The Future is Green

Ahmadinejad, Gas Prices, and the Price of Freedom

Why is this man smiling? I'll tell you why; he can't believe his luck; Oil addicted Americans keep flooding his treasury with obscene amounts cash. This makes his life very easy. He can afford to suppress dissent and he can afford to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't he be smiling?

In today's New York Times, Thomas Friedman again reminds us that we are Ahmadinejads enablers, and that . . ."the one thing we could do, without firing a shot, that would truly weaken the Iranian theocrats and force them to unshackle their people  . . . is to end our addiction to the oil that funds Iran’s Islamic dictatorship. Launching a real Green Revolution in America," he writes, "would be the best way to support the “Green Revolution” in Iran.."

Friedman's column, "The Green Revolution(s)," is well worth reading. He points out that we could effect change in Iran and other petro-dictatorships simply by cutting our oil use. And the way to achieve that, he says, is to impose ". . . an immediate “Freedom Tax” of $1 a gallon on gasoline — with rebates to the poor and elderly — [It] would be a triple positive: It would stimulate more investment in renewable energy now; it would stimulate more consumer demand for the energy-efficient vehicles that the reborn General Motors and Chrysler are supposed to make; and, it would reduce our oil imports in a way that would surely affect the global price and weaken every petro-dictator."

When gas gas hit $4.00 a gallon, Americans immediately reacted by using less of it. Keeping gas prices high is the smartest thing we could possibly do. This is how we can bring Iran into line, speed the development of clean energy, save the auto industry, and slow global warming. It's the bargain of the century.

Lawn Care and Other Unnatural Acts: Are Eco-friendly Lawns an Oxymoron?

Few things give me as much pleasure as spending time on my front porch. In all kinds of weather I love to sit here, where I am as I write this, and enjoy the show: the change of seasons, the play of sunlight on foliage, the antics of the squirrels and chipmunks, the call of songbirds, the perfume of flowers. Such peace.

All too often, however, the peace is shattered. With fearful regularity, a small battalion of gardeners swoops down on the neighborhood, unloads the materiel and ordnance of lawn care - mowers, edgers and blowers, with their noisy, smelly, and highly polluting two-stroke internal combustion engines, along with sacks of fertilizers, weed killers and pesticides, and proceeds to wage war on crabgrass, insects, dandelions, and any blade of grass which isn't precisely the same height as every other. 

Lately, I've been pondering the tyranny of grass, the cultivation of which is, after all, an unnatural act. It's such a ubiquitous feature of suburban life that we tend to assume this is what nature intended. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Grass is the least green thing you can plant.

The American lawn, that lush carpet of green that is the icon of suburbia, didn’t always exist. Heretical as the thought may seem, this uniform swath of emerald is a complete fabrication, something not found in nature.

Entirely the creation of mankind’s desire to control nature – a futile task, if ever there was one, lawns have been around for a long time. Just how long is a matter of conjecture, but one of my favorite theories on the origin of lawns was put forth in the musical comedy, The Apple Tree.

In Act One, based on Mark Twain’s The Diary of Adam and Eve, we find a somewhat testy Adam listening to yet another in a long list of helpful suggestions from the garden’s other two-footed tenant:

EVE     I’ve been thinking . . . we’re different from anything else on earth. And our home should be different.
ADAM    I thought it was.
EVE    And today I had the feeling that the grass around our hut should be different from all other grass.
ADAM    Different how?
EVE    Shorter.
ADAM    How could it be shorter – unless it was . . . cut?  

Somehow, we have come to accept the inevitability of lawn care. We love our lawns. We must – why else would we devote such vast amounts of time, effort and expense to cultivating an estimated twenty million acres of this industrial monoculture. We enthusiastically water, weed, fertilize and mow in pursuit of a more perfect lawn than our neighbors. 

Yet lawns are an environmental nightmare. The millions of tons of chemical fertilizers and weed killers that we apply have high environmental costs. They wash off our lawns and run into our wells, streams, and lakes, wrecking havoc with aquatic ecosystems, and turning up in our food supply and drinking water.

Power motors contribute to air pollution and global warming. One lawn mower emits as much CO2 as a dozen or more cars. Grass clippings that are bagged and hauled away clog our landfills, and the watering of lawns depletes critically scarce water supplies.

In our zeal to eradicate the lowly dandelion we blithely pour poison onto the soil and then watch our children and pets gamboling on that grassy patch of green we call the back yard, all the while feeling grateful to be raising our family in the safe, healthy, leafy suburbs. It doesn’t even occur to us that there might be an alternative.

Sustainable alternatives
There are many ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of our lawns and gardens.

Paul Krugman on Climate Change: Is Krugman the new Thomas Friedman?

It seems like Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist is out to beat Thomas Friedman - also of the Times and bestselling author of "Hot, Flat and Crowded," at his own game.

In the last several weeks Krugman has been devoting more column inches to climate change than ever before, while Friedman has mostly gone back to writing about foreign affairs and the economy.

Krugman wrote, in his column of April 30 (which I blogged about at the time) called climate change legislation an "Affordable Salvation." Then on May 14 in a piece called "Empire of Carbon," he highlighted the enormous environmental problem of China's coal-fuelled growth, and followed that up three days later with another piece, "The Perfect, The Good, The Planet," about the importance of passing the Waxman-Markey bill, now before Congress. I recommend that each of you send a copy of that one to your representatives and senators today.

Friedman hasn't been entirely AWOL on the subject, though. His March 14 column, "The Next Really Cool Thing," offers a tantalizing glimpse at the recently completed National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The facility uses 192 giant lasers to heat a small pellet of frozen hydrogen to over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, “far greater than exists at the center of our sun.” The heat generated can then, theoretically, heat up liquid salt which would, in turn, drive steam turbines that produce electricity with no CO2 emissions. (Except for the CO2 produced by the electricity that runs the lasers, but who's counting?) The trick, which still needs to be worked out, is energy gain - making the system produce more electricity than the lasers consume. It's still a few years off, but apparently feasible. Stay tuned. And stay tuned to both Friedman and Krugman to see who ultimately writes more about climate change this year. I'll be counting words.

Put a little green in Mother's Day

The approach of Mother's Day reminds me that I've been wanting to introduce my readers to the Good Guide. It's a web site that provides detailed, reliable information on the health, environmental and social impacts of thousands of consumer goods.

On their home page today they offer a large number of suggestions for green mother's day gifts. If you haven't already bought your mom something -- and if you haven't, what's taking you so long? don't you know Mother's Day is tomorrow? Do I have to remind you of everything? And would it kill you to pick up a phone? All my friends' kids call their mothers every day . . . -- oh, wait . . . I'm not your mother. But as I was saying, if you haven't already gotten something for Mom, check out Good Guide.

I first learned about Good Guide from the book, Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goleman, which I recommended here a couple of weeks ago. Their team of scientists, researchers and academics has assembled detailed information on over 70,000 products and rates each one, providing a simple way to find out how the things you buy everyday measure up in three categories - environmental, health and social impacts.

They also have a cool iPhone app that puts all this information in your pocket while you shop. Here, in their own words, is how Good Guide was started, and what their mission is.

One summer a few years ago, Dara O’Rourke was doing what he’d done dozens of times before: putting sunscreen on his five-year old daughter Minju before she went outside to play in the summer sun. The thought occurred to Dara, "I wonder what’s really in this stuff?" So, being a Professor at the University of California-Berkeley, Dara researched the sunscreen. What he found was surprising and disturbing: the sunscreen he’d been putting on Minju for years had a toxic ingredient.

At that moment, Dara realized how little we know about the products we bring into our homes every day. He knew that other parents should have the same access to product information that he and his fellow researchers had. He also wanted to solve the problem of increasingly confusing marketing claims regarding whether products were actually healthy, safe or green.

So he brought together both academic and technology experts to create a world-class team of scientists, consumer researchers, technologists and industry professionals. From Google, Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and Intuit, to MIT and the University of California, we’ve developed a "For Benefit" startup at the forefront of integrating science and technology, working to fill a huge information gap in the marketplace.

Our team is dedicated to combining the best science and technology available, with what’s most important to you. Our goal is to provide the most comprehensive, credible, and useful information in the world, on products and companies delivered whenever and wherever you need it. We’re making information available and easy to use so each of us can express our own values and concerns in the marketplace.

Consilience: The Blog and the Institute of Green Professionals

I would like to direct your attention to the newest addition to our list of blogs worth reading, Consilience: The Blog, published by the Institute of Green Professionals, who have kindly elected me to join the ranks of their members.

The IGP, in the words of its mission statement, ". . . is a transdisciplinary network of sustainable development professionals, academics and organizations that advance global sustainable development through education, credentialing, research, philanthropy and a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct."

I feel privileged to be associated with this group of sustainability professionals and academics. Please visit their web site and check out Consillience: The Blog from time to time. You may even find the occasional post there by . . . well, modesty forbids.

Climate Policy: An Affordable Salvation, says Paul Krugman of the NY Times

Paul Krugman, the NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist, provides  a clear, concise explanation in today's paper of why action on climate change is not only affordable, but a very good way to stimulate the economy. Calling a spade a spade, he labels denials of climate change "junk science," and predictions of economic disaster resulting from doing anything about it "junk economics."

Citing a recent MIT study of the cost of climate change proposals, he concludes that, contrary to what many conservatives assert, the cost to consumers, while not zero, would be quite modest. But ultimately, he explains, adopting strong climate-change policy will "create major incentives for new investment — investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more."

His column, which is well worth reading, is reprinted below. And you can link to his blog here.

An Affordable Salvation

by Paul Krugman

The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply.

But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.

Let’s talk first about those costs.

Ecological Intelligence - an important new book by Daniel Goleman - just in time for Earth Day

 Earth day is coming up, and with along with it a spate of events, blogs, web sites, films, and publications all dealing with the environment in one way or another. It's hard to know which to pay attention to. Among many worthy contenders for our attention, I recommend a new book, "Ecological Intelligence," by Daniel Goleman, author of the bestseller "Emotional Intelligence."

In his new book, Goleman argues that, much as we might wish to buy products and services that are more environmental responsible, in most cases it is all but impossible to find the information we need to make those decisions. And partial information may actually do more harm than good, leading us to believe that our small efforts at recycling and green awareness are enough, while we fail to appreciate the wider-ranging life-cycle implications of all that we buy and do.

Greenwashing is rampant; many products tout one eco-friendly attribute - made from organic cotton, say - without mentioning that the item was made using child labor in a factory with dangerous and unfair working conditions.

In other cases, even with no attempt at greenwashing, the information we need is just not available. Consumer products contain thousands of chemical compounds, only a tiny fraction of which have been tested for safety. Many products have been reformulated to remove compounds that have been found harmful, yet they contain dozens, or even hundreds, of other chemicals that no one knows the long-term effects of.

Goleman's solution for this mess is a system of "radical transparency." As more product information becomes readily available and widely disseminated, consumers vote with their wallets and business takes heed. He offers trans-fats as a textbook example of what happens when consumers have access to information.

When scientists first discovered that trans-fats, even in small doses, had serious adverse effects, Congress began investigating. A long debate about how or whether to regulate trans-fats ensued. But while Congress deliberated - a long process - more and more information about trans-fats came out in the news and was quickly spread by blogs, web sites, and social media. Sales of food containing trans-fats plummeted.

As a result, manufacturers reformulated hundreds of products; today it is nearly impossible to find  food items containing trans-fats on the grocery store shelf. This happened without any government regulation.

Likewise, when car makers were required to display a rating system for the rollover potential of SUVs, the public voted with its buying power. When the rating system first appeared, thirty models were rated with one or two stars - indicating a 30% or greater chance of rollovers. Just one SUV achieved four stars, meaning less than a 20% chance. Resulting consumer pressure convinced automakers to speed up efforts to make SUVs safer. Within four years, twenty-four models received four stars, and only one SUV rated two stars. (Of course there are lots of other problems with SUVs, but that's a subject for another post.)

The profit motive, Goleman argues, is what will ultimately move the world in a more environmentally responsible direction. "Eco-transparency," he writes, "transforms the core assumptions . . . transforming the business model to create a market reality where doing good becomes synonymous with doing well."

You can listen to an audio clip of Daniel Goleman explaining the market implications of "radical transparency" by clicking the image at the top of this post. If you want to order the book from Amazon, please click here.

Saving energy in your home: Payback periods for air sealing and insulation

I had a letter to the editor published in today's New York Times, commenting on a recent Op-Ed piece, "This Old Wasteful House," by Richard Moe, director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  In his article, Mr. Moe enumerated several compelling arguments for improving the energy efficiency of older homes.

"We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions," he wrote. "We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient."

My letter suggested another benefit of weatherizing older homes - namely that older homes are often located in traditional neighborhoods that are less automobile-dependent than newer subdivisions. It's brief, so I have reprinted it below.

As Richard Moe asserts, weatherization can greatly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Homes are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States — and not only aging middle-class homes. I have observed energy audits of luxury homes built in the last 20 years that show serious deficiencies in thermal protection.

Air-sealing and insulation can pay for themselves in as little as two years, and continue to pay dividends in the form of lower fuel bills.

Another advantage of upgrading our aging housing stock is that unlike the vast tracts of suburban sprawl that characterize new residential construction, older homes are often located in compact, walkable communities.

Revitalizing such neighborhoods strengthens a pattern of development that is far less dependent on the automobile and is therefore more sustainable.

My assertion that weatherization can pay for itself in as little as two years prompted an email from a reader asking me to provide a URL that "explains/expands on/defends this comment." Here is my response.

Here are two. The calculations on the Dept. of Energy web site [the 2nd link] are for insulation only and do not take into account sealing air leaks. Insulation slows conductive heat loss. But more heat is lost through convection - air movement through numerous small gaps in a home's thermal envelope. The most effective method of saving energy is to first seal air leaks and then add insulation. Many homeowners can do the air sealing themselves at a very low cost, resulting in an even quicker payback.

Also, the Dept of Energy calculations, which show something like a 5.6 year payback, are based on a typical home built after the 1973 oil embargo, when insulation standards for new homes became more stringent. Richard Moe's article specifically addressed older homes, which are are more poorly insulated (if at all) and which are often extremely leaky. So the answer to the payback question will always depend on the age and condition of the home.

http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:dLLhzFcEo4kJ:www.homeworksenergy.com/Report1.doc+sealing+air+leaks+payback&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/insulation_airsealing/index.cfm/mytopic=11360

Weatherizing older homes: a win-win-win stimulus that creates jobs, cuts carbon emissions, reduces energy consumption, and revitalizes neighborhoods

Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in a piece titled, "This Old Wasteful House" (see below) on the Op-ed page of today's New York Times makes a strong case for the multiple benefits from weatherizing older homes: reducing energy consumption, cutting carbon emissions, revitalizing neighborhoods and creating jobs.

Homes are responsible for 21% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.  And it's not only aging middle-class homes. I have observed energy audits of luxury homes built in the last 20 years that show serious deficiencies in thermal protection.  Air sealing and insulation can pay for themselves in as little as two years, and continue to pay dividends in the form of lower fuel bills, putting more cash in homeowners’ pockets.

There is yet another important advantage of upgrading our aging housing stock not addressed in Mr. Moe's Op-ed piece. Unlike the vast tracts of suburban sprawl that characterize much of new residential construction, older homes are often located in compact, walkable communities. Revitalizing such neighborhoods strengthens a pattern of development that is far less dependent on the automobile, and hence, more sustainable. It’s a win-win-win stimulus package.

This Old Wasteful House

by Richard Moe

NEVER before has America had so many compelling reasons to preserve the homes in its older residential neighborhoods. We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient.

Let’s begin with energy consumption and emissions. Forty-three percent of America’s carbon emissions come from heating, cooling, lighting and operating our buildings. Older homes are particularly wasteful: Homes built in 1939 or before use around 50 percent more energy per square foot than those constructed in 2000. But with significant improvements and retrofits, these structures could perform on a par with newer homes.

So how does a homeowner go green? The first step is an energy audit by a local utility. These audits can be obtained in many communities at little or no cost. They help identify the sources of heat loss, allowing homeowners to make informed decisions about how to reduce energy use in the most cost-effective way.

Homeowners are likely to discover that much of the energy loss comes down to a lack of insulation in attics and basements. Sealing other air leaks also helps. This can be done by installing dryer vent seals that open only when the dryer is in use, as well as fireplace draft stoppers and attic door covers.

Experience has shown that virtually any older or historic house can become more energy-efficient without losing its character. Restoring the original features of older houses — like porches, awnings and shutters — can maximize shade and insulation. Older wooden windows perform very well when properly weatherized — this includes caulking, insulation and weather stripping — and assisted by the addition of a good storm window. Weatherizing leaky windows in most cases is much cheaper than installing replacements.

The good news is that the administration is taking steps to help homes save energy with a program that will invest almost $8 billion in state and local weatherization and energy-efficiency efforts. The Weatherization Assistance Program, aimed at low-income families, will allow an average investment of up to $6,500 per home in energy efficiency upgrades.

My organization is also working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and members of Congress on legislation to help cover the costs of making all older homes more energy-efficient. Under this proposal, a homeowner would receive a $3,000 incentive for improving energy efficiency by 20 percent, and $150 for each additional percentage point of energy savings. If 3,000 homes could be retrofitted each year, we estimate that after 10 years we could see a reduction of 65 million metric tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, and the equivalent of 200 million barrels of oil saved.

The labor-intensive process of rehabilitating older buildings would also create jobs, and this labor can’t be shipped overseas. The wages would stay in the community, supporting local businesses and significantly increasing household incomes — just the kind of boost the American economy needs right now.

Before demolishing an old building to make way for a new one, consider the amount of energy required to manufacture, transport and assemble the pieces of that building. With the destruction of the building, all that energy is utterly wasted. Then think about the additional energy required for the demolition itself, not to mention for new construction. Preserving a building is the ultimate act of recycling.

Richard Moe is the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The price of risk: Taxpayers pay the costs of both financial and climactic melt-downs

Thomas Friedman's column in the NY Times on March 31 correctly points out the similarities between the current economic mess and the progressing climate crisis. In both cases we have been operating under a system that rewards small numbers of individuals while all of the risk is borne by taxpayers.

The answer, he argues, is to place more realistic prices on the risks associated both with financial instruments and environmental impacts.

Friedman writes, "Just as A.I.G. sold insurance derivatives at prices that did not reflect the real costs and the real risks of massive defaults (for which we the taxpayers ended up paying the difference), oil companies, coal companies and electric utilities today are selling energy products at prices that do not reflect the real costs to the environment and real risks of disruptive climate change (so future taxpayers will end up paying the difference)."

We have become "addicted to cheap coal," he continues, "that makes for lower electricity prices today but spits out toxic greenhouse gases that have to be paid for by future generations tomorrow"

The full text of his article is below.

THE PRICE IS NOT RIGHT
by Thomas Friedman

"I don’t expect much from the G-20 meeting this week, but if I had my wish, the leaders of the world’s 20 top economies would commit themselves to a new standard of accounting — call it “Market to Mother Nature” accounting. Why? Because it’s now obvious that the reason we’re experiencing a simultaneous meltdown in the financial system and the climate system is because we have been mispricing risk in both arenas — producing a huge excess of both toxic assets and toxic air that now threatens the stability of the whole planet.

Just as A.I.G. sold insurance derivatives at prices that did not reflect the real costs and the real risks of massive defaults (for which we the taxpayers ended up paying the difference), oil companies, coal companies and electric utilities today are selling energy products at prices that do not reflect the real costs to the environment and real risks of disruptive climate change (so future taxpayers will end up paying the difference).

Whenever products are mispriced and do not reflect the real costs and risks associated with their usage, people go to excess. And that is exactly what happened in the financial marketplace and in the energy/environmental marketplace during the credit bubble.

Green Cities in America: Guest blogger Daniel Pike, Mayor of Bellingham, WA

Photo: Paula Tullar

Bellingham, WA is one of the greenest cities in the United  States. Among numerous lists that have cited this city in northwest Washington as among the top five or ten green places to live, Forbes magazine has rated Bellingham the second greenest metropolitan area, and Country Home magazine rated it as the third greenest city. Whether it is first or third or twentieth, there is no question that this is a place where people take their responsibility for the environment seriously.

Today, I am pleased to welcome Bellingham's mayor, Daniel Pike as a guest blogger. I asked Dan to write about his city's green initiatives, its commitment to sustainability, and to what extent that has helped mitigate the current financial crisis. Here's what he had to say. Take it away, Dan. . . .

"Bellingham is a community of about 75,000 people tucked into the northwest corner of Washington State, itself tucked into the northwest corner of the continental United States. As a community, we share the challenges and joys common to most communities: tough finances, a rising unemployment rate, businesses struggling, but also a shared sense of place and connection with our neighbors. What makes us a little different from the mainstream, though, is our commitment to a triple bottom line, or TBL, approach to the issues before us. In Bellingham, the conversations are not about jobs versus the environment, rather the community talks about how to grow better. This is a community whose ethos receives notice from authors such as Bill McKibben and Paul Hawken, and that National Public Radio’s “Marketplace,” in its Nov. 15, 2008 broadcast, described Bellingham as “the epicenter of a new economic model for a post-consumerist economy: locally produced goods and services focused on what surrounding communities need and can sustain.”

Does this approach, does this ethos matter in an era where most economies, large and small, personal and communal, are deteriorating? I think so, though perhaps not for intuitive reasons. Bellingham is not being spared from economic pain because it strives to do right, as a community. However, we are working together well to deal with both the immediate crisis and longer term solutions.

We are, in fact, a community, not just a haphazard collection of souls sharing a living space.