Conservation Value Notes

Capitalize On A Narrow Window of Opportunity to Advance the Green Economy

2009-11-24T14:11:00.000-08:00

Dear Conservation Value Notes reader:

As a smart, conscious citizen, you know the difference between talk and action when it comes to Green Economy solutions.

You know that to achieve the policy victories needed to simultaneously reduce America’s oil dependence and solve climate change, we need an informed electorate that demands bold Green Economy solutions from our political leaders.

The time to act is NOW. With President Obama and a majority in Congress favoring a transition to clean energy, and society rapidly approaching tipping points in climate change and shrinking oil supplies, we have a narrow window of opportunity to achieve Green Economy policy solutions.

Your support helps CVI advance:
•    Our shared vision of a society transitioning to a clean technology-powered economy,
•    Sustainable land use that makes conservation both possible and profitable, and
•    The best emerging Green Economy solutions that benefit the earth and make our lives better.

What YOU Can Do Now
As 2009 draws to a close and you consider how you’ll direct your year-end charitable giving, please consider how much more you can do to help advance the Green Economy by sending a special, tax-deductible gift to support our blogging here at Conservation Value Notes, and the other projects of Conservation Value Institute.

Because we’re stretching every dollar, every donation helps more than ever this year – whatever its size.

By sending your year-end gift so we have it in hand by December 31st, you’ll help CVI effectively plan for each of our urgent and critical action programs.

Click here to donate online now: http://www.razoo.com/story/Conservation-Value-Institute

To Donate by mail: please download this form and send it to us with your check

With my warmest regards, and my best wishes for your health and happiness in 2010.

Jonathan L. Gelbard, Ph.D.
Executive Director and Founding Fellow
Conservation Value Institute

P.S. The rest of the week, I'll be traveling with my wife and 11-week-old daughter to visit with family and share cherished times. I'll be back at the blog first thing next week.

What Our Partners Say

“Just wanted to say a quick thank you for everything you did to put together a fantastic Think Tank at Rothbury. I was thrilled to take part. Rothbury and the Think Tank are really good for spreading the word about energy/enviro issues, and great for Michigan. Your efforts help make that happen.”
- Jeff Sharp, Communications Director, Congressman Ed Markey and the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
...

Companies to Reward and Avoid on Black Friday

2009-11-24T08:17:00.000-08:00

Getting ready to head out shopping first thing Friday, and want to reward good companies who are truly taking significant green steps?

Here's an article about the release of Climate Counts' new green scorecard -- see who ranks the greenest and who would draw the ire of ol' Woodsy Owl.

At the top of the list: Nike (83 points out of 100) and topped the Climate Counts list.

At the bottom (dirty companies to avoid): Jones Apparel Group (7), VF Corporation (6), Viacom (3), Burger King (10), Wendy's-Arby's Group (2), PNC Financial Services (3), SunTrust (2), Regions (1), ExpressJet (7), AirTran (5) and SkyWest Air (0).

Says GreenBiz author, Marc Gunther:

In the argot of the NGO world, this is known as "rank 'em and spank 'em." And it seems to work.

So long as we're keeping score, let's also note that Coca-Cola beat PepsiCo, Microsoft outperformed Google, HP nosed out IBM and Marriott crushed Starwood in the 2009 Climate Count rankings.

More meaningful is the fact that many companies made dramatic improvements to their scores. Among the big gainers were Levi Strauss, eBay, Disney, Nokia, PepsiCo, Yum! Brands, Darden Restaurants and US Airways. (Thanks to Mother Nature Network blogger Shea Gunther for pointing this out and, no, we're not related, at least as far as we know.) The entire electronics sector scored above 50, Turner noted, as did consumer shipping.

Something very interesting to consider:

One last thought about this list -- it's signal that "green products" by themselves aren't enough to signal a company's sustainability commitment. Clorox, for example, has its GreenWorks line of products, but it ranks last in the household products category, far behind P&G. Green companies Method and Seventh Generation aren't rated but it's a safe bet they would do well. Climate Counts plans to come out with an iPhone app soon to help environmentally conscious shoppers.

I don't plan to buy much on Friday -- not much that constitutes new "stuff" anyway. But I'll definitely keep this scorecard in my back pocket, so to speak, when I do need to make some purchases...

Read more>>
...

Sustainability and Employee Engagement: Anything Goes

2009-11-23T23:32:00.000-08:00

Thinking about ways to introduce sustainability into your business and get your employees both involved and excited?

The Triple Pundit, reporting from a Net Impact Conference panel on employee engagement, says that what works typically differs from company to company, so take what you know about sustainability and think about how to plug it into your business's culture. On encouraging employee involvement, the post recommends:

provide opportunity for employees to generate ideas (green teams)
allow employees the freedom to run with and implement their ideas (encourage passion!)
provide a format for sharing ideas across departments, locations, and countries (intranet, electronic newsletters)
start with initiatives that everyone can participate in (establish recycling programs, remove all Styrofoam products from cafeteria)
develop ongoing training programs (videos, podcasts, lunch & learns)
leverage the diversity of your company – allow for different ways to engage in sustainability initiatives (recycling, volunteering, leading a team)
communicate early and often and in different formats (signs, newsletters, conference calls, meetings, pod-casts, tweets)
make sustainability part of every employee’s job description

They provide additional recommendations for how to launch your program and change employee behavior.

The most important thing, the Net Impact conference panelists emphasized, is to do something, and not be afraid to get creative!

Read more>>
...

Coastal Ecosystems a Powerful Carbon Sink

2009-11-23T10:17:00.000-08:00

We know that coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes and sea grass provide valuable environmental services such as protection against storms and floods, filtration of pollutants, and crucial fishery breeding grounds.

However, says Conservation International's Emily Pidgeon, it turns out that they are also quite powerful carbon sinks -- absorbing the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) and storing the carbon deep in sediments:

PIDGEON: (One) way that plants sequester carbon is by burying it in the soil or the sediment below them. And these marine plants, or marine ecosystems, seem to be incredibly effective at the second type of carbon sequestration. This burying it in the sediment below them.

LIVING ON EARTH: Why is that?

PIDGEON: There's a couple different ways they do it. The two main ones are they have these incredibly deep root systems. If you can imagine they're all living in the sort of tidal or wave dominated part of the coast and they're holding on for dear life with these deep root systems. And it's through this deep root systems that they can pull carbon out of either the water or the air and then pump it down in to the sediment and push it out. There is also these areas that are really good for capturing sediment that is in the shallow water, and by doing that that settles down and also captures lot of carbon that way.

More good reason to protect and restore these valuable ecosystems...

Listen to the Living on Earth Story>>
...

Bottled Water Sucks

2009-11-22T12:47:00.000-08:00

A new documentary film illustrates the environmental, economic and health damage caused by the proliferation of bottled water:

With style, verve and righteous anger, the film exposes the bottled water industry's role in suckering the public, harming our health, accelerating climate change, contributing to overall pollution, and increasing America's dependence on fossil fuels. All while gouging consumers with exorbitant and indefensible prices.

Claire Thompson summed up the problem well in her post on the movie at Grist:

"Not only is it [bottled water] a clear waste of resources (only 20 percent of plastic water bottles used in the United States are recycled, and far too many of the rest probably end up in the Pacific Garbage Patch), it's an incredible waste of money for consumers, who pay more than the price of gasoline for water that's marketed as "pure," but in reality is largely unregulated, full of harmful toxins like BPA, and far less safe for drinking than free tap water. (In fact, 40 percent of the time, bottled water is nothing but municipal tap water, freed from the government oversight that keeps it safe.)"

The main excuse that I hear from people who abuse bottled water is convenience. For example, in my martial arts dojo, they offer bottled water for $1, and almost every student uses it. I bring my own stainless steel water bottle, and have never had to purchase a single plastic bottle. So to me, the 'convenience' line doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

My Sensei agrees that we should try to find a better solution, but the owner of the dojo apparently insists on the disposable plastic water bottles for the convenience of kids classes, in particular. That's the excuse he received for why the solution I proposed wouldn't work: changing to a water cooler and re-fillable 5-gallon jugs, with compostable plastic cups. Apparently, the cups would make too much of a mess. Plus, it wouldn't be as easy to re-coup the costs by charging per cup as it is to charge for a water bottle.

Then again, if she charged $1 per 12 ounce CUP (usually filled to 11 oz), she'd bring in about $58 per 5 gallon jug -- and with bottled water delivery services, these jugs cost about $5-8 each. Even with the added cost of cups and disposal, it would still be a money-making green solution!

Well, I'll keep trying...

Read more>>
...

Deforestation Emissions Should Be Shared Between Producer and Consumer, Argues Study

2009-11-22T12:22:00.000-08:00

Should China take the full blame for its skyrocketing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that cause global warming? Or should these emissions be split with the U.S., EU and other countries that are outsourcing their manufacturing -- and their emissions -- to China?

The same question can be asked of Brazil, where deforestation accounts for 75% of the country's carbon footprint, and the major causes of deforestation are cattle ranching and soy production to produce products that are exported to Europe, Asia and Africa.

Mongabay.com reports on a new study that explores these questions:

Brazil's high annual deforestation rates are currently supporting a massive agricultural industry that exports most of its product abroad: Brazil is the world's largest exporter of both beef and soybeans. Between 1990 and 2006, exports of beef increased by 500 percent. The soy boom, which began in the 1990s, did not cause as much direct deforestation, but pushed cattle farmers and small-land holders deeper into the forest.

From 1990-2006, EU countries and Asian countries were the primary importers of Brazil's soy, while importers of Brazil's beef came from around the world, including Eastern Europe, the EU, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and other South American nations. Yet so far none of these nations have had to pay a cent for the environmental damage, including high carbon emissions, caused by the deforestation of the Amazon.

Zaks and his team have proposed a model to change this. According to their study when a product is exported half of the emissions should be the responsibility of the producing country and half of the importing country and its consumers.

"There is no 'right way' to proportion emissions between consumer and producer, but we did not think that assigning the burden of emissions to either Brazil OR the importing country would be logical," explains Zaks. "If emissions are assigned only to the importing country, there is a reduced incentive to decrease deforestation in the exporting country."

He adds that the study "chose to split them 50/50 as more of an illustrative example than a definitive answer."

This is some good lifecycle-type thinking here, and I definitely agree that we can't blame countries like Brazil and China for all the emissions. That said, this type of thinking also shows how important it is that we (1) reduce our beef consumption (or at the very least choose more locally raised, grass fed beef from sustainably managed ranches), and (2) choose local and organic.

Perhaps it also indicates that consuming nations need to contribute conservation funding, in an amount in proportion to their imports from Brazil, to REDD-type forest protection initiatives.

Read more>>
...

Agriculture and Global Warming: Making it Better, Making it Worse

2009-11-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

Did you know that agriculture contributes about 20% of America's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that cause global warming? For the entire planet, agriculture contributes about 12% of these emissions.

How are the impacts of our food, fiber and biofuel production systems so severe, and what are some ways that we can revolutionize our agricultural practices to turn them from a source of carbon emissions to a sink?

Treehugger explores these questions:

If we consider some of the embodied energy required for industrial ag, it gets worse. According to Will Allen, green farmer extraordinaire, including all the "manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other green house gases" bumps the impact up to between 25 and 30 percent of the U.S.'s collective carbon footprint. That's a big jump.

(However), Organic agriculture can remove from the air and sequester 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year. The Rodale Institute study that found that staggering number also found that, when properly executed, organic agriculture does not compromise yield. As a matter of fact, in drought years, it increases yield, since the additional carbon stored in soil helps it to hold more water. In wet years, the additional organic matter in the soil wicks water away from plant roots, limiting erosion and keeping plants in place. Both of those attributes will also benefit organic ag's ability to adapt to the higher highs (and lower lows) of climate change.

Obviously, there are some very powerful economic interests -- the multinational corporations who make all the fertilizers, pesticides and even crop types -- who are going to try to fight these types of positive changes tooth and nail.

That's why it's up to people like you and me to vote with our everyday choices (the more of us choose organic, the more land will need to be farmed organic to meet our demand), and contact our state and federal decision-makers and demand change -- for the earth and for ourselves. You can reach your Congressional representatives at 202-224-3121.

Read more>>
...

The Challenge of Making Solar and Wind Power More Reliable

2009-11-21T16:03:00.000-08:00

We know about the environmental, economic, security and health benefits of solar and wind power: lower emissions, cleaner air, reduced dependence on foreign oil, abundant job opportunities as these technologies get installed far and wide.

What we don't hear about too often are the very real challenges of our transition to a clean energy-powered economy.

These are crucially important to be aware of, as our engagement will help spawn fresh ideas that drive innovation.

The NY Times gets into these challenges.

We'd love to hear your thoughts!
...

Global Biodiversity Conservation: Gloom, But Some Promise

2009-11-21T15:39:00.000-08:00

While the world's efforts to sustain biodiversity continue to fall short, the journal Nature reports that there are some silver linings to the continuing cloud of biodiversity loss:

Since the 2010 target was adopted in 2002, the Brazilian government has increased the proportion of land designated as protected by 25% and deforestation rates have been reduced by 60%. It plans to identify further priority areas for conservation over the coming year.

And in Sweden, 9 new marine nature reserves were established between 2007 and 2008, bringing the nation's total to 21 sites. A further seven marine protected areas and six no-fishing areas are planned by 2010.

A surge of further efforts can be expected before next October to ensure that countries will be able to report some positive news.

Biodiversity's Bright Spot

2009-11-21T15:18:00.000-08:00

The journal, Nature, has an outstanding success story about efforts to protect Brazil's Atlantic Coastal Forest:

Stemming the deforestation required a broad set of measures: new laws and governmental incentives, the commitment of researchers and conservationists, increased funding from international donors and the Brazilian government, and a growing community awareness. Lately, a boost has come from efforts to emphasize the forest's value as a source of water, a draw for ecotourism and a generator of other ecosystem services.

International pressure has also helped. Through the Convention on Biological Diversity, countries have committed to slow the rate of biodiversity loss and to protect 10% of their ecoregions by 2010. Although few nations will meet these goals, Brazil has set aside 16% of its land. Most of this is in the Amazon, but the biodiversity treaty has put pressure on Brazilian authorities to establish state parks in the Atlantic forest southwest of São Paulo, says Oliver Hillel, an officer in the convention's secretariat in Montreal, Canada.

When Behavioral Economics Meets Climate Change

2009-11-20T15:03:00.000-08:00

Here's a fun little anecdote from Marc Gunther that has bigger implications for how we advance our transition to a Green Economy:

At the Net Impact conference last week, a waiter stopped by before lunch to ask if anyone at our table wanted a vegetarian meal instead of chicken. Just one or two people did.

This, as it happens, is typical. When a meat-based entrée is being served, and people are offered a vegetarian alternative, about 5 to 10 percent will request it.

But what if the choices were reversed? Organizers of the 2009 Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference, which began Monday in Washington, tried an experiment: They made a vegetarian lunch the default option, and gave meat eaters the choice of opting out.

Some 80 percent went for the veggies, not because there were lots of vegetarians in the crowd of about 700 people but because the choice was framed differently. We know that because, at a prior BECC conference, when meat was the default option, attendees chose the meat by an 83 percent to 17 percent margin.

As for the larger implications of the above findings, reports Gunther, these are what Behavioral Economists talk about:

Might there be broad-based ways to promote a vegetarian diet, while giving people the freedom to choose what they want? How can smart-grid technology be designed to encourage people to conserve energy? Which green marketing messages work, and which don’t? Can the insights of behavioral economics help fight climate change?

Those are the questions that engaged the policy makers, academics, and business executives at this BECC event, which differs from most conversations about climate change. Typically, when politicians, environmentalists or corporate executives discuss the issue, they focus on technology (solar, wind, electric cars) or regulation (cap-and-trade, the UN climate talks). The BECC crowd focuses on another powerful lever, albeit one that doesn’t get as much attention: human behavior, and in particular the irrational, emotional, self-defeating, short-term, inconsiderate and plain old silly human behavior that most of us engage in every day.

It's a fascinating topic -- one that we'll continue to follow for you here at CV Notes. You can find related posts under our "Motivating Change" category...

Read more>>
...

Solar's Rapid Evolution Makes Energy Planners Re-Think the Grid

2009-11-20T13:40:00.000-08:00

With the rapid rise and proliferation of solar technologies, could cities become generators of electricity rather than consumers of power?

If we put solar panels on the untold millions of acres of roof-tops that are essentially wasted space right now, can we dramatically reduce our need to spend $billions of taxpayer dollars on new power lines that transport electricity from the Mojave desert to urban centers?

Apparently, according to this Grist article, the answers to these questions are "Yes" and "Yes".

..the rapidly evolving solar photovoltaic market may moot the need for some of those expensive and contentious transmission lines, requiring transmission planners to rethink their long-term plans, according to Black & Veatch, the giant consulting and engineering firm that does economic analysis for RETI (Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative).

In short, solar panel prices have plummeted so much as to make viable the prospect of generating gigawatts of electricity from rooftops and photovoltaic farms built near cities.

“This has pretty significant implications in terms of transmission planning,” Ryan Pletka, Black & Veatch’s renewable energy project manager, told me last week. “What we thought would happen in a five-year time frame has happened in one year.”

That’s prompted Pletka to radically revise the potential for so-called distributed generation—solar systems that can plug into the existing grid without the construction of new transmission lines—to contribute to California’s need for 60,000 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity by 2020.

When Black & Veatch did its initial analysis last year, it predicted that photovoltaic solar could contribute 2,000 gigawatt hours, given the high cost of conventional solar modules and the fact that a next-generation technology, thin-film solar, had yet to make a big commercial breakthrough.

Pletka’s new number is a bit of a shocker: Distributed generation could potentially provide up to 40,000 gigawatt hours of electricity, or two-thirds of projected demand.

“Certainly some of the new transmission lines will be needed but not as many as before,” he says.

That analysis also calls into question the need for as many large-scale solar power plants. Currently there are about 35 Big Solar projects planned for California that would generate more than 12,000 megawatts of electricity.

“I’ve worked in renewables since the ‘90s and I myself had written off solar PV for years and years and years,” Pletka says. “That’s a firmly rooted mindset among everyone who works from a traditional utility planning perspective.”

“We present this new information on photovoltaics to people and it’s still not sinking in,” he adds. “It would cause a major shift in how we plan.”

“It brings up questions people haven’t had to talk about before,” says Pletka.

Get the feeling that change is happening fast on the clean energy front, whether Congress can keep up or not?

I've long asked many of these same questions that this article addresses, and noted that going in the direction of distributed generation would help reduce the major economic and security risks posed by, for example, terrorist attacks on major power plants. But I've been told it's simply not a viable solution for meeting the bulk of our power needs.

We're getting into times where the inconceivable is happening -- both on the bad news front of climate change (which is getting worse much faster than expected), and on the good news front of solutions -- as described here.

Let's do our best to focus on the solutions, and do whatever we can to create the world we'd like to see! I think I can, I think I can...

Read more>>
...

U.S. and China Announce Plan For Collaboration on Clean Energy and Climate Change

2009-11-20T11:55:00.000-08:00

In a very good piece of news to head into your weekend with, the U.S. and China actually did MORE than expected in their announced plan for collaboration on Clean Energy and Climate Change. As Grist and Climate Progress report:

Tuesday, a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent, and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:

1. Greenhouse gas inventory.

2. Joint clean energy research center. (Factsheet)
3. Electric vehicles. (Factsheet)
4. Energy efficiency. (Factsheet)
5. Renewable energy. (Factsheet)
6. 21st century coal. (Factsheet)
7. Shale gas. (Factsheet)
8. Nuclear.
9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy.

In a joint statement, Obama and Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (emphasis added in bold):

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

It's a good thing we currently have strong Executive Branch climate and clean energy action to help offset the intractability of the U.S. Senate, which through its bickering is only making itself irrelevant on these critical issues.

Read more>>
...

Asia Outspending the U.S. 3:1 in Clean Energy Investment

2009-11-20T11:23:00.000-08:00

This new report from The Breakthrough Institute should really rub all you patriots the wrong way (it sure left me frustrated!):

Asia is poised to dominate the fast-growing clean energy industry by outspending the United States by at least three-to-one on infrastructure and technology, according to a new report, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant, which was released today by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation at an event hosted by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee.

"Should the investment gap persist," the report warns, "the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys."

"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" is the first report to comprehensively benchmark clean energy competitiveness and government investments in clean tech by China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These Asian governments will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government. Climate and energy legislation, which passed the House in June, would contribute $28.7 billion of the $172 billion five year total. China alone will spend $440 billion to $660 billion over the next ten years on clean tech.

The direct, immediate, and coordinated nature of Asian government investments stands in contrast to the sporadic regulatory approach pursed in the United States. The report suggests that government investments will allow Asian nations to create innovation "clusters" of manufacturers, universities, R&D labs, suppliers and other firms, much as the Pentagon helped create Silicon Valley in the fifties and sixties. These clusters will be attractive to U.S. firms, the report argues, which are already making large investments in China.

It is painful to watch the Senate put off critical economic, security and environmental solutions bold Clean Energy legislation legislation until the spring. Not to mention the idiocy of mainstream media outlets who keep referring to the Senate Bill as "environmental" legislation.

What's the solution?

"Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia's clean tech tigers," the report says. "To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure."

Read the full report>>

Read Grist's Coverage of the Breakthrough Report, and Winning the Clean Energy Race>>
...

Study Shows Toxins Present at Birth

2009-11-20T01:04:00.000-08:00

For all those people who think that reducing pollution is an "environmental" issue that we don't have time for in a recession, give this article a good read:

Pregnant women are often extra careful to avoid toxic products, like certain plastics and chemicals in household cleaners. But a new study of West Coast mothers shows those efforts only go so far. Babies are born already exposed to toxins linked to serious health problems. KUOW's Liz Jones reports.

A handwritten note on Kim Radtke's front door says "Please wash hands before holding baby." Her son, Konner, was born just about two weeks ago.

Radtke is one of nine women who took part in this recent study by the Washington Toxics Coalition. It's a non–profit that lobbies for tougher restrictions on toxic chemicals.

For years, Radtke's eaten organic food. She buys natural products, diligently reads labels and tries to avoid any toxic products.

Schreder: "You know ultimately, this isn't a problem that women can shop their way out of."
That's Erika Schreder. She's a scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition. She says most people are exposed to toxins through food and everyday products.

Schreder: "So ultimately what we really need are new policies that will ensure that only the safest chemicals can be put in products. And that's really the only sure way to eliminate exposures."

As the father of an 11-week-old daughter, I find it infuriating that companies are still allowed to get away with using chemicals that accumulate in our bodies -- to the point that they are even in newborns. Once again, what befalls the earth, befalls the people of the Earth...

When will we learn..?

Read more>>

Here's news of a solution-oriented campaign from Seventh Generation...
...

Physicians Group Details Health Hazards From Coal

2009-11-20T00:41:00.000-08:00

Among the people benefits of the Green Economy is the boon to public health that we will receive by transitioning from burning fossil fuels like coal to clean energy.

According to a new report from the Physicians for Responsibility:

"Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases," the report (PDF) begins.

Could it be any more clear that solving our climate crisis and our oil dependence crisis is also a great way to help solve our health care crisis?

Read more>>
...

Keeping the Pressure on SFI's Greenwash Forest Certification

2009-11-19T11:20:00.000-08:00

Kudos to ForestEthics for their work exposing the greenwash in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative's unsustainably harvested lumber.

For forest products to be truly sustainable, they should be certified by standards that reflect the best available science regarding how to reduce logging's impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. For example, the certification standards should minimize the size of clear-cuts, provide adequate buffers of unlogged habitat alongside streams, and avoid logging on steep slopes above streams.

SFI has always fallen far short of it's much greener counterpart, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), when it comes to these types of metrics.

For example, check out this compilation of reports comparing the two sets of standards. I always liked how plainly this UC Berkeley PowerPoint comparison conveyed their differences (I'd love to see an updated version of it).

Still, SFI is working hard to break into the green building marketplace.

The swirl of green claims can get confusing to businesses who are working hard to do well by doing good, but don't necessarily have the environmental background, themselves, to know how to separate the green from the greenwash.

I'm glad that organizations like ForestEthics are doing what they are doing to help ensure accountability in the green forest products and building marketplace.

Read more>>

Read the NY Times coverage of the battle between SFI and FSC>>
...

Climate Change Threatens Our Livelihoods and Yours

2009-11-19T10:50:00.000-08:00

The heads of the Aspen skiing company and the outdoor apparel company, The North Face, say their businesses are threatened by climate change, and so are you.

For them, it strikes right at the heart of their businesses--affecting even their namesakes:

As CEOs of two of the most widely known consumer brands in the outdoor recreation market -- Aspen Skiing Company and The North Face -- it gets our attention when our companies' namesakes start to vanish before our eyes.

In the summer of 2003, one of the most legendary and fearsome mountaineering routes in the world –– the North Face of the Eiger –– fell victim to climate change. An unusually warm summer melted much of the ice that makes this route in Switzerland passable. As temperatures continue to warm, this iconic passage may only exist in winter.

Meanwhile, in Colorado, aspen trees have begun dying off in huge numbers. Aspens can fall victim to many diseases, but science suggests that a warmer climate will lead to increasing tree mortality as a result of sickness, insect infestations and other pests.

In their line of business, say the CEO's, they are seeing and hearing about climate change from the athletes from around the world who they sponsor:

As our athletes and customers travel the globe, they tell us they see firsthand the changes taking place, from the recession of glaciers to the effects of severe drought. These impacts are having dramatic effects on the people and places many of us have come to love.

So what are they doing about it? Lots...

And they are strongly in favor of strong climate change legislation:

We also know that these efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. And that is why a strong global and national climate and energy policy is so important. America is at a critical crossroads on climate change: We can lead the world and jumpstart our economy by spearheading the transition to a low-carbon global economy, or we can delay and fall further behind China and other nations that already have cleaner, more efficient cars, and more established wind and solar power industries.

We pick the first choice, not because we are idealists, but because we are businessmen, and because solving climate change and creating a clean energy economy is a business imperative. We believe that far from being a drag on economic growth as some fear, comprehensive climate and energy legislation will prove an economic stimulus for the long haul, creating millions of new jobs, spurring technological innovation and stabilizing business. This issue is not an abstraction to people like us. Aggressive action on climate change will preserve and protect the source of our profit and our passion: the stable climate, and the beautiful earth.

That is why we urge the Senate to take action now on a new and comprehensive climate change policy. This is the time for us to be the world leaders that we know we can be, and should be.

I am standing in my office applauding. I'm also glad that my ski pants are North Face, and that I've spent many a powder day shredding Aspen Highlands and Snowmass.

Read more>>
...

Obama's Balancing Act on Climate Change Messaging

2009-11-18T14:34:00.000-08:00

NPR has a well-penned article about the messaging balancing act President Obama faces as he works to advance climate change and clean energy legislation.

In public, the president never makes the case for addressing global warming in environmental terms alone. That bothers Damon Moglen, who works on climate change for Greenpeace.

"You do not see the president doing what he has done on health care: going out into the public and explaining the problems of climate change, and demanding from the Congress a science-based policy commensurate with the risks we face," Moglen says. "So, we need to see much more leadership from Mr. Obama."

Another environmental activist, Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute, says the White House approach makes political sense — especially today. He says the president is being pragmatic.

"We're in the depths of the most serious recession that the United States has faced since the Great Depression," Lash says. "We're at 10 percent unemployment, and that's what Americans are concerned about. They need to know that taking action now is not something that will prolong the recession but will help us out of the recession."

Overall, I agree with Lash about the need for pragmatism. However, studies in environmental messaging point to dangers of emphasizing economic benefits alone, and failing to tie in credible, concrete and emotive environmental appeals -- the type Moglen is saying Obama should be using. For example, in my October Yale Forum piece, I noted that:

Studies find that emphasizing the people benefits (e.g., economic, health, etc.) of taking an action is important. However, some researchers point out that emphasizing people benefits alone can actually lead to weaker behavioral changes than emphasizing both environmental and people benefits. Others recommend encouraging fans to imagine themselves as climate change and clean energy trendsetters, and to base their choices on that mission and identity.

Presenting messages in moral terms helps strengthen their influence. For example, an advocate of legislation might argue: "With the incredible environmental, economic, health and security benefits of climate solutions, it's wrong to not support the bill. Taking action is the right thing to do, and you are a good person for doing it!"

President Obama still has some work to do on the messaging front. Granted, we all do!

Read more>>

Update: Bill McKibben jumps into the mix with a pointed critique of President Obama's approach to climate change messaging - phew!

Update 2: Read David Roberts' response to McKibben -- he says McKibben is wrong to blame Obama, and the real problem is the U.S. Senate. Is your head spinning yet?
...

Global Warming and Forest Protection: Making Sure We Get REDD Right

2009-11-18T12:57:00.000-08:00

Speaking of the law of unintended consequences...

Scientists have sounded the alarm about the need to properly design schemes to pay countries to protect their tropical forests as a means of slowing global warming.

Deforestation is estimated to contribute about 20% of global emissions of the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

In a paper published in Current Biology magazine, the scientists warned that the market may target forests that are cheap to protect and rich in carbon and neglect those that have less carbon but more endangered animals and plants.

"We are concerned that governments will focus on cutting deforestation in the most carbon-rich forests, only for clearance pressures to shift to other high biodiversity forests which are not given priority for protection," said the team's joint leader, Alan Grainger, of the University of Leeds.

The scientists, from Britain, the United States, Germany, Switzerland and Singapore, said concentrations of carbon and biodiversity in tropical forests only partially overlap.

They said up to 95 percent of damage to REDD-protected forests could be displaced to nearby unprotected forests.

Their report cited the example of the Peruvian Amazon, where the creation of forest reserves contributed to a 300 to 470 percent rise in damage to forests in adjacent areas.

State workers and public money may be switched to REDD forests, leaving unprotected areas at risk, the paper said.

The scientists also fear that REDD could, perversely, lead countries to delay forest protection measures that they might otherwise have taken anyway, as they await the new agreement and the rewards it might bring.

What's the solution, then?

They urged countries meeting in Denmark to add rules on safeguarding biodiversity to the text of any deal and consider giving incentives to poor nations that address the issue.

"Despite the best of intentions, mistakes can easily happen because of poor design," Grainger added. "A well designed REDD can save many species."

Biotech Crops Cause Big Jump in Pesticide Use

2009-11-18T12:20:00.000-08:00

The law of unintended consequences is at work in the world of genetically modified crops, reports Reuters:

The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

Um, shouldn't these things be thought out BEFORE releasing the genetically modified crops into the marketplace -- so that we can be sure that stuff like this doesn't happen? Oops...

There is a bit of good news:

The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.

But the big picture remains:

Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.

The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as "Roundup Ready" for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.

With farmers screaming bloody murder about how much climate legislation is going to drive them out of business by raising their fuel costs, you'd think they'd be a little bit more efficient with their herbicide use...

We are all in favor of food supply solutions that help reduce the amount of land, water, fertilizers and pesticides that need to be used in agriculture. But for the lord's sake, somebody should have seen this toxic mess of a problem coming and taken steps to prevent it.

Read more>>
...

Wall Street Journal Fails America On Climate Change

2009-11-18T11:01:00.000-08:00

In its reporting on the Senate's postponement of action on global warming and transitioning America to a clean energy economy, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today rolled out the shallow and false line of messaging that Congress doesn't have time for environmental issues:

Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

A "long-term environmental issue"? Really? That's all?

Former World Bank chief economist, Lord Stern -- among many others -- make clear how action is very much in the interest of a more secure economy. For just about all of us, America's oil dependence is an economic and national security train-wreck that keeps coming back to bite us in the ass like an energy crisis version of the movie, Ground Hog Day. Our public health experts tell us that fossil fuel pollution costs our nation untold billions in health care costs -- from direct costs like paying bills for childhood asthma treatments to indirect costs like companies having to pay workers who are home sick with pollution-aggravated maladies.

It's good that the WSJ reporter at least promoted the administration's line that:

"This is an economic opportunity for the nation that will create millions of clean energy jobs while reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and it's an opportunity that other countries like China and India are racing to take advantage of," Mr. LaBolt said in an email.

But then he gave equal weight to the tired storyline that:

Momentum for a climate bill has been undermined by fears that capping carbon-dioxide emissions -- the inevitable product of burning oil and coal -- would slow economic growth, raise energy costs and compel changes in the way Americans live.

"It's really big, really, really hard, and is going to make a lot of people mad," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.).

Oh woe is me. Phew -- somebody get me a towel, it's so really really hard it's like like climbing Mt. Everest while in a sauna with all these fears flying around everywhere! Have a sip of some positive vision for America, will you, Senator McCaskill? Then maybe you can help pass smart legislation that revitalizes America and enables us to catch up to the Asian countries that are poised to whoop our ass in the world's most important emerging industries.

The Wall Street Journal is doing the public a huge disservice with crappy, narrow-minded reporting like this, which makes its climate change coverage useful only as toilet paper.
...

New "Electrification Coalition" Calls for 75% of Vehicle Miles to be Powered by Electricity by 2040 - Emphasizes Security Benefits

2009-11-18T09:56:00.000-08:00

More than a dozen energy, transport and shipping company executives have just announced the launch of the Electrification Coalition, which calls for 75% of all miles driven in the U.S. to be powered by electricity by 2040.

Woohoo!

Following up on our last post, it probably sounds like smart strategy that rather than focusing on the environmental and global warming-related benefits of electric vehicles, the group's call to action focuses on the national security and benefits first, and (invisible) carbon emissions last.

Here's a clip from their press release:

“It is time for business leaders and policymakers alike to step up,” [FedEx's] Smith said. “Our unrelenting dependence on oil has threatened our nation for too long. Up to now, electrification seemed like a pipe dream. But we are offering a realistic, practical, achievable plan to build a transportation system that will enhance our national security, propel economic growth, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

Sounds good to me -- and the reality is that this is the type of message that seems to resonate most strongly with the most people.

We'll keep you posted on the progress that this group makes...

Read more>>
...

Is Apocalypse Fatigue Losing the Public on Climate Change?

2009-11-18T09:45:00.000-08:00

Is the apparent decline in public concern about global warming a result of "Apocalypse Fatigue"?

That's what Breakthrough Institute rabblerousers, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, argue in their latest Yale Environmental 360 piece:

The lesson of recent years would appear to be that apocalyptic threats — when their impacts are relatively far off in the future, difficult to imagine or visualize, and emanate from everyday activities, not an external and hostile source — are not easily acknowledged and are unlikely to become priority concerns for most people. In fact, the louder and more alarmed climate advocates become in these efforts, the more they polarize the issue, driving away a conservative or moderate for every liberal they recruit to the cause.

These same efforts to increase salience through offering increasingly dire prognosis about the fate of the planet (and humanity) have also probably undermined public confidence in climate science. Rather than galvanizing public demand for difficult and far-reaching action, apocalyptic visions of global warming disaster have led many Americans to question the science. Having been told that climate science demands that we fundamentally change our way of life, many Americans have, not surprisingly, concluded that the problem is not with their lifestyles but with what they’ve been told about the science.

These factors predate but appear to have been exacerbated by recession.

If this is the case, they ask, then "What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?"

At the same time, significant majorities of Americans are still prepared to support reasonable efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if they have their doubts about the science. They may be disinclined to tell pollsters that the science is settled, just as they are not inclined to tell them that evolution is more than a theory. But that doesn’t stop them from supporting the teaching of evolution in their schools. And it will not stop them from supporting policies to reduce carbon emissions — so long as the costs are reasonable and the benefits, both economic and environmental, are well-defined.

This piece reflects a lot of why Conservation Value Institute works to advance a positive vision of sustainability as the smart path to achieving wealthier, healthier, and safer communities. People don't like to listen to very much gloom and doom. It's a buzz kill. But they love to hear about solutions that will save them money, help them live healthier and longer lives, and protect the safety of their children -- especially if it's stuff that they can brag about, and have their esteem boosted by telling their friends about the important things they're doing.

It also reflects why we have a category of posts about "motivating change" on this blog. It's here to help you follow the rising numbers of recommendations for solving global warming that are coming out of the environmental messaging fields -- from conservation psychology and conservation sociology to neurolinguistic programming.

At the end of the day, we know what we need to, technically, to slow and reverse global warming. It's just a matter of motivating people to do it.

It's been a long, tough slog over the last few years for many of us, from the incompetence of the disastrous Bush presidency to skyrocketing oil prices to the Great Recession. The trick for proponents of the Green Economy is to clearly and positively convey how climate change and clean energy solutions can offer us a path to a better economy, more and better-paying jobs, a healthier environment that is safer for our families, and a re-inspired America that leads the world's most important emerging industries.

We have quite a ways to go, but I do feel that we are on the right track...

Read more>>
...

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

2009-11-17T19:19:00.000-08:00

A new report details the threats to our national security posed by climate change -- threats that can be avoided by passing bold climate change and clean energy solutions legislation:

Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a new study released by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals from all branches of the armed services.

The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explores ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

The CNA Corporation brought together eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change.

The report includes several formal findings:

Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The report also made several specific recommendations...

If only our political system wasn't so strictly partisan -- and people would actually vote on the what's best for their constituents, and Harry Reid would do to the Republicans what they'd had done if Democrats had so abused the filibuster when in the minority -- maybe we could get a solution out of Congress.

Which Senatorial leaders or fence-sitters are ready to be bold here..?

Read more>>
...