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.