The Future is Green

Urine Powered Cars; Gas Tanks Made From Chicken Feathers. Is This The Solution to Fuel Efficiency?

I couldn't resist this. A blog post on the GenGreen Life web site this week reveals two innovations in hydrogen-powered car research.

One of the problems, it seems, with hydrogen fuel cell cars is that the fuel tank needs to be extremely strong in order to store enough compressed hydrogen for a decent driving range. A tank made of carbon nanotubes would do the trick but would add about $30 thousand to the price of the car. But researchers at the University of Delaware accidentally discovered that inexpensive hydrogen tanks of great strength could be made using keratin fibers found in chicken feathers, a plentiful and renewable resource.

The other discovery noted in the article was that hydrogen can be derived very efficiently from urine. I know, I know. But think of it - you're on the road and running low on fuel and you need to find a bathroom and there's no gas station for miles. Voila! Talk about killing two birds with one stone. 

You can read the entire blog post here.

TELL THE SENATE TO FIX CLIMATE BILL LOOPHOLES

I just did something to help secure a clean energy future for the United States. It took exactly 30 seconds. Maybe 25 seconds. You can, too.

All you have to do is visit the EarthJustice web site where a simple, easy-to-use form will enable you to send a letter (already written for you - how thoughtful is that!) to your senators asking them to support the climate bill passed by the House recently.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

It is also important to ask the Senate to fix a couple of shortcomings in the House version in the bill.

A recent editorial in the New York Times (see below) explained what the Senate must do to strengthen the bill.

Why is it so important to write to your senators? EarthJustice explains:

Your senator is hearing daily from opposing voices, among them far-right bloggers and talk radio hosts, who do not believe global warming is real and want to keep our nation hooked on dirty fossil fuels. It is time for us to demand that the Senate act swiftly to combat global warming and usher in an era of clean renewable energy. The world cannot wait. The Senate must craft a bill that sets science-based caps on carbon emissions.

Please visit EarthJustice today and send a letter to your senators. It only takes 30 seconds. While you're at it, why not ask ten friends to do the same.

NY TIMES EDITORIAL, "CLIMATE LOOPHOLES"

Published July 21, 2009

The House’s approval of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill earlier this month was a remarkable political achievement and an important beginning to the task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in all the last-minute wheeling and dealing, the House bill acquired two big loopholes that the Senate must close.

The first loophole involves coal-fired power plants. Coal is the world’s most abundant fossil fuel — producing more than half the electricity in the United States — and also its dirtiest, with twice the carbon content of natural gas.

The House bill would limit emissions from coal-fired power plants in two ways. It imposes a cap on emissions from all industrial facilities that tightens slowly over time. It also sets tough performance standards on new power plants permitted after 2009, requiring emissions reductions of 50 percent or more. The bill would help underwrite advanced technologies capable of capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground.

The bill does not, however, impose any performance standards on existing power plants. And it explicitly removes these plants from the reach of the Clean Air Act. This is a mistake. The overall cap on industrial emissions will not be fully effective for a long time, and, meanwhile, the government should be able to impose lower-emissions requirements on the older, dirtiest plants.

There is little doubt that the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to require existing plants to reduce emissions by, say, using cleaner fuels or increasing efficiency. But the House bill says otherwise, at least when it comes to carbon dioxide. The Senate must fix this problem by writing standards for existing plants into its bill or restoring the E.P.A.’s authority to do so. The old plants simply cannot be let off the hook.

The second loophole involves the tricky matter of offsets.

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.

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.

Barry Katz on the Radio Friday March 20

This Friday, March 20, I will be a guest on the internet radio program, The Success Express to discuss Greening Your Business with hosts, Nancy & Lisa (editors of BigBlendMagazine) and special guest co-host Gerry Rose – President of Integrity Networking Solutions. 

The program airs from 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM. To listen, click here.

Other guests include, Daniel Sitarz – author of Greening Your Business: The Hands-On Guide to Creating a Successful & Sustainable Business; Leon Grundstein - GenCare Lifestyle in Seattle, WA; and Stephanie Dowling - The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, AZ.

If you can't listen at that time, you can listen to the archived program here.

Department of Obfuscation: Misinformation on green building techniques in the NY Times

A recent article in The New York Times is a good example of how misinformation gets disseminated. Citing a report from NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, the article gives the impression that cost savings from green building are not as readily achievable as advocates maintain.

As pointed out by Edward Mazria of Architecture 2030, this report is part of a disinformation campaign meant to stall efforts by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on improving building energy code standards. According to Mazria, in a blog post entitled, A Hog in a Tuxedo is Still a Hog, “It is clear from a simple analysis of the study that NAIOP commissioned a building energy efficiency analysis to support predetermined results.” Mazria continues,

"They contracted with ConSol, an energy-modeling firm, and asked them to analyze five (yes, only five) efficiency measures for an imaginary, square-shaped, four-story office building with completely sealed windows and an equal amount of un-shaded glass on all four sides of the building. In other words, analyze an energy Hog.
 
“They did not study changing the shape of the building, its orientation or form, or redistributing windows or using different windows to take advantage of natural light for daylighting or sunlight for heating (office buildings are day-use facilities). They did not study shading the glass in summertime to reduce the need for air-conditioning, using operable windows for ventilation (not even in Newport Beach with its beautiful year-round climate), using landscaping to reduce micro-climatic impacts, employing cost-effective solar hot water heating systems, employing an energy management control system or even study the impact of using inexpensive energy-saving occupancy sensors in rooms to turn off lights.

“In other words, NAIOP intentionally kept out of the analysis all the readily available low-cost, no-cost and cost-saving options to reduce a building's energy consumption. This deliberate omission is glaringly apparent in their press release and in the NY Times article. In fact, they take so many inexpensive, energy-saving options off the table that it is impossible for the imaginary building to reach commonly achievable energy-consumption-reduction targets.

They then add an inflammatory headline to their press release, “Results show efficiencies unable to reach 30 percent mandates”, and state that, “The study provides an unbiased insight into the energy targets practical to commercial development today.”

Using this analysis as their baseline, NAIOP goes on to report, without any objective basis, that “reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard (a commercial building energy code standard) is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback.” They conclude, “achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.”

Clearly, this study is meant to confuse the public and stall meaningful legislation, insuring that America remains dependent on foreign oil, natural gas and dirty conventional coal.

NAIOP touts itself as advancing responsible commercial real estate development and advocating for effective public policy. This study and misleading campaign accomplishes none of these goals.

The American public deserves better.

How much less does it cost to build green? Part II

I am always frustrated when people ask me how much more it costs to build green. I tell them it's the wrong question to ask. The appropriate question is, how much less does it cost? 

It is a mistake to look only at first costs when considering the budget for a building or remodeling project, because operating costs, over the life-span of a building, can be two to three times the original cost of construction. So green upgrades that increase energy efficiency and reduce maintenance costs quickly pay for themselves and then continue to pay dividends for the life of the building. And that's not even taking into account the documented increases in productivity among workers in green buildings. That's a topic for another post.

I wrote about this last month in a piece called How much less does it cost to build green? Today I want to expand on that topic with some excerpts from an article entitled Valuing Green Buildings, by my friend, Constantine Valhouli, of the Hammersmith Group. It was originally published in Urban Land magazine, a publication of the Urban Land Institute. You can find the complete article here.

Do green buildings present a competitive advantage that can translate into lease premiums, reduced risk, and increased renewal rates? Given that buildings account for one-third of all energy and water consumed in the United States, there is increased interest in “going green” as energy prices continue to rise. The benefits of sustainable structures range from quantifiable energy and water savings—to the “brand” benefits brought about by actual stewardship of  environmental resources.

“There is a strong business case for high-performance buildings,” maintains Brenna S. Walraven, executive managing director of San Antonio, Texas–based USAA Real Estate and chair of the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA). Previously, green features were considered primarily on the basis that ‘if it’s good for our image, it’s good for marketing.’ Now there is greater awareness—and better documentation—of the financial benefits of high performance buildings.”

Energy-efficient and water efficient features can increase a building’s value by lowering operating costs. High-performance buildings can generate a 7 to 12 percent increase in net operating income (NOI) by reducing operating costs, notes Dennis Fleming, managing director of Revival Funds, a Denver-based firm that funds sustainable real estate investments.

Green buildings use on average 30 percent less energy than conventional buildings, points out Greg Kats, managing director of Good Energies, a venture fund focused on renewable energies based in Manhattan. If energy costs run, say, $2 per square foot, this becomes a savings of $0.60 per square foot. For a 100,000-square-foot building, this represents energy and water savings of $60,000 annually. With a 20-year present value of expected energy savings at a 5 percent cap rate, this savings adds roughly $750,000 to the value of the building—all for a small additional investment in the initial costs. As interest rates and energy prices rise, these benefits become even more pronounced—and green buildings become even more valuable.

“Energy-efficiency has helped drive value for our portfolio,” says Walraven. By using Energy Star’s tools and ratings that normalize building efficiency for factors such as weather, occupancy, and building characteristics, Walraven explains that it was possible to identify low-cost opportunities to increase operating efficiencies for USAA Real Estate’s portfolio properties.

The result, she says, is that implementing the recommendations from the energy audit generated $10 million in savings on capital expenditures of $2 million.

That's not a bad rate of return in any economy.

Back by popular demand: Stephen Colbert on greenwashing by oil companies

There's nothing I can possibly add to this. Just watch and enjoy.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Prescott Oil Loves the Earth

Save a tree and get a Kindle for free (sort of)

I've been wanting a Kindle electronic reader for some time but didn't want to spend the money. But when the new, slimmer, sexier-looking Kindle 2 was announced recently I started looking into the economics again and noticed something pretty interesting. The thing could pay for itself.

How? I’ll tell you.

Home delivery of the New York Times costs me $45.93 per month. Instead, I could get the Times delivered electronically to my Kindle for $13.99 per month -- a savings of $31.94. So my annual savings would be $383.32. A new Kindle 2 costs $359.00. Hmmmm.

Not only that, but the paper doesn't always arrive as early in the morning as I would like, and I often have to go outside in the cold, rain or snow to get it. And then there are all those messy piles of newsprint laying around waiting to be recycled.

On top of all that, I would personally be saving one tree per year. Now, that may not sound like a lot, but it adds up. And even though most newsprint comes from trees that are farmed, there are still serious downsides to the practice, like increased erosion and water quality issues. Also, making paper produces significant amounts pollution. Then there is the energy used trucking the trees to the paper mill, shipping the paper to the printer, running the printing presses, shipping the finished newspapers to distributors, newsstands, my driveway, etc.  The Kindle is starting to look like a pretty good deal to me.

You can click here if you want to know more, or order one from Amazon.com.

Are the environment and the economy driving you to drink? Drown your sorrows in sustainable beer.

Who could blame you if the constant stream of bad news about the economy and the environment makes you feel like you could use a drink? If so, consider quenching your thirst with Sierra Nevada, suds made by one of the greenest breweries in the country.

While they haven't yet achieved their goal of producing 100% of their own energy renewably, they currently generate most of their energy needs with fuel cells and one of the largest private solar installations in the country. They recover and re-use both heat and CO2 from the brewing process, recycle 98% of their waste stream, and consume just half as much water as most breweries.

Most interesting of all, according to today's Huffington Post, their biofuel trucks fleet (which will shortly include some of the very first hybrid-electric trucks on the road) will soon be powered with ethanol created from beer yeast, raising the possibility that in addition to beer, Sierra could become a net fuel producer, as well.

Bottoms up!

It's time for NAHB to get serious about climate change

I have a love/hate relationship with the National Association of Home Builders. As a longtime member of NAHB I appreciate many of the services they provide, including their tireless advocacy in Washington. But I've occasionally felt some of their positions were wrong-headed - attempting to protect home builders from regulations that would benefit home buyers.

Case in point - about which I am quietly fuming: While the NAHB pays a great deal of lip service to improving energy efficiency in homes, at the 2008 hearings of the International Code Council in Minneapolis, NAHB successfully lobbied for the weakening of proposed new energy standards under the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

According to the blog, Green Building Advisor, the so-called the so-called Thirty Percent Solution — which would have required homes built in 2009 to be 30% more energy efficient that homes built in 2006 —  was defeated after vigorous opposition from representatives from the NAHB. The Thirty Percent Solution was supported by a wide coalition of organizations, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Energy Officials and the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition.

The weakened regulations that were finally passed only require a 12.2% improvement in energy efficiency. The results will be still less effective becauseu the IECC codes are only sporadically enforced around the country.

I think it's an outrage. When are we going to get serious about fighting climate change?

How much less does it cost to build green?

The one question I am asked more often than any other on the subject of green building is, How much more does it cost? For a long time I cited various statistics indicating premiums in the range of 2.5% to 5% or so. But a while ago it dawned on me that this was actually misleading. My new response is that "how much more" is the wrong question. The appropriate question is, How much less does it cost?

Thinking only in terms of first costs is extremely short-sighted. What you really want to know about is the life-cycle cost. Over a building's useful life, the cost of operations and maintenance can easily equal or exceed the original construction cost. Building green, or carrying out green retrofits, nets substantial reductions in energy use, water use, waste water disposal, solid waste disposal, and maintenance, generally resulting in relatively short pay-back periods and high returns on investment.

An excellent case in point is the retrofit of Adobe System's headquarters in San Jose, CA. The cost of the retrofit was $1.4 million. Of that amount, $389,000 was offset by grants and rebates from the city, state, and local utilities. And while Adobe's staff grew by 35% since 2001, their electricity consumption is down 35%, natural gas use is down 41%, potable water consumption dropped 22% and their landscape irrigation consumes 75% less water than before. All this is netting Adobe an annual cost savings of $1.2 million and earned the project LEED-Platinum certification.

But this kind of financial return still only tells part of the story. Green workplaces have been shown to improve productivity and reduce absenteeism. For most businesses, savings on operating costs for office buildings pale in comparison to productivity increases because salaries typically run five to six times higher than all other costs combined, so even small increases in productivity have a big impact on the bottom line.

In a future post I will go into more detail about research documenting improved worker productivity in green offices. It's pretty interesting stuff. But for the moment, a few statistics will paint the picture in broad strokes.

A study published by Deloitte & Touche reports that in a survey of organizations that had carried out LEED-certified green retrofits,  87% saw an improvement in workforce productivity, 75% saw an improvement in employee health, and 73% reported that they had achieved cost reductions as a result of implementing green measures. Respondents also reported substantial reductions in energy costs and higher apprasial values.

Other recent studies of green buildings have documented higher occupancy rates, higher rents, and sales premiums as high as $171 per square foot as compared with comparable properties with standard construction. 

So, how much less does it cost to build green, anyway?

Behavior Modification, Part deux - Keeping up with the emoticons

Back in December I wrote a post about using behavior modification to save energy, in which I highlighted some high-tech energy monitoring systems that allow users to see the effect of their behavior. Studies have shown that such feedback can reduce energy bills 5% to 10%. I also mentioned my own low-tech version which involved taping a copy of our electric bill to the back door. This irked my wife no end, but she has since been much more diligent about turning off lights, even in rooms I am sitting in.

The Sacramento, CA Municipal Utility District is experimenting with a similarly low-tech, paper-based behavior mod system. As part of an ongoing campaign to get their customers to conserve, energy-efficient customers have been receiving bills festooned with smiley faces.

Last April, according to the New York Times, "it began sending out statements to 35,000 randomly selected customers, rating them on their energy use compared with that of neighbors in 100 homes of similar size that used the same heating fuel. The customers were also compared with the 20 neighbors who were especially efficient in saving energy."

The result? Customers who received the personalized bills used 2% less energy than those getting standard bills, making this one of the more effective ways the utility has found to encourage conservation.

One small adjustment needed to be made. When the program began, customers who used less energy than their neighbors received either one or two smiley faces, depending on how much better they did. Customers who used more energy received frowning emoticons. The frowns had to be discontinued, however, because some of the people who received them got pretty pissed off. I could have told them that would happen.

Expletives deleted

My new friends, Ryan Potvin and Matt Macko of Environmental Building Strategies in San Francisco have been getting some flack about an article entitled Top 100 ways to Continue Fucking the Future. that appeared in their excellent blog on January 5. The article was about their desire to write a book listing all the things we routinely do that have negative environmental impacts.

The flack was not about the concept or the content of the piece, but merely about the title's use of the dreaded F word. People, grow up, please.

The idea was to grab readers' attention with a provocative title, a subversive twist on the hundred or so books with titles like "101 Easy Ways to Go Green," or some such nonsense,  and then hold up a mirror wherein they'll catch the conscience of the king, so to speak. I often wonder what it will take to wake people up to the very real dangers bearing down on us. It a four-letter expletive helps, well then full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, I say. When the book comes out I will be first in line to buy a copy so I hope they make good on their threat to actually write it.

Their blog is full of information and insight and I recommend checking it out. In their day job, Matt and Ryan are top-notch green building advisers with offices in San Francisco, LA and Aspen, CO. Anyone looking in their neck of the woods for green building advice, energy audits, project management, etc. should definitely look them up. All their contact information can be found on the Environmental Building Strategies web site along with all sorts of useful information. 

Cruising for Dystopian Burgers OR The Drive-in at the End of the Universe

My friend James Howard Kunstler is not impressed with recent efforts at improving automobile fuel efficiency. In his view, anything short of ending our dependence on cars for personal transportation is a doomed enterprise.

In a recent email he wrote, "Personally, I've been carrying on a low-grade war with some of the more high-toned Greenies. Much of the green program these days is about making people feel good.  People come up to me after my college blabs and brag that they just bought a Prius and I refuse to give them the brownie points they long for.  I tell them they're just part of the problem --thinking that car dependency by 'other means' is great for us. Then, of course, there's Amory Lovins and his hyper-car (beloved of the Aspen Enviro Institute). 

IMHO anything we do to try to prolong or extend car dependency is a tragic act of futility. Walkable communities is the key to being "green." And public transit that really works. If Mr. Obama's big stimulus initiative ends up being about highways, he will be making a tragic error."

He continues the argument this week in his blog, Clusterfuck Nation. (Jim doesn't mince words)

I've been skeptical of the "stimulus" as sketched out so far, aimed at refurbishing the infrastructure of Happy Motoring. To me, this is the epitome of a campaign to sustain the unsustainable -- since car-dependency is absolutely the last thing we need to shore up and promote. I haven't heard any talk so far about promoting walkable communities, or any meaningful plan to get serious about fixing passenger rail and integral public transit.

Has Mr. Obama's circle lost sight of the fact that we import more than two-thirds of the oil we use, even during the current price hiatus? Or have they forgotten how vulnerable this leaves us to the slightest geopolitical spasm in such stable oil-exporting nations as Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria, Columbia, Iran, and the Middle East states? And we're going to rescue ourselves by driving cars?

I know it is difficult for Americans at every level to imagine a different way-of-life, but we'd better start tuning up our imaginations, because endless motoring is not our destiny anymore. The message has not moved from the grassroots up, and so at this perilous stage the message had better come from the top down. Mr. Obama needs to go on TV and tell the American public that were done cruisin' for burgers.

Click here to read the entire post.

This is a good week, by the way, for fans of James Howard Kunstler. He is the central focus of Ben McGrath's piece, The Dystopians in the Jan. 26 issue of The New Yorker.  Definitely woth reading.

What part of "catastrophic climate change" don't you understand?

I wanted to share two comments I received recently. The first in response to my post of January 14 in which I suggested that the proposed $500 tax credit would be better spent insulating 20 million homes rather than the 2 million that Obama has proposed.

". . . insulating the two million homes, and two million homes only, for now, may not be enough considering the facts, but we need to start with some number, and take it from there. Being realistic in the current economy is the sparkle that will ignite it's engine."

How about being realistic about global warming? I know, it's hard to stay terrified for long stretches of time, so we tend to forget exactly how serious the threat is. This is a mistake.

The second, and more alarming of the two was in response to my January 15 post in which I expressed hope that President Obama turns out to be green enough to make some progress on the impending climate catastrophe.

"I just hope he doesn't try to force down our throat a bunch of economic nonsense like what Gore was trying to do . . . carbon credits, Kyoto Protocol, etc . . . green is good, but not if it completely cripples our economy or serves to unduly transfer justly earned wealth to those who did not earn it." 

Has no one been paying attention? Have you read the 2007 report by the UN's  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The report stated that climate change is a serious, real and present danger, with a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity. (The IPCC recently revised its conclusion to say that evidence of anthropomorphic climate change is unequivocal.) Ninety-eight percent of the world's scientists concur. Many of them think the results are grossly understated.

We should be scared. We should be very scared.

One of the predictions in that report was that global warming would cause the continued shrinking of polar ice sheets. Recent data indicates that the ice is shrinking 100 times faster than the report predicted.

Remember the 2003 heat wave that killed 35,000 people in Europe? Temperatures in July and August were consistently over 100 degrees F. This was considered, at the time, to be a once-in-a-hundred-year event. According to current climate models, by 2050 it will be a once-in-two-year event and that by 2070, 100 degrees will be considered an unusually cool summer day in Europe.

We do not have time to go slow. If we don't take radical measures to slash our frenzied consumption of fossil fuels - including setting a stiff price on CO2 emissions - the consequences could be disastrous and irreversible. Countries that have taxed carbon and invested in renewable energy on a large scale have not seen their economies crippled. On the contrary, their economies have been strengthened. (I'll provide details in a future posting.)

Inaction, or insufficiently bold action, is what will cripple our economy, cause widespread disruption of the food chain, and put at risk the planet's continued ability to sustain life as we know it. 

Are we scared yet?

Our first green president?

I just published my first post as a guest blogger at CT Green Scene. It asks the question, Is Obama green enough. I think he just might be. At least I sure hope so. It will kill me if he isn't. You can read the post here.

He looks good in green, doesn't he?