dispose of your mining waste in small bodies of water.

These permits are intended to protect lands from environmental destruction, however there's a little bit of controversy around this year's changes. According to an AP article, the new "clarifications" could encourage development in high risk, flood-prone areas. According to the Sierra Club the new verbage gives mining companies a greater license to destroy water supplies.

It doesn't seem like anyone will make any big stink about this right now, nor will it be the new enviro-cause of the month. Sierra Club has made their statement and the regulations have pretty much made it under the radar. This is rather unfortunate because it really does tie in to THE enviro-cause of the year - climate change.

If in fact new development does occur (as new development often does) in areas that are at higher risk for climate-change-induced-"natural disasters" two things will occur. First of all the natural environment/ecosystem will be stripped of its natural ability to cope with excess amounts of rain/water. Secondly, this will compound the situation for whatever structures are created upon this area, which will more than likely have been transformed into personal property or some sort of business. These things carry value and when damaged need insurance money to compensate their owners. And that's just physical property value, which doesn't include any type of loss of life that could occur, especially if schools or hospitals are built in such locations.

I've always thought it was just plain silly to build something in a flood plain (unless it is built to accommodate flooding). But to encourage development in these high risk areas just doesn't seem to be the right direction to be going in. Hopefully the insurance industry will step in to discourage some of that.

Via SustainableBusiness.com; MSNBC/AP; Army Corps of Engineers; Sierra Club

The Flu Bug Bit Me

2007-03-12T22:22:00.000-04:00

Somehow I usually manage to escape the flu season unscathed (and no, I don't go the vaccination route), but this weekend I was zapped. Headache, chills, fever (at least I'm pretty darned sure I had a fever since I don't have a thermometer), fatigue (the kind where you have to stay in bed because, well, you can't really move kind of fatigue) and headache, plus a little of the sniffles and a slight cough (did I mention headache?)

I'm anti-antibiotics and OTC stuff when it comes to the common cold/flu, with the exception of a little Advil to ease the head pain (which I think by now - a record 4 days in a row without coffee - has turned into caffeine withdrawl headaches - but that's another self-diagnosis/blog post altogether). No NyQuil, DayQuil, or other pretend to make you feel better meds for me (plus, they give me really weird dreams, so I prefer to not to take them in general.) I usually stick to the bedrest, fluids, and vitamin C routine (I'm sure that's recommended somewhere...and I am feeling mostly better.)

So I thought there may be some eco-friendly flu remedies out there (of course I'm checking AFTER the fact...) - and as I expected Ideal Bite had a couple of things...

On the prevention end:
A few hand sanitizer solutions so you're not caught off guard without some good ol fashioned soap'n'water.

For a little relief:
Some herbal cold remedies

I think I'll go get a little hand sanitizer - the subway is an awful germy place....

Green Options - Check it out

2007-03-08T14:50:00.000-05:00

Wanted to highlight Green Options again. I've been writing over there since their launch in early Feb. Check out the blog (and my posts over there), the Green Report (which is very cool) and all the other great stuff on this growing green space.

Going Green for Lent

2007-03-05T09:10:00.000-05:00

A church in Federal Way, WA (that's just outside of Seattle) is getting it's congregation to give up their bad enviro habits for lent.

During a six week program called "Caretakers of Creation" that began Ash Wednesday and goes through Palm Sunday, members of the Calvary Lutheran Church are recycling, starting up community gardents, making the light bulb switch, conserving water and electricity, and will give up their computers and I-pods on "no technology" day.

I think this is a great way to raise community awareness of and involvement in environmentally responsible practices. The only draw back I see is that it's going end in a few weeks and folks may have a tendency to go back to their old ways after the (obligitory) "sacrifice". Hopefully these Federal Way church goers will see all the good they're doing and will want to continue or at least incorporate a few of these enviro actions into their daily lives all year round.

Incidentally this is the same city where the Al Gore movie was banned from schools, but according to the Tacoma News Tribune article, they may show the Academy Award winning doc.

Curse of the Honey Bee

2007-02-28T16:15:00.000-05:00

Beekeepers won't be the only ones feeling the sting of millions of missing honey bees, soon we all will.

Researchers and bee experts are a bit baffled and have a string of theories as to why the beloved bees just aren't returning home after their days out searching for pollen. Part of the problem comes from the varroa mites, which infest the little bees and explode in their throats (or so I've been told) effectively killing the flying pollinators in droves.

Who needs bees, you may ask? Bees are crucial in helping to pollinate fields and crops (ie your food and potential bio-fuel supply). Bee keepers have been travelling around the country with their buzzing hives to help pollinate fruit, vegetable and nut crops because the little pollinators have been declining over the years. According to a recent NY Times article honeybees pollinate over $14 million worth of crops each year.

Not as cute and cuddly as the polar bears, bees may be yet another casualty in our ever warming world. It makes me wonder - just how many canaries do we need to tell us we've got a problem in our mine?

Via NY Times and ENN.

Al Gore Wins! Al Gore Wins!

2007-02-26T12:05:00.000-05:00

If you haven't already heard, the Al Gore movie won for best documentary feature at the Academy Awards (insert registred trademark logo here). And while it is no secret what I think about the movie (quick recap - it's a video presentation about Gore's slideshow on climate change, and not a brilliant piece of doc filmmaking), I am glad to see that it won.

So what does this win mean for the "climate crisis" movement and for the movie? Well first of all getting the academy nod gives the movie a ton of credibility and prestige, and implies to the general public that it is a must-see movie. Thus more people will see it, and more people will be informed about the basics of climate change. A win-win situation.

It is also an indicator of how far the green movement has come. In the span of a year mainstream coverage of global warming and all things green has exploded. This Oscar win will mean that the mainstream coverage will continue (for the time being anyway) and seeing that the green angle is hot, companies will push the eco-friendly aspects of their products or services. We'll also see an explosion of green focused tv shows as programmers are also catching on.

However, the down side of this could mean an increase in green washing and the oversimplification of associated environmental issues, not to mention the great possibility of mis-information and a rise in skeptic spin (or a resurgence in manufactured debate.)

As for the 3+ hour televised award ceremony itself, I thought that the Al Gore/Leonardo DiCaprio interchange was amusing (and a good plug for the green efforts at the Oscars), and was glad to see Melissa Etheridge's song that played during the closing credits of An Inconvenient Truth, also got the nod. I also liked the fact that the speeches for the green wins called for greater action from the celeb crowd, the public and the government.

Whether or not Gore hops into the 2008 prez race, climate change will be an issue in the run up to elections due to the success of the Al Gore movie.

Links to my previous posts on the Al Gore movie:
Al Gore reportedly thrilled
Al Gore movie gets Oscar nod
Al Gore movie banned from Seattle area school
The Al Gore movie

Enviro-spam

2007-02-25T16:08:00.000-05:00

If you do any blogging - or even if you've got an e-mail account - you get spam. Blogging spam usually involves random press-releases regarding something topically related. They're always impersonal, and even show up in comments (many times.)

So I was thoroughly amused by Shea Gunther's post over at Green Options. "A Funny Way to End the Week - Adventures with a Spammy Consultant." Shea got one of those impersonal press-release things from Willi Paul pushing his green consultant business. He tells of how he intended to forward it to one of his colleagues (including the word "lame" in the response) but actually replied to the sender, Willi Paul. Seeing his error, Shea laughed, shrugged it off and hoped that Willi would be understanding. Willi wasn't amused and replied to Shea with a big ol' F-You (spelled out of course.)

This of course amused me, and I hope you'll also find it amusing. Share it with your friends.

Here's the link to Shea's full post.

Your wine is in trouble...

2007-02-22T16:00:00.000-05:00

If you don't care about the polar bears, maybe you care about your wine.

A study by Florence University linking the effects of rain and temperature to wine production found that increasingly high temperatures and intense rains are likely to threaten the quality of Tuscan wines. Italy's farmers association warned the cultivation of olive trees, which grow in a mild climate, has almost reached the Alps.

The AP article mentions that Tuscan vineyard owners aren't too concerned though, afterall it may be a good 20 years or so before there's a real noticeable difference.

It's nice to see that folks are making the bigger connections on the global warming front beyond melting icecaps, but I don't want to hear them complaining in 20 years when the Chianti grapes are shriveling up...

Should Lunch Boxes Contain Lead?

2007-02-20T08:44:00.000-05:00

The most obvious answer should be a resounding NO. Absolutely not! But some soft vinyl lunch boxes were found to contain lead in a federal study last year.

However, according to an AP article:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found "no instances of hazardous levels." And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.

First of all I thought that the W administration got rid of the Freedom of Information Act altogether, so I'm glad to know it is still in effect. Secondly, whose side is the Consumer Product Safety Commission on anyhow? The consumers or the producers?

The results of the tests found levels of lead in these soft vinyl lunch boxes (as lead is a stabilizing agent in vinyl), but the levels were deemed insignificant, as was the potential transfer from vinyl to food, or to the children carrying the lunch boxes and eating the food.

Since this info originally came out Wal-Mart agreed to stop selling them, and manufacturers worked to eliminate the toxic stuff altogether. But the bottom line is lunch boxes have lunch in them. Lunch goes into our bodies (and the bodies of kids), a place where lead should not go. So lunchboxes shouldn't contain lead, let alone any other toxic substance.

The Center for Environmental Health has a few lead in lunchbox tips and FAQs. And Jasmin over at Worsted Witch has quite a few non-vinyl lunch box alternatives worth checking out, like the Plastic Melamine Bento Box, the Billboard Lunch Sack, Reed Lunch Boxes, and recycled aluminum can lunch boxes.

For further reading on lead in lunch...

Test drive a hybrid via NY Times

2007-02-19T09:50:00.000-05:00

The NY Times article "A Civics Lesson with a Multiple Choice Test" takes the reader on a test drive of three Honda Civics: Civic EX (gasoline), the Civic Hybrid (gas/electric) and the Civic GX (natural gas).

The winner?

All three Civic sedans have their merits and each appeals to particular sensibilities. For the best driving experience, the conventional EX is the hands-down winner. Save-the-planet types can take heart in either the Civic Hybrid or GX, since both have emissions as low as anything but an all-electric vehicle. The Hybrid uses the least fossil fuel, but it still adds to the coffers of OPEC. The natural gas GX is not only the cleanest car sold in America, it contributes to the nation’s energy independence by using a domestic fuel in plentiful supply. But the GX is simply not available — yet — in most of the United States, so the Hybrid may be the best compromise.

While I wouldn't think about driving a natural gas car, I might consider a hybrid or a diesel if I were on the market for a car. But I definitley wouldn't check out anything before reading up on the Consumer Report's guide to fuel efficient vehicles which compares EVERYTHING on the road (and you'd be surprised, it's not just the SUV's that are gas guzzlers...)

Electricity Prices Soar But No One Mentions Conservation

2007-02-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

A big ol' article in the NY Times business section highlights the rising price of electricity. The reporter talks to a mayor of a small Illinois town who is quoted as saying, "People should not be in the position of choosing between keeping warm or buying medicine and food, and I fear that too many are going to be in that situation."

The article goes on to talk about regulating the electricity markets - or deregulating them - and then toys with the question of who is going to pay for building more power plants (coal fired I'm assuming). The consumer via higher electric bills? California has shown (by way of Enron) that having electricity price caps and calling it deregulation is a recipe for a very brown-out disaster. (Have a read through Vijay Vaitheeswaran's Power to the People for additional insight.)

What the NY Times article fails to mention is that people will have to choose whether to stay warm or go hungry. But the reason isn't due to higher electricity rates. It is because 1) our buildings/homes are inefficient, and 2) there is no incentive to conserve energy use during peak load time when energy prices are higher than at base load times.

Instead of energy regulation/deregulation politicos should be talking about how to make our living and working quarters waste less energy. Let's work with architects, developers, contractors, landlords to start requiring better insulation, windows, and broilers. (Andrew Padian of Steven Winter Associates gives a very convincing presentation on this matter.)

The positive side of higher electric bills however is similar to the spike in gasoline prices - people will inevitably think about their electric bills, and alternative sources will make headlines. The downside, people will blame the government and utility companies instead of reducing their own power consumption.

IPCC - too conservative

2007-02-14T10:09:00.000-05:00

There's a couple of great articles in this week's issue of New Scientist (on newsstands now). They dig a little deeper into the process of the IPCC and how the group of scientists came to "agree" on the science and the terms represented in the summary of the report.

There are certain aspects of climate science and various indicators that are still under question. However, one should not read into this as there being a debate on the matter of climate change, but rather that there are indications that the situation could be much worse than presented.

The article, "But here's what they didn't tell us. If the official verdicts on climate change seems bad enough, the real story looks far worse," tells of science regarding the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. If they are really as close to disintegration as some think, the sea level rise would actually be measured in meters rather than the predicted 3.1 centemeters. Other points of worry to some scientists that won't conclusively make it into the report: the slowing gulf stream, and "carbon cycle feedbacks" or the relase of methane and other GHG as a result of permafrost melt.

The sidebar on the same page as that article, "Reasons to be cautious" discusses the debate over the terminology of "extremely likely," "likely," and "very likely" in regards to human activity causing the problem. After a 10 hour debate, and reluctance from Chinese and Saudi Arabian scientists, "very likely" was reached as meaning at least 90 percent, whereas just "likely" means greater than 66 percent, and "extremely" well over 95 percent.

While relatively short, these articles offer a fresh perspective (although saturated with a little gloom and doom) that isn't widely published in the reports about the report.

A rose is a rose even when toxic

2007-02-13T11:14:00.000-05:00

Tis the season for news stories on flowers, chocolate and love. Of course the green blogosphere is covering these topics from every green angle possible - but I was surprised to see this AP story come across the MSN headlines, "Valentine Roses Sprayed with Toxic Chemicals."

BOGOTA, Colombia (Feb. 13) - It's probably the last thing most people think about when buying roses - by the time the bright, velvety flowers reach your Valentine, they will have been sprayed, rinsed and dipped in a battery of potentially lethal chemicals.

Most of the toxic assault takes place in the waterlogged savannah surrounding the capital of Colombia, the world's second-largest cut-flower producer after the Netherlands. It produces 62 percent of all flowers sold in the United States.

With 110,000 employees - many of them single mothers - and annual exports of $1 billion, the industry provides an important alternative to growing coca, source crop of the Andean nation's better known illegal export: Cocaine. But these economic gains come at a cost to workers' health and Colombia's environment, according to consumer advocates.

The U.S. requires imported flowers to be bug-free, but unlike edible fruits and vegetables they are not tested for chemical residues.

(My emphasis of course - finish reading the article here.)

And what's the easiest way to get your buds bug-free? Pesticides! Of course the article goes on to say that the South American flower farmers need to keep up with the competition on other continents, and flowers are a big export to America and they really need the cash.

But at what price? Workers in these flower farms are getting sick because of this practice (even though "Causal links between chemicals and individual illnesses are hard to prove because chronic pesticide exposure has not been studied in enough detail.") This is not new news. It has been documented for years, however it is nice to see it exposed in the mainstream media. (Atlhough I doubt that a blockbuster movie about flower growers in Bogota is in the works...)

I'd say hold off on your flower purchase until your local growing season, and then buy from your local farmers markets or as straight to the source as you can go.

Snow, Snow and More Snow

2007-02-12T09:17:00.000-05:00

Upstate NY has been hit with a relentless case of snow. So much snow that NY gov'nor Eliot Spitzer declared a state of emergency. Of course snow is nothing new to this community, but this much snow - around 11 feet of the white stuff - is something to talk about. And the weather reports indicate there is more to come.

Of course another little weather anomaly to file as evidence for the global warming anomaly databases.

Via NY Times.

NY sues ExxonMobil

2007-02-08T18:09:00.000-05:00

There's a half-century-old oil slick underneath Brooklyn, NY. NY State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, is finally doing something about it. He's suing ExxonMobil (and intends to sue BP, Chevron, Keyspan, and Phelps Dodge which don't make quite a stir when you put 'em in the headline).

These companies have at one point had operations in this industrial waterfront area, which is known (although not widely) as one of the most polluted sites in NYC.

The NY Times reports in this particular article that there are 8 million gallons of oil and petroleum byproducts under the surface of Greenpoint, however other accounts say there are upwards of 17 to 30 million gallons of the gooey black stuff hanging out down there (but hey, who's counting?) The fact is the stuff has been oozing for years into uber-toxic Newtown creek and up into the soils above.

Current Gov of NYS (former state atty general), Eliot Spitzer, who ran the show for a while on this, praised Cuomo's move (did they doubt he would?) Praise also came from the Riverkeeper Alliance who also took on the oil giant on this issue in 2004.

My previous posts on oil slicks:
The joys of oil

And on ExxonMobil:
Energy Security - ExxonMobil
Another op-ed from ExxonMobil
And now back to a message from ExxonMobil...
ExxonMobil refutes peak oil theory with op-ed ad

Let the climate change games begin

2007-02-07T09:56:00.000-05:00

China has come out with an official response to the IPCC's report of last friday: We're not gonna do a damn thing about it.

Yep. They're sticking to the "poor us and our developing economy" thing, plus they're throwing in a little "well the US started it why don't they do something first." This is what I call progress.

And in the same NY Times article Brazil of all countries is hopping into the "don't tell us what to do" mix, saying big money countries should lay off on their advice about destroying the Amazon rain forests.

What if for a day - one day - we could put our nasty politics and power play aside and envision the world's countries all on one team. Take out the competition and figure out some real solutions, because in the end pointing fingers and stalling isn't doing any of us any good.

Ecomagination new ads

2007-02-07T00:07:00.000-05:00

I think I'm the last in getting around to writing a blog post on this - but if you haven't already check out GE's new Ecomagination ads.

These highly produced, feel good TV ads; clever online ads (I like the salt shaker/water one); and a nice selection of print ads really do make one feel good about GE.

Say what you will about greenwashing, but if a major corporation like this can see the way of the future and modify their products to reflect that, tell everyone about their new products and vision, get a positive response from doing so AND profit from it, maybe more companies should strive to do the same.

Green Options is LIVE

2007-02-06T00:14:00.000-05:00

Green Options, a new website dedicated to "Greening the Good Life" is alive and kicking.

So go check it out. Tell your friends to check it out. Oh, and read the blog. It's pretty cool. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm a regular contributor... it is cool. But hey, don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself.)

Horsey on Climate Change

2007-02-04T10:52:00.000-05:00

Seattle PI cartoonist David Horsey on the new climate change lobbyists...

My previous posts on Horsey's enviro commentary:

Horsey - "The Bush Environmental Calendar"

Horsey on Disappearing Ice Floes (this one features polar bears)

Horsey on the environment

Climate change - the report is in

2007-02-02T08:58:00.000-05:00

The report we've all been waiting for is in.

(Drum roll please...)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released the Fourth Assessment Report on climate change (the 20pg summary for policy makers is available for download online.) Note to policy makers: GO READ IT! Everyone else can check out the NYTimes article.

The last report (or rather the basis for much of the contrived controversy over the past five years on the topic) was issued in 2001.

Here's a few highlights:

Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.... Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

If I'm not mistaken I think they just said "human activities" (upon rereading I do see that it does in fact mention human activities are responsible - wow that's a bold statement.)

Oh, look here, where the scientist consortium says with emphasis that the planet is in fact warming:

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2.

Here's the bit where they confirm sea levels are rising:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.

And expanding on that:

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906–2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901-2000 given in the TAR of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850 – 1899 to 2001 – 2005 is 0.76 [0.57 to 0.95]°C. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values. {3.2}... Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise.

Here's the part where they link in some weather changes (noting that not ALL weather patterns are changing however):

More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years. Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent (see Table SPM-1). There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.

Then they put it in a paleoclimactic perspective:

Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.

And again, back to the human factor (as if we didn't feel guilty enough as it is...):

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, includin ocean warming, continental average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

And for those of you who are still caught up on the volcanic eruption/natural occurrence thing:

It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed becaushave taken place. The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

Then there's the magic 8 ball predictions for the future: the snow cover will decrease; sea ice will also decrease; expect more high heats, extreme rains, and tropical cyclones; sea levels will rise (mostly attribued to the Greenland melt); but hey, good news the Antarctic ice sheet is too cold for widespread surface melting.

Of course, these are just a few select excerpts (although it does feel like I copied and pasted the whole thing.) There are some great graphs and maps on the final few pages.

But what is the significance of this report?

Basically they're saying that things haven't gotten better since the last report, only this time, instead of taking the tone that "we're pretty sure this is happening," the fourth assessment is more of a "we're pretty DAMN sure this is happening - now policymakers get off your arses and do something about it!!"

Now can we PLEASE officially call the debate over and get going on some real action?

Can sustainable solutions go mass scale?

2007-02-01T11:00:00.000-05:00

We see it with organic produce and "free-range" poultry. Scaling up and generating quantities for the masses to meet increasing demand often results in the same problems that the solutions created were trying to get away from.

Case study: Palm Oil.

The NY Times reports that this great sustainable energy solution has bred a number of nighmarish problems. The Netherlands began using palm oil (a biofuel) to run power plants (so much cleaner than coal.) This turned out to work so well that they started making machines that would only use palm oil. This trend spread and the demand for palm oil began to rise.

Enter the problem.

As the demand rises the supply must grow to meet it, so growers in Malaysia and Indonesia had to increase production of palm oil (their new and increasing source of cash). "Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there. Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere." Not very sustainable.

The EU is now reconsidering their biofuel policies to take into account how the palm oil is being produced. This should also be cause for concern for Americans as in his State of the Union reading, the prez called for increased production of ethanol and biodiesel. Will this production come at any cost? Will it be okay to use pesticides and genetically modified corn in our fuel? Will our fuel crops be separated from our food crops? How much energy (coal burned) is being expended in the creation of these biofuels?

Biofuels are a good idea. The intention is to reduce dirty emissions by using a (theoretically) renewable resource. But if we're calling something sustainable, we should understand that sustainable has to look at more than just the end result and look at the entire lifecycle and the ability for that lifecycle to continue indefinitely (or for a while anyway.)

Aussies turn to sewers for drinking water

2007-01-30T16:28:00.000-05:00

There's nothing like a little resource scarcity to spur innovation.

The AP reports that due to droughts and lack of rainfall in the downunder state of Queensland, officials are entertaining the idea of recycling sewer water into *poof* drinking water.

And who said lack of clean drinking water was relegated to the "developing" world?

Anyone up for a little adapting to our changing conditions yet?

For more on the Australian water situation (and the talk of importing water) check out David Jeffery's Oikos.

Because I like the whole adapt topic:
Beyond emission reductions
Climate Change - Mitigate or Adapt
Europe Wilting
Global Warming Preparedness Act

Global warming poster child: polar, um I mean, the grizzly bear

2007-01-30T00:07:00.000-05:00

While melting glaciers and endangered polar bears get all the press, there are numerous other "canary in the coal mine" occurrences that serve to illustrate the effects of global warming.

A NY Times article features the Rocky Mountain ecosystem - exploding beetle populations, dying pine trees, and grizzly bears. The avg temperature is becoming increasingly favorable for mountain pine beetles, which love to kill whitebark pines, and whitebark pines are a favorite staple of the grizzly bear's diet. So no pines = no bears.

There are efforts towards saving the grizzlies and there's talk of putting them on the endangered species list along with their white coated brethren up north, but saving one species - be it polar or grizzly bear - will require saving thousands of other not as furry or photogenic species that are dependent on that same declining ecosystem.

So pick your bear to get people to donate to the cause, but remember the bear can't live without its habitat.

My previous related posts on the whole ecosystem/species/industry link:
We killed the baiji
Organic fish?
Wheeling and dealing with the timber industry
It takes a polar bear

B&N asks readers to Save the Environment

2007-01-29T10:32:00.000-05:00

No, it isn't my locally owned neighborhood bookstore, it's Barnes and Noble - the four story B&N in Union Square. A warm, expanse of a place on a chilly Sunday afternoon in NYC where one can puruse the racks of magazines and scores of books at leisure. (And for the record, every time I'm searching out a particular book title I always go to Strand first to see if they have it.)

Not only was green a popular cover story on several magazines - including the Economist "The Greening of America" - the environment was a topic of a side display facing the high trafficked area near the escalators.

"Save the Environment" featured Joseph Romm's new book Hell and High Water (anyone read that one yet?); 1001 Little Ways to Save our Planet; the paper back version of Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (I highly recommend that one); and of course the picture book version of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth (among a few other climate related titles - oh and the massive WorldChanging book was stacked on the floor below.)

While I didn't see a whole lot of people taking in this little display (and I question a few of the selected readings), I commend the book display powers that be for creating this little featurette.

Snow in Anchorage makes headlines

2007-01-28T13:13:00.000-05:00

Since when is snow in Anchorage, AK worthy of headlines?

An AP brief in the NY Times this morning says that Anchorage has had more snow this winter so far than is average for an entire winter on average.

"Last year at this time, crews were patching potholes created by a warming trend, and water was running in the streets... In a weather pattern attributed in part to a shift in the jet stream, the Rocky Mountains have had a series of blizzards in the past few weeks and extreme cold in central and Southern California has wiped out citrus crops, while the Northeast has had one of the mildest, least-snowy winters on record."

What's the problem with this? While people (ie the general public/mainstream media) often make the connection between warming weather trends and global warming (El Nino talk aside) the excess rains, and snows and cold weather anomalies aren't usually linked to climate change. For example, climate change talk has all but ceased, and New Yorkers have calmed down now that "normal" January weather has arrived.

Of course there is no hard proof that these little weather blips are in fact connected to the greater global climate shift - but when you add up all the unusual weather conditions around the world - and especially when snow in Anchorage makes the headlines - it does make me wonder...

$128,000 maximum fine for toxic spills in China

2007-01-26T09:36:00.000-05:00

The AP reports via The NY Times that Jilin Petrochemical Company was fined $128,000 for "one of the country’s worst toxic spills".

A blast at the chemical plant in Jilin province in November of 2005 let loose around 100 tons of benzene into the Songuha river leaving millions of people without clean water.

According to the BBC, China announced last year that more than $1.2 billion would be spent on the clean-up.

Back when the explosion and subsequent spill was acknolwedged by the Chinese govt, it was also said those responsible for the Benzene slick would be punished. (See this BBC article for a timeline of events surrounding the spill - the acknowlegement came 10 days after the explosion, and an apology to Russia for the cross border contamination 3 days after that.)

China recieved a lot of flack in the international arena for the supposed cover-up (archived in the pay-to-read section of the NY Times online) and it certainly increased tensions with Russia.

But I must ask - is $128,000 (1 million Yuan) a mere slap on the wrist for a petrochemical company? This is the MAXIMUM fine for such toxic releases in the country, which seems to me hardly an incentive to keep things safe. Granted the enviro protections in China have been criticized for not being up to snuff, and even in the US many companies get off easy, but it never ceases to amaze me that penalties and precautions are NEVER more expensive than the clean-up costs (not to mention the ecological and human health damage incurred.)

Links to some related toxic spill/clean-up posts:
Toxic Sludge in Africa
Oil - a valuable commodity?

Fight Climate Change = Fight Terrorism

2007-01-24T10:29:00.000-05:00

Well if anyone could pull off this link it'd be GW's speech writers.

The message in the enviro portion of the prez's State of the Union Address last night could be summed up as: our efforts in the war on terror will help us "confront" climate change.

I think it went a little something like this:
America needs a stable energy supply, and foreign oil makes us vulnerable to hostile regimes (aka terrorists), so diversifying our energy supply will make us less vulnerable to said terrorists, and clean coal, safe nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel and woodchips will help us diversify.

Then, if we take action to reduce gas imports, increase fuel efficiency, and increase the domestic fuel supply and IF AND ONLY IF magical technlogical breakthroughs appear, we will be less dependent on oil [read: less vulnerable to terrorists] and be able to confront climate change.(Applause.)

Of course there may be other ways of interpreting the speech - I don't think political analysts have stopped analyzing it since the final applause broke at 10p last night and GW was swarmed with autograph hounds (your elected congressional officials). You can check out the full text here. Interpret until your heart is content.

More on the other enviro related claims/promises/action items in a bit - but in the mean time here's my favorite excerpt of the night [emphasis mine of course]:

"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)"

Photo via whitehouse.gov

Al Gore reportedly "Thrilled"

2007-01-23T14:27:00.000-05:00

And who wouldn't be really? The AP reports (via Yahoo) that Al Gore was quote-thrilled-unquote by his movie's nomination. His e-mail statement is also quoted as saying, "This film proves that movies really can make a difference." Awwww....

And in case you're not sure who Al Gore is (aside from the featured presentation giver in An Inconvenient Truth) the article also mentions that he's the guy who lost in the race for prez to GW in 2000.

Ecorazzi also picked up on the big nomination.

Update at 3:50p
Oh and so did Grist. And David Roberts over at Grist has suggested starting a betting pool...

Al Gore movie gets Oscar nod

2007-01-23T10:21:00.000-05:00

An Inconvenient Truth was among the nominees for best Documentary Feature for the Academy Awards (insert registered trademark logo here).

Personally, I don't necessarily feel that it deserves an Oscar. From a strictly filmmaking standpoint - I stand by my initial review - it is a movie version of Al Gore's slide show. Plain and simple. Sure you've got some feel good, Gore family history used as transitions to spice it up and lend a human element to the climate change issue, but it is a movie version of a power point presentation.

The power behind the nomination though is that Al Gore and the producers of this movie brought an important issue to light in the mainstream consciousness. Gore's presentation is a very good presentation and lays out the facts (hockey stick graph and all) in understandable terms. I mean how can you NOT get the big picture after seeing ice melt from underneath an animated polarbear.

An Inconvenient Truth opened the eyes of a lot of Americans and got people talking and thinking about the world around them. A brilliant piece of movie making this is not. Deserving of a little gold statuette? We'll see. But it is a powerful educational/awareness tool that I believe has made a real difference in bringing climate change to the national agenda.

Links to my previous posts on Gore action:
Tis the Season for Gore
Al Gore e-mails me
Al Gore at a stadium near you

Links to my previous posts on the Al Gore movie:
Al Gore movie banned from Seattle area school
The Al Gore Movie

So you think green is funny...

2007-01-22T15:10:00.000-05:00

The soon to be launched Green Options is looking for a writer who can have fun with green issues.

The search for a humor writer for "A Lighter Side of Green Contest" is open now and closes Friday, Feb. 2.

Green Options Senior Editor Jeff McIntire-Strasburg says on the post: "If you think you’ve got the goods to tickle our funny bones, write a 250-500 word column that addresses some element of the green life in a humorous manner, and send it to lighterside@greenoptions.com in MS Word or rich text format by February 1st. Feel free to poke fun at your fellow greenies (we can use it occasionally!)."

The Green Options site will officially launch on Feb. 5.

South Park takes on the Hybrid

2007-01-20T16:09:00.000-05:00

I don't watch a whole lot of TV and without cable I miss a fair amount of the comedy central satirical gems - like this South Park episode - but thank goodness for You Tube.

Via Mark Caserta's 3r living blog South Park took on the Hybrid and all the smugness that goes along with Hybrid owners.

The moral of the story: drive a hybrid but don't be smug about it. The whole episode is posted in 3 parts on You Tube (legally or illegally I do not know... but I enjoyed every minute of it.)

25 percent renewables by 2025

2007-01-19T11:02:00.000-05:00

House and Senate concurrent resolution (is that like a joint resolution?) are calling for 25% of energy generation in the US to be provided by renewables by 2025. This is a re-introduction of legislation that first hit the floor last June but subsequently died.

A quick trip to 25x25.org will give you all the brief info on the goal and what constitutes renewable, who supports it etc. (even though they haven't put out a press release since Nov. of 06 - but maybe they're just a little tied up in DC to worry about updating their website...)

I'd love to see this go through with support from the red and blue sides but ultimately it seems a little conservative. Of course 25 is definitely better than a mere 11 or 12% - and if it is successful that will be a big step in the right direction, but it really just seems like some brain child of a clever press staffer - 25 by 20-25.

25x25.org talks a little bit about renewables but the prominent focus is about building support for the legislation and which politicos are behind it - which is probably good legislation 101, but it falls short of saying how 25% will be reached.

I have sneaking suspicion this 25% will be solely focused on mass-scale grid power, when it should really incorporate incentives and other efforts towards micro and distributed generation to take some of the load off of the main grid through renewables. There should also be a concurrent push to get big energy sucking companies to purchase renewables (proven possible by Whole Foods, NYU and the US military) which would help in the 25 by 25 goal - even if the legislation gets stuck or lost in one of the houses in Washington.

Via ENS

Starbucks takes milk hormone free

2007-01-18T08:35:00.000-05:00

Although the retail coffee giant was holding off announcing the big news until all of its stores were completely hormone free - according to an article in the Seattle PI yesterday, Starbucks has stopped using milk which contains rBGH in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Northern California and New England (whatever New England means.)

I'd say this is pretty good news, even though the article mentions the company will likely pass the cost onto the consumer by raising prices (there isn't a press release on www.starbucks.com about the switch) I can't see that an extra couple of cents will break the bank for customers already paying $4 and some change for their frothy beverages.

Now, if they'd only make the switch to all fairtraded coffee....

Greenland - the New Frontier

2007-01-17T11:27:00.000-05:00

The NY Times reported yesterday on new cartography efforts for Greenland.

As the glaciers melt modern day explorers are staking claims on new land discoveries. What was once under ice is now exposed creating an "I saw it first and so I get to name it after me!" competition in the region.

One explorer quoted in the article does admit that this change carries a downside with it, “There is a dark side to this,” he said about the new island. “We felt the exhilaration of discovery. We were exploring something new. But of course, there was also something scary about what we did there. We were looking in the face of these changes, and all of us were thinking of the dire consequences.” Yeah - if all goes well, their claim to fame will be submerged - but at least the cartographers will still be in business.

Greenland sidenote: Grists' David Roberts says that Greenland is just overreacting to this whole global warming thing.

New Year - New Phone Book

2007-01-16T00:05:00.000-05:00

I happened to be walking in my neighborhood and noticed a few guys frantically running to and from a slow moving budget rental truck. They were distributing stacks upon stacks of brand, spankin' new phone books. No stoop was left behind - every single residential door was graced with updated contact information for the entire borough of Brooklyn.

Now, can you tell me when was the last time you flipped through the yellow pages to look up a phone number?

I understand this is a community service thing or paid advertising or something altruistic - but in our digital age (we'll suspend the e-waste topic for this posting) is this tower of telephone books really necessary? Even though they are made on paper that contains "up to" 40% post-consumer recycled material, what if they weren't printed at all? Or what if half as many were printed? (And a side note - they are in spanish and english - same info, two languages, one book)

I think it is time for the phone book to go or at least be reduced. Maybe they can be sent out to those who specifically request one by checking a box on their monthly (landline) phone bill; or maybe a limited number of phone books can be made available at select locations for pick up by those who want one.

However, on a positive note, at least your old volumes can be recycled...

Ski area growth omits global warming

2007-01-15T12:01:00.000-05:00

There's an article in the NY Times today "Where Snow is all that Glitters, Worry Over Growth's Effect." It highlights a ski area (not resort) in Arapahoe Basin outside of Denver Co. The ski area is facing criticism from "environmentalists" and die-hard skiiers who say that the proposed expansion of said ski area will require the cutting of trees, and will bring undesireable, high-brow skiiers that will change the rustic feel of the area.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the ski area's expansion is mindful of neighbors, takes into consideration its new environmental impacts and plans accordingly (which isn't addressed in this article) they should be able to expand. Afterall, the owner is quoted in the article as saying that growth is crucial to survival, and maybe the area needs a little economic boost from additional ski bunny dollars. (Of course I'm not an avid skiier so I welcome any perspective from those who are.)

The thing that isn't mentioned at all in this article is global warming (the two key words mentioned in nearly every other article these days). Of course the grand Rocky Mountain range may be a little ways off from feeling the heat and its snow pack may be able to last quite a few more years, which will probably keep the current owner in business until his retirement. But any long term ski resort folks should think hard about extending their spring time activities to accommodate long term viability for their areas.

It's the Environment, Stupid. Turns One Year Old

2007-01-13T12:08:00.000-05:00

It was one year ago today when I sat in my tiny room in my Park Slope apartment trying to figure out just what a blog was. My intention from my first post was to explore the relationship between the environment, economics and societies. I think I've pretty much stuck to that and expanded upon it.

In the coming year I'm planning to do more of the same, but will try and add a little more depth to some of my posts. I'm also going to try out a few other things - let me know what you would like to see here.

I'd also like to thank everyone who has been reading It's the Environment, Stupid. from the beginning (Frank, that's pretty much you if you're still reading), those of you who've found me along the way - especially Jeff from Sustainablog, Mark from 3r Living, Jasmine from Worsted Witch, and Dan from Environmental Action - and all of you new visitors and regular commenters. My numbers are small but keep growing and that keeps me going knowing that people are reading.

The green explosion that happened in 2006 was encouraging - from Dr. James Hansen, Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio; to Vanity Fair, Elle, and The Economist; to Whole Foods, Wal-Mart and Target; to TreeHugger, WorldChanging and Ecorazzi. With everything from climate change, oil prices, and alternative energy, to eco-fashion, sustainable style and good design - the new environmental movement is shifting and moving forward into the mainstream media, our politics and every day lifestyles.

We've come a long way, but there's still a long way to go. Onward into 2007...

Al Gore movie banned from Seattle area school

2007-01-12T10:36:00.000-05:00

Well not so much banned as restriced - most people think that Washington state is a blue state, but really it is more of a red tinged purple in a lot of areas.

A few creationist parents are criticising a Federal Way (an ex-urb south of Seattle) public school for showing the Al Gore movie. I of course laughed out loud when I saw the Seattle PI headline, and wanted to see what others in the green blogosphere thought of the ordeal.

I concur with Grist's David Roberts take on the story:
"I'm sure someone out there will object to this story as parading well-meaning, heartland-values-holding Americans before us for ridicule. But you know what? Screw that. America lives in terror of non-existent dirty hippies. Meanwhile, troglodytes are running the show from school boards all the way up to the presidency. They deserve a little time in the spotlight. It's long overdue."

I encourage you to read his whole post, it is amusing and he breaks down the PI story and the 'free speech' argument well.

Winter made a brief appearance

2007-01-10T10:09:00.000-05:00

I stepped out briefly in the brisk 32 degree morning for a cup o' (non-fairtraded) joe and encountered a small snow flurry. One of those if-you-blinked-you-missed it things, but I'm sure I wasn't imagining it as the guys at my bagel store also witnessed the strange phenomenon .

Saturday it was spring, wednesday it's winter. But before you start thinking things are "back to normal" I think we've only just hit the tip of this melting iceberg, I expect many more years of fun, surprising weather to come. (My first - and perhaps only - New Year's prediction.)

Air Pollution kills...

2007-01-09T17:31:00.000-05:00

According to an AFP article via Yahoo News air pollution in Iran's capital of Tehran killed 3,600 people in just one month (Oct 23 - Nov 23.) It is reported that, "deaths were caused by heart attacks brought on by the air pollution and that the smog was responsible for 80 percent of the fatal heart problems that month..." The article also says that from March 2005 - March 2006 nearly 10,000 people died from air pollution related causes.

Acknowledging a link to air pollution in these deaths is telling of our times, however it does make me wonder if other polluted cities are making similar links and if these types of numbers world wide are, in fact, underestimated as the causal relationships between air pollution and related deaths might be difficult to prove, or just difficult for other local governments to accept.

R&D Funding from Goldman Sachs

2007-01-08T13:44:00.000-05:00

Goldman Sachs is putting its money to good use and funding R&D for market based solutions to climate change. Green Biz (via WBCSD) reports that Goldman Sachs awarded a combined total of $2.3 in research grants to Resources for the Future, World Resources Institute, and Woods Hole Research Center. The projects funded range from researching viable federal climate change policy; testing emission reduction technologies; and researching the vital role of forests and ecosystems.

Goldman Sachs is often hailed as one of the top environmentally minded companies in the US (if not globally), so it is nice to see such a company stick to their word by investing in a much needed element in this whole global climate change thing - research and development. More funding into R&D will help spur innovation and potentially develop real solutions that can make a difference - in this case, market based solutions.

More on this El Nino thing...

2007-01-06T12:01:00.000-05:00

The limitations of a cell phone camera are heigtened when you're trying to take a picture of the small, fuzzy, soft-green buds that have prematurely sprouted on these trees in Prospect Park. I looked around for blossoming cherry trees, but I guess there aren't any in my end of the park.

So about this whole El Nino thing - at first I was amused by it. Not by the weather phenomenon itself, but the fact that the press is latching on to it with both hands and shoving it down our throats. Like we're supposed to breathe a sigh of relief and forget that anyone ever mentioned global warming in the first place, and that it's okay to continue our luxurious carbon-rich lifestyles without worry.

This is just the wrong message to send, especially since we've been able to get a majority of the mainstream media outlets and a fair number of big politicos to hop on board the climate change band wagon. While this unusually warm NYC winter might legitimately be attributed to El Nino, isn't helping to educate the American public about the complexities of climate change.

Climate change is a long term thing that we're not going to see the full effects of for several decades, but we must be aware of these small yearly changes in weather, the changes in migratory patterns of animals and bugs and how these things will affect our agriculture, our water and energy supply, and our global economic society. This continual denial, or lack of acknowledgement (ie. blaming it on short term weather phenomena) will not help us learn how to cope with (or adapt to) our changing planet.

So get out there and enjoy the 68 degrees in NYC in January, but I don't want to hear complaining on those 100+ days in NYC in August, nor do I want to hear any whining if your basement floods because of excessive, torrential rains in March...

Global Warming: A Misnomer

2007-01-05T14:12:00.000-05:00

I usually forget to look at the weather report before I leave my apartment, so it's always a surprise when I get out to my front stoop and realize I'm wearing the wrong jacket. If I had flipped on the computer this morning, it would have warned me that the highs are supposed to be in the low 60's, possibly hitting 70 this weekend.

But surely this warmness can't be global warming, because according to the weather expert cited in a NY Times article today, "Global warming is a misnomer." The message in the article was just because it is warm in NY, doesn't mean it's warm EVERYWHERE, so therefore it isn't global warming.

Okay. Whatever. The fact is this is one of the warmest winters on record (at least in NYC) and for the past six months Al Gore has been beating this whole global warming thing into our heads, it's inevitable that people are going to jump to conclusions.

But hey, if you're not down with the whole global warming thing, it looks like El Nino is back. So next time you pass one of those poor, confused, sprouting flowers or blossoming trees (or if you happen to pass a polar bear chilling on a melting ice shelf) just reassure them, it's not global warming, it's El Nino.

Greener Consumer Reports

2007-01-03T00:05:00.000-05:00

I know a lot of stuff passes under my radar (and above it for that matter) but I somehow completely missed Consumer Reports environmental website GreenerChoices.org, which was launhed on earthday of '05.

However, their virtual Electronics Waste Reuse and Recycling Center did recently open, offering tips on what to do with all those pesky, unwanted cell phones, computer monitors, and other e-bits and pieces you can't bring yourself to get rid of the old fashioned way.

Not only does the site give you tips on how to dispose of it, it also helps you determine if it is fixable (if your unwanted e-item is in fact broken, and not just out of fashion.) And as an added bonus you can download a 47 page e-waste survey released in March of 2006! (this is actually very interesting and gives a little insight on the 'why' e-waste is generated and 'how' people dispose of it.)

Via ENN
Some of my previous posts on e-waste

Tidal Turbines and Lightbulbs

2007-01-02T12:29:00.000-05:00

The NY Times online video has a few green features.

"Tidal Turbines: Powering up under water" highlights a pilot project off of tiny Roosevelt Island in NYC's East River where two turbines are projected to generate energy for a grocery store and apartment building nearby.

"Understanding Light Bulbs: Wal-Mart backs energy efficient bulbs" takes a walk through Wal-Mart's new light bulb selection and compares the traditional incandescent with the more energy friendly compact flourescent.

These 5-minute-ish news stories get into about as much depth as you can with a simple video segment, but do get to the point and highlight some eco-minded alternatives in this mainstream media outlet.

Holidays flow into the water

2006-12-28T10:34:00.000-05:00

The holiday spirit reached far and wide this season.

University of Washington researchers found elevated levels of cinnamon and vanilla in the Puget Sound. The AP article from Yahoo says that these baking ingredients that have made it into the waterways shouldn't harm marine life, however it does go to show that what you pour down the drain will make its way into the ecosystem (as with previous findings of levels of medications/painkillers and caffeine in waters in the PacNW and other parts of the world.)

While it is a bit amusing that researchers have tested for these baking ingredients in area waters, imagine what else they could find co-mingling with the fish from everyday household water waste, industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff...

We killed the baiji

2006-12-27T13:13:00.000-05:00

There are some that say species extinction is a natural process, an evolutionary fate that some creatures can not escape. The baiji dolphin may be the latest casualty in this 'process'. But according to Dr. Robert L. Pitman in a New York Times commentary article, the dolphin is an indication that our ecosystems are failing.

Dr. Pitman studies marine mammals and recently returned from an expedition to the Yangtze River to find the baiji.
"The whole river ecosystem is going down the tubes in the name of rampant economic development. There is a huge environmental debt accruing on the Yangtze, and baiji was perhaps just the first installment.

Globally, scientists have been warning for some time of an impending anthropogenic mass extinction worldwide. Previous bouts of human-caused extinctions were due mainly to directed take: humans hunting for food. What we are seeing now is probably the first large animal that has ever gone extinct merely as an indirect consequence of human activity: a victim of market forces and our collective lifestyle.

Nobody eats baiji and no tourists pay to see it — there were no reasons to take it deliberately, but there was no economic reason to save it, either. It is gone because too many people got too efficient at catching fish in the river and it was incidental bycatch. And it is perhaps a view of the future for much of the rest of the world and an indication that the predicted mass extinction is arriving on schedule."

I'm not sure that anyone besides ecologists, biologists and other enviro-minded folk are clued into how important animals and plants and ecosystems are to our survival. The modern environmental movement has shifted away from the conservationist mindset to a responsible-consumerist framework, and I'm not sure that alone will be enough to save habitats on the brink of destruction. In the quest for global economic equity (poverty reduction) and the elusive emission reduction goals, there really must be more of a consideration and effort on an international level for preservation and restoration, because we're not only destroying the ability for animals to live, but we are also compromising our own health and safety.

The aftermath of the pac-nw storm

2006-12-22T11:06:00.000-05:00

I got the low down from my mom on the storm in the greater Seattle area with severe rain and high powered winds that knocked down trees and cut power to nearly 700,000 homes and businesses for much of last weekend. This type of weather is not unusual for this time of year. I remember several turkey days and x-mas days past that we didn't have power due to a blasted winter storm. Although the fierce storm that hit last weekend is ranked up there with one of the worst in recent history.

From reading several newspaper articles and speaking to a few friends and family who survived this one, we (as urban/suburban Americans) don't seem to know how to cope without power. We don't understand how the grids work or that people are working around the clock to repair downed lines and blown transformers. Most people just complain that they can't do their christmas shopping, and can't get their coffee or fuel (I was told that quite a few folks found pockets of powered up neighborhoods and waited in line at gas stations for 2 hours, and waited another 2 hours for their coffee at Starbucks.) There was an article in the Seattle-PI today about how the power outtage was Seattle City Light's fault because they don't keep up with tree trimming, and the utility came under fire for sending people home early despite storm warnings. (anyone else having con-ed flash backs?)

Now I know it is a serious situation, especially for children and the elderly. There were nearly 10 deaths attributed to carbon monoxide poisoning because people were running generators inside their homes or garages with the windows sealed up tight. Some people are still without power. But there seems to be little talk (in all this talk) about the increased severity of winter storms, or the fact that Seattle's eastside is considerably more built up than ever before (thus more property and goods that are vulnerable to damage), not to mention the trees that have been left standing (and not cut down for further developement) are taller because they've been allowed to continue living.

Undergound power lines and (selective) tree cutting should be considered to prevent damage in the event of future storms, but there should also be more planning for increased storm water management to reduce flood water damage, better sub-urban and ex-urban planning, mandatory high performance building standards so homes don't get as cold in the winter (or as hot in the summer) and the state/public utilities (or even private enterprises) should look at the potential for distributed power generation that could serve to alleviate some of the 'inconveniences' of disrupted power supply. These are the type of actions I mean when I speak of adapting for future calamaties, things that are preventive rather than reactionary. While we can't prepare for the unknown, we can take certain precautions so we're not completely caught off guard for the next big storm.

Powering down the festivity

2006-12-20T09:16:00.000-05:00

I know there are displays of light far more elaborate and energy sucking than this one, but these folks are down the street from me. I walk by this blazing bright festivity nearly every night on my way home - except the other night, I returned late-ish and the lights were off. So kudos to my neighbors who cut the power to Santa's winter wonder-light-land after bedtime.

Taking lead off the endangered species list

2006-12-19T11:31:00.000-05:00

The EPA is considering removing health standards for lead from air polllution.

Toxic substances are not like wild animals - you can't just take one off the list when its numbers are under control. The proposal to stop considering lead a toxic substance is just plain stupid. It's not like we need to take things off the toxic air pollutants list to make room for more. If anything every chemical substance should start out on the list until it is deemed non-toxic, and as far as I know lead is still lead no matter what list it is on. Recategorizing the stuff won't change its elemental properties or its effects on people and the environment.

If you'd like to tell the EPA to keep lead on the list click here to send a letter through Environmental Action.

Holiday Card Giving Dilemma

2006-12-18T14:16:00.000-05:00

I've had a few friends ask me for my address so they can send me an x-mas card. Their requests are often followed up with an apology for even sending me a card at all - they assume I'll think sending cards is evil, a waste of paper, an un-eco-friendly thing to do. I assure them that there is nothing wrong with spreading a little holiday joy via USPS and proceed to tell them about grow-a-note cards that when planted planted sprout up as wildflowers (available at several retailers online including Green Field Paper Company and KidBean.)

For more holiday card giving options Jasmine over at Worsted Witch has a few suggestions, as does Mark at 3r living blog. And for a few tips on what to do with those holiday cards you've amassed post-holiday season check out Ideal Bite.

Personally I usually forego the card giving thing simply because I have a tendency to procrastinate/and or forget and end up running out of time. This year, however, I bought a box of 100% post-consumer recycled content cards (from 3r living). I will probably send them out tomorrow....

India's emissions cause no harm

2006-12-14T13:35:00.000-05:00

India seems to be buying in to the US administration's counterspin on the whole global warming thing. I mean, sure you could jump to other conclusions from this Reuters headline: "India says its carbon emissions not harming the world."

They're using the old I'm-a-developing-country-and-can-pollute- as-you-did-and-cutting-back-will-harm-our-economic-development excuse. India's Environment Minister A. Raja is quoted in the article as saying, "India is very little in terms of emissions and we are not the biggest polluters when compared to the developed nations."

That is just the wrong attitude to take. For now, yes, the big ol' CO2 emitter, otherwise known as the US, needs to step up on a national level (2008 is getting closer every day) and lead the way in the next round of international talks on the matter. But if we (the global 'we') just sit back and let China and India continue on the old-school-technology-pollute-then-clean-up-later development track, while letting the US slide on taking any responsibility in the mean time, we (the global 'we' again) are screwed.

While I'd like to be optomistic on what's going to happen beyond Kyoto in 2012, if the current stance/attitudes prevail we're going to be stuck at an impass yet again without any real action taking place. Hopefully by that time the greater (global) public will be better informed about the issue and be concerned about their own good enough demand more from government officials.

Starbucks made me feel less guilty

2006-12-14T08:49:00.000-05:00

I don't really like to broadcast the fact that I stop in to Starbucks every now and then. But this morning I did - mainly because I needed coffee, it was on the way, they take credit cards for purchases under five bucks, and the coffee at the bodega nearby sucks. I do have organic, fair trade coffee at home that I could have made in my french press before leaving the house, and I also have a blue, stainless steel 'commuter' mug I normally take with me everywhere that would've saved on the disposable red, holiday cup, but I was in a rush to get out the door, my mug wasn't washed (excuses, excuses...)

I spent a good three years of my life working for the coffee giant, and at one point was in charge of the paper order for my store (cups etc). We'd go through A LOT of tall (12oz) cups (this was in the days before the 20-ouncer), not to mention the associated plastic lids and scores of napkins. Given the number of Starbucks in the US (and the world) the amount of paper cups, napkins and sleeves (those things designed to go around the cup to keep your hand from burning, reducing the need for a double cup) used daily is mind blowing.

So, as I topped off my (non-fairtraded) coffee with a little (hormone laden) milk, and vowed (again) to remember to bring my personal mug next time, the message on the sleeve caught my eye, "First ever 10% post-consumer fiber cup. 60% post-consumer fiber sleeve."

Wow. "First ever" is a big claim, and I'm sure I have read about this somewhere before, more than likely in one of those full page NY Times ads. But there was more, "Starbucks is committed to reducing our environmental impact through increased use of recycled post-consumer materials. Help us help the planet." And on the cup itself, "Made with 10% post-consumer recycled fiber." The good green vibe didn't stop there, even the napkins had a little message, "Less napkins. More plants. More Planet. Less Napkins."

Making disposable items less bad is okay in my book and Starbucks is big enough to make changes on a large scale that can affect such industries so that other disposable cup purchasers can easily follow suit. But even if the skeptics are right and it is merely a PR ploy to get consumers to associate Starbucks as an enviro-friendly company, it does serve an educational purpose. Who knows, if every customer reads the cup/sleeve/napkin they take away, there's a possibility they might look for this label on other products they purchase.

I will bring my own mug next time, but this time I guess I carried a little less shame/guilt for supporting Starbucks and perpetuating the disposable culture knowing that a little post-consumer fiber was involved.

For more on the grand Starbucks debate check out green LA girl, who also did a little coffee tasting review for (I think it was) GOOD magazine.

Emissions, emissions, emissions

2006-12-12T10:12:00.000-05:00

I assume I'm one of many who will comment on the article on the front of the NYTimes business section: "The Cost of an Overheated Planet". The message: reduce emissions... or else.

Overall the article has an optimistic tone. It lays the case for businesses taking the initiative to reduce their emissions, coupled with the need for increased market based mechanisms and cap and trade policies to make this easier, and for R&D into that futuristic-magic-unknown technology that will save us.

It also breaks down the economics of the problem - costs of reducing emissions (one percent of the global economy each year for the next 50 years.) And globally speaking, after describing all of the pending U.S. legislation on climate change/emission reduction policies, the article points a finger at China and India - if the U.S. gets on board then so should the rest of the world.

The end quote comes from executive director of the national comission on energy policy, Jason Grumet "The ecological and economic imperitive is to start now." Yes it is, however, I think we've been saying that since the UNFCC (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - the document that was spit out in 1992 at the earth summit in Rio, that informed the Kyoto Protocol.)

While I am supportive of all of the mainstream press and political attention global warming is getting these days, I must reiterate that the focus needs to widen beyond the we-must-reduce-CO2-at-any-cost. We're banking solely on carbon sequestration and nuclear power for our "clean" future and we're losing sight of not only the negative externalities of relying on these technologies, but also we're not doing much at implementing precautionary, adaptive measures we're going to need in order to deal with the gradually changing conditions of our world.

The climate change solution - adapt

2006-12-11T08:23:00.000-05:00

Lloyds of London has a new report, "Adapt or Bust" (via Climate Change Action). The content and recommendations are similar to that of a report put out a couple of months ago by the Alianz Group and the World Wildlife Federation, which focused on the risks and liabilities that the insurance industry will face due to a projected increase of weather related catastrophes.

The Lloyds report was a little more overt than the Alianz/WWF report in suggesting that the insurance industry needs to revise policies and coverage appropriately and to partner with businesses to reduce the anticipated future risks of climate change. However, the thing I like about these reports 1) they accept climate change science and that it is a real, occuring phenomena; 2) reducing emissions is NOT the end goal; 3) the message is we must adapt... or else.

Taking this stance on climate change is a view not commonly heard - if at all - in the mainstream media. Al Gore's recent press blitz promoting the DVD release of "An Inconvenient Truth" was commendable. (If Oprah's on the climate change bandwagon you know America will follow.) But talking about emission reductions, carbon offsets and changing our lightbulbs will not lessen the impacts of global warming. These efforts will help reduce (in theory) the level of GHG in our atmosphere, but it will take time to see any real change, especially given the current political/business reluctance to make any real emission reductions over the next 20 years, the expected population growth and projected incrase of energy/fuel usage over that same time, and the century long persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Reducing emissions alone will not protect us from the climate "anomalies" that are increasingly plaguing the globe.

What can help people deal with extreme heat or cold, droughts or flooding, and other weather related catasrophes will be things like smarter spatial and city planning (building, transportation etc.), research and development of alternative energies and more effective water use strategies, and mandating high performance building standards (several of these are mentioned in the Allianz/WWF report). These types of things must be considered and practiced if we are really going to lessen the impacts of climate change.

The insurance companies realize this, and while their motives are focused on reducing their loss on payouts rather than reducing the amount of human suffering, smarter, adaptive focused policies must become more of a part of the greater climate change dialogue....or else.

(This is a recurring theme in my blog - here's some past posts about the whole act/re-act/adapt stuff here, here, here, and here.)

NRDC Green Office Tour

2006-12-08T11:52:00.000-05:00

I had the opportunity this week to tour the Natural Resources Defense Council offices in NYC. (Actually, anyone can take a tour, just call ahead to schedule.)

NRDC has been around since the 1970's working on environmental litigation and policy from resource conservation, to energy, to pollution. Their NYC offices have been green before one could certify oneself green, mainly because they saw the benefits of savings on their utility bills.

Having office space in an existing building can pose problems to those wanting to 'green' up their space, as it is often difficult to have control over certain features of the building, such as heating, cooling and ventilation systems or how the building is situated on the site or within surrounding areas.

However there are things that can be done to maximize the efficiency of the space, as NRDC as proven. They occupy the top four floors and created an internal staircase to create additonal light and openness within the office. They also replaced all of the exterior windows with high-performance, floor to ceiling windows to maximize the daylight coming in. Most of the perimeter offices have windows facing in so that daylight gets to the interior spaces and other workareas. All of their lighting systems are either on motion sensor or are separated out for maximum control over usage. Carpet and other insulation is used to help maintain and regulate the temperature and the levels are set for maximum comfort level during the work day.

Aside from the structural features, the NRDC office has centralized some of their internal printing capabilities to minimize on waste and duplicate services. They properly dispose of toner cartridges and computer monitors and other items. They have recycling and composting in their kitchens and paper recycling at each desk.

NRDC recently renovated one of their floors to include many more green features and materials, such as motion sensored faucets with temperature control and low flush toilets with multiple flush options (although without proper signage, as my tour guide noted, it wasn't clear how one could fully take advantage of the features of the technology.)

The NRDC offices across the country are also very green - in fact the San Francisco location scored a LEED Platinum rating.

Check out:
Other green office tours I've taken - Cook + Fox
The green office lens

photo from NRDC.org

Thoughtful graffiti

2006-12-05T15:57:00.000-05:00

I was up around 24th st and 7th Ave this afternoon and saw some graffiti I could not only read but could identify with.

This time of year I think even more about the over-consumption habits of Americans and try to avoid the gift-giving-just-because-it-is-expected frame of mind as much as possible. There are lots of great gifts out there that don't produce waste or contribute to pollution or climate change - and those are the best gifts to give and receive. Which isn't to say don't consume, but when you consume, consume responsibly.

3r Living's Mark Caserta has a few tips on green holiday giving today at the 3r blog.

Variety goes green

2006-12-04T20:16:00.000-05:00

Variety.com, your entertainment news hub, has a special section devoted to GREEN. There are just so many celebs out there doing good they've now got a venue devoted to 'em. This green thing must be catching on...

via Ecorazzi

Blogs of note

2006-12-04T06:48:00.000-05:00

Blogging time has been short lately - but I've still been trying to make the rounds. Here's a few that I've recently added to my blogroll.

Green Buildings NYC - Great updates on green building news in NYC and elsewhere.

Green Girls Global - A few folks that are carrying on from where City Hippy left off.

Jetson Green - Green building, development, pre-fab and lots more

Check them out.

EcoBabes 2007

2006-11-29T10:59:00.000-05:00

Looking for that perfect eco-friendly holiday gift? How about a 2007 EcoBabes calendar?

Supporting the California based Climate Protection Campaign, an organization working to reduce emissions in Sonoma County, the ecobabes calendar “portrays passionate, driven women pursing a vision of sustainability by modifying their daily actions and initiating systemic social change… [and] inspires and educates people of all ages to make changes in their personal and professional lives that help create a more sustainable world.”

Curious about the actual calendar? It was printed on 100% post consumer paper, with vegetable based inks, printed by a California printing company. You can purchase the calendar online and find out more about the women featured in it at the EcoBabes website.

(this is cross-posted at EcoStreet)
(and covered by TreeHugger back in Sept.)

Organic Fish?

2006-11-28T11:43:00.000-05:00

The latest dilemma in front of the Agriculture Department - what's the criteria for organic fish? An article from the NYTimes looks into the debate.

Is a free swimmin', ocean lovin' fish more "organic" than its farmed, fish-food-fed, carnivorious counterpart? Can aquaculture be considered under the same rules as agriculture? The latest recommendations put before the USDA for consideration: "the group recommended far less stringent rules, including three options for what organic fish could eat: an entirely organic diet; nonorganic fish during a seven-year transition period while fish farms shift to organic fish meal; or nonorganic fish meal from “sustainable” fisheries. Sustainable fisheries are those that ensure that their fish stocks do not become depleted."

While it may be a necessary evil, it seems to me that further defining regulatory terminology is missing the point. The bigger question that needs to be addressed is the health of their habitat, our ecosystems. Has the demand for fish really increased so much that we must rely on farmed fish to satisfy our seafood needs, or have we overfished and overpolluted our waterways so much that the "wild" catch has dwindled beyond our care?

Growing up in salmon country in the lush Pacific Northwest I've learned a thing or two over the years about our silver scaled friends. I can probably tell the difference between a coho and chinook. I've been to the hatcheries and seen thousands upon thousands of orange eggs, and at the dams have watched them struggle up those "convenient" ladders. I've even helped raise tadpoles, put them in creeks and come back to see if any of them have returned to spawn, and later covered the debates between officials and Native American tribes over fishing rights. I can't say I've seen a time when the fish were so abundant that they were jumping out of the riverbeds, but the fishing inudstry is not the same as it used to be and neither are the salmon.

This is where the consumer comes in - if we get too wrapped up in the organic label, the "wild" fish just might go by the wayside and no one will be the wiser. However, if the consumer can see beyond the organic label, and take a look at and appreciate the natural processes (a-la Michael Pollan's look at Joel Salatin's farm) we might be able to generate a sustainable fishing industry and save a few ecosystems along the way.

LA to Vegas for $12

2006-11-27T20:07:00.000-05:00

Ecorazzi caught onto this earlier this month, but Yahoo featured it on their homepage this evening: "The gas-hungry SUV gets a green makeover with veteran electric driver, Ed Begley, Jr."

In the video featured on Yahoo, Begly shares his electric car history - he's been driving 'em since the '70s because he didn't like the LA smog, and he's been plugging and driving ever since. He showed off a new electric SUV and then told the reporter that his trip from Los Angeles to Las Vegas (where the video peeps caught up with Begly) was a mere $12 - not bad for the electric car that was once thought to be extinct....

You can keep up with all the green celeb do gooders at Ecorazzi - check it out if you haven't already.

China goes solar

2006-11-27T09:57:00.000-05:00

Well, they're into coal and nuclear and massive scale hydro plants - why not get in on one of the world's biggest solar power station?

According to the WBCSD, China is slated to build a 100 megawatt solar facility (trumped only by an Australian project of 154 megawatts.) The project, which will be completed in five years, is touted to reduce GHG emissions by 400,000 a year.

While the article doesn't mention it, I'm a bit skeptical that this will make any significant contribution to overall energy production within the country, and I doubt that the reduction of GHG emissions claimed by this project will offset the GHG emissions that will increase due to the projected number of new traditional coal fired plants.

But hey - a large solar facility certainly is visible, and will hopefully spur additional investments in alternative energy projects in the emerging nation.

Turkey day message

2006-11-22T15:56:00.000-05:00

I know the picture is a repeat, but since I've got little time to post today here's a quick message - have a happy turkey day, eat local if you can and don't shop on Friday (although if you must do it at somewhere like 3r living).

Seattlites think carbon offsets are a scam

2006-11-21T09:22:00.000-05:00

I went to the Seattle-PI online yesterday to check out more news about this construction crane that fell over in a suburban city outside of Seattle, and another headline caught my eye, "Feel Less Than Green? Buy Back Your Pollution."

It is, of course, an article about going carbon neutral, reducing your carbon footprint, buying carbon offsets (is it okay to use those interchangably I wonder?) In any case, the article made buying carbon credits out to be a new thing that's all the rage. It also laid out some of the basic details of how the system works - determine your carbon footprint, and since you probably won't want to (or can't) do less carbon emitting things you can buy carbon credits to offset your own personal emissions. (And depending on which organization you buy them from the money gets put to different uses, mainly invested in emission reduction ventures.)

As perhaps many of you reading this know, this isn't all THAT new, but it is apparently a new concept to the population at large (another win for mainstream media coverage). The great thing about the Seattle-PI online is that you can comment on nearly every story, which they've termed "sound-offs". Now, I'm sure a great number of people who read online don't "sound-off" as do many readers of the print edition, but for those who took the time to make their opinions known, the running thread in the "sound-off" to this article was this: carbon credits are a SCAM.

As of this morning there were 47 comments - about a third of which were back-and-forth interchange comments to one of the more outspoken this-is-a-sham-global-warming-is-not-happening comments, and one comment was from TerraPass founder Adam Stein correcting some misguided "facts" in the article, but most were skeptical of the whole carbon-offset thing.

Personally, I'm still not sold on the whole offset thing myself, mainly because of the underlying assumption that in order to "combat" global warming (thus assuming it is combattable) the sole end goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at any cost. In doing this I believe that we are losing sight of other parts of the bigger picture, and may even be causing some unwanted externalities along the way (shall I venture to put the word nulcear in here?) However, I do think carbon offsets are a step in the right direction, and the more people choose to go carbon neutral, the more carbon markets will benefit, and most importantly, buying carbon offsets are increasingly making individuals collectively accountable for their own actions.

Extended Producer Responsibility

2006-11-20T10:17:00.000-05:00

Maybe because it's the holiday season but I've had several conversations with people lately revolving arund the purchase of new items: computers, printers, cell phones, blackberries, televisions, DVD players, I-pods, furniture, automobiles, clothing. The reason behind these puchases is often because their previous goods are either too old (there's a newer, cooler one on the market), or have broken (and no one fixes things anymore).

As consumers we are stuck in a quandary - technology outdates itself immediately, so even if a product still works, there's a newer, faster, better thing that was just released. Or companies make things with a short usable lifespan, forcing you to purchase new items repeatedly. So in our current affluent western society, the choice to buy isn't really a choice at all, it is a given. In our disposable, consumer oriented culture the assumption is you will buy and you will throw away.

I've blogged about this consumer burden before, and how I believe that the responsibility for a product's afterlife should shift to the producer. Companies should design with the product life-cycle in mind (Cradle to Cradle of course), however until that practice happens on a mentionable scale, more companies should institute additional take back programs.

Steve Attinger has a column on GreenBiz.com that talks about Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). He highlights a few manufacturers that do take back their older/broken products (and competitor's products) once the consumer is ready to purchase a new one. He also makes the business case for EPR, one result is building customer loyalty, another is streamlining the production process, which often saves the company money. EPR just seems to make business sense, and until everyone is doing it will give added value to the consumer and a leg up on the competition.

Environmental Action - light bulb challenge

2006-11-17T08:35:00.000-05:00

All Environmental Action wants for Christmas is for Wal-Mart to spread the green cheer.

EA's latest campagin is asking the retail giant to sponsor 'Free Energy Efficient Light Bulb Day'. The goal/result: if each of their 18,000,000 customers took home a CEF lightbulb and used it, the impact would reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion pounds - that's like taking 200,000 vehicles off the road.

Tell Wal-Mart you'd like their customers to get a little CEF gift for the holidays here.

Behind the Label

2006-11-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

Eco-model Summer Rayne Oakes goes Behind the Label - now with a video addition to her contribution to Lucrire magazine.

Summer takes a behind the scenes look at how/where the products in her photo shoot were made, choosing the most stylish, eco-friendly products and designers around. Watch the You Tube video here.

Also check out Summer's industry magazine S4 and her other ventures.

Via Ecorazzi .

(oh - and a little shameless self-promotion, I was a cinematographer on this shoot).

Green Drinks NY

2006-11-14T09:12:00.000-05:00

Taking a cue from Mark at 3r Living - tis the week for NYC green drinks.

Tonight - Green Drinks in Manhattan 6p-10p at Slane (102 MacDougal Street between Bleecker and West 3rd.)

Wednesday - Brooklyn Green Drinks starts at 3r Living in Park Slope (7p - 276 5th Avenue (between 1st Street and Garfield Place) then later (after you've taken advantage of the 10% discount at 3r), will move a few doors down to Great Lakes (284 5th Avenue @ 1st Street).

Not in NYC? Find out where the green drinkers are in your area here. Green drinks is a monthly event where people across the green spectrum gather to network, socialize, and yes, sometimes there is drinking involved. I've even gone to a green drinks while traveling.

PVC gets animated

2006-11-13T08:40:00.000-05:00

Want to know how to spot the PVC around you? Watch this clever awareness video put out by the The Center for Health and Environmenetal Justice - Sam Suds and the Case of PVC, Poison Plastic.

Sam Suds is a noir-like private dick - er, bar of soap - who works out of the bathroom of the Johnson family. He has already cleaned their home of lead and DDT - his latest criminal is PVC. After being tipped off by a damsel in distress - a rubber duck in a pink hat - Sam Suds gets down to business. The message of the video: PVC is the poison plastic, also known as vinyl. You can spot it by the 3 or the v.

I'm embarrassed to say, this is something I actually didn't know prior to watching. Of course I knew that PVC was bad, and that it's probably in everything around me, but I didn't know it was actually labelled as such. I knew that those numbers in the recycle symbol on plastic bottles stood for something, 1, 2, 3 - but I didn't know the 3 meant PVC. I took a look around my own bathroom after watching the video and realized Sam was right - proof that PVCs are all around me.

Watch the video here. And then take action - ask Target to go PVC free. Then take a look around your home for the PVC.

Gobble, gobble

2006-11-10T10:49:00.000-05:00

Does anyone know how much energy these things use?

Green Office Lens

2006-11-09T13:59:00.000-05:00

I've been inspired by Sustainablogger, creator of The Green Web Headquarters on Squidoo, and have started my very own lens - Green Your Office.

There's not a whole lot up there right now, but as I do my own research on greening the workplace I'm going to be continually adding stuff to it. So be sure to check back regularly. (Plus the more you visit, the higher it gets ranked, and I think the higher ranking it gets the lensmaster gets some cash - which I've told them to donate to EcoTrust.)

And if you've got any green office stories or tips - please share them!

Sustainable Office - Cook + Fox

2006-11-08T09:14:00.000-05:00

The cell phone pic doesn't really do it justice, but the new office space of Cook + Fox is very, very cool.

Non-profit organization O2, striving to blend environmental sustainability with design, hosted this green office event last night. The event included a tour of all of the sustainable features of the architecture firm's newly renovated office space, which is currently under consideration for a platinum rating under LEED-CI. (that's the commercial interiors version of the green building standard).

The office is really a showcase for many green materials - Interface flooring, Plyboo and non-toxic MDF for the cubicle walls, IceStone countertops in their kitchen - but also other green design elements such as daylighting, light fixtures on dimmers, a CO2 monitor to control air flow, waterless urinals and low flush toilets, not to mention their green roof. They're also working on ways to encourage recycling within their office, as well as trying to get other tenants in the building to do so. And as part of the green factor, Cook+Fox even gave each employee $10 to buy a plant for their desk.

Cook + Fox is the architecture firm behind the potentially LEED Platinum Bank of America building at One Bryant Park, currently under construction. By striving to make their office as green as possible will only enhance their position as one of the leaders in sustainable architecture in NYC. You can read more about this office space in and upcoming issue of Metropolis magazine.

China shutting down more coal mines

2006-11-07T16:34:00.000-05:00

According to an AP article, the Chinese province of Shanxi is slated to shut down 900 additional coal mines. Around 1,1500 have been shut down since July of 2005 as part of a coal-mine safety campaign launched last year.

However, one big question not posed (or answered) in this AP brief is how will China make up for the coal production lost from the closing of these mines? Considering 70% of China's power is generated from (old technology-thermal) coal fired power plants, and overall energy consumption is expected to increase, the coal will have to come from somewhere. Will it come from increased production in other mines? Will China turn to more open-pit coal mines (requiring less labor and increased environmental destruction)?

While the closure of these mines may be a boon for worker safety, there are additional issues that should be addressed.

Side note: if you haven't already, you should read Jeff Goodell's book Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future.
And thanks to my friend Shawn for fwd the coal story to me.