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, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

EPA chief Lisa Jackson will be in the Windy City on Friday to deliver the keynote address to the Chicago Summit on Sport and Sustainability. A review of the summit's agenda and list of speakers suggests the event will be narrowly tailored to efforts that city is undertaking in its bid for the 2016 Olympics. With that said, there also will be representatives from the National Football League (Philadelphia Eagles) who may speak to the efforts underway in professional sports on achieving sustainable practices.

As I mentioned in my first article, the professional sports industry is just beginning to embrace sustainable business practices. But they are late to the party, as the Olympic movement has been at the forefront of applying environmentally sustainable practices for some time. In fact, you can trace simple sustainability practices back to efforts applied during the 1984 summer games in Los Angeles.

Green and sustainability are already baked into plans for the next two games. The city of Vancouver's promise to host the first sustainable Olympic games ever almost certainly helped the Canadian city's bid for the 2010 winter games (PDF). Not to be out done, London, the site of the 2012 summer Olympics, unveiled its own sustainability plan back in 2007.

It's clear that if you want the Olympics in your city, you had better commit to environmentally sustainable operations. Wouldn't it be interesting if, here in the United States, the same requirements were placed on both college and professional sports programs by the cities they operate in or represent?

But I digress. In Chicago on Friday, Jackson has an opportunity to not only commend the work that is being done by the sports community but also provide some needed industry motivation. It is also a perfect stage for Jackson to point out how existing regulations touch the sport community, and how sports practices will not be unaffected by new regulatory programs (greenhouse gas emissions) that are likely to come into effect in the not too distant future.

So, as the industry itself moves ahead with sustainability programs, and as government regulators set their sights on sports practices, it should come as no surprise if Jackson's "motivation" eventually comes in the form of a Federal Advisory Committee to help guide the sporting industry as it begins the transformation to a sustainable industry.

I look forward to Jackson's speech and will be writing tomorrow on the highlights.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer

Photo: jurvetson via FlickrBring it on down to Golfersville
J Tee is bringing sexy back to green. The putting green, that is. And with eco-friendly practices par for this course, we'll hold your wood any day, Mr. Timberlake.

What a tangled Webster we weave
If you're a locavore with a green-collar job who's planning a staycation because you're concerned about your carbon footprint, then you'll be pleased to know Merriam-Webster has decided you officially exist.

Tofu chef
If you can't stand the meat, get NatPo in your kitchen.

Copper feel
Follow penny lane to the Standard Grill in New York, which has some not-so-standard tiling. It's a penny floor: your thoughts?

Photo: Notcot.com

Photo: MemphisFlyer.com

Eat it up
Funny how this fake-news story about Taco Bell's 100 percent un-natural "green menu" seems more realistic than these real-news stories about McDonald's, Burger King, and Domino's going green.

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A tasting of four meatless “turkeys” for the holiday table

Photo: otakuchick via FlickrEvery three-point shot made by a Seattle Storm player this season will be a slam dunk for a local forest.

Through a partnership with Carter Subaru, a local car dealership that promises to plant trees for every test drive, the Seattle Storm were able to plant 154 trees last year as part of their "3's for Trees" campaign. This year, they're aiming for even more trees planted on the Mountains to Sound Greenway, the scenic byway along I-90.

Joining the ranks of other green sports stars, the Seattle Storm have also committed to reducing the footprint of their games by upping recycling efforts, cutting paper use, and ensuring that merch stands are selling ecofriendly goods like "Thundersticks" made from biodegradable plastic. They're also asking fans to take a pledge to make easy changes at home.

This Thursday, Seattle's belles of the ballcourt will storm into Key Arena for "Go Green Night" during a nationally televised game with their Western Conference rival, the Sacramento Monarchs. They'll be handing out Storm-branded low-energy night lights, wearing their green-colored jerseys and organic cotton shooting shirts, and dispensing green tips throughout the night.

Related Links:

Learning how to count to 350

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill

Sports leagues and teams are beginning to take sustainability issues more seriously.If you watch sports on TV, you may be thinking from your perch on the couch that they are a relatively inexpensive, practically carbon-neutral diversion from life's occupations. But sport is big business, facing many of the same environmental challenges as the manufacturing, agriculture, and energy sectors.

Whether it's golf, baseball, football, basketball, soccer/futball, hockey, auto racing, rugby, cricket (yes, cricket! -- remember, it's huge in other parts of the world) or countless others, they individually and collectively have an enormous impact on the environment.

Grist has decided to take your carbon-based guilt and extend it to one of those few places that serves as a distraction from it: your favorite sport. In regular articles, I will venture forth and examine with a green eye (meaning both financial and environmental) some of the major sports the world has to offer. Within that context, I will try to unearth the good, the bad, and the ugly of operational practice that have profound impacts on the environment, both on a local and global scale.

While no sport or team is identical in how it operates, some themes are universal -- including energy use, waste management, water consumption, pesticide use, land use, transportation, carbon emissions etc. Facing the sports community is a host of challenges -- from complying with existing and future environmental rules to meeting high consumer expectations -- all the while focusing on good business practices and a strong balance sheet.

To say that the professional sports community has yet to recognize the impact its members may be having on the environment is disingenuous. Professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey all have fledgling green initiatives at the league level, and several teams have taken major leaps at becoming sustainable operations (more on those in later columns).

However, this phenomenon is relatively new. As corporate America (GE, Proctor & Gamble, PNC etc.) began to embrace environmental sustainability as a profitable business model in the not too distant past, the sports industry has only made a measurable appearance at the table within the past few years.

Whether the change was self-started or the result of prodding by some heavy hitters within the environmental community is up for debate and further examination. What can be said is that certain segments of the professional sports community recognize the need to move towards sustainable operations, but the speed and fiscal capacity to do so are a continuing concern and claimed impediment.

For readers who are not familiar with the fiscal expenditure habits of a professional sports team, this next fact may be a shock. While the media brings us stories of sums being paid to professional athletes that can only be described as mind numbing (one example: a Manchester United soccer star is being paid the equivalent of $190,520 per week, and it may not be enough to keep him (too late: he just got bought by Real Madrid for $131.6 million), the front office staff is not so lucky.

While I am sure there are exceptions, historically, the folks who perform heavy operational lifting for sports teams and leagues are paid comparably middle-class wages. This frugality transcends other expenditures, including sustainability investment. The industry grabs as much free help as it can in the development of individual green initiatives. Eventually, as some teams have realized, investing real dollars in sustainability programs will not only save them money they would otherwise have to spend, but also generate new, profitable revenue streams as a result of the initial investment.

One question I have is this: In order to get the snowball really moving before it melts, who in sports business needs to step up to the proverbial plate? Is it the teams/organizations? The players? The fans? Or a combination of the three?

For those who argue that it is the team (i.e. owners) who should pay up (because operational costs are built into ticket prices, advertising dollars, licensing and merchandise revenue) -- that's a fair point. But sustainable investment was not originally built into pricing formulas, therefore, the cost for tickets and merchandise would have go up.

As for the players, they are certainly part of the organization and collectively receive the largest portion of the organization's revenue. Thus they should bear some of the costs of sustainable practices in the form of reduced salaries (god forbid!).

And lastly, the fans. Costs are already passed on to the consumer, so the fan is inevitably invested. But an additional point needs to be made: When one is looking at the carbon footprint of an organization's operation, the fan is by far the biggest contributor. Just imagine the carbon footprint of 108,000 fans traveling to and from one Michigan football game. How is that impact measured, and who should be responsible for offsetting it?

There are countless small examples of sustainable practices infiltrating the sport industry, including recycling programs at stadiums and planting trees to offset a team's carbon emissions. Getting a sports team or college athletic departments to adopt a profitable sustainability program is an expensive and time-consuming commitment for which teams will need fan support, encouragement and assistance.

Because it does all start with the fans' (make that customers') support. After all, sports is a business, and the fans are the customers.

Check back in two weeks for my first effort at describing the greening of sports -- a closer look at golf. Why not? President Obama has been playing a lot of it lately (five times since late April).

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Climate change and God

He would have needed a stage name
Brad’s not the only one who digs green building—his brother’s joining him to support a hometown eco-stadium. The groundbreaking was just the other day ... you might say officials Doug a Pitt.

A-hunting we won’t go
Your trophy room never looked so good. Just don’t bore everyone with the story of how you stalked the wild beast with scissors and Scotch tape.

Filibuster busters
Faced with a recite-the-whole-bill threat from Republicans, House Dems hired a speed reader. Hilarity ensued when, zipping through page 523, he said “Maxwan-Warkey” by mistake.

Have you haired the news?
German-auto heavyweight Daimler invested in Tesla. Which is too bad—we were really hoping they’d get behind Whitesnake.

My sister’s leaker
Vogueing in vegan shoes we can get behind. But talking up her poos? Cam-Cam, you didn’t need to drop that knowledge.

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

A mess in Texas?City of ArlingtonRemember how we reported on green sports venues, and one of them was the new stadium of the Dallas Cowboys, and the stadium was steeped in land-use controversy, but the good news was that the team was registering with the EPA to monitor the facility’s long-term performance?

Turns out that EPA program no longer exists. The agency axed the National Environmental Performance Track—a voluntary program that asked member facilities to “set typically four public, measurable goals” showing their eagerness to “go above and beyond their legal requirements”—last month. The program’s website, which is still up but carries a message at the top notifying visitors of its cancellation, says it had more than 500 members. A mid-March memo from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says the program “may not speak to today’s challenges” and outlines a plan for halting and reviewing it. A follow-up document from March 25 spells out details of the closure for members. The good news: You can still display your certificates, and next week’s National Environmental Partnership Summit is still on! The bad news: uh, your program has been killed.

In fact, it’s not bad news at all. The program, created in 2000, is a Bush-era relic that apparently did nothing much more than cozy up to corporations—this Philadelphia Inquirer piece from December outlines numerous sketchy dealings, including wooing big polluters and padding membership numbers by adding subsidiaries and individual facilities instead of parent companies. And that whole “voluntary” thing didn’t pan out so well: a review in 2007 showed that only two of 30 members surveyed had actually met their goals.

As for the Cowboys, they may be better off without it.

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House

Pay a lot, get a little?Hawaiian AirlinesYesterday I was on New Hampshire Public Radio’s Word of Mouth, and another segment near mine caught my eye. (Ear?) It was about the psychology of green decision-making, pivoting off a Richard Conniff piece on behavioral economics. (Which dropped at the same time as the related New York Times Magazine piece on decision science, but doesn’t seem to be directly connected.) Without getting all wonk-tastic, the idea is that we don’t do green stuff because it’s good for the planet. We do green stuff when we get rewarded, or when we think our peers are doing it.

It’s not all that surprising a concept, I guess, but I still find it fascinating. And I thought of it again today, when I saw these stories:

Hm, a big discount for a green choice or paying instead of getting something for free ... which of these most appeals to the brain?

Related Links:

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

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Here’s what we know so far

Think the only thing green about pro sports is the turf? Think again. As the first crack of the bat rings through the spring air this week, we take a look at sports venues in North America that are scoring big on the eco-field (now if only the teams could do something about all that travel).

Right lights, big Citi.

New York Mets

1. New York Mets, Citi Field. The brand-spankin’ new ballpark is opening this spring to great green acclaim (if subdued hoopla). While that other team in New York seems to have limited its green efforts to trash talk, fans of the planet can’t help but be excited about Citi Field’s eco-cred: built of 95 percent recycled steel, it features energy-efficient field lighting, waterless urinals, and a green roof. Even its 42,000 seats are a (coincidental) green hue. The club is encouraging employees to bike to work, and hopes that fans will take public transportation to the games—if they can afford to come at all.

Nats fans couldn’t bear to see Exxon as a sponsor.

Greenpeace

2. Washington Nationals Stadium. The Mets get this year’s moment in the centerfield spotlight, but last spring’s big debut happened farther south. The Nationals tacked on $2 million to a nearly $700 million price tag in order to add features that earned this stadium a LEED rating from the U.S. Green Building Council—the first in the country to do so. From an in-house recycling center to a wastewater system designed to filter out peanut shells and hot-dog bits, the D.C. team thought of everything—except for screening out objectionable anti-green sponsors. Ah well, you can’t win ‘em all.

The Eagles take their eco-pride to City Hall.

Philadelphia Eagles

3. Philadelphia Eagles, NovaCare Complex. It seems only fitting that a stadium that sounds like a medical facility is proving to be a shot in the arm for greening operations everywhere. The Eagles launched an organization-wide program called Go Green in 2003, and today the team powers its facilities with clean energy, uses corn-plastic dishes and utensils, and encourages fans to offset their game-day travel. Offshoot projects include Eagles Forest in nearby Neshaminy State Park and a calendar of eco-babes—printed on recycled paper, of course.

Target Field, spitballin’ distance from downtown.

Minnesota Twins

4. Minnesota Twins, Target Field. Now under construction, this Minneapolis landmark is scheduled to open in 2010. Like the Nationals, the Twins are committed to achieving a LEED rating, and coughing up $2.5 million extra to do so. Green features include such basics as low-VOC carpets and paints, and the club is using local building materials. But more important may be the site itself: Unlike, say, the Mets stadium stuck out in Flushing, Target Field sits right downtown. Reinventing a plot in the city’s warehouse district, the Twins are creating an attraction that will be walkable, bikeable, trainable, and busable for thousands of local fans.

Magic officials at the Events Center groundbreaking.

Orlando Magic

5. Orlando Magic, Orlando Events Center. In another example of smart siting, the Magic is building a multi-purpose events center in a downtown location—and keeping local needs top of mind. The team has hired local companies, will use native landscaping, and even considered neighborhood identity in the stadium’s design. It’s also incorporating water and energy efficiency and other sustainable elements. When the facility opens in 2010, it will be “one of the greenest sports arenas in the country,” according to press materials. Meanwhile, the Magic has kicked off a company-wide greening initiative, including a recycling effort at its current home, Amway Arena.

The pine beetle’s loss is the speed skater’s gain.

Horace Chan

6. Vancouver Olympics. The push to make each successive Olympics greener than the last has practically become a medal-worthy event itself, and Vancouver is going for the gold. Greened-up venues for the 2010 games include a speed-skating track that features a roof made of wood salvaged from a pine-beetle infestation; a LEED-gold curling arena that will be converted into a community center after the games are over; and a hockey rink that captures and reuses the energy needed to make its ice. (For more from Vancouver, check out Jonathan Hiskes’ firsthand reports.)

The Cowboys really stepped in it.

City of Arlington

7. Dallas Cowboys Stadium. This here’s a good news-bad news situation. The good news is that the powers-that-be behind the Cowboys’ new $1 billion stadium, opening later this year, have set their sights on sustainability, from a reflective roof to permeable pavement to game-day recycling, and are registering with the EPA to monitor long-term performance. That bad news is they’ve been involved in a major PR wreck—not to mention several lawsuits—over the use of eminent domain to secure land for the facility. Oh, and the stadium isn’t accessible by public transportation. Er ... points for trying?

The Suns’ solar future looks bright.

Phoenix Suns

8. Phoenix Suns, US Airways Center. Staying true to their name, the Suns announced last fall that they’d be adding more than 1,100 solar panels to their facility, generating enough energy to power the equivalent of 26 home games a year. And that’s not the team’s only foray into green: when they hosted this year’s NBA All-Star Game, they asked players to create green PSAs, provided “sustainable” T-shirts for volunteers, and pushed recycling. Combine that with the city’s new sustainability plan, and the eco-cred of the Suns is surely rising.

Spurred to action.

TheMuuj/flickr

9. San Antonio Spurs, AT&T Center. It’s not the newest kid on the block, but that makes this arena’s greening efforts all the more impressive. The team recently upgraded its water system with the help of municipal funds, installing efficient fixtures and beginning to use recycled water in its cooling towers. Last year, team owners announced that they were buying wind power to cover 100 percent of their energy usage. And they’re pushing forward on other efforts, including recycling. Said Chairman and CEO Peter Holt, “We really want to be a model for arenas across the country regarding sensitivity to the environment.”

Refreshing? The Pepsi Center.

City of Denver

10. Denver Nuggets, Pepsi Center. Unveiling an initiative called Play Clean last year, arena officials highlighted an impressive array of eco-steps at the Pepsi Center, which is home to three other teams, including the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche. They’re offsetting energy use, installing solar panels, designating hybrid-only parking spaces and a no-idling zone, promoting recycling, and upgrading water fixtures. “Taking care of the environment is a new adventure in our country,” said Denver Nuggets head coach George Karl. “It will bring everybody together.”

The Hawks and Thrashers call it home.

City of Atlanta

11. Atlanta Hawks, Philips Arena. Thanks to steps including water conservation, recycling, and energy-efficient lighting installation, this 19,000-seat venue—also home to the NHL’s Atlanta Thrashers—was recently awarded LEED certification for operations and maintenance. “My partners and I agree we must continue to find ways to manage our events with the lowest environmental impact possible,” said organization head Rutherford Seydel. “We will continue to work with our fans and partners to raise our green performance and promote conservation throughout metro Atlanta.”

The Heat takes the LEED.

Stone Age Paving

12. Miami Heat, American Airlines Arena. Although Miami Mayor Manny Diaz has been bashed for his pro-development leanings, he’s making great green efforts of late. This year, during the first-ever NBA Green Week, he appeared with Miami Heat owners to announce that their arena had earned LEED certification for operations and maintenance. Because it sits on prime waterfront land, the Heat’s 20,000-seat venue has been controversial among environmentalists, although its architects attempted a place-sensitive design. Next up: A new LEED-silver stadium for the Miami Marlins—yep, you read it right, the team agreed to change its name to help seal the deal. Stay tuned.

North American teams aren’t the only ones going green. Check out more verdant venues from around the world:

A Prince of a Park.

T.S. Rigby

Princes Park, U.K.
The relatively diminutive size of this 4,100-seater is no reflection of the scale of its eco-ambitions. Opened in 2006, the facility boasts a living roof, rainwater collection, solar panels, and energy-efficient lighting, making it the U.K.‘s first sustainable small stadium. The club also encourages fans to recycle and use public transportation. So ... suck it, Dover.

World Games Stadium, Taiwan
Officials in Taiwan have built a massive solar-powered stadium in Kaohsiung for this year’s World Games, a sort of off-year Olympics (with fistball!). With more than 8,000 solar panels, it’s Taiwan’s largest such installation. Architect Toyo Ito also used local materials, incorporated natural ventilation, and created a design that reminds some of a river.

Beijing Olympics Venues, China
The synchronized drummers and under-aged gymnasts are long gone, but the venues built for last year’s high-profile Olympics aren’t going anywhere. From a swimming site that used spectators’ body heat to warm the pool to solar power at the iconic Bird Nest stadium to the first Olympic Village to earn LEED certification, organizers created an innovative set of reusable structures.

Stade de Suisse Wankdorf, Switzerland
Home to the BSC Young Boys football team, this arena in Bern, Switzerland, boasts the world’s largest stadium-integrated solar power system. With nearly 11,000 solar cells at work, the facility generates enough energy to power 350 four-person households. Built on the site of an old arena, the complex also houses restaurants, shopping, and even a public school.

London Olympics Venues, England
Sustainability is more than a catchphrase for the 2012 Olympics—it’s at the very heart of the plan. The entire complex is an exercise in placemaking; when the Games are over, the Lower Lea Valley will be home to the largest new urban greenspace in Europe, eco-facilities that are usable by the community, new footpaths and bicycle paths, and on-site renewable energy. That’s what the kids call raising the bar.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

When Premier of British Columbia Gordon Campbell asked delegates at the World Conference on Sport and the Environment whether they had flown to the Vancouver event on Monday, hundreds of hands shot up. If any of them saw the irony of reaching an environmental conference through the carbon-intensive method of jet travel, they didn’t let on.

Thomas Kineshanko, a 2008 graduate of Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University, spoke up Tuesday about the dilemma at a panel on “Inspiring Youth Through Sport.”

As an 800-meter track runner, he traveled with his college team to places such as Tennessee and Fresno to compete in races that would last less than two minutes. “It finally struck me that this is kind of an absurd pastime,” he said.

He tried to lead the team in becoming carbon neutral, but it didn’t work out. He now manages his grandfather’s firm, Habitat Enterprises, helping it transition into a carbon-trading consultating firm. He’s set a personal goal of overseeing the reduction of 25 million tons of carbon emissions in his lifetime.

His musing on the problem of jet travel was one of a few back-to-earth moments the youth panel provided at the idea-heavy conference.

“I think that if young people were given the opportunity and the tools, they could do so  much,” said Theresa Seymour, 24, a member of Canada’s Sto:lo Nation. “It’s not about spoon-feeding young people with what they need to know. Because this world is becoming their very quickly.”

Seymour spoke about helping teenagers in aboriginal groups connect with their communities through traditional sports, such as dugout-canoe races. She said traditional competitions required fasting, bathing, and prayer beforehand, things that inevitably led to a broader awareness of one’s environment. 

“Because it was about your heart and your mind. It wasn’t just about one aspect of your being,” she said.

Seymour is also an up-and-coming hip-hop artist, as are two lads from Richmond, British Columbia, who won VANOC’s “u-reduce/u-produce” video storytelling contest this month. Check out this offering from 15-year-olds Darrick “D-Pain” Lee and Michael “Phat Mike” Darnel. I’m pretty sure it’s a hybrid SUV they’re using to knock SUVs and plug hybrids, despite the tricky camera work. But the video is solid. Decide for yourself:

Related Links:

Friday music blogging: Harper Simon

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Friday music blogging: Phosphorescent

Near the end of the World Conference on Sport and the Environment in Vancouver yesterday, Kim Smither of marketing firm Octagon Worldwide displayed a series of photos of screaming, face-painted sports fans.

“Imagine the power you’d have if you could harness this,” she said.

Talk of “harnessing” the passion of sports showed up everywhere at the two-day conference, but Smither moved past the cliché and made a case that athletes are in a great position to promote environmentally friendly behavior—if they understand the diversity of their fans.

She walked conference delegates, including several Olympic medalists, through Octagon’s “Passion Drivers” market research, which tries to determine exactly why sports fans are moved to scream themselves hoarse, or at least plan their weekends around televised games.

The company found viewers are drawn to spectator sports for different reasons -- team loyalty, for example, or nostalgia, or gloating rights, or admiration of individual athletes, or a sense of tribal belonging.

Fan-tastic.

iStock

Octagon’s Olympic-focused research uncovered national trends. Devotion to the national team is the most important motivator for Chinese viewers. In England, nostalgia and appreciation for history and tradition provide the strongest emotional connection to the games. Canadians are driven by an affinity for their own team, for home-grown athletes, and for the cold-weather sports they consider “theirs.” Americans are exceptionally drawn to individual athletes (hence NBC’s human-interest vignettes).

If environmental groups -- and Olympians who speak on their behalf -- want the attention of viewers, understanding their different motivations is invaluable, Smither said.

“If you know why people are passionate, you can really target your message,” she said. “Sports fans are not a homogenous group. Some people are going to tune it out, but if you can find a way to speak in your audience’s language, you have a much better chance of being heard.”

Most of the self-selected respondents to Octagon’s surveys said Olympic athletes could persuade them to change their environmental athletes. Interestingly, they overwhelmingly said the messages of all athletes -- not just superstars -- mattered to them.

“I believe they hold the key to bringing sustainability to the Olympics,” Smither said of the majority of Olympians who do not win medals.

The research also found that people considered the Olympics an appropriate venue for sustainability messages. So they aren’t necessarily demanding that competitions provide an escape from social and political problems.

Anna van der Kamp, a silver medalist in rowing and project director for Clean Air Champions, a group of Canadian Olympians that promotes environmental health, led a panel responding to Octagon’s research. I asked her whether spectator sports have an escapist nature that limits the amount of social change they can promote.

If you can identify viewers that watch sports for escapist reasons (what Octagon calls “Self indulgence” and “Me time”), you can avoid them and target messages toward other groups, van der Kamp said.

The research was new to her, but she said Clean Air Champions has found its personal-health message much more successful with those already involved in athletics.

“People who are physically active, like amateur athletes, are more likely to take on new actions related to the environment,” she said. “So we seek them out.”

Other than urging athletes to step up and start endorsing environmental stuff, the Octagon presentation was more about inspiration than strategy. But it suggested sports fans might be quicker to engage in social issues than one might assume.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery

No wonder public and media seem uniformed

Vancouverite David Suzuki and his namesake foundation surface in the U.S. news from time to time, typically through climate initiatives and ocean conservation initiatives such as its estimate of the carbon impact of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

But for our Northern neighbors, the 73-year-old Suzuki is a household name. He’s become the Canada’s preeminent environmental activist -- David Roberts likened him to the Canadian Al Gore. At this weeks’ World Conference on Sport and the Environment, I asked some youngish Canucks about his first claim to fame. They weren’t sure, they said.  He’s sort of always been around. (The often-helpful interwebs mention he was a genetist and longtime host of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s science TV series, "The Nature of Things.")

When the Vancouver Organizing Committee released a plan yesterday to make the 2010 Winter Games carbon neutral, reporters immediately turned to Suzuki and the policy wonks at his foundation for an assessment. The foundation provided the orginal forecast of the carbon impact of the 2010 Olympics –- 300,000 tons. But it hadn’t seen VANOC’s offset purchasing plan before yesterday, so it couldn’t vouch for it.

“I would plead with VANOC to please set the bar high,” said Suzuki.

He held his own news conference to announce the release of On Thin Ice, a report on the threat climate change poses to winter sports in Canada. It found that global warming could all but wipe out ice skating, cross-country skiing, and low-elevation downhill skiing by 2050 if no action is taken.

Suzuki mentioned two “iconic Canadian images” that are already endangered by climate change – polar bears and backyard skating rinks, like the one on which a young Wayne Gretzky learned to skate.

As he’s done before, Suzuki enlisted Canadian athletes to help make his case. Professional snowboarder Justin Lamoureaux, who trains in Whistler, B.C., said he’s already found his training season and availabe space shrunk by melting glaciers.

"Imagine a Canada with no pond hockey, no snow days, no skiing," he said. "No snowmen, snowballs or snow forts and less maple syrup. As much as some people dislike it, winter is Canada."

Suzuki also offered a harsh critique of the Conservative-led federal government and its lack of climate action, and of the national media’s downplaying of the climate issue in last fall’s election.

“Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are already acting at the individual level, but we need leadership at the federal level,” he said.

The foundation’s report concludes with a call for national carbon regulation.

“Canada is a northern country,” Suzuki said. “We are probably as vulnerable to the effects of greenhouse gases and global warming as any country in the world.”

Related Links:

The tar sands blow

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video

The Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) wants make the 2010 Winter Games carbon neutral, but the plan it released Monday counts on help from the private sector to make it happen.

At the World Conference on Sport and the Environment, VANOC announced a plan to neutralize 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide, mostly through renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in British Columbia. That's the amount of emissions the February 2010 games will create, according to a preliminary carbon forecast by the David Suzuki Foundation. The forecast expects two thirds of that amount will come from air travel by spectators and participants.

Vancouver isn't the first city to attempt a carbon neutral Olympics -- Salt Lake City and Torino made similar promises. But organizers here say theirs is the broadest attempt yet. The 300,000-tons estimate includes carbon dioxide generated by pre-games construction and the 2010 Paralympic Games, to be held in Vancouver later next spring.

VANOC doesn't plan to pay for the offsets itself, CEO John Furlong said. Instead, it's counting on a corporate sponsor to step up just 10 months before the games, long after most sponsorships have been lined up. At current carbon prices of about $15 a ton, meeting the 2010 target would cost about $3.6 million ($4.5 million Canadian), said Linda Coady, vice-president of sustainability for the organizing committee.

Responsibility for executing the offset plan will be placed in the hands of the Pacific Carbon Trust, a newly created corporation that helps oversee the Province of British Columbia's carbon emissions reduction plan. Organizers said they didn't know exactly what projects those offsets would support just yet. Coady said they would likely include retrofitting buildings to run on geothermal or biomass heating instead of natural gas, for one.

Carbon offsets are frequently knocked for not actually reducing emissions (even Grist's Umbra Fisk has weighed in), and Vancouver games organizers conceded there's a big difference between high- and low-quality offsets. They promised to deliver the good kind. "We think the Pacific Carbon Trust standard is going to be one of the highest standards in the world," Coady told a group of reporters.

But the plan would not necessarily meet the internationally recognized gold standard for voluntary offsets, she said, because VANOC wanted to ensure it was weighted toward B.C. projects.

Organizers were asked if offsets are really about easing in the consciences of polluters, and Furlong responded that the offset program really "causes people to change behavior." For example, VANOC officials are traveling less to international meetings and teleconferencing instead, he said.

He promised the 2010 Games would be a shining example of environmental responsibility. "We only get one chance, one opportunity," he said. "Since we're in a part of the world that cares a lot about this, we're doing what we can."

Related Links:

The tar sands blow

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

The tar sands blow

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Here’s what we know so far

POZNAN, Poland, Dec. 5, 2008 (AFP) -- Some of the world's top skiers and snowboarders Friday urged governments locked in U.N. climate talks to curb greenhouse gas emissions, saying that global warming was threatening their sport.

World and Olympic champions Ted Ligety and Julia Mancuso from the United States, along with Tanja Frieden of Switzerland, headlined a roster and 30-odd world class competitors in launching the appeal.

"As avid skiers and snowboarders, we're watching first-hand the destructive power of global warming," the athletes said in a petition submitted to Polish Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki, who is chairing the tense U.N. negotiations.

"From the European Alps to the Asian Himalayas, from the U.S. Rockies and the Central American Andes, global warming is threatening winter."

The consequences of glacial retreat and changes in snowfall will be felt not just by winter sports lovers, they warned. Local communities that depend on tourism cold be hit hard, and fragile Alpine ecosystems have already shown signs of severe strain. And tens of million people in low-lying regions who depend on runoff for agriculture and drinking water will also be affected, experts warn.

"And when the glaciers are gone from the mountains, what waters the plains? In one way or another, rising temperatures will harm us all," the statement said.

The petition, organised by green group WWF, said any new U.N. treaty should reduce emissions enough to keep average global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to preindustrial times. U.N. climate scientists have said that any rise beyond that threshold could unleash devastating consequences across the globe.

It also called for global emissions to peak before 2020 and by 2050 be cut by 80 percent compared to 1990 levels.

The December 1-12 conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- attended by 10,000 delegates from 192 countries -- is aimed at advancing towards a new pact on reducing carbon emissions that trap the Sun's heat, and on boosting help to poor, vulnerable countries.

Copyright 2008 -- Agence France-Presse

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

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

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A Penny Saved Is…

Happy birthday, EMA Awards ... and you other groups, too