The Future is Green

'How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?' 30 Million People Wonder

First of all, dear readers, I must apologize for the long silence. I needed to put the blog on hold while finishing up the manuscript for my book, Practical Green Remodeling, due out this summer. It's nearly done (my editor will be relieved to hear) and I hope to resume regular blogging shortly. But I couldn't resist sharing this piece from The Onion that my son alerted me to.

  A local resident discards a plastic bottle—just as he has done his whole life—with no perceivable effect on the environment.

WASHINGTON—Wishing to dispose of the empty plastic container, and failing to spot a recycling bin nearby, an estimated 30 million Americans asked themselves Monday how bad throwing away a single bottle of water could really be.

"It's fine, it's fine," thought Maine native Sheila Hodge, echoing the exact sentiments of Chicago-area resident Phillip Ragowski, recent Florida transplant Margaret Lowery, and Kansas City business owner Brian McMillan, as they tossed the polyethylene terephthalate object into an awaiting trash can. "It's just one bottle. And I'm usually pretty good about this sort of thing."

"Not a big deal," continued roughly one-tenth of the nation's population.

According to the inner monologue of millions upon millions of citizens, while not necessarily ideal, throwing away one empty bottle probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, and could even be forgiven, considering how long they had been carrying it around with them, the time that could be saved by just tossing it out right here, and the fact that they had bicycled to work once last July.

In addition, pretty much the entire states of Missouri and New Mexico calmly reassured themselves Monday that they definitely knew better than to do something like this, but admitted that hey, nobody is perfect, and at least they weren't still using those horrible aerosol cans, or just throwing garbage directly on the ground.

All agreed that disposing of what would eventually amount to 50 tons of thermoplastic polymer resin wasn't the end of the world.

"It's not like I don't care, because I do, and most of the time I don't even buy bottled water," thought Missouri school teacher Heather Delamere, the 450,000th caring and progressive individual to have done so that morning, and the 850,000th to have purchased the environmentally damaging vessel due to being thirsty, in a huge rush, and away from home. "It's really not worth beating myself up over."

"What's one little bottle in the grand scheme of things, you know?" added each and every single one of them.

Monday's plastic-bottle-related dilemma wasn't the only environmental quandary facing millions of citizens across the country. An estimated 20 million men and women wondered how wasteful leaving a single lightbulb on all night really was, while more than 40 million Americans asked themselves if anyone would actually notice if they just turned up the heat a few degrees instead of walking all the way downstairs and getting another blanket.

Likewise, had they not been so tired, and busy, and stressed, citizens making up the equivalent of three major metropolitan areas told reporters that they probably wouldn't have driven their minivans down to the corner store.

"Relax," thousands upon thousands of Americans quietly whispered to themselves as they tossed two articles of clothing into an empty washing machine and turned it on. "What are you so worried about?"

You can see the original here.

A Wonkish Post About the Waxman-Markey Bill, a.k.a. the American Clean Energy and Security Act

Just back from Atlanta, where I spent four days at the Renewable Energy Markets conference sponsored by CRS, the Center for Resource Solutions.

One of the most striking things about the conference was the acknowledgement by virtually every speaker that a great deal of the clean energy landscape is about to change. Congress is on the verge of passing (we hope) some version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. (The Senate version of the bill is called the Bingaman bill, but don’t let that confuse you).

Though far from perfect, ACESA is a significant step forward in the effort to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and to curb global warming. The bill will mandate that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 80% (from 2005 levels) by the year 2050. That’s ambitious goal to be accomplished in 40 years, but it’s far from impossible. Still, many would argue that it is not ambitious enough.

One of the most crucial features of this 1,200 page bill is a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is the same model that has been highly successful in reducing acid rain, so we know the mechanism to be effective. Simply put, energy producers would first be required to limit their greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels, and then gradually reduce emissions each year as the cap is ratcheted down.

Opponents of cap-and-trade claim that the costs will be prohibitive. But experience has shown that the successful acid rain reduction program in the US has been far less costly than originally predicted. And the European Union currently operates under a cap-and-trade system with virtually no negative economic consequences, according to an analysis by MIT.

More importantly, what opponents fail to consider, and should be reminded of at every opportunity, is that the cost of inaction will dwarf the cost of addressing climate change. I am always amazed when professed fiscal conservatives ignore financial consequences that will occur after the next election cycle, let alone in their children’s lifetime. This is conservatism? I call it irresponsible. But I digress.

But back to ACESA. One of the bill’s flaws, which could be easily fixed, is that neither the House or Senate versions contain a provision for protecting the voluntary market for renewable energy credits (RECs). (Click here for more detail on renewable energy credits).

While utilities in 30 states must buy RECs to comply with state mandates for clean energy, called Renewable Portfolio Standards, many organizations voluntarily buy RECs as part of a corporate commitment to environmental responsibility. Some of the largest voluntary buyers of RECs include Intel, PepsiCo, DuPont, Staples, Alcoa, Cargill Dow, Delphi Corporation, and scores of others who have offset from 4% to 100% of their conventional electricity usage. To date, voluntary REC purchases have been responsible for over 50% of all new renewable energy development in the US. Voluntary purchases in 2007, alone, account for 18.1 Megawatt hours of clean energy capacity. It’s a big success story.

A simple change in the bill’s language could rectify this shortcoming. It would take someone far more wonkish than I to explain this adequately, but passing this bill is a crucial step towards tackling climate change. I urge you to write, call, or email your Senators and Representatives to say you support passage of ACESA, and that it should be amended to provide added protections for the voluntary REC market.

New Film, The Age of Stupid, asks Why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?

The Age of  Stupid, a powerful new British drama/documentary film about climate change, is having its Unites States premier on September 21 and 22 in theaters in every state. (You can find a list of theaters and show times, and order tickets here.) The film stars Oscar-nominated actor, Pete Postlethwaite, as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?

Within 48 hours of the film's British launch at Tate Modern on September 1, 10,000 people, including Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, all of the cabinet, and the leaders of the UK's three main political parties all signed a pledge to  cut the UK's emissions by 10% in 2010.

Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid and founder of the environmental organization 10:10 said: "It's amazing that within 48 hours of the campaign's launch, the leaderships of the three main political parties have committed to cut their carbon emmissions by 10%. Who said people power was dead?

The premiere will be simulcast live from a solar powered tent in New York City to over 400 movie theaters at 7:30 PM ET (6:30 PM CT/ 5:30 PM MT/ tape delayed 8PM PT) and will include a live pre-show from the green carpet including Kofi Annan, Gillian Anderson, the film's director Franny Armstrong, and star, Pete Postlethwaite, and other luminaries from around the world including Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, and Ed Miliband, the UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change.

Mark your calendars and order your tickets now, and let me know what you thought of the film.

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.

Water crisis? What water crisis?

The other day I mentioned to my mother that I've been studying the global water crisis. She replied, "There's a global water crisis?"

Now, my mother reads a newspaper every day, the Baltimore Sun. She listens to NPR. Most mornings she watches the Today Show, and every evening she watches at least one TV news program. Every Sunday at 9:00 AM she watches CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood, followed by 60 Minutes in the evening.

And she doesn't know that there is a global water crisis.

It seems clear that the media is doing a singularly bad job of getting this story out. Yet 12 million people die each year due to lack of access to clean water. A child dies every six seconds for lack of access to clean water. The WorldWatch Institute has called water scarcity "the most underappreciated global environmental challenge of our time." No kidding.

Pollution, climate change, and population growth all contribute to a problem that, if left unchecked, will result in water scarcity for two thirds of the world's population by 2025. By 2030, according to the UN, more than half the population of large Third World cities will have no access at all to water or sanitation services.

But this is not just a Third World problem. Huge swaths of the United States are currently facing severe water shortages. Maude Barlow writes in Blue Covenant that in 2007, " Lake Superior, the world's largest freshwater lake, dropped to its lowest level in eighty years. . . . California has a twenty-year supply of freshwater left. New Mexico has only a ten-year supply. Arizona is out: it now import all of its drinking water."

Barlow also notes that the U.S. Geological Survey found that "the parched Interior West is probably the driest it has been in five hundred years." This is more than a drought. We are running out of water.

The water crisis is complex and of vast proportion. I'll be writing more about it in the coming weeks, both about the effects that are being felt around the world, and what we can do about it. In the meanwhile, Google "global water crisis" and check out one or two of the 44 million hits you'll find there. And, for heaven's sake, stop letting the water run while you brush your teeth.

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.

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.

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.

James Howard Kunstler on the Recovery, Suburban Sprawl, Obama, and Wall Street's "Stupendous Orgy of Misbehavior"

James Howard Kunstler has occasionally been described as a purveyor of doom and gloom. His book, The Long Emergency painted a particularly bleak picture of the prospect of living in a post-carbon world - i.e. a future in which the exponentially rising imbalance between supply and demand for petroleum-based fuels has brought economic growth to a standstill and unleashed widespread disruption of the social order.

Pretty scary stuff. But implausible? Perhaps not so much.

 In a recent post to his blog, Jim responds to the charge of being a "doomer" by challenging us to take a clear-eyed look at reality and asking pointed questions about what shape we expect future to take. He writes,

     "At the risk of confirming my critics' dumbest charge -- that I am a "doomer" -- the mandate of clarity requires me to ask: to what state of affairs do we expect to recover? If the answer is a return to an economy based on building ever more suburban sprawl, on credit card over-spending, on routine securitized debt shenanigans in banking, and on consistently lying to ourselves about what reality demands of us, then we are a mortally deluded nation. We're done with that, we're beyond that now, we've crossed the frontier and left that all behind, and we'd better get our heads straight about it."

He goes on to criticize some of the Obama administration's efforts to put the country back on track, and makes a few interesting suggestions about possible alternatives.

Jim Kunstler is nothing if not provocative. In the ten or so years since I first met him I have often marveled at his unwavering rejection of complacency and his steadfast refusal to accept conventional wisdom about almost everything. While occasionally over the top (to understate the case) his observations and the questions he raises are always worth pondering. I reprint the rest of his March 9 posting below. Readers' comments are welcome.

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.

Exxon-funded scientist says CO2 emissions are good for us and we need more

Opinions, it has been said, are like a certain part of our anatomy associated with elimination - everybody has one. That, I suppose, might explain the bizarre testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week by Physicist, Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. Happer offered the opinion that we are actually in a CO2 famine - compared with Earth's atmosphere of 80 million years ago - and that increased CO2 emissions would actually be good for mankind.

Happer's testimony, part of which you can see below, drew an incredulous response from the committee's chairwoman, Senator Barbara Boxer who said, "I don't even know how to say this, but a lot has happened since then," before noting that conditions on Earth 80 million years ago were probably not something we would find particularly pleasant today. Boxer later noted that Happer is Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives a large part of its funding from Exxon. Hmmmmm.

Happer claims that Earth, during the Pleistocene era (which was actually from 1.8 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago - NOT 80 million years ago) had many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than it does now, and that, as a result, the planet prospered.

In fact, CO2 levels in the Pleistocene - the period when the the planet was much colder and glaciers reached their furthest limit - were roughly 200 ppm (parts per million). Today's atmospheric CO2 level is about 386 ppm.

80 million years ago, by contrast, during the Cretaceous Period, when CO2 levels were 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm, the climate was very hot. Ice sheets had melted and sea levels were 120m higher than today. This map, published last year in the journal, Science, shows what the world would look like today with sea levels similar to those of 80 million years ago. The dark blue areas would be completely under water.

Perhaps Dr. Happer would prefer it that way, but I suspect most of us would not.

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

There's still no such thing as clean coal: The Coen brothers' new video for This is Reality.org

If you're a fan of the Joel and Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, No Country for Old Men, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?) or if you're just fed up with the coal industry's laughable attempts to portray itself as pro-environment, you'll get a kick out of this new video by the Cohen brothers - the latest in a series of clever 30 second commercials produced by ThisIsReality.org to debunk the myth of clean coal technology.

There is still no such thing as clean coal.