Green Counsel

Military: $75 Billion; Energy: $4 Billion

Excellent front page article in the NY Times today about the daunting tasks ahead, especially for research and development, in tackling global warming.

Among the startling facts: annual government spending for research and development peaked during the 1970's oil crises and has since fallen from $7.7 billion to approximately $3 billion (in 2006 dollars). Annual military research and development spending is more than $75 billion (a 260% increase).

Experts believe that a broad range of strategies are needed including existing ones such as solar, wind, CO2 capture and energy efficiency. Many also believe that a sustained push is needed to find "energy technologies that don't have a name yet" designed by future scientists still in diapers.

Act Locally: Ten Steps Toward Sustainability -- What is Sustainability?

Sustainability sounds complicated but it's actually something every child understands: leave your place as nice as you find it. More formally, it is sometimes defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Environmental sustainability can often be measured by looking at a societies' "ecological footprint."

Redefining Progress, a major sustainability non-profit, uses "ecological footprint" to compare humanity's natural resource consumption rates (its use of resources and waste disposal) to nature's regenerative capacity. Society is presumed to be operating sustainably if its footprint does not exceed the Earth's natural regenerative capacity. In 2004, the United States consumed approximately twice its natural regenerative capacity and its per capita consumption significantly exceeded that of any other country. Businesses are frequently considered sustainable if they follow a triple bottom line with equal concern for people and planet, as well as for profits.

According to a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report issued this week (story), people are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends. According to WWF Director-General James Leape, "If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us."

See: Act Locally: Ten Steps Toward Sustainability -- Step 1

Act Locally: Ten Steps Toward Sustainability -- Step 1

"Think globally and act locally" remains the perfect creed for communities seeking a sustainable future. With the federal government in denial, most of the innovative work for sustainability in the United States today is occurring on a state and local level.

Local action has great benefits. Citizens can best identify local problems and opportunities given their political, economic and social make-up. Local programs -- arising organically from the community -- can engage, educate and empower citizens more forcefully than directives from Washington or Albany. And local communities can serve as laboratories for small-scale experiments that, if successful, can be exported for widespread use.

Here are some of the best policy and legislative initiatives to consider for your community:

1. Create a Sustainability Task Force

For far-reaching effects, municipalities can form a Sustainability Task Force to identify local problems, set goals and act to save energy, use less resources, and reduce pollution. It's best if a task force works with a municipality, but one can be started simply with a group of concerned citizens. A task force can limit its scope to the local government, the school district, a particular economic sector (e.g., manufacturing, food or retail), or it can reach them all. The City of Minneapolis's Sustainability Task Force is a great example. It conducts yearly roundtable discussions and utilizes expert testimony, and then publishes annual reports with sustainability goals, targets, strategies and progress. It utilizes measuring tools, or "indicators," in important areas such as air and water quality, asthma, bike lanes, sewer overflow, permeable surfaces, tree canopy, and renewable energy. (Non-environmental "indicators" include affordable housing, wages, graduation rate, and students in the arts.)

In the Hudson Valley, New York, the City of Hudson just created a "Cool Cities Citizen Advisory Panel." The panel will focus on energy, infrastructure, municipal policy, community and intergovernmental partnerships, and "buy local first" economic development. In Westchester, a group of citizens recently formed a Sustainable Westchester Task Force and drafted a proposal (MS Word Doc) for community-wide sustainability planning to engage the county, local governments, schools, and the private sector.

(To be continued)

Pride of Cucamonga

The New York Times reported today on a creative way that companies such as General Motors, Whole Foods and Staples are using large amounts of reliable solar electricity, and fixing their long term electricity costs with no capital outlay.

The GM warehouse in Cucamonga, CA, for example, now has a photovoltaic array on its roof that can generate 1.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. Although it is expected that the installation will produce half of the building's electricity, it cost GM nothing to build, and is expected to reduce the warehouse's electricity costs by 10%.

The equipment was bought by Developing Energy Efficient Roof Systems (Deers) with the help of private financing and will be owned -- not by GM -- but by Deers. GM signed a long term contract with Deers to buy the electricity substantially below the prevailing regional rate.

Otherwise known as the "solar services model," similar arrangements are cropping up around the country including a project built by Solar Integrated Technologies and financed by GE Energy Financial Services that supplies half the electricity at 23 San Diego schools. One advantage of these projects is that they allow businesses with very narrow margins that cant afford large capital investments on non-core projects, to gain the benefits of distributed, reliable, solar energy at fixed rates. Developers get a reliable return on their investment and get the benefits of tax credits and other rebates offered by states for renewable energy projects. The parties often negotiate who will get the potential credits for reducing carbon emissions.

Whole Foods Market, in a deal with SunEdison with investors including Goldman Sachs, will be using solar cells to provide about 10% of its electricty in four buildings, and plans many more. According to Whole Foods' green mission specialist, "There's just no downside."

John Hall, Environmentalist, For Congress

John Hall --- of Orleans, "Dance with Me," and "Still the One" fame -- was just endorsed by the Sierra Club -- and has an excellent chance of beating incumbent Sue Kelly in the 19th Congressional District in New York, and helping the Democrats take back Congress. John has been a long time supporter of the environment and clean energy, and is the kind of representative the entire country needs if we are going to meet the energy and environmental challenges we face.

John needs money and support from people all around the country, and the best way to start is to visit his website. I highly recommend viewing his appearance on the Colbert Report last night here. John is very strong, Colbert is hilarious, and the segment includes several effective and funny stabs against the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which is located within the 19th Congressional District.

Here's John's plan to solve our energy issues that includes a long term Apollo-like program based upon research and development, energy efficiency and renewables:

"Solving the Energy Crisis [FROM JOHNHALL.COM WEBSITE]

One of the most glaring failures of Congress and the Bush administration is in the lack of a coherent, forward looking energy policy. Instead of developing alternatives that put the United Stated in the position of marketing new technologies to the rest of the world, this oil-based cadre of government officials has given tax breaks and incentives to oil, coal and nuclear companies at a time when they are already making record profits.

I propose the following:

An Apollo-program or Marshall Plan equivalent commitment to conservation and alternative energy: solar, wind, hydroelectric, bio-diesel, geothermal, and old-fashioned efficiency.

Raise CAFE standards. If Toyota and Honda can produce a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, don't tell me Detroit can't. Government must mandate what CEO's refuse to do in the public interest; high standards and incentives will move consumers and companies, especially if government at all levels favors efficiency in their fleet vehicle purchases.

Low-head hydroelectric sites, which number in the thousands in the Northeast alone, should be immediately utilized by installing turbines and indemnifying localities or private owners. Studies ranging from NSERDA in the 70's to the Idaho National Laboratory in 1998 show that untapped hydro sites in New York could make a significant dent in New York City's power demand. (>1200 megawatts - INL 1998) Massachusetts, according to a recent report, has more than four thousand low-head sites.

Bio-diesel runs Willie Nelson's bus and the Clearwater Festival's generators, yet it doesn't have the support from our tax dollars that fossil fuels have. Why? Let's pay American farmers to grow our fuel rather than funneling that money to Middle East oil potentates who fund terrorist organizations.
Ask everybody to be part of the effort. In order to maintain our independence from foreign suppliers and creditors, we should all be willing to conserve as much as possible. Grocery stores and convenience stores should put doors or at least plastic sheeting on cold food cases; subdivision rules banning clotheslines should be lifted; weather-stripping, insulation and storm windows should be provided by government for all older houses and apartment buildings where the owner can't afford them. Unnecessary lighting should be turned off, and the president and Congress should set an example for the rest of us. A kilowatt or barrel saved is the same as one earned.

A crash program to develop solar, and related technologies including hydrogen, should be our new national priority. As kilowatts are replaced by these new systems, our most polluting plants should be taken off line. We should also shut down and decommission our nuclear plants, starting with Indian Point and others that are sited in heavily populated areas where evacuation would be impossible.

The insurance underwriting and subsidies that have been granted for half a century to the nuclear industry should be canceled, and instead be extended to safe, sustainable, alternative energy projects. If we can put a man on the moon, if we can connect the whole planet via the Internet, surely we can kick our addiction to oil, coal and nuclear, energy sources that threaten our health and security."

Bush's "Go to China" Moment on the Environment?

There's been buzz recently that the Bush Administration might be planning a turnaround on climate change issues which, after years of denial, has been compared to Nixon's trip China after years of communist bashing.

Well maybe Bush should do more than metaphorically "go to China" and actually follow some of China's recent action on the environment. China recently announced the following major steps:

1) China now mandates energy efficiency standards in urban construction and requires construction contractors to use energy efficient building materials and adopt energy saving technology in heating, air conditioning, ventilation and lighting systems in public buildings. Full Story.

2) China expects to cut water consumption 30 percent by 2010, as part of efforts to propel a sustainable development, by increasing the efficiency of agricultural irrigation, and cutting industrial water consumption. Full Story.

3) China plans to invest 1.4 trillion yuan (US$175 billion) in environmental protection between 2006 and 2010 - more than 1.5 percent of the national GDP. Full Story.

Also, even though China has for many years has been seen as a threat to the environment, green business opportunites are now growing. Full Story.

Regarding Bush's conversion, some of stories floating state that Bush plans a goal of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere at 450 parts per million by the year 2106. Yes, you read right, in one hundred years (phew, I feel better now). And let us not forget Bush's prior statement on the subject. :-)

Psst: Regulation Works and NYC Uses Least Water Since 1951

The NY Times reported today (B1) today that in the 12 Months ending June 30, New York City's water use declined 5.2% since 2002, 28% since 1979, and was the lowest since 1951.

Experts say that although the popularity of bottled water and the decline of manufacturing may have had a small effect, the primary reason is the product of government policy: requiring water-saving plumbing devices (newer toilets use 1.6 gallons instead of 5; and many washing machines use less than 20 gallons per load instead of more than 40, saving both water and heating costs); diligence in fixing leaks, and residential building metering (although many apartments don't have individual meters).

There is still much room for improvement, New York's daily per capita water consumption is 136 gallons, less than many cities but substantially more than San Francisco (97).

The Hierarchy of Waste

Thanks to Joel Makower for his excellent posting on "What's the 'Highest and Best Use' of Waste?".

Joel discusses consultant Gary Liss's document entitled "Zero Waste Hierarchy of Highest and Best Use" (PDF) that he designed for the City of Oakland.

In March 2006 the Oakland City Council adopted a “Zero Waste” goal by 2020 and commissioned the creation of a “Zero Waste” Strategic Plan. Oakland has already achieved the 50% waste reduction goal mandated by California law, primarily through residential recycling collection programs and free market recycling services available to businesses.

As opposed to traditional waste management principles, the “Zero Waste” strategy presumes that products are designed to be repaired, reused or recycled, and so that no waste is a threat to planetary, animal or plant health. Communities can strive toward “Zero Waste” by implementing policies to reduce (promote low-impact or reduced-consumption lifestyles, and reduce volume and toxicity of waste); reuse (foster use of discarded materials to stimulate and drive local economic growth); and recycle (improve ‘downstream’ recycling of end of life products and materials to ensure highest and best use).

Liss's document digs down and provides priorities within the overarching hierarcy of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." It should be mandatory reading for all policy officials responsible for waste management. And as Joel states, it "has the potential to help procurement officials -- in government as well as in companies, universities, and other large institutions -- vote for the environment with every purchase they make."