Comments 2wheeler has made

Way back in 1989

...at the University of Washington (go, Huskies!), a dozen and a half of us organized a campus-wide Earth Day (I think it was #17 of the annual series).  

The theme was, "Toward Environmental Sustainability".  I continue to believe it was apt and prescient.  Communicating a sense of action/movement is good.  We wanted to get everyone involved in working toward this common goal, hopefully all year round and not just on this one day or week.

A bigger challenge will be be to define specifically in the context of your work and company's mission and goals, what moving toward sustainability means.  And then see about doing those things in real time, all year long.  

Good luck!
On Umbra on catchy Earth Day slogans posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

Hello?

It was an "economics" conference, right.  Forget the "eco", they were dollar thinkers.  WSJ at the front of the line.  And you're surprised?   It's their yardstick.  The problem of externalities needs to be repeatedly emphasized in their presence, as evidence their system is insufficient for society to use in measuring "progress".

The other folks in attendance, probably kept trying to point out that there is more to decision making than payback time.  Many folks buy depreciating assets and "use them up" with no expectations of payback.  Clothes, food, transportation, housing (rent or mortgage interest), etc.    

I believe we simply need a new yardstick. The dismal science can only inform us so much in regards to public decision making.  A sustainability index, a quality of life index,  both would be arguably better than a GDP to measure and communicate "progress" toward meaningful national goals that we'd want to strive for and proudly point to as we pass the torch to our children and theirs down the line.

Re-conceptualizing progress: that's the real challenge before us all at this time.  Not re-defining it for pragmatic reasons due to the economic downturn, but actually bringing in all those other values of quality of life, which the economists just can't begin to measure.   That work is still in its infancy, I'm afraid.  But at least Grist is shining a light into the territory we should be mapping.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Tuna salad, anyone? Wash it down with a cold soda

I agree the FDA is asleep at the wheel if they don't make all efforts to absolutely minimize (eliminating whenever feasible) any content of mercury in the public food supply.  Banning the mercury-produced caustic soda from use in HFCS production would be a simple, feasible step to take, and routine testing for mercury levels in HFCS would also be easy as a cross-check.  The FDA has numeric standards for bacteria content in meat, why not for mercury in the food supply?

Zero risk is never possible, but how does "assuming most of the mercury is not in a high risk organic form" (backed up by no testing to prove this, let alone demonstrate that inorganic mercury is risk-free) equate to responsible government?  

What happened to the Delaney Clause? I never hear about that anymore. Oh right, that only applied to carcinogens anyway.  And the concept of prudent avoidance / the precautionary principle?  We need a new Delaney in congress to update the FDA's mission in this type of area.

There's enough mercury floating around anyway without adding to our exposure from bioconcentrated food sources.  The Obama administration is pursuing an international treaty to reduce mercury emissions.  They need to talk to their FDA.  It's time to turn the page from "the lost years" of 2001-08.
On Why is the FDA unwilling to study evidence of mercury in high-fructose corn syrup? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

and so the tide turneth

After the suffering people (doubtless a majority of scientists, ecologists and average joes) spoke together for change in November we finally see the resonance through the back alleys of the temporary oiltown.  The light of reason has begun to penetrate the drifting smoke over the ruins of duuhbyan cronyism, within the crater of anti-thought.

We can rebuild green. We start by stopping W's mistakes.  Meanwhile the sun will shine and provide renewable energy in abundance for many millions of years.  LP hydrogen fuel cells are still fossil fueled, Jabber...

Long live reason, energy conservation, and renewed investments in science-based decision making for sustainability!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

magnetic wingnuts?

Yeah Alec, everytime I pick up a magnet off my refrigerator, it burns my hand!  Your wingnuts may be a bit loose around the axles, I think the wheels are falling off your skeptic wagon.

Historical context: Back in the 1890s there were novel parlor tricks and claims about electromagnetism; static electricity and sparks, magnetism, etc.  It was all very charlatan like, in retrospect.

Now, aided by scientific studies, data and methods we know about the earth's Ionosphere and magnetosphere-- about our planet's own electromagnetic field created by the rotation of the molten iron core deep inside earth-- and how it protects us from much of the harmful spectra of radiation that is flying past.

The thermal (IR) type from our sun, is able to pass through and warms our surface; it is aided by the blanketing atmosphere which maintains the temperature higher than, say, that of the moon. It's a rather fine calibration to keep our system between the melting and boiling points of water, which most life as we know it depends on.  Venus and Mars are examples of the two extremes beyond these limits...

A friend believes that average Joe's have a hard time distinguishing on a daily basis between weather and climate.  Maybe that's what explains this poll finding in the middle of the 10th coldest January on record (in my northern state, anyway).  That and how the Weather Channel axed their climate science reporting...

The warm seasons arrive statistically earlier each year.  That is a climatic signal!  USGS reports released just before the change of administrations underscore the gravity of the situation we're finding ourselves in due to human perturbations of the natural climate system.

The science is happening, despite wingnut attestations to the contrary!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

+1 : Sightline charts

Yeah I found that Sightline chart a couple months ago and printed it out to post on my office fridge and on the bulletin board in the bike parking room.  Highlighting the carbon footprint of biking and walking in this graphical manner makes a good message to those who are considering their options.

I also used these carbon emission factors to create a personal spreadsheet for tracking my monthly and annual bike commuting activities.  I have translated my bike miles into avoided commuting costs (vs. hybrid car or bus options), saved commuting time, and avoided CO2 emissions.  It's great info to have and use for making informed decisions and seeing how the numerous advantages of carbon free biking, in my case, keep adding up...

Now if I could just avoid my bike collecting and repairing habit.  :-)On Umbra on commuting choices posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

Criticism is warranted

The clip of the spokesguy was far too chopped to draw any big conclusions in this media piece.

It was unnecessary for the story writer journalist to cast as mere assertion, the "environmentalist allegation" that such coal sludge is laden with heavy metals. That is an established scientific fact, which could have been verified by checking with reputable technical and government sources.   The question of how concentrated those metals are in this material, and the degree of toxic risk to ecology and human health therefrom, is a nuance beyond the typical 2 minute TV segment.  

Nevertheless, the raw images of destruction of this valley landscape, show this spill to be an environmental disaster.  

A better investigative story could focus on how incomplete any attempt to "cleanup" such a mess will necessarily be.  The costs are simply too great to get it all picked up again.  

For comparison then, maybe focusing on the pollution prevention steps that could have been followed by the mining company.  Engineering measures and safety margins that weren't provided, and their specific extra costs.  Were these practices not required by law, or were the rules simply not followed in this case?  How much extra would paying such costs upfront have added to the electric consumer's electric bill?  And if other protections were also provided such as no more MTR, and full CCS-- those costs would equate to how much per KWH?  Shine the light of inquiry deep into the tunnel of coal thinking and see what truths are uncovered.  Then let us decide if Coal is really the magic energy source being advertised lately.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Add the watershed context

I do a lot of watershed volunteer work and am jazzed about connecting people of all ages with the watershed they inhabit and depend on (and the nature it supports even in the middle of the city).  Check out your local streams and rivers, for some amazing discoveries, biology and  history.  We can positively influence and protect the health of our rivers and streams by many choices and behaviors.  Viewing the curb gutters as the headwater streams of this system is the real paradigm shift-- anything that is pollution there will be next in the river after a rainstorm.

We pick up trash in sensitive areas near the river, do stream walk education sessions in warm weather, and plant native tree and shrub seedlings to enhance the corridors along the streams (as well as the habitat in our own backyards).  Doing these things makes a tangible difference that people of all ages can feel and appreciate, and gives a sense of ownership and stewardship necessary if the problems of our globe are to be solved, one step at a time, by a series of very local actions that add up to sustainability.

People appreciate water because our bodies are made up mostly of it, and the tap water we depend on to drink comes often from surface water supplies (rivers and streams).  Kids appreciate swimming and fish, the other concepts of protection that the Clean Water Act pursues. EVERYONE lives in a watershed.

The US EPA's website allows you to "surf your watershed".  Find a local watershed group and get involved! Bring your kids and bring the message to families and folks of all ages.  Special educational events can be planned to learn about green roofs, rain gardens, backyard habitat, rain barrels, and other cool concepts.  Yes, you might expect to get your feet wet sometimes, but it's worth it.  On Umbra on eco-actions for kids posted 11 months ago 12 Responses

deck chairs on the titanic?

All the existing klunky models of Chrysler (and their brethren GM and Ford) seem to be like those deck chairs being rearranged while the ship is taking on water.  

This is the company that brought us the "K" car...

Seems we need a new paradigm here, and I'm not sure a Jeep with tons of batteries on board to weigh it down further is going to convince the average Joe Sixpack to convert to sustainable transportation.  Maybe if gas were $15 per gallon... (that's another post from today's gristmill)

Seriously, how about converting these companies into transportation companies, with investments in light rail, and maybe coast-to-coast stocks of Flexcar-style vehicle network services in every voting precinct?  

I know there are workable electric vehicle concepts out there, including some that can be stacked to run like trains over longer distances...  

Meanwhile how about some market signals and incentives encouraging people to live within about 6 miles of their workplace, etc?  Many of the lifestyle choices people take as fixed or given, need not be so in the end.  20 years from now, will you care whether your commute to work was in a large or small car?  Or whether the earth's climate and biodiversity and sustainability were protected?

American know-how is capable of more.  

What would Bucky (Fuller) do?

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

My favorite quote

... from the Birol interview:

"We are asking for a global energy revolution to prepare everybody for difficult days and times.  We should be very careful that we make our... efficiency and R&D policies so that we get the new technologies in place in a timely manner.  Or we will have much more difficult days than we did last summer... and a huge transfer of wealth to just a few countries, that could destablilize global geopolitics."

The last bit I have slightly paraphrased for succinctness.

I like how they called out and agreed that tar sands and coal (without sequestration of emissions), are not sustainable sources of new energy.

The Monbiot piece was presented in a somewhat sensationalistic way, portraying his trip to see the IEA economist as like Daniel going into the lion's den... when he's just a journalist seeking truth and accuracy, which science (even 'dismal' economics) should be naturally allied to help us ascertain.

Hearing the IEA official call this a necessary "revolution" drove home for me the point that we all need to take this very seriously indeed. And we need to get started soon if the future is to be sustainable and inhabitable for all of life's diversity.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

huh?

If all these polluting behaviors (littering, fossil fuel CO2 burning) are indeed "bad" then I fail to see how the polluter in the car ahead of me makes anything "better" for me if I'm on my bicycle, or  not littering... to use the analogies being made above.  In my case, I'm apt to be stopping to pick up their trash and recycle/dispose of it properly.   Would that I could do that so easily with their fossil-combusted CO2.

I don't know about the "1.9 cents a kWh renewable tax credit", but I don't think it exists for households in my state (Ohio), maybe it's only for utilities to take advantage of here?

I view Carrots and sticks as two complementary means of persuasion, the flip sides of a coin that ideally should be played together with some more increasing energy efficiency code rule standards (to move the minimum baseline behavior forward).  To me it seems arbitrary to favor just a carrot, over a stick or vice versa.  The psychology of various market players (individuals or corporations) may be predisposed to react more responsively to either a carrot, or a stick.

From a market perspective, I do like Hansen's proposed "fossil fuel carbon tax and equal per-capita rebate" approach.  I believe it would effectively reduce emissions with a minimum of political bias toward existing (fossil based or other non-green) powers that be.  Make the tax (and rebates) high enough and the learning, innovation, internalized decisionmaking-- and consumer behavior changes-- will follow.  It's the most likely approach that doesn't involve making inefficiently biased winners and losers from existing market players (as I fear doling out carbon credits would do).  It also doesn't presume to predict or limit innovation as some particular technology forcing solution would do.

For the second example of energy conservation retrofitting-- I do tend to agree there's a huge lack of skilled green workers to accurately assess/audit existing buildings and advise/perform the necessary conservation retrofits prioritized in terms of payback time.  There's a readily available free or subsidized service for low-income housing retrofitting which may or may not follow these exact criteria-- but a dearth of affordable consultation and qualified assistance for the rest of us.  

I'm speaking as the resident of a large midwest city whose grid is 90 percent coal fired and 10 percent nuclear.  I've been shopping for energy audit technical assistance for my church building for the past year with nearly zero success...  I find vendors touting their low-e windows, or their insulation... but nobody separate from the sale to accurately assess and advise in a quantitative way for my particular building's energy savings... Nobody with a thermal imaging capability or blower door for anything other than the single family residence, and those are mostly targeting low income (grant funded projects).  DOE's DIY energy auditing tools also don't fit the type of institutional use, they are all geared toward businesses with other types of buildings and uses. [end rant]

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Tell it, Joe

Detroit's Medium Two (as exemplified by Dingle, their beholden intervenor) have been so retrograde and ostrich-like for so long that they are as morally bankrupt as the now departing W administration.  Their actions have been directly counter to the short and long term interests of their workers and of the American People who would love to buy domestic built sustainable vehicles-- as well as to the interests of the health of our planet.  

Case in point, remember the Focus Hybrid (1999)-- never produced for sale while Honda and Toyota sold hundreds of thousands of their awesome hybrids.  A green roof on a pickup truck factory does not a sustainable corporation make (Ford).  So much potential during the 90's was squandered by GM and Ford in the last decade.

For their pure ineptitude, fiddling and resisting, the management of these corporations needs a wholesale ticket to the door.  Any "bailout" must 1.) rescue the workers and 2.) convert the assets into a new automaking enterprise based solidly on a green, forward looking business model of R&D and decisionmaking for eco-sustainability.  The Volt concept must be translated into a fleet of hybrids like Toyota's coming offerings.  These companies painted themselves into the corner they now find themselves in.

My family has bought only hybrids since 2000, because it's no time to sit and wait any longer.  

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

he told it

Dennis Kucinich told it like it is.  He speaks for America, sometimes before many others realize the full importance of what is going on. This speech was before the biggest banking meltdown, etc. in late September.   He may not be as photogenic or tall, but he speaks truth and has the people's interests firmly at heart.

Go, Dennis!!!!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Dirty hands but clean heart

Hmm, the usual response I get even from strangers in such circumstances is, if anything, a smile and a "thanks"-- to which I say, "You're welcome, I'm just doing my part."

I would respond to such a "friend" thusly:
"My hands get dirty picking up after careless slobs sometimes, but at least I can wash them."

Or:   "It's not just trees, but the ecosystem and our quality of life, and sustainability, that I care about." On Umbra on deflecting eco-insults posted 1 year, 1 month ago 18 Responses

Sustainability

Explain your understanding of this concept in a holistic sense.  How would your administration, if elected, and our nation move to lead by example in the direction of sustainability, for energy and climate and jobs/economy of our nation-- recognizing the interdependent nature of our planet's ecology and environment?

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

can we elevate the discussion to a higher plane?

the comments of mreinbold seem to be trollish in nature here.  We can do better.  Tax exempt or not...

I am all for leading by example-- whether it is the pope installing solar panels, or me picking up 10 pieces of litter on my daily travels and being sure to recycle as much of it as possible.  Infallibility is too much to ask of any human being, however.  I suspect that David R. agrees with me on this point.

Did you know that picking up and recycling a single aluminum can averts 0.6 lbs of CO2 emissions?  It's a good moral reason to fish them out of the trash whenever you see them misplaced. You are doing God's work...

My church is a member of an interdenominational national group called Interfaith Power And Light, which is trying to work for actions to reduce carbon footprints and avert climate change.  I recommend it to anyone here.

I look forward to increased efficiencies of solar panels, and lower cost types such as thin films that are now being developed.  I suspect the costs for solar will continue to decrease while other non-renewable energy sources will continue to increase-- and doubt those are adequately reflected in pro-nuclear calculations such as those referenced above.  The peace of mind from converting to renewable non-polluting forms of energy may be, in fact, almost priceless.  Who says one's reward must be deferred until a heaven?

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

recycled concrete, other considerations

My driveway at my last residence sloped from the street down to a parking pad in front of a car port.  I hand-excavated and flattened the pad area and made it into a cobblestone paver surfaced dual-use patio/parking area.  Water was able to soak in through the pavers and the sand base underneath it.  The patio was a perfect spot to set up the picnic table for occasional use, as well!

The sloping portion of the driveway was gravel with grass growing down the middle.  We improved the surface of the sloped driveway by salvaging some old concrete sidewalk chunks broken into angular "gravel" of the appropriate size.  We used a sledgehammer and wore appropriate eye protection!  The surface provided great traction, durability and water permeability.  It was free.  Our small cars handled it great.

Here in Ohio my parents have a large gravel driveway at their farm which they maintain by grading the surface with the tractor's grader blade about every 6 months or so.  They have no problem keeping it clear of deep snow using the same tractor blade.  Their driveway has some weedy plants growing through it, which could either be tolerated or pulled, depending on one's preference.

I agree that permeable pavement is best for watershed protection.  There is too much hard surface area (roofs and pavement) in the urbanized area already; the rivers are suffering from the storm runoff surges.

My current home has no driveway-- just an alley from which the garage may be accessed. I love it!On Umbra on driveways posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

maybe Honda is right

More research on the battery technology is needed. My Honda Insight just got its third Ni-mh battery pack, after only 18 months using Pack #2.  Reason stated for the replacement (luckily was covered under warranty): I'm not driving it enough. I was advised to drive at least 3 days a week for 10 miles or more per trip, in order to keep the pack properly conditioned.

What I learned researching the topic further is that my battery pack consists of 140 or so "D" batteries hooked up in series, and if just one of those cells starts to misbehave or charge more slowly, it throws things out of whack.  Cost of new battery pack to me would have been $2k or so.  Maybe it only needed one or two new D batteries...  
I have to think that plug in hybrids would be even harder on the vehicle battery packs, with the deep discharging and that expected replacement would be even more costly than on my hybrid which is only partially powered by electric.

IMHO, the battery technology needs to become ubiquitous so that one could have the battery serviced at a local non-dealer shop, such as Batteries Plus offers for other devices.  That day may be coming soon.  I definitely don't want my next vehicle to utilize the cheap but heavy and lame lead-acid batteries.

I hold out hope for my Insight as a retrofittable platform for whatever new battery or engine technology may be coming next.  It's made of aluminum and resists the assault of our Ohio's winter road salt...

Finally, in case you are wondering my vehicle of choice these days is my Raleigh 28-speed road bicycle.  My bikes offer zero carbon emissions and have enabled me to "haul my a** to work" over 320 times so far since 2006.  A city busline provides a backup option for me, although the commute takes 50% more time that way..

I believe that the sustainable solutions to our climate change challenges are already before us in terms of lifestyle choices about where we live and how we get around.

Plugged in or unplugged, the future sustainable personal transportation options will need to be diversely powered, lightweight and flexible.  

If thin-film solar PV technology takes off in the next decade, for example, perhaps having some hydrogen powered vehicles like the FCX on hand will turn out to be useful if the fuel can be made locally using H2O and sunlight (rather than transported over long distances from large scale producers using a yet to be invented fuel distribution system).

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

apples and apples?

Comparing the Volt (electric with gas powered on board generator) to the Tesla Model S (full electric plug-in) for its cruising range may not be so accurate.  The Volt's 40 mile cruising range under full electric, vs. the Model S range of 240 miles, may be a more accurate statistic for those looking to compare.

Anyway these vehicles are still vaporware for now.  I'm sad to hear the Volt won't have any more advanced batteries on board.  Lithium batteries used in the Tesla Roadster must just be too exotic (although they have been powering laptop PCs for well over a decade now). On Tesla Motors to build electric-car plant in San Jose, Calif. posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

nice

I like my 2000 Insight very much. It easily gets 10-15 mpg more than our second generation Prius does.  Even if it doesn't have a "stealth" operation mode in pure electric.  I can depend on its platform being durable (non-rustable) and open to future possible conversion to full EV.

The 2nd generation Insight vehicle shown in the photo with this posting strongly resembles a Prius (or stretched 3-door Insight) body style which is very aerodynamic and practical for many uses.

Any of these vehicles would be great options to reduce carbon footprints.  But today once again I've biked to work.  Sustainability is much more feasible than some would admit!

I would be surprised if this new insight utilizes as much advanced lightweight body materials if it is coming to market at $18.5k , that is likely to keep its mpg down somewhere in the upper 40s.  I really believe hybrids ought to be able to yield mpg in the 60s as this technology continues to mature, if all engineering prowess is brought to bear on the challenge.On Honda rolls out new cheap hybrid with familiar name posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

But not Norway?

AFAIK, Norway defies the thesis that petro riches corrupt absolutely.  I think it's likely a contributing factor, but not the only one.

The relative roles played by the multinational oil companies also should be examined in this context.

What one does with the petro riches is more of a long term factor in whether destruction or sustainability is seeded.  If a nation were to invest in sustainable energy sources with the short-term profits of the fossil fuelishness, they may just escape the reaper's call when the oil wells run dry.  

Gore's "inconvenient" hopeful effort was based on the well founded assumption that most oil-rich folk (T Boone Pickens recent conversion notwithstanding) prefer the status quo and would rather buy metals, furs and diamonds (or real estate) than invest in sustainable energy on a crash course.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

water rights law and mining law

... are all antiquated and broken. The watershed model does make lots of sense.

Reform at the national level is needed in order to balance a tendency at some local levels to have a "race to the bottom" in order to attract seemingly desired industrial activities which, if not carefully overseen can end up trashing a place and leaving it good for very little.

The amazing thing about rivers is every time you look at one, it's different water passing by.  The thing that should be constant is the care for the watershed-- in essence, all the land that drains to it, as well as the riparian buffers and other critical elements that affect the health and quality and quantity/rate of the water flowing by.  The damage done by impervious surfaces (rooftops and pavement), wetlands destruction and other seemingly irreversible changes, is killing our rivers and streams.  Not to mention the threats from invasive species which will only get worse when the system is stressed by anthropogenic global warming.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

urban micro-wind

... is not "cuckoo".  Folks just need to think outside the box some more, envisioning more than the traditional 150-foot horizontal axis huge propeller turbine.

Rumor has it that vertical-azis wind turbines like those by finnish company OY WINDSIDE may be both reliable, stable at a wide range of windspeeds, and bird-friendly, as well as attractive looking.  In addition we have other possibilities not yet pictured in my research of the net, for horizontal axis turbines functioning like the Windside cylinder-spirals, at the peaks and corners of all the boxy buildings where the wind is artificially concentrated and rushing around the corners anyway.

These are not huge nor unsightly additions, and some of us think they would actually liven up the urban landscape by renewing the visible connections of our artificial construct buildings, with the natural world on which we depend for our sustenance and energy.

So, not "cuckoo" at all. Just a different way of creating distributed renewable energy.  Hopefully coming soon to your town, if all the touted American Green Job ingenuity can take hold and grow.

I think we can count on urban micro-wind to be a piece of the puzzle (not the single silver bullet some may be seeking) for meeting the 10-year challenge that Gore has set for us in his speech.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

The rest of the story?

Other aspects of Barack's energy plan, which he apparently highlighted, but which were not stated in the cursory post above, may be more enlightening than the question of whether "cellulosic" works this year or not.

The plan says he would "IMPLEMENT A 100% AUCTION CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.  and, Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 percent by 2050.  

Q. Is that better than a carbon tax? maybe not in terms of reaching the entire market of domestic carbon footprints.  But maybe it's more feasible politically. My concern is it will continue to reward the current system of centralized energy production (utilities holding all the cards) and may not spur the necessary shift to distributed renewable energy production (consumers win and probably more stable from a national security standpoint).

The plan itself includes a whole lot of other stuff like:
"Barack Obama will use some of the revenue generated from the cap-and-trade permit auction to invest in climate-friendly energy development and development. This will transform the economy and create millions of new jobs. Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Personally I'd like to see the advanced biofuels research look at algal oil biodiesel rather than fermented alcohol based cellulosic fuels that need to be grown on the same land that we depend on for our food crops. It seems much more economical to culture algae which doubles in mass every 2 days rather than a crop that takes all summer to mature.  We could actually treat wastewater with this technology and reduce nutrient loading pollution of our rivers, with this type of approach.  I know this R&D is happening now, maybe it will mature in the timescale being contemplated in these plans.

Barack's plan touts "low carbon coal technologies", which evidently involve carbon capture and sequestration (which may require even more coal burning to power the sequestration processes).  The problem of mountaintop removal mining and valley fill destruction of rivers and streams, remains a significant obstacle though.

Best in the plan which I like to see is emphasis on reform to encourage bicycle transportation.   "Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Overall it's a fairly comprehensive plan, the 80 percent goal is a good one and it's a far sight better than what our nation has been operating with up to now.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

what about energy savings during use

"A CRT guzzles three times more energy than the same-size LCD".  [per a Discovery Channel online article on greener TVs]  In the case of my LCD TV (modest 26-inch size, a slight upgrade from the former 20-inch CRT TV) I estimate I still save 250 watts per hour of operation by upgrading to LCD.  The electric energy costs of producing the old, still-functional CRT TV that I recycled, were offset after operating the more efficient LCD TV for 120 hours.  

The information provided above does not say how much NF3 may be utilized in making a single LCD screen but must be very little.  I'm guessing I'm still ahead with a lower carbon footprint for the new LCD TV, over its operating lifetime.

The best option would be to improve the factory production process for LCDs, solar panels, etc. to minimize losses during use of NF3 and to reclaim and reuse it (it sounds like it's being used as a vapor degreasing solvent of some kind).  Perhaps it should be included in a future GHG protocol as a way to provide the proper price incentive to reduce the losses causing the GHG air pollution.

I'm agreeing with quade00 above.  The entire GHG puzzle needs to be solved as a whole, and a lot of it has to do with our home vs. work location choices and daily transportation choices.

In a global perspective, the C02 equivalent of NF3 is equivalent to less than 0.8 percent of the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted last year from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and cement making.On Chemical in flat-screen TVs is worsening climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 Responses

Feasibility

Yes to those above who have agreed: the question MacKay is attempting to answer as a physical scientist, is whether the various renewable technologies are feasible (i.e. do they "add up") in terms of production efficiency to replace the energy currently consumed to sustain the present typical person's lifestyle in the developed world.

That is a different question than if it is politically feasible, or socially desirable, or in whose backyard (everyone's?) the renewable energy sources might be located.  

He's looking across the entire spectrum of alternatives trying to see what combinations, if any, might add up.  Not unlike others such as Socolow have attempted to do with their "wedges" analyses.

A critical part of rational decisionmaking must be based on numbers and facts to inform the logic.  i.e. Is it practical at this time to sustainably produce the amount of joules or kilowatts in this case that seem to be needed?  

Assumptions not being made could include:

• neglecting any increases in efficiency of the renewable productions through future R&D (e.g. nanotube solar, etc.)
  
• Neglecting increases in efficiency on the consumption side to sustain the same level of prosperity with a lower energy consumption footprint.

Fixations on "who is the Decider", e.g. is it democracy or not, big vs. small energy providers are the second stage, from this perspective-- after the basic scientific/technological question of what is  quantitatively feasible at this time to approach sustainable carbon neutral energy for all of humankind's necessary activities.

I believe MacKay moves the ball forward by providing some useful information for people to chew on and truth out.  Ultimately the decisions and solutions will likely be local.

To me, MacKay seemed to be saying that the bar is higher than we thought, we are currently using lots and lots of energy, and we need to be  hitting on all the available cylinders if we are to kludge together a sustainable (carbon-neutral) energy future.

I found Bart's responses above to be unnecessarily polarizing, implying and inferring an "us vs. them" view extending to mine and other peoples comments.  Maybe it boils down to that sort of picture later but I believe that it doesn't yet have to, at this point in time.  

I believe that the ultimate solution(s) will depend on all people of the world:

• Benefiting from an economy of scale that would be expected to take hold and reduce prices of the implemented various carbon-free energy production technologies.
  
• Consciously leaving their NIMBY biases at the door and sharing the load of sustainable renewable energy production. Just as we all are part of the very big climate/carbon/sustainability problem right now, we all need to be part of the combination of solutions.

Power, and information, to the people!  We can get to sustainability, one step at a time.  How to afford it best is a good question.  We can't afford to fail, however.  MacKay is helping us view the spectrum of technological options through some useful quantitative screens which I for one do value as a form of objectivity.  

Let's bring out any hidden assumptions, check and test them. If the numbers are wrong, let's correct them. But we can't all collectively evaluate this without looking at some numbers, people!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Duh, look who's been in charge

"Unfortunately, dumb growth is alive and well across the country," said Blumenaur.

I wonder if it is practically feasible to go straight to Platinum LEED certification for all new structures.  Not that such functionality isn't to be desired, but I understand that attaining the certification itself does add significantly to the project cost for most buildings.  My brother's a LEED certified architect and many of his public clients opt for the gren functionality without the red tape overhead of the official LEED rating...

Dumb growth pertains more to land use decisions in general (sprawl) and street designs (non-grid, lacking sidewalks, etc.) that typifies the suburban situation where so many new residents tend to land, if only on a transient basis.  

The "environmental sense of place" is important to have in your mind first before planning how to live sustainably in any one area.  With this context it is possible to make location decisions and understand what is special and unique about the area in terms of its environment (the source of life sustaining activity) and quality of life from a human standpoint.

This is about more than highways, or air quality!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Rain Barrel water source

Yesterday we filled my 5 year old's wading pool from the rain barrel (nice and clear soft rainwater).  This year my family is using a recycled large closed-top tank as a rain barrel.  We are very careful to keep leaves out of the barrel.  But we made a mistake and put the pool over the grass in our small yard.

To avoid killing the grass from lack of sunlight, today I emptied the pool and moved it onto the patio.  I was able to use a bucket to dip most of the water back out of the pool and put it back in the rain barrel again. After moving the pool (only possible when empty), I could again dispense the water from the rain barrel.  I hope to use the water for a while in the pool before using it in the landscape for watering of plants.  Maybe we'll keep it away from the veggies, with the DEHP content in mind. Yuck!!  Are we running a big bio-experiment here or what.

The pool is a 3-4 foot diameter, 12-14 inch deep type that collapses with just an inflatable "ring", the rest is like the dog dish (single wall with a wire ring around the bottom edge) that Umbra describes. It certainly weighs less than a hard-sided pool, if that equates to anything in this context.

A stock tank would be too deep for most "kiddies" in the target audience.  Kids couldn't climb out of them safely.  What's worse, drowning or dilute DEHP aqueous dermal exposure?

What I hate are all those vinyl inflatable pool toys that seem to attract the yuck algae that grows on them.  I suspect that most of them are discarded after just a few weeks of use.

Umbra, I noticed your answers to yourself tend to be a bit longer winded!  ;-)On Umbra on kiddie pools posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

don't forget the demand side

Most of the above commenting posters seem focused on the energy production side (how can we make green energy) and assume that conservation or other reductions on the demand side of the equation will always be painful.  I dispute that notion.

Cost of energy and quality of life need not go hand in hand, as was mentioned above. California energy costs twice what it does in West VA but on any number of indices the quality of life won't be favoring the mountaineers, I think.

My personal experience with carbon footprint calculating leads me to see that most Americans have not yet begun to tap into their creative ingenuity to save energy.  Too many are still not recycling, still driving pickup trucks an hour each way to work, haven't switched from incandescent bulbs to CFLs, waste time and money with gas powered lawnmowers and bags of chemical lawn fertilizer, run too many household appliances, don't open their windows in the summer at night, haven't planted native species in their yards...  you get the picture.

I think that businesses are even less likely than households to have made the necessary efficiency improvements from a carbon / energy standpoint.  Much more "low hanging fruit" is out there if we care to look in the right places for it.

As mentioned above this will entail divestment from carbon-intensive sources of energy and investment in low-carbon energy but not necessarily any loss in quality of life-- actually a great increase in quality of life from a global standpoint.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

bikes rock

As someone who commuted by bike today (as usual) I can further add to the above, that --

I DO enjoy my commute. I get to have some exercise and see my local world from a vantage point that I can appreciate the nature of the day and passage of the seasons.  I feel more connected to my environment as opposed to the inhabitant of a sterile box on wheels.  The exhiliration of movement under one's own power cannot be underestimated.  Sometimes there's a little drama: will I make it home before the rainstorm arrives?  Will I make it through that one stoplight that I really detest because my bike won't trigger it to change?

I made this shift 3 years ago and it's been great. Before that, it was always in the back of my mind, when the stars would align, to make it possible.  My office moved to a place that is not on a major truck route, so voila-- here I am, proud owner of several more bikes and many more car-free days.

Springtime is ideal for beginning a bike commuting habit.  Cool mornings make it easy to arrive at work without breaking too much of a sweat.  Why wait til summer to feature this?  The League of American Bicyclists is on target by sponsoring the Bike to Work Day/Week/Month stuff right now in May.

Today I saw 6 other cyclists as I rode to work. That's a new record for me! It must be the gas prices. I say, bring it on!!On How to green your commute posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

biofuel need not be land-based

Somebody (China, US, anybody??) needs to quick think outside the box here.  All these cross-hemisphere deals, innuendos and hypothesizing.   Why assume that biofuel production must be tied to finite land surface area when land is inconveniently located mostly far from the equator?  When the ultimate energy comes from Sol itself, I am envisioning floating farms for algae production (in contained vessels so as not to pollute the sea water) positioned optimally within +/-20 degrees of the equator.

The R&D investment should not be in sugar cane, palm oil or even switchgrass, but algae.  It's so simple, it's gotta be good.  I'm not saying land will ever be passe` but... as a means of production it is not required since the advent of hydroponics.  I suspect that a significant portion of the earth's photosynthetic capacity is already marine-based, further evidence of its potential (a tiny fraction of which should still be sufficient to power human civilization at this point).

The 120 million hectare figures (for example) cited by other commenters are a drop in the bucket compared to marine surface area on this planet.

In addition, the excessive nutrient runoff water pollution problems causing "dead zones" outside the rivers of the Missisippi and others, could be solved if such a source were able to be tapped to feed the algal production mentioned above (instead of the bloom and asphyxiation of ocean life that it now csuses beyond those river mouths).

UNH article
wikipedia entry

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

solar or wind investment

Wiscidea, it sounds like you need to get off the grid.  Sorry your times be tough right now making ends meet, it seems we are in a recession.  Doesn't make it any easier to deal with the results though does it.

My own story is I grew up on an exurban fringe piece of nature that has now been preserved as farmland by my parents who still live there and farm ecologically.  I on the other hand moved back into the city from whence my father had grown up. Sure it's a bit different, more diverse but the grittiness doesn't have to equate to violent danger. That's a suburban stereotype myth in my opinion.

The choice of where to live, relative to work, shopping (organic milk isn't sold everywhere in my town either) is crucial.  My own struggle has been reconciling self to life on small urban lot. But we've planted cherry, apple, plum, peach, pawpaw trees as well as blueberry bushes, grapes, and 4 native berry bush types for the songbirds. I can bike to work and have done so for the past 3 years, taking bus in bad weather.  My household owns and when necessary drives one of two efficient hybrid vehicles (both of which were purchased as late model used).  We also offset our carbon footprint of transportation and household energy use.

Balancing my other need for real nature experience is my volunteer work with an urban watershed group.  The river in the city is an amazing oasis... and you can do so much locally in the context of a watershed to make a positive difference.  Thus I don't need to own the patch of earth I am improving, in order to make this local part of the environment more sustainable.  But my sense of ownership by sweat equity, the results of work on the river areas, is tangible.

Truly these things involve choices and maybe not doing as many frenetic activities in a day-- but appreciating the quality of each activity one does pursue.

This film, and the discussion, may be about suburbia-- but I suspect it is more about finding meaning in one's existence not attached directly to the size of one's house or vehicle, my perception of suburbia is the values are misplaced-- that will require a titanic adjustment to become sustainable in today's world.  Suburbia may need to contract and focalize from its current diffusive form in order to right-size our collective footprint on the planet.

No response to Jabailo in this thread seems warranted for now, he seems to be trolling here with a contrarian ad hominem viewpoint that I would dispute, but why waste the pixels.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

eco-farming tipw

There are probably several such groups but in my area there is a group called Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association that is all about practicing this kind of sustainable agriculture at all levels right on down to the urban households.  www.oeffa.org is their website.

I am sure the occasional Grist contributor Tom Philpott would have some content to add.

My contribution is to suggest google searching the term "green manure".  The concept of plowing in the Nitrogen fixing plants to enrich the soil in this manner is associated with the use of that term in practice here in the US.

Keep on Bean there, Umbra!On Umbra on soil health posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

profoundly

I appreciated the interview and the depth of coverage, it is good that the candidate and his campaign are considering these issues and are open to adapting to new information to take necessary actions to address global warming and carbon emissions starting now.
Too many plans and policies I see set their targets more distant than the time horizons in office of those who set the plans in motion.
I see the depth of discussion as good (not afraid to approach the facts and get their heads around them).  If misinformed aspects are evident, let's set them straight.

Personally I believe it should be relatively easy and not too painful to reduce consumption by 50% through simple conservation measures and lifestyle choices.  The 30% beyond that, may be more difficult, and will probably involve direct green energy production investments that I believe should be possible in wind (urban micro-wind?) and solar PV and solar hot water, not to mention geothermal heating and cooling.  Phase change salt based energy storage also has my interest if it can be used to store energy from season to season effectively.

What I had a problem with was the guy Jason seems intentionally obtuse, hence he is a spokesflack at a low level not a high level sound-byte worthy level.  We won't see these lines quoted in any attack ads in the fall... I think that is the intent of the campaign at this point in the game.  

What does encourage me is Obama is not afraid to speak truth to those who need to hear it even when the message may be hard for the listeners to stomach.  I believe that such leadeship, and his ability to connect with and motivate the grassroots, could exactly enable us to make the kinds of changes needed to shift to a sustainable path of recovery during his administration.  

Read between the lines and the Kentucky coal message keeps him from alienating the state at the primary stage.   If the energy balance of CCS is as tough as it sounds, we won't see much of that any time soon-- nor I would hazard a guess will the nuke option alluded to by Jason be a big element in the solution, as opposed to the last item he mentioned, CONSERVATION.

Meanwhile, I'll keep on biking, and driving my hybrid (when I have to drive), and buying carbon offsets, and investing in more energy conservation for my home.  And I look forward to businesses and population at large doing more of this as well soon, with the example of enlightened leadership to point the way.

It is about Change, isn't it.  

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

green auditing

There are books on this topic, surely. However in the interest of helpfulness I'd suggest (not knowing how your company is organized)

Review products that your company is selling, find out how much green content they do or don't have. Compare to others in the field who are setting the pace toward sustainability.

Review usage of paper, water, electricity. Ask for info from those who have it. Divide by number of employees, shifts, and/or number of widgets that your staff produces.  Attempt to see if those numbers may be improved or optimized for efficiency and resource savings.

Check the lighting in the building. Is it on when folks aren't there? Is it the most efficient type? T-8 fluorescent tubes are better than fattter old style T-12 lighting. Is the light where it's needed, or willy-nilly?   I think over 50% of lighting in offices is wasted.

Check the cleaning supplies. Are they green or toxic?  Share the info.  Paper towels in bathrooms? are they recycled content?  How about the copy paper?  Look for post-consumer content asa high as possible.

Accept that seeking sustainability is a continuum we are all (hopefully) making progress on, not a destination to arrive at and put your feet up at.  Celebrate progress in big and small ways.

Extra credit:  Examine the company policies toward sustainable lifestyles and health. Do they promote bike commuting, walking at lunch, clean air initiatives and recycling?  

Recycling at most workplaces sucks and can be greatly enhanced.  It's the first step on a road toward sustainability.  Make it fun and consider a contest with prizes!

Note: the old way of doing environmental auditing merely loooked at whether a company was in minimum compliance with environmental laws.  The new way seeks to make environmental sustainability ingrained in the corporate culture. If that can be done, everyone wins!
On Umbra on Earth Day office parties posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

How un-constructive

As a regular bike commuter (when it's not raining heavily, at which times I take the bus), who rides in, get this-- STREET CLOTHES (khakis, or whatever I need to wear for work that day)-- I can say this makes me REALLY not want to ever buy a State Farm product of any kind.  They just don't get it, do they?

What kind of dolt suggests that the choices before us are so polarized as to require the wearing of silly tights/pants just to ride a stupid mountain bike to work?  Get real, ad agencies.  Get educated, and ride on 2 wheels sometime yourself, and you will see that the choices are quite viable and realistic.  In my case, not only do I save on parking and bus fare, I get my daily cardio the doctor kept asking me about during physicals the last 10 years (without ths health club dues) and I get to experience my local "sense of place" (the environment, remember it?) and passage of seasons, neighborhood sense of community, and the empowering knowledge that, for these miles at least, I am NOT part of the problem, but part of the solution.

To get to this place, other challenging decisions had to be made, including choice of housing location (5 miles from the office) and city (with housing I could afford on the income earned, at such a location) where such activities would be practical.  Anyone who thinks the solutions for energy independence, climate change avoidance and general sustainability are beyond us, is just not thinking creatively enough!

A big bird flip sign to State farm and that chick in the ad with her dry-clean-only outfit.  Maybe State Farm oughta try implementing a commuter incentive program for their employees and customers to get people out of their SOV SUVs and into vanpools, transit, and bikes.

How about offering Pay As You Drive auto insurance while you're at it, guys?  That needs to be part of the solution as well, and companies like State Farm could, and should, be leading the way toward sustainability by providing such consumer options, rather than casting the future as a grim have-vs.-have-not choice.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Graph is more than correlation

It's a REVERSE correlation insofar as fewer jobs per capita are now from the rapacious mining activity-- even as the activity accelerates with the MTR mechanization and valley filling river destruction.

And Billary's response (what was she saying again?) is just the kind of "triangulation" we would expect from the Clintons at this point. She and her husband with his "library", takes too much money from the big donors, unlike Barack, and is swayed by it I think.

Strong second to drX's comments above, Obama is a different type of leader whom I have real trust in: he has been saying what he believes and could benefit from good advisors (unlike McCain who is stubborn type like W on this personality trait).

As for the glib and fatalistic comment above, "The Co2, well that is another problem and someone else will have to deal with it."  we REALLY need to get  empowered to make the necessary changes to build the sustainable future our children and grandchildren will require.  

I believe Obama, not the Clintons, is the one with the judgement and character to lead the people of this great country with respect to these matters.  Us average folk are not afraid to make sacrifices if we know the cause is fair and just-- we just hate being lied to and sold out by so many of those in charge.  Barack Obama's unique ability to connect to the people, could be like FDR with his fireside chats inspiring all to get serious and persevere-- this time, about personal actions to shift to renewable green energy.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

Now if they could just ...

...do so the other 1457 days of the presidential electoral term, and at the local level around the country in all the operations that members of that political party bear public responsibility for.

Actions speak louder, and the daily actions speak loudest.  Sustainability is more than something to pursue on TV for a couple days once every 4 years.  Public accountability for sustainability needs to be reckoned on a daily basis.

1-20-09: The End of an ErrorOn Republican convention will go green posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Was it Anticlimactic, or Anti-Climatic?

The State of Denial in the W Administration is evidently larger, for the time being, than even the State of California.   They've never been known to be swayed by the facts before (witness so many other decisions documented in Grist pages); why should they start now?

Only 11 more months of such idiocy to go...On EPA releases unconvincing justification for denying California waiver posted 1 year, 9 months ago 2 Responses

who indeed

I would say that the grunt workers in these health and environment agencies who studied the science in their university educations, and who entered the field as a public service career goal (rather than for personal aggandizement) are keeping the public health and environment missions in the fore of their minds.

At least I am.

Can't speak for other fields like FDA, NHTSA, etc.
Yes we learn from working on "the other side" (consulting or industry) for a while too. But mostly we see how decisions there may be made with too much focus on profits instead of balancing the ethical bottom line as the agency is supposed to do.

Many agency staff believe that if our jobs are done properly there will be dissatisfied people looking at us from both ends of the spectrum.  Not sure if that is a just outcome in every case or not, but it's often true.

I believe that many research scientists at universities also share a useful perspective in viewing these problems and, because they have more time to keep up on the latest journals, may be as well informed as anyone.  Their ethical challenge is to find project funding and ask the research questions that bring benefit to society as opposed to advancing some private co-opting of the public good that is our environment, our health, our our biodiversity, for example.

BTW, it's a great warm spring day here in the midwest, perfect for bike commuting!On Scientist with concerns about chemical removed from EPA panel posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

some good points

The OP (Romm) makes some good points about the WaPo writer Mallaby glossing over and missing the subtlety of some of these matters.  Such as the Clean Development Mechanism vs. carbon trading between developed and undeveloped countries.  In a nutshell we must agree that if China and India are not brought into the fold we are all likely toast.  Carbon neutrality at the global level needs to be the practical goal.

Pay as You Drive (along with a carbon tax on fuels and probably appropriately low emissions caps) has to be a partial solution to resolving the present externalities of the environmental costs of driving. As a bike and bus commuter who owns a few cars for occasional use (camping trips, hauling bikes and canoes, etc.) it continues to steam me that my insurance rates are so high for leaving my car parked out in front of my house 28 days a month.  Yes PAYD is an old concept, amazing how little traction it has had in the political arenas where we need change to enable such progress.

I have no doubt that Obama as the next President will be "smart enough" to craft a solution that is workable, and which does not sell out to corporate interests that have dominated the current W administration.  He's come too far based on support from the grassroots people, to do otherwise now.

The points being made above re: all forms of ethanol being bad for atmospheric carbon, are still not widely known and must be publicized if we are to undo the damaging decisions to invest so heavily and mandate domestic production in that sector.  We need to focus on things that work, to reduce our carbon footprints right away rather than such distractions.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

delay and obfuscation

it's just like every other decision lately by the current administration. Delay as long as possible and then come out with the decision that harms the environment, based on faulty logic. Usually in direct opposition to the hard working scientists within the agencies involved.  Sound familiar, California Air pollution CO2 would-be regulators?

Oh, and meanwhile, continue with federal business as usual, in this case selling more oil leases in the habitat area of the threatened polar bears.On Bush administration misses deadline for decision on polar bears posted 1 year, 9 months ago 5 Responses

SRI vulnerable to greenwashing

Without more transparent reporting especially by mutual funds we will be left with the sense that there is more fiction than fact in the realm of SRI especially in the areas of sustainability and climate.  The Dow Jones Sustainability Index is a great objective start at measuring corporate progress toward these worthy goals.  Problem is, not enough companies are giving it the heavy emphasis that would be desired if they truly want to be these good corporate citizens (and to be sustainable for their own bottom line as well as the planet's).

Directly related to the above problem is in my opinion the other problem of continuing lack of any index-based fund or ETF based on the DJSI available to the normal investor without privately and personally subscribing to the DJSI. Compared to other indexes upon which mutual funds may be readily bought and sold at little or no load / fee basis, this is not so for the DJSI.  There is a Euro STOXX fund of some kind but none for North America or the USA.  Wassup, people?  As someone who believes that steps toward sustainability begin at home, I want to take action to make my investments consistent with my values in this area.

It seems all the SRI banker types would rather keep their cards private and not have the transparent reporting and  ranking world that global adoption of the DJSI could transition us to.

So in the meantime we have, what? a bunch of "green" advertising, fluff and smoke.  We can do better, and must if sustainability is to ever be more than a vague buzzword.On U.K. ethical funds investing in pseudo-green companies, says report posted 1 year, 9 months ago 1 Response

green(washed?) cards not yet ready for prime time

How sad to hear that Working Assets card "contract" is for sale to less green/ethical bank vendors to provide the actual service.

The GE green energy credit card rolled out last year sounded nice with its windmill logo on the front-- but after reading what I could find of the fine print... I was underwhelmed both at the low numerical rate of actual green energy investment dividends my patronage would yield, and the apparent lack of transparent accountability by an independent third party (such as Green-E certification) for any green projects/investments.  

Did I say independent?  GE's got their hands in everything including the means of production, so I actually saw this potential "green rebate" being used to most likely enhance GE's other divisions own corporate bottom line on the green products/sales side.  With even greater PR benefits accruing to GE than that.  The very real likelihood of double-counting, as I'm sure GE would take credit for their own expenses (and revenue for other profit taking) for any reporting on their corporate social responsibility efforts.

Basically I think GE wants to have its interest-bearing credit card cake and eat it too, with this greenwashing sales effort.  It's the corporate american way, I guess...

Informed consumers and investors need still more complete and validated, transparent means of making such ethical investments, such as the Green-E certified projects and the carbon offset market is starting to offer.  Otherwise there remains a huge potential for double and triple counting of the meager investments being made on our behalf at this time.

Recall that Exxon-Mobil made a record $43 trillion in profit in 2007.On Range of green credit cards offer carbon offsets for purchases posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Distributed Renewable energy is the only way

Unfortunately there is not corporate kleptocracy (state owned nuclear utilities in the case of UK and France?) to advocate for it.  Taxpayer bailout of nuclear industry losses, where is the accountability for sound decisionmaking here?

Production of distributed renewable energy still wallows in the backwater of energy priorities.  Could not a state-owned utility realize the profit from such investments if it makes the shift?  The national security (reduced risk of accident, unit failure or attack) benefits of distributed energy production are so high, if they are only able to be truly quantified and understood by public decision makers.

How does the UK plan to dispose of its nuke waste?   Oh, I see-- in a yet-to-be sited facility. Or will it simply be stored indefinitely in barrels in unmarked warehouses?  "Out of sight, out of mind," has worked for the USA the last 65 years.  Keep it long enough and the fools who made the decisions will all be dead by the time impacts are noticed.   The concept of half-life or long-delayed consequences, does not seem to register in short term political minds.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.