More work than anyone imagined -- watch a slideshow of the project unfolding.Leise JonesIt is worth noting that the original JP Green House budget for the first year of the project was $25k. In retrospect, this was woefully inadequate, but by no means out of line with the four previous rehabs I had completed. We now project that total expenses for the first phase of the rehab, from purchase (July 2009) through occupancy (January 2010), will come in over $200k, a cost overrun of Big Dig proportions. Like the largest public works boondoggle in U.S. history, we seriously underestimated the problems; in our case, the difficulties in rehabbing a poorly maintained structure which had been abandoned for five years.

Our first clue in this regard, uncovered during the first week of ownership, was that the sill plates -- hard pine beams resting on the stone foundation on which the building sits -- in more than half of the building were termite-ridden. The major structural work of supporting the building, pouring new foundations, and replacing the sills and lower framing was both beyond our own capacity and also precluded occupancy and the piecemeal rehab we planned.

Most anyone who has worked on an old building will nod knowingly in sympathy at our experience of grabbing hold of one problem only to find another, and then another. It’s like tugging on a loose piece of yarn and watching a whole sweater unravel. So to with the JP Green House, but the silver lining that was gradually revealed as we came to understand that no part or system in the 100-year-old, ill-maintained, former corner store could be left in place, was the opportunity to shoot for a truly revolutionary standard of energy efficient rehab.

Between purchase of the property last July and October, the scope of work and scale of our ambitions for the JP Green House were raised from a modest, homeowner conducted spiff-up to a full, down-to-studs demolition job, complete new wiring and plumbing, and, most important, the goal of passivhaus certification. Unlike most energy-efficiency investments, it is very difficult to determine what should be considered additional costs of aiming for passivhaus. Yes, we would have had to attend to the structural problems in the JP Green House under any remodeling plan, but neither would we have needed the massive (for a single family house) buttresses and footings to support thick concrete floors, which will serve as heat sinks, had we not gone down the route we chose. Thankfully, we had patient, expert guidance from a number of highly proficient advisers -- particularly Greg Caplan of Living Structures, Inc. in JP, my dad, Harold Ward, recently retired from teaching at Brown University, where he ran the Urban Environmental Laboratory and Environmental Studies Program, and Peg Preble, our neighbor and master electrician. We were also fortunate to connect with the just-founded design/build firm of Placetailor, headed by Simon Hare.

There will be no shortage of work left for Andrée and me. The schedule calls for completion of all rough carpentry, insulation, HRV system and ducting, electrical and plumbing, sufficient to meet Boston building code, by mid-January, with the first passivhaus blower test soon thereafter. This still leaves to us construction of all interior walls, completing kitchen and bath, all finish work, storefront exterior and a few other odds and ends like construction of the deck necessary to access the new front door.

We have had tremendous community support, with too many volunteers to name joining our crew for a few days to full weeks and 20+ turnouts for Saturday work days. We are looking to expand on this support with a contractor “barn raising” week in December, whereby our friends and other interested construction professionals gain hands-on experience with passivahus building techniques, while donating time and expertise to help finish off the project.

The JP Green House is almost entirely an expression of faith -- on our own part (Andrée and I are looting our retirement accounts to meet the nut), our families (both of which have given important assistance), and the generous volunteer hours, donations of supplies, tools and appliances of our community. What we have not received, thus far, is any support from federal, state or local “green build” programs, utility “renewable portfolio” funds or private foundation grants (other than an estimated $9k we expect in tax benefits and small rebates).

The JP Green House is a “pure” model, therefore: a demonstration of what may be done without relying on funding sources that are unavailable to all. On the other hand, we will occupy our home and start our JP Green House program work without any reserve or cushion, lacking the solar hot water and pv systems necessary to achieve < zero carbon impact, and with the old strorefront, to be used as community space, passivhaus education and outreach and “hub” for 350.org campaignign, still to be completed. More on this interesting state of affairs in the next post.

Related Links:

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House

For some people, climate change is a tough cause to rally ‘round—even those who understand that it’s happening and that it’s human-caused get distracted by things like eating, working, having sex, watching TV, or watching people on TV have sex.

While social scientists ponder the best ways to get the message out and motivate the masses—and since we’re gearing up to cover December’s climate talks in Copenhagen—we’ve devised a Grist list of good reasons to care about this global crisis. Got reasons of your own? Let us know in the comments section below.

25. Because supermodels are stripping for the cause. If these lovely ladies are getting hot and bothered, shouldn’t you? At least watch the video. Call it your good deed for the day.

24. Because you don’t want your insurance premiums to go up. The sea level rise, severe weather, flash floods, and windstorms attributable to climate change have all got the insurance industry on edge. Some firms in the U.S. have already raised premiums in coastal areas, and rates in the U.K. are on the rise as well.

Dirt moguls just aren’t the same.Photo: Shay Haas23. Because you like to ski. Listen up, snow bunny: you’ll soon be consigned to schussing in an indoor dome if climate chaos has its way. Shorter winters and decreased snowfall are forcing big ski areas to ramp up their snowmaking efforts (a questionable scheme in the face of global water shortages) and leading smaller ski areas to close.

22. Because you’re a raging hypochondriac. Warmer temperatures mean happy, thriving insects, which might mean increased risk of West Nile, encephalitis, malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever. Do you really need more to worry about? Isn’t that weird spot on your inner thigh enough?

Nothing to see here, folks.Photo: andedam via flickr21. Because it’s a good excuse to learn weird things about animal sex. OK, you don’t care about the plight of the polar bears. But admit it, you’re curious about polar bear penises, aren’t you? And why they’re larger in snowier areas? That’s nothing compared to the lengths sea turtles go to for reproduction, and the flip-flopping gender of the hot bearded dragon lizard. Go on, check it out —you know you want to.

20. Because you hate oil. If your soul still wilts at the thought of all those people in slickers cleaning slick-covered birds in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, if you’d rather ride a bike than participate in the auto economy, then climate change is your issue, man. Fossil fuels got us here, and ending our reliance on them can get us out. But you don’t need us to tell you that.

19. Because you love oil. So maybe you didn’t mind the oily birds and you love driving your car? You should be worried too: according to a report from the U.S. government, the severe storms that are becoming more frequent due to climate change threaten our infrastructure and transportation networks, including the ports and freight lines used to transport oil. The oil-rich Gulf Coast is, as was made painfully clear in 2005, a particularly vulnerable area. Stop climate change in its tracks! Save the oil distribution network!

18. Because you eat rice. It’s a pleasant side dish to you, and for 750 million people, it’s a life-giving staple: rice. But this crucial crop stands to wither in the face of climate change, thanks to rising temperatures, increased flooding, and rats. Yeah, rats—they scurry in after major storms, eat all the rice, and nibble on people too. Care yet?

He speaks truth.Photo: Martin Crook17. Because Stephen Colbert does. Need we say more?

16. Because the Christian Coalition does. Need we pray more?

15. Because it will create jobs. Talk about your silver lining: In the midst of the deepest recession this country has seen in decades, attempts to forestall this global climate scourge could create new jobs in clean-energy industries, weatherization, and other areas. The feds are already steering money toward job training for green professions, and clean-energy legislation now before Congress could create jobs and boost the GDP of every U.S. state.

14.  Because you live near water. Sea levels could rise as much as a meter or more by 2100. That’s enough to put places like Miami, downtown Philadelphia, and parts of Manhattan underwater. How many people live in such vulnerable coastal areas? Oh, just 53 percent of the U.S. population.

13. Because Kardashians interest you more than Katrinas. Who can forget the powerful images beamed around the world when Hurricane Katrina hit: the faces of the forgotten, houses crumpled like paper cups, water washing over everything. And who can forget how they beamed in during your favorite show! So inconsiderate. If this sort of prime-time interruption irritates you, you may want to get involved in the climate fight. Because we’re going to see a lot more storms, and that means a lot more unhappy people beamed in your living room.

12. Because you like breathing. Got lungs? Got a healthy apprecation for fresh air? Well, take a deep breath: warming-induced increases in ground-level ozone and particulate matter are expected to increase respiratory disorders including asthma, and a recent study says more children will be hospitalized over the next decade due to such respiratory problems.

11. Because colorful coral jewelry completes most of your outfits. Prepare to adopt a new accessory, or wear a lot of white necklaces: climate change has led to massive coral bleaching and die-offs. The real problem is the disturbance of the delicate relationship between coral reefs and the teensy organisms that build them and give them color. It’s the foundation of a healthy ocean, which is the foundation of a healthy planet.

10. Because you won’t be able to hold up your end of a conversation with Obama, Lucy Lawless, Glenn Beck, Evander Holyfield, or the Pope if you don’t. You can probably fake it with Miley Cyrus, though.

Fading to black.Photo: burnblue9. Because colorful fall leaves are so pretty. But warmer autumns—and pests that enjoy warmer autumns—are messing with the trees. Duller leaves means less for you to look at, and translates into an economic hit for places like New England that rely on tourism generated by the annual phenomenon.

8. Because you don’t want to serve embarrassing champagne. Rising temperatures are altering the world’s finest champagnes, making the alcohol content “embarrassingly high,” says one British wine critic. How fun! Uh, we meant to say how terrible.

7. Because you like lights to come on when you flip a switch. Remember that blackout in 2003? The one that left 50 million people in the dark? That happened on a hot, hot day when lots of people wanted electricity. Guess what we’re in for more of? Hot, hot days. Guess how much our power grid has improved since then? Not much. For a little bit of Jazzercise for the brain, check out this academic paper on climate’s potential impacts on our power grids and national security—including, oh, crippling our society.

6.  Because: “insect feeding frenzy.” Shudder.

5. Because you support the recycled-soda-bottle fleece industry. What will become of those cozy fleece jackets made from recycled soda bottles? Such an incredible innovation, such a wonderful way forward—but if our northern climes turn temperate and our southern climes turn tropical, no one will wear fleece. And those soda bottles are going right back in the trash.

4. Because you think it’s depressing when old people die alone in hot apartments. Heat waves are the deadliest natural disaster in the U.S.—and the probability of severe heat waves is increasing along with temperatures. If emissions are not reduced, heat waves are projected to double in Los Angeles and quadruple in Chicago. With an aging boomer population, that’s a recipe for one hot mess.

3. Because you think it’s depressing when little kids die. It’s happening. Now. According to Save the Children, 9 million kids die before their fifth birthday each year from diseases that are occurring more frequently because of climate change, which is also affecting access to food and water. What are you, completely heartless?

2. Because everyone at Grist cares. We’re a bunch of (fairly) normal people, with pets and kids and money woes and Twitter obsessions—but we all think this is big. Like, bigger than Elvis. A survey shows that our reasons range from the practical (I live near the coast) to the dire (it’s going to kill my unborn grandbabies). But on one thing we agree: we need to do whatever we can to reverse this course.

1.  Because if we stop climate change, we can stop earnest lists like this. Seriously. We’d rather be doing other stuff too. Like maybe watching that supermodel video again?

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

You know how sometimes Jon Stewart gets all smarmy and sycophantic when he has on a guest he actually admires? And you know how Al Gore has a reputation for being a bit stiff on occasion? Let’s just say they seemed to bring out those qualities in each other last night—or, as Stephen Colbert “jokingly” put it later, there was “no Al-Gore-rhythm.”

Still, Gore spoke clearly about the energy and technology solutions that exist, what it will take to actually implement them, and why it ain’t happenin’. The Daily Show published a two-part extended interview on its site—here’s part one:

... and here’s part two:

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

Obama speaking on clean energy in MIT's Kresge Auditorium. Photo: Dominick ReuterObama delivered a speech on energy at MIT on Friday, marking the kick-off for what is likely to be a protracted effort by the administration and Democrats in the Senate to pass the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill.

Those hoping for policy substance or firm commitments were disappointed. There were no specific requests of the Senate, no bottom lines, no references to the climate negotiations looming in Copenhagen. Obama stuck with the strategy he's used from the beginning: his words are broad, sweeping, and inspiring, but on the details and mechanics of policy, he plays his cards close to his vest. He is incremental, careful, and solicitous of Congressional prerogative. Just as he did on health care, he is standing back to let the Senate find its equilibrium point. That drives progressive activists crazy -- they want ultimatums and confrontations -- but it's too early to judge whether it will be successful in the end.

Consequently, the speech was mostly boilerplate that's become familiar to those following this issue. Obama hyped the Recovery Act, which put money to doubling renewable generation capacity and represented "the largest boost to scientific research in history." He noted the "growing consensus" behind action, with a specific shout-out to the Operation Free Veterans for American Power Tour. He delivered a paean to the American spirit of progress, action, and innovation, and declared that whoever captured the growing clean energy market would lead the world economy in the 21st century.

Rhetorically, there was an interesting move. He noted two common myths of opponents: that there's no problem, and that addressing the problem will destroy the economy. He said that those who peddle denialist falsehoods about climate change "are being marginalized," and noted that "it's the economic system we currently have that limits our prosperity." Great stuff. But it was another myth, he said, that was most pernicious, because almost everyone indulges in it: that is the myth of defeatism and cynicism, that our "politics are too broken" to address this issue. That, not myths about climate or the economy, is the highest barrier to action.

While I (and other folks deeply engaged in this issue) obviously would have liked to hear more meat on the bones, it is worth noting that this narrative -- the narrative of innovation, American can-do spirit, and global economic competitiveness -- is by far the strongest one Dems have going for them. They haven't always been consistent about sticking to that narrative. (If I hear one more reference to the "cap-and-trade bill"...)

Hopefully, Obama's speech marks the beginning of better communications strategy, one that goes on the offense, that shapes a forward-looking vision, rather than constantly being on the defensive and working inside the frame of opponents.

Watch the speech:

Here's the full text of the speech:

12:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please, have a seat. Thank you. Thank you, MIT. (Applause.) I am -- I am hugely honored to be here. It's always been a dream of mine to visit the most prestigious school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Applause.) Hold on a second -- certainly the most prestigious school in this part of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Laughter.) And I'll probably be here for a while -- I understand a bunch of engineering students put my motorcade on top of Building 10. (Laughter.)

This tells you something about MIT -- everybody hands out periodic tables. (Laughter.) What's up with that? (Laughter.)

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives. And in particular, I want to thank two outstanding MIT professors, Eric Lander, a person you just heard from, Ernie Moniz, for their service on my council of advisors on science and technology. And they have been hugely helpful to us already on looking at, for example, how the federal government can most effectively respond to the threat of the H1N1 virus. So I'm very grateful to them.

We've got some other special guests here I just want to acknowledge very briefly. First of all, my great friend and a champion of science and technology here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my friend Deval Patrick is here. (Applause.) Our Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. (Applause.) Attorney General Martha Coakley is here. (Applause.) Auditor of the Commonwealth, Joe DeNucci is here. (Applause.) The Mayor of the great City of Cambridge, Denise Simmons is in the house. (Applause.) The Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, is not here, but he met me at the airport and he is doing great; he sends best wishes.

Somebody who really has been an all-star in Capitol Hill over the last 20 years, but certainly over the last year, on a whole range of issues -- everything from Afghanistan to clean energy -- a great friend, John Kerry. Please give John Kerry a round of applause. (Applause.)

And a wonderful member of Congress -- I believe this is your district, is that correct, Mike? Mike Capuano. Please give Mike a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren't built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create -- to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it's a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation -- not just here but across America -- that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America -- it's the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it's the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail -- but might also change the world.

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year -- a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That's in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past. A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government. A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China -- an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis. We face threats to our security that seek -- there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that's so essential to our prosperity. The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that's always been central to our success. And that's especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels -- we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it. There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there's no question that we must do all these things.

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that's why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century. From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It's that simple. (Applause.)

That's why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand -- Governor Patrick's leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here -- I told him, you don't have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field -- and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader -- from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth's investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That's worth applause.

Now, even as we're investing in technologies that exist today, we're also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase -- that's an increase in funding that's already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he's doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake -- (applause) -- everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil -- (applause) -- we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country -- that I've met all across America -- they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts' own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy -- when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim -- make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

So we're going to have to work on those folks. But understand there's also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress -- and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important -- that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I've seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

Today's frontiers can't be found on a map. They're being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today's pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us -- the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers -- helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

I am confident that's what's happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Related Links:

On “climategate”

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Ray Anderson set out to make his business sustainable long before green was the flavor of the month.  Reading Paul Hawken's The Ecology of Commerce in 1994 literally changed his life, inspiring him to overhaul his carpet company, Interface, and aim for zero waste and zero environmental impact.  Now, with his new book Confessions of a Radical Industrialist, he wants to spur other business leaders to "climb Mount Sustainability." 

Anderson recently dropped by the Grist office and we asked him how his own ascent is going so far. 

-----

Q. You've been working for the last 15 years to make your company sustainable. What do you know that other companies need to know?

A. Well, it's hard. It's the work of a lifetime. It takes an awful lot of patience and stick-to-itiveness.

We're 15 years into a 26-year journey -- that's how long we calculate it will take us to get to a zero footprint, taking nothing from the earth that's not naturally, rampantly renewable and doing no harm to the biosphere.

Q. How long did it take your company to recoup the investment that you initially made?

A. No time. From day one, we were ahead of the game. Tackling waste -- that's where the low-hanging fruit is. We declared war on waste: only zero is acceptable. Doing everything right the first time, every time, including making no scrap and no off-quality. When we measured ourselves against that kind of perfection, we found 10 percent of the sales dollar going down the drain as waste, most of it considered allowable, expected.

Fifteen years later, we're only halfway there. But we've saved over $400 million, which has more than financed everything else that we've done -- the R&D, the capital expenditures, the process changes, employee training, the whole ball of wax.

Q. Is that a technique that's replicable?

A. Yes. We ought to be doing this anyway in business. When you set that bar at zero, that's a stretch, but it's easy to understand.

Q. Are there things you thought would be easy to do that have turned out to be really difficult?

A. The technologies didn't exist and we didn't know what it was going to take to create them. We couldn't have done it by ourselves. We didn't know how long it would take to get suppliers involved, or get new inventors inventing things that we'd never heard of. So there was a big mystery about it all.

But we had a clear vision and that was the main thing. Climb that mountain clear to the top.

Ray Anderson. 

Q. In the whole lifecycle of your products, what was the hardest aspect to get within that sustainable margin? Transportation?

A. No, transportation is miniscule in the grand scheme. The important thing is the technologies for recycling. Today they have been invented and we're increasing recycled content. Like 35 percent now of our raw material comes from used products, post-consumer recycling. At the time I wrote the book, I think it was 28 percent, so it's moved up since.

Q. You're not turning plastic bottles into carpet -- you're turning old carpet into new carpet, right?

A. Yeah, the ideal product is our own product from 20 years ago. And we're also recycling other carpet manufacturers' carpets too.

Q. As a business leader, what do you want to see Congress do about climate change?

A. Put a price on carbon. I'd prefer to see it done through tax shifts, taxing bad things instead of good things. A shift in those taxes even in a revenue-neutral way that just puts a price on carbon so that an honest market can then work. Today it's a dishonest market, blind as a bat, just stumbling around ignoring the externalities.

Q. As you've made sustainability core to your business, have you gotten new customers through that effort? 

A. Yes. There was a survey done of commercial interior designers three or four years ago, who very heavily influence our marketplace, and 91 percent said they preferred recycled content.  Not just accepted it, but preferred it. Today it's probably even higher than that.

It was that community, interior designers, who were asking us the question 15 years ago: "What's your company doing for the environment?"  So when we began to actually do something, they began to embrace us for what we were doing. The goodwill of the marketplace is amazing. 

If you had to state the pure dollar-and-cents business case for sustainability, our cost is down, not up -- the waste-elimination effort alone has more than paid for all the rest of this. Our products are the best they've ever been. Biomimicry has had a huge influence; it's a wellspring of innovation. Our people are galvanized around a shared higher purpose. You can't beat it for attracting people and motivating people. And the goodwill of the marketplace is just astonishing. What else is there that underlies shareholder value but cost and products and people and market? That's it. It's a better business model without doubt.

Q. Do you think the business community at large is capable of a shift to sustainability?

A. They will either do it or be superseded by those who do. The industrial system that operates today is undermining the basis of the industrial system; it's committing suicide because nature is that undergirding factor. There's no business that can operate without air and water and food and energy and materials and climate regulation and ultraviolet radiation shields and pollination and seed dispersal and distribution. All of those are supplied by nature. If we kill nature, we will certainly kill the economy. When somebody sits down and tries to figure out the value of nature, it's very simple: Whatever the economic GDP is today, that's the value of nature, because none of it would exist without that undergirding.

Q. Are there examples of other businesses you've influenced?

A. I claim some credit for Wal-Mart. They sent two teams to our factory in Lagrange, Ga. -- one lead by Mike Duke, who is the president/CEO now, and one lead by Doug McMillon, who is now the No. 2 man. Each of them came and spent the day there understanding what we were talking about and what we were doing. They went away satisfied that it's doable, which was a huge hurdle for them to get over before they went to 60,000 suppliers and said, "You gotta do this too." I think that was a hurdle that we helped them clear. Since then they've been going gangbusters.

Q. So what's next for you?

A. We've got the rest of this mountain to climb.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

Related Links:

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A Penny Saved Is…

Friday factoids time: The U.S. biomedical and pharmaceutical industry invests between 10-20 percent of revenues in research and development (R&D) and new product development, spending $58.8 billion on R&D in 2007. The U.S. government adds an additional $30 billion per year investment in biomedical R&D through the National Institutes of Health.

In contrast, the U.S. energy sector invests well below $3 billion annually in R&D in an industry with well over a trillion dollars in annual revenue. The energy sector's R&D spending as a percent of revenues -- call that figure the industry's innovation intensity -- is just 0.23 percent. That compares to a national average innovation intensity across all industries of 2.6 percent, or 10-times greater than the energy-sector's innovation intensity. And it pales in comparison with the innovation intensity of leading technology and innovation-intensive sectors including biomedical technology (10-20 percent), information technology (10-15 percent), and semiconductors (16 percent).

This downright paltry private-sector energy innovation spending leaves a massive energy innovation gap that the U.S. government barely begins to fill, investing only about $5 billion annually in energy R&D. That's barely more than half the levels spent on public research to pursue clean and affordable energy alternatives during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The scale and urgency of our national energy challenges have clearly grown since then, yet the national commitment to energy innovation has moved in the wrong direction. Public R&D spending on health care ($30 billion) and defense ($80 billion) signal the scale of true national innovation priorities and begs the question: when will the U.S. get serious about investments in clean energy innovation?  When it does, a new National Institutes of Energy and a major increase in federal energy R&D investments are needed to fill the energy innovation gap and spur a clean energy revolution.

For more on a National Institutes of Energy, see our archives here or the following selected content:

(All factoids and figures from either the BTI, Third Way report, Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy, or Charles Weiss and William Bonvillian's excellent book, Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution) Originally at the Breakthrough Institute

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Corrections below

The Cleantech Open has helped more than 100 startup companies find their footing since it launched in California three years ago.  Now the business competition is expanding in some interesting ways.

Earlier this year it added regional events in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains. This fall it also launched a global “ideas competition,” open to anyone with a rough clean-tech concept, with or without a business plan. The winner gets marketing support, legal advising, and other help turning an idea into a business, all valued at $100,000. One big quirk: the ideas part of the competition is only open to 16 participating countries, and the list doesn’t include the United States.

Here’s how the contest works (skip below if you’re only interested in the ideas contest):

“Even if you don’t win, you leave this thing with a completely different attitude,” says Cleantech Open spokesperson Tim Cox. “And maybe your idea has gone from version 1.0 to version 5.0 in five months.”

There’s a certain logic to holding startup contests like this. The competition mimics the open market, but the drama is heightened, making it a bit more of a spectator sport. And the coaching from mentors could help some of these companies reach the big leagues more quickly, at least in theory.

The Global Cleantech Open Ideas Competition is Cleantech's new ideas contest. Registration closes October 15, so there’s still a bit of time to enter by answering five questions that lead to a “success paragraph,” or an elevator pitch.

One winner will advance from each of 16 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Africa. At the November 17 Clean Tech awards gala, entrepreneurs, sponsors, corporations, academics, and others will vote via text message for a winner, who gets $100,000 in business support.

We’ll see what comes out of it. The recent Reburbia competition by Dwell magazine and Inhabit generated a lot more novelty than substance, especially if you find novelty in concepts that propose to violate basic laws of physics.

Writes Adam Stein:

Patently silly ideas will be screened out of the Cleantech Open events, says spokesperson Tim Cox. Remaining ideas might not be imaginative in the sense of suburban airships. But potentially lucrative products also have a way of attracting interest.

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

More green on the streets will mean less brown in the rivers.Tony the Misfit via flickrPhiladelphia has a poo problem. Old, failing pipes plus a swelling population plus lots of rain equals—well, yuck. So the city has pondered its options, and now it’s poised to make a major splash in the world of sewage management.

In a move described by an official from the state environmental council as “the most significant investment in transforming the city that we’ll see in our lifetimes,” Philly is proposing a $1.6 billion plan to radically alter the way it handles stormwater—not only the practicalities, but the philosophy behind them.

The new system, which must be approved by the EPA, would use green roofs, rain gardens and barrels, porous pavement, and other tools to “deal with rainwater where it lands” instead of building tunnels and plants to divert and treat it, said Howard Neukrug, founding director of the city’s Office of Watersheds. The primary goal: to keep aging sewage pipes from sending waste into the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers, smaller waterways, and occasionally even homes. But a nice side benefit? A greener, cleaner cityscape.

Voicing an idea so practical it hurts, yet ignored the whole world ‘round, Neukrug said, “Instead of figuring out how to manage this pollution, maybe we should be looking at how to prevent it in the first place.”

Howard Neukrug: Greening Philadelphia, one storm drain at a time.Neukrug has apparently been nipping at the heels of greener stormwater management for a decade, since three Department of Water programs merged in 1999 to create his Office of Watersheds, which serves two million residents. Over the years, he has gained attention for his progressive approach, testifying before Congress and starring in a wave of coverage on the city’s techniques three years ago. The City of Brotherly Love’s watery ways have even been hailed by the Sierra Club.

So it’s clear that the recently unveiled plan did not spring full-grown from Rocky’s head. In fact, it’s reportedly been in the works for twelve years. Still, now that the 3,369-page plan exists and has landed with a thud on EPA’s desk, the press and observers are all atwitter, and several neighborhoods are eager to get greened up. “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen,” EPA regional water-protection direct Jon Capacasa told the Philadelphia Inquirer, while NRDC water-expert Nancy Stoner called the potential scaling-up of these proven techniques “really exciting.”

Ken Kirk, who heads the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, praised the plan to the Inquirer as well: “[At] the end of the day, they will be using a lot less energy, they will be using the water resources more efficiently, they will be capturing and recharging groundwater under the city, they’ll have less pollution of the rivers ... That is the way we need to go.”

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

What? Take away my Aqua Net?!nyki_m via flickrOK, really just one high and one low. It’s been a busy day.

The high, fittingly, is related to hair. When I first saw an email subject line that began “Directional Runway Hair” float into my inbox earlier today, I honest-to-god thought it had something to do with airports. Even when I realized it was fashion-related, my brain was still confused, and I found myself picturing a runway model with “directional” hair shaped like an airplane. But the news here has to do with inhalation, not aviation: A company called John Masters Organics is—deservedly, it would seem—boasting about its ability to create high-fashion ‘dos without “a toxic cocktail of chemical styling products.” (Masters and crew put their gunk to the test at New York Fashion Week’s green shows—find out more about the green scene courtesy of our friends at Inhabitat.)

One need look no further than EWG’s Skin Deep database to realize that everyday cosmetics are full of nasties. Just imagining the cloud of chemicals backstage at a fashion show makes me woozy. So ... here’s to progress, and to companies like Masters that are seeking less-toxic approaches to glamour. Now someone give those models a grass-fed burger, and we’ll be good.

The low for the day is down by the toes: This week, the EPA sued the owner of clothing company North Face for failing to register an antimicrobial agent used in more than 70 styles of shoes (which appear to have been discontinued). Which, bummer about the failing to register part. But more to the point: Really? Do we need antimicrobial shoes? As one staffer put it in our news meeting this morning, “It’s called a shower. Look into it.”

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and leading DC-based think tank Third Way are the latest political figures to issue a call for significantly increased public investment to catalyze clean energy innovation. The Ohio Senator and the moderate progressive think tank joined the Breakthrough Institute today to unveil a new report calling for both the creation of a "National Institutes of Energy" and a dramatic increase in federal funding for energy research and development. The report, titled Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy, argues that these two measures are necessary to make clean energy cheap and get America running on clean energy.

"Clean energy is the future of our nation, but it can also create jobs now - in Ohio and across the Midwest," Senator Sherrod Brown said. "Done right, increased research and development of new clean energy technologies will drive innovation and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Already in Ohio entrepreneurs and workers are leading the way."

"Our nation has a history of rising to meet pressing challenges by investing the resources necessary to overcome them," said Jesse Jenkins, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute and one of the report's authors. "Now, America must dramatically increase our investment in clean energy research and development and employ new and effective models to put that money to work. Clean, cheap energy technologies are needed to revitalize our economy, secure the nation's energy independence, and avert the risks of climate change," Jenkins added.

Modeled after the National Institutes of Health, a New National Institutes of Energy (NIE) would be designed to most effectively channel R&D funding toward the development of new, low-cost commercial clean energy technologies. The NIE would function as a nationwide network of regionally based, commercially focused, and coordinated innovation institutes. Alongside other effective research institutions, the new NIE would critically strengthen the nation's energy innovation capacity.

The report also calls for a sustained increase of $15 billion in annual federal energy R&D funding, consistent with President Barack Obama's proposals. This would result in a total annual R&D budget of roughly $20 billion per year. The purpose of both the R&D increase and the establishment of a new NIE is to close what the authors call "the clean energy price gap" - the difference between the current low price of carbon-intensive energy production like coal and the comparatively higher price of today's non- or low- carbon emitting technologies.

"Getting America running on clean energy is the defining challenge - and opportunity - of our time," said Josh Freed, a co-author of the paper who runs Third Way's Clean Energy Initiative. "Establishing a National Institutes of Energy and fully funding R&D will drive the research that will lead to the next generation of clean technologies. These not only will fight global warming, they will allow the United States to be the energy leader in a carbon-constrained world."

The authors also point to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who has said that it is a "myth [that] we have all the technologies we need to solve the energy challenge... We need new technologies to transform the [energy] landscape." The authors argue that their proposal would create the structure and provide the funding the United States needs to transition from an aging, insecure energy infrastructure to clean, cheap energy. Neither the private sector nor the federal government is currently meeting these needs at a time when other nations around the world, including China, South Korea and Japan, are dramatically increasing their clean energy funding.

Both groups also lauded the involvement of Senator Brown, who keynoted an event on Capitol Hill today to release the new report. "Sherrod Brown has been a leading voice in the Senate calling for energy reforms that helps to transform and save the American manufacturing sector. He understands that the best way to do that is for America to develop the technologies that will close the price gap and make clean energy cheap. This will help create the kind of jobs and industries we need to have a thriving economy in the 21st century," said Michael Shellenberger, President of the Breakthrough Institute. Freed added that Third Way "looks forward to continuing the work with Senator Brown that we have kicked off here today."

U.S. Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) also joined the event to make brief remarks in support of the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way's efforts to advance critical clean energy research investments. The carbon prices established by the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House "will not be enough," the Congressman explained, to spur clean energy research and ensure we have the technologies we need to achieve deep emissions reductions. Congressman Holt, who holds a PhD in Physics, warned that if the U.S. does not invest significantly more in clean energy research, "We may find ourselves five years from now, after we've deployed the technologies we have ready today and picked that low hanging fruit, and we're going to look around and say, 'Who was in charge of inventing the next generation of technologies we need?' ... The Market is not just going to do that for us."

Despite differences in their views on the energy bills currently before Congress, Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute said that the two groups had joined together to highlight the critical importance and urgency of energy R&D to the nation's economic future and the fight against global warming.

Third Way can be found on the web at www.ThirdWay.org. The Breakthrough Institute is at www.theBreakthrough.org.

A copy of the full report, Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution, can be downloaded here.

Any questions about the report can be referred to Jesse Jenkins at jesse@theBreakthrough.org.

Click here for a press release from the Office of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown

Press Coverage:

Images from event (via ThirdWay):

1. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio

2. Senator Sherrod Brown and Matt Bennett of Third Way

3. Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of Breakthrough Institute, and Josh Freed of Third Way

4. Congressman Rush Holt and Josh Freed

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

The cermonial urban-turbine installation.indigo12west.comTwo weeks ago in Portland, Oregon, a new 23-story building added something you don't usually see in an urban setting: a series of four Skystream wind turbines, with a total capacity of 9.6kW.

There are several reasons why wind turbines are a rarity atop highrises -- beyond the obvious one: our power infrastructure makes changing from traditional sources of electricity difficult, expensive, and seemingly unnecessary. (As long as you can convince yourself that the planet isn't really warming and that 15,000 Americans don't die prematurely each year from breathing in filthy air from coal-fired power plants, and that the price of energy is going to stay stable and ... you get the idea.)

Wind power in an urban setting comes with its own set of challenges.

A natural lack of regular winds forceful enough to generate meaningful amounts of electricity.

Most "wind farms" are located in areas with high, steady winds and use giant turbines. In fact, the trend has been to build larger windmills capable of generating ever more electricity.

In 2006, Technology Review ran an interesting piece about plans for a new turbine with a rotor with a 140 meter diameter.

Sometimes, however, smaller still is beautiful -- and more appropriate.

So some manufactures, like the Flagstaff, Ariz.-based Skystream, have been building scaled down wind turbines like the ones on top of Twelve|West.

One advantage of the Skystream 3.7 is its lower wind speed requirement. With its 12-foot diameter, the rotor can begin generating electricity with winds blowing at just 8 miles per hour. It reaches peak production (2.4kW) at 29 mph and will continue to operate at winds up to 60 mph. (The Skystream 3.7 is built to withstand gusts of up to 140 mph.)

Wind flow in urban areas is disrupted by other buildings.

Placing the turbines on top of a 23-story building, and then mounting them on 45-foot poles puts the blades at an elevation of 82 meters (270 feet), high enough to escape the distortions of the surrounding built environment.

Still, critics of the project have said that the expense of putting the four turbines into operation outweighs the financial payback delivered in energy savings.

The building's other eco-features include graywater in the toilets -- leading to this helpful warning.But Robert Packard, a managing partner of the architectural firm ZGF, which occupies the lower four floors of Twelve|West and also designed the building, thinks those critics are missing the point. Packard told the Oregonian newspaper, "[We're] trying something new. It's not a gimmick. Not only are we learning, but we can share it with the world, add to the body of knowledge that's out there."

Kind of like when solar photovoltaic panels were just getting popular. Not every idea that worked well in the lab made it in the real (rooftop) world.

I'm hoping the information they get from the four turbines helps the shift from a fossil-fuel to a renewable energy economy. But I have to admit, just the sight of windmills spinning on urban rooftops -- 20 or more stories up -- has an appeal all its own.

Osha Gray Davidson blogs regularly for Grist and edits The Phoenix Sun, where this post first appeared in a different form.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Some assembly required.GM.comAt one of our news meetings last week, I mentioned a story I had seen. “GM says the Chevy Volt will get 230 miles per gallon,” I told my fellow editors. The number struck me funny because it was ludicrously far beyond any current mpg rating, and because GM acknowledged that the Volt, due in late 2010, would be difficult to recharge given current infrastructure. It’s as if you had a pony that delivered lollipops door to door, except it didn’t have anywhere to buy them. But to a couple of staffers, it was funny for a whole different reason: “Miles per gallon of what?” they asked. “It’s electric!”

The Volt does use some gas, and the 230 mpg figure is based on some fancy-footwork math. But as this Time article points out, a more realistic measurement for the new generation of vehicles might be kilowatt-hours per mile or even, when we get really high-tech, miles per kilogram of hydrogen.

I wasn’t the only one intrigued by the car company’s hype. Hundreds of stories repeated GM’s claim—breathlessly at first, then with a creeping note of skepticism, then with level-headed analysis. It didn’t take long for the EPA, which faces the unenviable task of figuring out how to develop fuel-economy measurements for plug-in electric hybrids, to clarify that it had not actually tested a Volt and couldn’t confirm the 230 mpg figure.

For me, the most entertaining part of the whole episode was this quote from a blog entry by GM Vice Chair Bob Lutz: “I’ve said before that Volt is like our moon shot, and I stand by that statement. It’s exactly like a moon shot, if the lunar landing module were getting 230 miles per gallon.”

Exactly!

So to today’s “moon shot”: GM is floating the idea that it might produce a $4,000 compact car. The model would likely be made and sold in Asia, though VP of International Operations Nick Reilly said the company can’t scooch down as low as the $2,500 Tata Nano because of emissions standards, among other reasons. This news, too, is being greeted fairly warmly; writes Derek Thompson in The Atlantic: “[Whether or not the car sells in the U.S.], it’s nice to see GM trying to compete with emerging market auto makers, because it tells me that somebody is serious about making GM an auto company that’s thinking globally and long term.”

Is that what we’re seeing—the transformation of a near-dinosaur into a far-sighted global giant? Or are we watching that dinosaur thrash around helplessly in a shady swamp, occasionally spitting out shiny driblets of PR that make the media go wild? Can a dinosaur make a moon shot and survive?

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've been noticing lately a lot of "green" businesses and restaurants in my area using compostable plastics, usually made of corn, if I recall correctly. I can't compost (I know, I know, but I live in a tiny apartment on the third floor with no porch or yard), and I was wondering if you could tell us any more about this plastic. Should I recycle it, or throw it away? What to do?

Becky B.
Jamaica Plain, Mass.

A. Dearest Becky,

Corn plastic = not fantastic.USDA.govDoes anyone find pictures of food appetizing? Right now I'm looking at a picture of some artistically arranged marinated olives in a bio-plastic deli container. I love olives. These are just repulsive. Perhaps the key to weight loss is photos of food.

I have a bit of scandale for you with these compostable plastic containers. The clear plastic #7 (which really just means "other") cups and deli containers are made with PLA, which is usually a corn derivative but could also come from cane sugar. I was all ready to dork out on the science of PLA, polylactic acid, but then I read this: "Instead, lactic acid is oligomerized and then catalytically dimerized to make the cyclic lactide monomer." The weather is too nice to spend time unraveling those polymers. Suffice to say they bacterially ferment the corn, then do all sorts of other stuff to stabilize it and turn it into a plastic. They can then make cups, fabrics, upholstery ... but who are "they"?

PLA is manufactured by agribiz giant Cargill at a plant in Blair, Nebraska. Cargill is a major player in the genetically modified corn market, is apparently the world's largest grain handler, and operates its PLA product division under the name NatureWorks. The long and short of it is that this "green" plastic is made from GMO corn by one of the largest private companies in the United States, one with a terrible track record on environmental issues. Here is a useful overview of the Cargill-corn plastic connection that our own Tom Philpott penned a few years back. There are actual mini-scandals regarding Cargill and PLA, such as them trying to make a partnership with Patagonia for a PLA fleece. Somehow they neglected to mention the GMO corn behind the whole product.

So when we use these cups, we are supporting GMO crops and industrial ag. And we are not necessarily creating less waste; yes, the cups are biodegradable, but only in commercial composting facilities or other composts that reach 150 degrees with 90 percent humidity. So even if you composted in your apartment -- which you could! -- you likely would not have the right conditions. And there are problems with recycling corn plastic too -- check with your friendly JP recyclers to see what they prefer. In the end, these cups can be equal to some products made from oil-based plastic: you just throw them out.

The only lifecycle assessment I could find was obviously pro-Cargill, so I can't say how much petroleum it takes to make them. But I can say that products from conventional corn, a petroleum-intensive crop, are not the magic bullet. The magic bullet is to bring your own cup (on your bike, of course).

Polylactically,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Far from their sometimes musty, dusty reputations, many museums in the U.S. stand on the cutting edge of eco-innovation. Whether it’s behind the scenes (using recycled materials to build exhibits, renovating to LEED standards) or inescapably out front (a whole museum dedicated to wind power), museums are showing visitors the green light. Take our tour—admission is free!

Related Links:

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I recently spent several months in New Zealand and was impressed with the simple energy-saving electrical outlets they used. Every outlet is equipped with a small switch allowing you to "turn off at the wall" whatever device you have plugged in. I want to replace my current outlets with ones such as those in NZ but I've never seen anything similar being used in the States and cannot find a retailer. I'm sure they have to be out there somewhere -- any ideas?

Casey F.
Austin, Tex.

A. Dearest Casey,

No outlet?Since telling Jonathan he might kill himself by using GFCI breaker buttons for this very purpose, I have been gripped by a small obsession with plugs. Not only does New Zealand appear to have these sensible switch-off buttons on outlets, other fine nations such as Australia, Fiji, perhaps the U.K., and more I have not yet discovered do as well.

I can't find any outlets with on-off switches for the U.S. either. I have found a series of devices which are almost such a thing but not quite, and we will see if any of them sound useful.

Currently our two mainstream choices for avoiding phantom power draw from overeager appliances are power strips and manually unplugging the appliance. Each of these has an unwieldiness and cord-tangling potential that makes it a wee bit annoying. Ideal substitutes would be on-off switches at each individual outlet, a master switch that turns off multiple outlets in a room, or, of course, devices without a standby mode. (Or how about less stuff?)

It is possible to buy a two-prong plug with an on-off switch (here is one such; there are others out there), which is itself plugged into the wall outlet and receives the plug of a two-pronged device such as a coffee maker or wall wart. A variety of these are available for under $10. I've never used and do not endorse them, but they seem straightforward.

At the next level are a series of similar interlocutor plugs which are wired to turn off the outlet through remote control. You plug them into the outlet, plug the appliance into them, then sit back and impress friends and visitors with a wave of your wireless remote. One product provides multiple wireless plugs with a programmable remote, so that with a series of masterful clicks you can turn off power to multiple outlets. The remote requires a battery, but to me the more daunting requirement is keeping track of yet another vital small object in the home. I'm kind of losing it already with just my car keys and a few pacifiers.

Yet another step up from these mere over-the-counter objects is a whole-home system you can hire a company (GreenSwitch and perhaps others) to install. It, too, is a wireless system with a remote, and some master wall switches as well. This is far from an endorsement, just something I found that might work.

My current residence is wired in a way that I have found annoying up to now: in some rooms, wall switches control the power to the outlets. It can be a little confusing if you forget which switch is which and accidentally turn off an appliance you are using. But now that I pause to think, this system could be used as a way around power strips. Something to consider next time we have to rewire our homes.

Shockingly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

With all the rain we've had this year, the pool water doesn't get a chance to warm up in between rainstorms. We are trying to design a passive heating system. We've thought about flexible one-inch black hose (if we can find it) attached to the filter and laid out around the pool, but are there any solar energy systems already out there that we could use?

Jerri
Waterbury

A. Dearest Jerri,

Why yes there are, and they are quite similar to your recent black hose invention.

Whether they will have any effect on the heat of your pool when there is no sun to collect is research I will leave to you.

What a dive.Before looking too far in to buying a passive solar heating system for your pool, you should certainly buy a simple blue polypro or polyethylene "solar pool cover" if you don't already have one. These look like blue bubble wrap, and lie atop the pool when it is not in use. They stop evaporative loss of any existing warmth in the pool, and help capture any solar energy that might hit during random sunny moments. A cover should help keep your pool about 5 to 10 degrees warmer.

The commercial solar pool collectors use the pool's pump to circulate water through a series of ... black plastic hoses. The hoses are oft laid out atop a black plastic bed. The two immediate drawbacks I could see are the amount of space needed for adequate hose footage to heat a pool-sized amount of water, and the accompanying aesthetic concerns. To quote today's expert website, the Florida Solar Energy Center, "The collector area is usually about the same size as the pool surface area in northern Florida." It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps whichever Waterbury you are in (states, people, please!) can be thought of as a far northern Florida. Ergo you will need quite a bit of space.

Commercial solar pool heaters can be a money-saver over time if they replace another type of heater in the pool, such as propane. In your case, you would be fixing a hopefully temporary problem with what we might call new infrastructure.

The Florida Solar Energy Center gives a very thorough overview of the various aspects of pool heater design, offers vendors, and is generally helpful. You will, as mentioned, have to do some of your own adjusting on the estimates of size and BTUs needed for the Waterbury area. If it doesn't seem worth it to invest in a commercial heater, I'm sure the various do-it-yourselfers on the internet have some ideas to offer you.

Warmly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Freeing the grid

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

My father believes that the one modern invention above all others to contribute to the downfall of the planet, not to mention our civilization, is the drive-through -- or, in the spirit of efficiency on which it's based, the drive-thru.

Your idling could light this sign!Not only does it encourage laziness and obesity by tempting fast-food fans to stay seated in their automobiles during both purchase and consumption, there's the whole car idling issue. By one estimate, every fifteen minutes of idling consumes 0.175 gallons of gas, resulting in as much as 58 million tons of CO2 dispersed into the atmosphere annually. The Sierra Club says that fast-food customers alone burn up some 50 million gallons of gas each year.

But at least one company believes that there is tremendous environmental potential in the drive-thru. New Energy Technologies Inc., which describes itself as "a next-generation alternative and renewable energy developer," has designed a gizmo to green this American institution. It's called MotionPower Kinetic Energy Harvester, and it promises to capture energy currently wasted beneath a car's tires.

The technology, the company says, is the cousin of that used in hybrid cars, but it's installed on the street, soaking up the heat generated by an idling automobile and transforming it into electricity -- possibly enough to power 250,0000 homes daily, if they could trap the heat generated by all 250 million cars on the road. And what better place to grab that heat than the drive-thru?

The company announced recently that it will install a prototype of the technology in a suburban New Jersey Burger King. The start-up is so small and next generation that the one person authorized to speak about MotionPower couldn't be reached to comment for this story -- he was out of the country, apparently convincing other nations that they can transform suburban environmental flaws into potential green gold mines. The Burger King franchise owner, Andrew Paterno, says some 150,000 cars pass through the Hillside, N.J., drive-thru annually, and could simply cruise over an energy-capturing strip as they do so, with nothing getting between them and their Whoppers.

But MotionPower has popped up concurrently with an onslaught of anti-drive-thru sentiment (and not just from my dad), coming in forms as informal as blogs and as formal as legislation. Cities from Madison, Wisc., to Hamilton, Ontario, have considered banning drive-thrus altogether, though powerful restaurant coalitions tend to fight them with force, and with success; San Luis Obispo, Calif., is one of the few cities to successfully ban drive-thrus, which they've done since 1982.

Last year, the Canadian donut company Tim Horton's -- which has been steadily making its mark in America, transforming 12 New York City Dunkin' Donuts just this month -- commissioned an environmental engineering firm to evaluate the emissions generated by drive-thrus. According to the report, the snail's pace of parking lot drivers searching for a spot creates more pollution than the continual line of cars. "Assuming the same volume of traffic, a parking-only store would produce about 20 percent more smog pollutants and as many as 60 percent more greenhouse gases than a location with drive-through service," wrote their director of public affairs in a newspaper editorial based on the report. According to them, drive-thrus are already good for the environment.

If you side with the restaurateurs and believe the drive-thru isn't so bad, MotionPower's premise is still a win. The technology, should it prove to be both profitable and viable, can be used anywhere that slow driving occurs: highway tollbooths, stoplights, residential zones with traffic calming, our nation's borders, and, yes, the lots of parking-only stores. My father might have to find a new scapegoat for climate change and the decline of the modern world.

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

At bedtime last night, my significant other remarked that when her time comes she would like to be disposed of in an earth-friendly way, rejoining the soil and not mummified forever in chemical preservatives. Is this even possible and legal? And how about the fiery alternative (no, not the afterlife)?  It seems the carbon footprint could be substantial.

Jay
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Jay,

Grist was at the head of the green funeral journalistic procession and has amply covered the "green burial" trend, so you can find much information about the ecological options for disposal of human remains and how to green your funeral here on this very site. There is also a Green Burial Council, there are pretty, green graveyards, there are coffins made of alternative materials like bamboo and banana sheaves, there are even artificial coral reefs filled with human ashes.

A more natural way to go?adamsofen via flickrTraditional cremation is less polluting than modern burial, counterintuitively. Modern burial involves formaldehyde-y embalming fluid, concrete vaults, and lots of lawn mowing and pesticides. Cremation is just the burning with no ensuing cemetery maintenance.

I peeked around a bit despite Grist's previous thoroughness, as I was curious about whether one even needs to use a "green" burial service. Why not just bury yourself in your own grassy back yard, or surreptitiously sneak out into the nearby woods and dig a fresh trench? In some places, perhaps, you can do the former, though I doubt it is ever legal to do the latter.

States do have burial regulations, especially to oversee the operation of cemetery businesses, but often it is county or town laws that cover the interesting issues of where and how one can actually be buried. (Embalming, for example, is generally not a legal requirement.) Many of the burial laws that appear silly to the modern, sane, non-criminal mind derive from the need to protect graves from looters, or to ensure that no crimes escaped notice via a convenient buried casket.

If your significant other does wish to be buried whole, and has a piece of land, it may be possible for her to be interred there, depending on the laws of the state or district. This is called a "home burial ground," for your research purposes. Of course it's easier to find a service that will take care of the whole rigamarole in a green way without any mourners having to exert effort against toxic funerary traditions.

Either way, or if your sig-o chooses to be turned into a diamond, or cremated and thrown to the winds, it's important to remember that when the time comes to make all the ecologically correct funeral arrangements, the person to whom it mattered most will be dead. Make a will. Leave instructions. And don't die before your time.

Lovingly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!