Archives For sustainability

23

Water: The Neglected Resource

water dropsUsing over 1,300 gallons per day per capita, many Americans have been lulled into the misconception that we do not have to worry about our water supply. We are paying a great deal of attention to our resources for energy: coal, oil, natural gas. Debates in the Climate Bill and the upcoming Environmental Summit in Copenhagen have sharpened our focus on the sun and wind as natural resources. Of all of the resources that America focuses on, water is near the bottom and as a result we are unsurprisingly the least careful with its use and upkeep. The truth is known in other parts of the world much more poignantly than here: a clean supply of fresh water is essential and serves as the lynch pin for the interaction and function of countless other systems in the country.

America uses an average of 410 billion gallons of water everyday. I have not done the study, but I doubt many other nations (if any) can make such a boast. Whether we realize it or not, the water bill at the end of the month is only a fraction of how much we really spend on our water infrastructure. On average, U.S. cities spend $70 billion annually on water and wastewater needs according to the U.S. Census—second only to dollars allocated towards education. Part of the reason is due to our water system being a very energy-intensive process both conveying and distributing fresh water as well as removing and filtering wastewater. Together it takes our country 8 quadrillion BTUs of energy every year.

The Problems

Like our energy grid, much of our water system has gone too long without upgrades and repairs. In many parts of the country water and sewer pipes are well beyond their rated lifespans, raising the likelihood of breakages and leaks that interrupt service, waste precious water and allow for the infiltration of disease. Midrange, post-industrial cities of the country are the most prone to budgets that cannot accommodate necessary changes to their infrastructure. According to the Baltimore City Paper, there are parts of town in the coastal city that have sewers over 100 years old. Similarly, my time in Syracuse, New York revealed that as of 2005 most of the city’s water pipes are 60 to 70 years old that leave the water with a lead content 33% over the EPA limit. Their sewers are no better, with only 14% of the pipes less than 50 years old—the rated lifespan of the system.

Despite the improvement in water quality that the Clean Water Act has brought, pollution still remains a harrowing issue for much of the country. The New York Times released a disturbing report claiming that the Clean Water Act has been violated over 506,000 times since 2004 by over 23,000 companies and facilities. According to the report everything from gas stations and dry cleaners to chemical plants and power stations have dumped hazardous waste into the ground or directly into bodies of water. The report claims that one in 10 Americans has drinking water with dangerous chemicals or does not meet federal health benchmarks. I encourage the reading of the entire article as well as their great interactive map. I found the figures to be staggering, but what made it worse was that “the Time research found that less than 3 percent of violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials.”

For years now, a lack of strong federal oversight has allowed these transgressions to become business as usual. Never known as the shining star of George W. Bush’s presidency (if it had one at all) his E.P.A. was notoriously lax in its oversight of its duties for the two terms of the administration. Without federal power to invoke consequences from the highest level, local regulators often fall prey to pressure from politicians or large corporations.

“The E.P.A. and our states of have completely dropped the ball. Without oversight and enforcement, companies will use our lakes and rivers as dumping grounds—and that’s exactly what is apparently going on.”  – Rep James L. Oberstar, D-Maryland

The Obama administration’s new E.P.A. head, Lisa Jackson, has noted that national drinking water quality is below acceptable levels and has vowed to renew the E.P.A.’s stance of enforcement.

Where Does the Water Go?

Finding a solution to some of our problems can likely begin with understanding how we use 410 billion gallons a day. A recent report released by the United States Geological Survey focuses on how Americans use their water. I found this publication equally as surprising. To begin, between 1980 and 2005, our water use has decreased by 5 percent! Upon reading this I was immediately skeptical and had to find out how it was possible, but before long the reason became clear.

As an architect I am often the champion of water efficiency in buildings. After all, nearly 40% of our nation’s energy is used by buildings so believing that they consume large quantities of water seemed to be intuitive. As it turns out, all domestic water use (residential applications in homes) accounts for only 1% of all of the water that we use. If you add all public water use and thereby include nearly all buildings in existence, you only get another 11%. Perhaps the culprits are all that heavy manufacturing or the mining we do across the country? Even with aquaculture, livestock, industrial and mining operations the cumulative total is only 20%. So where does the other 328 billion gal/day get used?

National Water Use Graph

The second highest source is irrigation which is mostly comprised of farming. 31% of our water is used to irrigate 61.1 million acres in 2005. The number one source of water use is cooling for thermoelectric power plants. 49% of our water goes to creating power from such sources as coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. All of a sudden, the nature of where to target efficiency for meaningful change has a very different appearance and that is why our water usage has dropped over the past 25 years. Due to more sprinkler-system irrigation and more efficient cooling systems in power plants, water consumption has ebbed despite a rise in population.

Response

Though a complicated problem, moreso than can be addressed in one article, the information does not leave us without places to go or reasons to get there.

  • Our infrastructure needs to be raised to acceptable levels that allow for efficient systems that can bring water safely to end users. This could include a more distributed system of supply along with onsite water collection and filtration of waste water.
  • Our governing bodies need to accept the responsibility of their offices to enforce laws that keep our water safe.
  • Efforts targeting efficiency should focus on our largest sources of water use: farming and power generation. This could lead to more research devoted to vertical farming and hydroponics. It also provides a seldom mentioned strength to renewable energy sources like wind and solar given that, once installed, their use of water is negligible.

Failure to progress on these initiatives could lead to an increase in national water-related sicknesses, more natural waterways polluted beyond safety for human use or ecological function and a further increase in drought and drinking water shortages for communities.

Photo Credit: Flickr Wester

 

Cultural 
6

Energy Sprawl Pales to Suburban Sprawl

One of the new opposing forces to the deployment of renewable energy has been dubbed “Energy Sprawl,” referring to a symptom of energy sites requiring dubious amounts of land that could purportedly threaten our natural landscape. Where NIMBY voices are troublesome, these claims are more misguided. There is no question that some renewable power options need space. Energy sources like wind and solar require land in order to build arrays large enough to make them efficient, but the real sprawling epidemic has nothing to do with energy, is much worse and has been going on unaddressed for decades: suburban sprawl. Anyone raising arms about devoting land to renewable energy should be prepared to combat the growth of our suburban communities.

energy sprawl vs suburban sprawl

Over the past half century, flight from cities has created an explosion of development in suburbia that claims more virgin land every year. As late as the housing boom that lead up to the current recession, the cost of construction, laxity of zoning laws and ease in security mortgage debt lead to new communities sprouting up across the country almost over night. The result is an ever-expanding network of roadways and a lifestyle driven by automotive travel that breeds inefficiency and waste.

There seems to be a misconception that land used for building new cul-de-sacs wrapped in colonial revival vernacular is somehow less desirable than land used for erecting wind turbines or solar panels. Virgin forest or prime farmland is consumed every year to be subdivided and turned into brand new housing stock. In her book A Field Guide to Sprawl, Dolores Hayden says “the American Farmland Trust estimates that in the United States, 1.2 million acres of farmland were lost to development every year between 1992 and 1997.”

As a point of reference, a solar farm planned for Deming, New Mexico will be one of the biggest in the world, producing up to 300 MW or enough power for 240,000 homes. If completed, the array will require 3,200 acres of land. Using the same ratio of roughly 1 MW per 11 acres of land, the 6 million acres of land consumed for homes in the 1990’s could contribute a maximum capacity of 545,450 MW (545 gigawatts.) According to the Energy Information Association, our total national power generation capacity is in the neighborhood of 995 GW (so over half of our power.)

Unlike energy development, suburban land acquisition does nothing for the natural environment. Its conception lays more roads, erects more power lines and creates more commuting traffic by perpetuating the need for more cars on pavement. The fortunate developments may only waste time, money and resources by laying new sewers while those too far from town or city centers rely instead on septic systems. Despite our best wishes, pouring Drano into a sink that leads to a leeching field is nominally the same as going outside and pouring it on the ground.

Energy installations like wind farms produce clean power and by doing so are diverting generation from sources like coal and oil that can bring damaging effects to the environment along every point of their supply chain from mining to combustion. Modern wind turbines are also usually tall enough that land beneath them can still be farmed. Though some energy arrays may pose some interference with the habitat or migration of natural species (a common attack against wind farm construction), it is estimated that in the U.S. up to 130 million animals are killed on the road every year by cars.

On the other hand, suburban plots produce nothing. They are not havens for animal habits. Unlike the land that they consume, rarely are they net sources of food, clean water or energy. An article by Dan Shapley notes that according to Census Bureau data, in 2006 nine of the ten fastest growing counties were located in the South or West in areas already stressed for the capacity of fresh water. In Dallas Fort-Worth, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, a North Texas Future Fund report states “by 2050 the [water] deficit could reach 1.1 million-acre feet per year — an amount greater than total current demand.”

Like anything else, the construction of renewable energy has its drawbacks but the argument of space does not come close to comparing to the epidemic of waste that comprises our history of limitless suburban expansion.

In honor of Blog Action Day 2009

Photo Credits: Alex Maclean & Sincerely Sustainable

Urban Planning 
11

Alternative Transit is more than High Speed Rail

Alternative Transit DiagramThe stimulus package has helped to renew consideration for updating our national rail system to include high speed trains, devoting $8 billion to funding new projects across the country. The desire for breaking into new territory is clearly there. Forty states have reportedly submitted $103 billion in requests for high speed rail funding (that is over 12 times the available pot.) However, unless we are complimenting these faster means of travel with smaller, more localized improvements to the network of alternative transit these dollars may be paying for a system with limited levels of efficiency.

These sleek trains that can travel in excess of 200 miles per hour are one of the more enticing visions of efficiency in bolstering alternative transportation in the country and limiting car and plane travel. Glances to European and Asian models give tantalizing possibilities of quicker commutes like traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours. Conventional wisdom pegs trains as far more fuel efficient than the energy required to fly a plane and within a radius of 600 miles, the train can actually be more convenient and faster when you factor in the arduous process of air travel (baggage, security, boarding, taxiing, deplaning.)

I am a complete supporter of high speed trains, but too many people are beginning to see them as the silver “bullet” for our travel woes and if they are not running between cities that have continued to build a network of alternative transit, their usefulness will be capped and keep us from the success that other countries have found.

Alternative transportation is an ecosystem of its own, encompassing every scale of travel from door to door. High speed rail is at the largest scale, great for covering large distances with as few stops as possible and performing well on a scale of transportation efficiency, but no matter what they are only part of the journey. Getting to and from the station in a sensible way is part of what makes the concept viable and attractive. Smaller, more localized systems must be installed to facilitate local access to high speed travel. Spending the money to connect cities without this infrastructure is jumping the gun.

Regional or commuter train lines offer the first level of integration of alternative transit, giving more people easy and cost-effective access to prime transport nodes of major cities. Unlike their high-speed brethren, these trains can make more local stops while still easily trumping the time and energy required of car travel. From there, local lines can take the form of subways, light rail or street cars that give easy maneuverability in urban settings and exponentially increase the amount of accessible destinations. Still further are bus and bike infrastructure that provide an efficient way for short, local trips while remaining efficient in both energy and space.

A true system that utilizes all of these components would drastically decrease the need, and convenience, of traveling by car—which is part of the idea. The more convenience that the system can sell, the more passengers will change their travel habits, allowing the cost of the service to drop, perpetuating the cycle.

Not transit programmed?

Our problem in America is that our cities (and perhaps more importantly, our suburbs) are not designed to accept these systems. The last half-century has been spent crafting our environment around car travel, making it no surprise that many people feel reluctant to consider alternatives. Most of our cities do not have these integrated systems, or even pieces of them, and remain slaves to roads, highways and viaducts. This is why some experts assert that, as of now, the Northeast is the only truly viable site for high speed rail where cities that have matured transit infrastructure can benefit. Having a high speed train stop in Los Angeles makes far less sense than one stopping in New York City.

Although I am a proponent for getting people to change, at a certain point the request becomes unreasonable if the extra effort is less convenient with no time saving and a higher cost. Critics of new rail systems point to existing infrastructure like Amtrak and its failed attempt to remain a profitable source of travel. The costs in construction and maintenance of railroads are extremely high and in a recession no one wants to sign onto a plan that will create black holes of tax dollars.

Their complaints are not entirely unfounded. Amtrak has yet to succeed in convincing enough people ride to keep the prices noticeably low, but what can we expect? As a country we have not succeeded in building our communities around alternative transport—we have not really tried. But if we are going to try then it has to be a holistic effort. That being said, the situation is improving. Amtrak has seen increasing record ridership for the past 6 years and running. The progress can be compliment by our cities, towns and suburbs being re-conceived with less deference given to automobiles. Picking the regions to receive funding for high speed projects could hinge on whether local municipalities can do parallel efforts to promote transit-oriented development on a local scale to increase the health of the entire network.

I am reminded of conservationist Willie Smits and his rebuilding of rain forests. As he explains, there is more to the forest than just the trees—an entire system at different heights, sizes and light levels that is mutually and intricately co-dependent. True rehabilitation efforts must address them all and alternative transit is no different.

Infrastructural 
5

Sustainability vs. Luxury: Can McMansions be green?

Waterfront Green HomeThe housing boom of the 90’s brought the explosion of “McMansions” across U.S. suburbs leaving us with hundreds of thousands of examples for a new wave for upper class living. While the recession may have created a lull in the construction of these shrines to excess, there is no data to suggest that Americans have outgrown their hunger for raw square footage and the public perception that space equals societal stature. The idea of a green home two, three or four times the size of the average house is a bit of an oxymoron with notions of efficiency and excess instantly butting heads, but perhaps there are ways for the lives of the luxurious to follow a more sustainable path. Continue Reading…

A Greener Place Architectural 
5

Constructive Reforestation: Lecture by Willie Smits

Willie Smits

A colleague pointed me to a lecture on TED given by conservationist Willie Smits who organized an effort to regrow a site of clear cut rain forest and restore a population of orangutans that had been threatened by deforestation. I was left thoroughly impressed with not only the level of task that he had taken on, but his striking process in approaching, analyzing and then attacking a complex problem. There are many activists and organizations trying to stem the damaged caused by deforestation around the world, but far fewer are finding ways to repair the damage that has already been done. Dubbed Samboja Lestari, this testing ground has found staggering results in turning a swath of fire-ridden, Indonesian grasslands  into a new budding forest landscape in under five years. His efforts have renewed levels of biodiversity, increased local rainfall and cloud cover, and provided a new industry base that has given jobs to hundreds of people.

“The real key to doing it, to give a simple answer, is integration.”

He says “integration,” I say “interconnection,” but the minor difference in semantics points to the same result of recognizing the vast number of reactions that comes from any one event and how integral, but sometimes difficult, it is to strike the important level of environmental balance.  Smits’ words and anecdotes highlight many valuable perspectives concerning sustainability and the tackling of large, seemingly insurmountable issues, but Smits’ is not just throwing around theory for the proof of his success in Borneo bears a complexity and resilience that few have been able to achieve. Within, there are a number of lessons that can be extracted and used for addressing our own series of dilemmas on any scale.

“It is the diversity that makes it work.”

Willie walks through the complicated task of creating a base of permaculture by integrating hundreds of species of plants so that each will offer a reflexive benefit to the others planted around it. Some plants are fast-growing to offer shade. Some are fruit-bearing to yield food for animals. Some are small but integral for rejuvenating nutrients in the soil. This kind of integration cannot be achieved without thoroughly analyzing the problem and all the components of each option for a solution.

The current state of our economy and the desire for progress has made the risk of throwing money at problems with the goal of reaching solutions as fast as possible. Healthcare, transportation, education, the environment; all complex issues for which hasty action could lead to short-lived relief. Throwing wind turbines everywhere to combat global warming without developing viable means of power storage is what leads to rolling blackouts in Germany. The real energy answer is a combination of renewables (with storage), coal conversion to biomass, nuclear, natural gas, a smarter grid system and increased efficiency to lower our national consumption.

There are few simple problems and even fewer simple solutions. At all scales we should be taking the time to study the solution as much as the problem to increase the likelihood of meaningful, lasting results.

“At every step of the way the local people were going to be fully involved”

Willie Smits decided early on that any chance on true revitalization of this landscape could not simply be his grand vision imposed on an indigenous society. Even if his test was successful, he alone could not maintain the project indefinitely. The rebuilding of a rainforest had to be inextricably tied to the local people who would share both the costs and rewards of the effort. Those that helped plant and manage the forest found jobs, land for homes and eventually crops as the beginning of a new life seamlessly tied to re-growth. The success of the forest became the success of all participants.

A devastated rainforest is only separated by a few degrees from many of our post-industrial cities around America. These small cities that exploded in the first quarter of the twentieth century had their momentum crash with the evaporation of domestic industrial production. These urban ecosystems failed—leaving streets of vacant homes, deflated populations and depleted tax revenues that left them struggling for survival. New efforts to rehabilitate our ailing cities must include and utilize local citizens, yielding them a stake in both the risk and reward of a new cityscape.

“If I can do this on the worst possible place that I can think of, where there is really nothing left, no one will have an excuse to say, ‘yeah but….’”

It is important to note success stories like this one to recalibrate our own idea of challenges that need to be overcome. If Smits can find progress in a society with 50% unemployment where 22% of the average income is spent on fresh water then we are without room to give the “it cannot be done” rebuttal to any dilemma that we currently face in the U.S..

Cultural 
10

Renewable Energy Battles for New Sites

NIMBY Wind Farm

Sometimes the products of technology and infrastructure have a certain beauty that compliments their functional necessity, but all too often our aversion to the appearance of key service components conflicts with our desire for their services to be readily available. Renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and solar power stations, are increasingly becoming the targets of backlash, even from environmental supporters, when it comes time to locate them. A new strategy for overcoming the next generation of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment is imperative to avoid our recent progress in sustainability from hitting a wall.

Polling from numerous sources repeatedly points to a growing population of U.S. citizens supporting the need to address climate change and transfer our production of energy to renewable sources. People will sign petitions, click “yes” on websites and maybe even call their Congressman in support of green energy. But in true American style, when it comes to actually implementing the goal the discussion turns into a barrage of finger-pointing with no one wanting to have to look at the finished product.

The lack of willingness to actively participate in the necessities of society is one of our blaring moments of shortsightedness. As a country that enjoys an elevated standard of living, its rise has been paralleled not only by an increasingly complex and expansive array of technology necessary to sustain it, but also a lack of responsibility for making it possible. Having a water treatment facility within a block from your home is a fallacy, but blame is thrown instantly at the onset of an E. coli breakout. No one wants to see high voltage power lines but brownouts are unacceptable.

One of the more famous examples is the repeated stalling of the Cape Wind Project that meant to erect 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound with a maximum capacity of 420MW. The program claims that in average winds the wind farm could provide 75% of the energy for Cape Cod and its surrounding islands. However, local residents have opposed the project due to the possibility of tarnishing their ocean view. Keep in mind that the wind turbines will be 5 to 13 miles from shore so that an onlooker could reportedly extend an arm and cover one with the fingernail on a thumb.

Unsurprisingly, continuously pushing renewables to the outskirts of society increases the amount of transmission (materials, land, installation, maintenance, replacement) needed to transport the power, increasing the amount of power lost in transit and raising the price of the power that gets there (which in turn compounds the problem.) Heaven forbid we need to pay more for power that is more sustainable and less polluting. Who would think that in a capitalistic economy the cheapest solution is not always the best?

One option is to give the federal government more power in making decisions for renewable energy sites and new transmission lines, but the prospect of increased government intervention is already causing politicians to butt heads on the Climate Bill. Another option is to use government policy that sweetens the deal for proximity to new energy solutions. (For Liberals, this would mean tax people the farther they get from renewable energy. For Conservatives, it would mean provide subsidies for those willing to live next door. For me, I would say do both.)

Yet another possibility is to redesign these facilities for a new aesthetic reading. After all, most of the time these components of infrastructure are designed by engineers. As an architect, I can respect and appreciate the simplicity and functional efficiency of how engineers design. Their goal of streamlined products that serve a specified purpose can be seen in old warehouses, factories and power stations. Nonetheless, they are usually not trying to win beauty contests. Some of these creations could not get a facelift to draw a different impression from surrounding onlookers.

Trash and Recycling CenterSpanish architecture firm Abalos and Herreros has a portfolio of work that has reinvestigated the appearance and nature of industrial programs like their recycling center in Valdemingómez, Spain. Contrary to the American standard of cheap metal siding and standing seam roofs, their facility is wrought with light to illuminate a terraced interior designed with an elegant order for industrial function. Solar farms and biomass plants could conceivably be realized in a second generation that is more viewer-friendly.

I do not believe that the largest impediment in the path of environmental stewards is convincing people that changes should be made. Regardless of the debate on climate change, sustainability and efficiency just make sense. Preserving our resources, keeping our air, water and land clean; it is just smart and more people realize that everyday. The impasse is instilling not the notion, but the drive for everyone to contribute and accept part of the collective onus to change—and make no mistake, things will need to change. Sustainability is not a technological fix. Our levels of consumption cannot be supplemented with gizmos.

Personally, I think that wind turbines and CSP plants have their own manner of beauty to them, like an ipod or a 40” Samsung LCD television, but I do not know if my sentiment has reached the majority yet.

Photo Credit: Flickr via AbracaDebra

Economic 
0

Climate Bill Through the Eyes of Utilities

I came across a great article on the energy blog Master Resource (of which I have become a regular reader) by Robert Peltier that focuses on some of the intricacies that may result from an eventual passage of H.R. 2454. Peltier notes on how remarks of opposition from the energy industry have been few and far between so far in the discussion of Waxman-Markey and that perhaps, for some, their end of the deal is not quite that bad. One could think the large energy providers will need to shoulder a great deal of burden towards reducing our carbon footprint, but the key of how newly distributed carbon allowances actually get doled out brings a great deal to bear on how how utilities will be affected. The give and take of Capitol Hill negotiating may have left some hands far from empty. Three of Peltier’s seven points include:

  • Given that existing plants will be given new allowances for free, new plants face a considerable barrier to entry in the marketplace having to purchase new allowances in order to gain a permit to build. Existing owners and operators could cement their place on the high ground for years to come.
  • Nuclear providers could end up with amazing benefit given that allowances are doled out in response to the percentage of national generation. Since nuclear provides nearly 20% of our nation’s power they could wind up with 20% of the carbon allowances that are unneeded and could be resold. As Peltier puts it, “For utilities with a lot of nuclear generation, these allowances are a gift.”
  • Original distributions of allowances to older coal plants could encourage them to remain open given that the allowances could be worth more than the plants themselves. As long as a utility provider can keep the plant open (and continue to be spewing carbon) long enough for allowances to be doled out, they will be handed a nice, tax-payer sponsored retirement plan.

I encourage the reading of the entire article.

Even staunch environmentalists like Joe Romm consider this a flawed bill and it is wrought with concessions and exceptions that help make its passage plausible, but in the end it may be worth it. Though large nuclear owners do not need any extra money, rewarding their low-carbon model is not exactly counter-productive (besides the fact that they produce some of the most hazardous material known to mankind.) If entry into the energy market for high carbon producers is more expensive, that seems fine as well. We should be discouraging carbon-intensive models for power. Giving allowances to coal plants on the verge of decommissioning is a more difficult one to swallow given that coal is already responsible for pollution in the country that has either been suffered or needs to be repaired. The notion of buying out the problem leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but how much can we expect from American legislators.

Peltier does a great job in giving an overview of the issue. Being an advocate for sustainability reform is one thing, but being an educated advocate raises the likelihood of making notable progress. Though some of the contributors and frequent readers of Master Resource may not share my position of the severity of a more sustainable economy, their knowledge of the energy markets is thorough and often provide much-needed points to ground the aspirations of new technologies and bold, but sometimes half-baked, claims.

Political 
0

Corporate Green Efforts Yield Mixed Results

Recycled Paper

In an international landscape, many claim that sustainable measures in the U.S. lose their steam if the industrial economies of China and India are not on board. Similarly, within the U.S., efforts of individual citizens need to be paired with corporations doing their part to change the course of business to greener ends. A recent study suggests that some large corporations are beginning to alter their daily operations to align themselves with greener options of stocking their paper products. According to the Green Grades report of twelve companies, conducted jointly by the Dogwood Alliance and Forest Ethics, corporate powerhouses like Fed-Ex and Office Depot are on the path to a more sustainable paper trail while others still have a long way to go.

The Green Grades study looked at six areas of sustainable paper usage including FSC certified products, avoiding paper from endangered forests and recycling policies. Fed-Ex stood at the head of the class, earning an “A-“ from the study for excelling in responsible sourcing of materials and using FSC certified products. They are not a bad company to be leading the pack as not only one of the largest shipping companies by the owners and operators of one of the largest copy-center chains as well. Followed by Staples, Office Depot and OfficeMax, some of the bellwethers seem to be catching on.

On the other hand, not every company can join Bank of America  and its One Bryant Park as the epitome of environmental reform. Some companies have yet to even scratch the surface. I was surprised by some of the laggards. Amazon.com and Costco received failing grades, followed closely by the “D+” rankings of Target and Wal-Mart, all apparently suffering from sourcing their paper products from endangered forests and questionable suppliers.

There is a lot to be said for targeting paper products as a component of our waste stream. According to the EPA, in 2007 paper and paperboard comprise a third of our waste— 83 million tons. The negative effects of the paper industry are also relatively immediate and encompassing. Illegal logging in both Asia and South America lead the destruction of rain forests and risk removing entire ecosystems of life around the planet, not to mention the tremendous carbon sinks that old growth trees provide.

But the largest waste source is also one of the easiest to fix. Sustainable forestry is growing in popularity as organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council gain exposure and notoriety. As digital media continues to advance, numerous extraneous paper habits can be replaced with a bit of foresight and focus. For the material that has to still be printed, paper is also one of the easiest products to recycle.

I was not surprised at the deficiencies in recycling which comprised the lower marks of even the highest ranking companies. Years ago, a discussion I had with Tom Rhoads of the Onondaga Country Resource Recovery Agency in Syracuse, New York, he told me that when it came to recycling many residents were already on board, earning Syracuse one of the highest recycling rates in the state. But it was the businesses that were notoriously hard to convince. Here in Manhattan the field is much the same.

It is markedly easy for a slightly educated consumer to contribute to more sustainable paper purchasing. Whether it is essentials like paper plates, toilet paper and paper towels or supplies like printer paper, purchasing FSC certified or recycled content is a small added price to pay (perhaps an extra dollar) while the effects are far reaching. The more responsible materials we can purchase, the more that the rise in demand will shift jobs from older corners of the industry to their more responsible counterparts until a new standard is fully implemented and better practices are commonplace. Less consumption and waste all lead to fewer landfills, lower costs of removal, more efficient manufacturing and healthier ecosystems to reduce the carbon pressure on the environment.

Economic 
3

Anti-Climate Lobby Loses Ammunition

us capitolThe conservative lobby struggling to derail the American Clean Energy and Security Act has recently been accumulating roadblocks to their progress. The bill, which now remains on the floor of the Senate, passed in the House by a slim margin and stands as the most aggressive piece of climate legislation in the country’s history. Opponents to the bill have argued that the goal of regulating carbon–either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system–would place an undo stress on the economy, adding thousands of dollars to utility bills. Naysayers also claim that there is a large portion of dissenting public vote for the bill. As it seems now, those two lines of critique are waning.

A new report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has determined that the bill would indeed raise costs of electricity and gasoline in the country, but the change would be minimal. The estimated increase for the cost of power over the next 11 years was between 3 to 4 percent, far below the claims of middle class power bills being thrust into the stratosphere. Gas prices are estimates to rise 23 cents (only due to the bill, not fluctuations in oil prices) and given that we pay less for gas than most of the world, the addition is negligible.  The EIA becomes the third administration after the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office to affirm the low public cost of this bill which seeks to lower emissions 17% by 2020 and nearly 80% by 2050 from 2005 levels.

The other gut shot that sank into opponents of Waxman-Markey was the uncovering of forged letters written to congressmen to urge them not to vote for the bill in the House. With the guise of minority, public interest groups, the letters took on the form of copied letterheads and phantom signatures to stir opposition for the bill. Kate Galbraith notes that apparently the letters originated from D.C. lobby consulting firm Bonner and Associates who was in turn working for another firm called the Hawthorn Group. The kicker comes from the final client, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and suddenly the whole thing makes all too much sense. Of course, blame is claimed by no one, but placed on the lone acts of a purported temporary employee at Bonner who has since been released from duty. Regardless of whose fault it actually is, at worst the event was blatantly dishonest and crippling to the credibility of the lobby. At best, it is an embarrassing scar on the face of the camp.

In this case, I think the damage actually goes beyond the factual events. If the contra-lobby to environmental legislation finds itself in need of lying and fabricating faulty evidence then it must mean that they are short on real reasons for why climate legislation is not a good idea (not that this is altogether surprising.) For those trying to find their way to an opinion about the Climate Bill, think about the danger of a position that needs to use more than the truth to win your vote, and is willing to do it.

Photo Credit: Flickr Truly_U

Political 
8

The Dawn of Liquid Solar Power

As our technological boundaries continue to be conquered and redrawn, there are some on the bleeding edge of innovation that seem to blur the line between technology and magic. What Cambridge, Massachusetts based Joule Biotechnologies is claiming to have accomplished seems nothing short of magical: putting organisms, sunlight and carbon dioxide into a box and making a viable petroleum substitute appear. No drilling, no burning off waste. According to the company, that has been operating in stealth mode for nearly two years time, they are ushering in the new standard of fuel as essentially, liquid solar power.

“There is no question that viable, renewable fuels are vitally important, both for economic and environmental reasons. And while many novel approaches have been explored, none has been able to clear the roadblocks caused by high production costs, environmental burden and lack of real scale,” said Bill Sims, president and CEO.

If correct, their plan can take two of the most abundant things on the planet—photons and carbon dioxide—and circumvent the need to be drilling more wells searching for oil. Their “black box” is dubbed a Solar Converter, which reportedly uses proprietary organisms to induce photosynthesis, creating a hydrocarbon liquid the company calls SolarFuel. Simms points out that this separates them from a biofuel process, like ethanol, which uses a plant base for its feed stock.

SolarFuel

The prospect of sun fed fuel could impressively leap-frog the ethanol industry, replacing it as the renewable fuel of choice given that its carbon footprint could vastly outperform ethanol’s much debated, corn-based and energy intensive process. Eventually, such a model could propose to achieve the impossible: bring the use and production of our country’s fuel to a level of stasis with the net input of carbon equaling the net output of its use.

Joule Biotech says they can create 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre at roughly $50 a barrel with current subsidies, certainly a competitive price point out of the box. Furthermore, the fuel is purportedly going to be compatible with existing engines for diesel and gasoline, wiping out the potential snag of retooling an industry. With a pilot plant scheduled to come online in 2010, their next milestone could be a ramp up for commercial scale production in 2012 with additional investing. Despite not knowing how cleanly the fuel burns in comparison to ethanol or conventional gasoline, the prospects of carbon improvement on the national scale are far-reaching.

So where is the downside? I had trouble finding one myself. Though I have to admit that the claims bring to mind another magical fix that spawned years ago called Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) technology developed by a company called Renewable Energy Solutions.

Their process claimed to make synthetic petroleum from super-heating agricultural and industrial waste such as tires, plastics and paper. The idea seemed attractive when they claimed their only by-products were fuel gas (butane, methane, propane mix), synthetic oil and water. The prospects seemed to offer a solution to not only our foreign oil dilemma, but a significant portion of our waste issue as well with (similarly) a virtually unlimited feedstock. Unfortunately, it seems no new plants other than the pilot plant in Carthage Missouri have been constructed and for some reason, they have not catalyzed a new standard in fuel production. Hopefully, we will be hearing much more from Joule Biotech in the near future.

Economic