Tagged: Sustainability

Startling Environmental Facts – Take Action Now

Below are 10 startling facts we learned in 2009 that underscore the climate threat. I am republishing them from an email I received from the Environmental Defense Fund. 

  • A study published in the journal Science reports that the current level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere – about 390 parts per million – is higher today than at any time in measurable history — at least the last 2.1 million years. Previous peaks of CO2 were never more than 300 ppm over the past 800,000 years, and the concentration is rising by around 2 ppm each year.
  • The World Meterological Organization reported that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record with 8 of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000.
  • 2009 will end up as one of the 5 hottest years since 1850 and the U.K.’s Met Office predicts that, with a moderate El Nino, 2010 will likely break the record.
  • The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that while a bit more summer Arctic sea ice appeared in 2009 than the record breaking lows of the last two years, it was still well below normal levels. Given that the Arctic ice cover remains perilously thin, it is vulnerable to further melting, posing an ever increasing threat to Arctic wildlife including polar bears.
  • The Arctic summer could be ice-free by mid-century, not at the end of the century as previously expected, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  • Recent observations published in the highly respected Nature Geosciences indicate that the East Antarctica ice sheet has been shrinking. This surprised researchers, who expected that only the West Antarctic ice sheet would shrink in the near future because the East Antarctic ice sheet is colder and more stable.
  • The U.S. Global Change Research Program completed an assessment of what is known about climate change impacts in the US and reported that, “Climate changes are already observed in the United States and… are projected to grow.” These changes include “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.”
  • According to a report by the US Geological Survey, slight changes in the climate may trigger abrupt threats to ecosystems that are not easily reversible or adaptable, such as insect outbreaks, wildfire, and forest dieback. “More vulnerable ecosystems, such as those that already face stressors other than climate change, will almost certainly reach their threshold for abrupt change sooner.” An example of such an abrupt threat is the outbreak of spruce bark beetles throughout the western U.S. caused by increased winter temperatures that allow more beetles to survive.
  • The EPA, USGS and NOAA issued a joint report warning that most mid-Atlantic coastal wetlands from New York to North Carolina will be lost with a sea level rise of 1 meter or more.
  • If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century, some of the main fruit and nut tree crops currently grown in California may no longer be economically viable, as there will be a lack of the winter chilling they require. And, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton could decrease as much as 82%.

If these facts actually did startle you, then please Take Action to Unleash Our Clean Energy Future. If they didn’t then please check your pulse, or do us a favor and step into traffic. Happy Tuesday!

Myself, More Sustainable

I’ve made progress on the plot of my soon-to-be-written blitz of a novel. I’m trying not to think of it too much as recommended by previous NaNoWriMo participants and the founder of the whole torturous exercise so as to not become overwhelmed by details. ‘nuf said, else I’ll be overwhelmed by details.

Took a minor road trip from work today to visit the site of a new project I’m working on. The location, while decent in and of itself, is so incredibly far from the center of the city that it blows my mind people live there. We drove by entire other cities to get to this place, and if you asked people there where they were they would have said St. Louis. Bullshit, you are not in St. Louis.

As you can see, I’m trying to be freer in verse.

The best news from a sustainability perspective I’ve heard all week is that Fisker Automotive is going to build an eletric car facility. It will be in Delaware . . . did I mention it will be a facility that builds electric cars?! I suppose the screen door factor was losing its luster. I kid . . .

I’m going with a few people (wife and others) to a tea cupping tonight. Man alive that sounds dirty. Numerous people have commented that it might as well be called a tea bagging. “NO!” I say. One definition of tea bagging is very sexual in connotation and the other has to do with the demonstrations of conservative wing nuts, who for some reason could not think of a better name for their ill-conceived protests. Tea cupping, if you don’t know, and I didn’t until I read about it, is a tea tasting. Hopefully I learn a little somethin’ somethin’.

I’m enjoying the new free form green | rising. The underlying theme of what I post will still be sustainability but with less focus on the science and policy of it. One of the many definitions of sustainability I’ve read reads, “to keep up or keep going, as an action or process”. In the most general interpretation of the word, this applies to everything and everyone, from society to myself. The NaNoWriMo endeavor I’m about to embark counts toward this. Writing a book is something I’ve always wanted to try, and by making an effort (and hopefully succeeding), I will be making my own life more sustainable through risk taking, accomplishment and perhaps even failure.

Intergalactic Energy Battle

While there are not a plethora of lessons to be learned from Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, there is one in particular of which to take note. Amid the some of the best CGI ever seen and the slow-motion-hotness of the ever ungrateful Megan Fox (and regular-motion-perhaps-even-greater-hotness of coed Isabel Lucas) looms a battle for Energon, the source of life for the Transformers. Seems like even robots will kill each other for juice. Moral takeaways be damned, the movie rocked!

The charcoal-colored array of bad robots are a who’s who of oil and coal barons, destroying everything in their paths to accomplish their mission. Success seems inevitable for them until the good guys are helped by the T. Boone Pickens of Transformers. I’m not sure if the writers intended for the plot to mimic our own human struggles but nonetheless, the parallel is there. While an intergalactic energy battle hasn’t presented itself on earth (yet), we must not forget that even fiction is born from truth. We are tearing apart this planet searching for and protecting non-renewable energy sources. Instead, we should be investing even more resources in harnessing sustainable ones.

Progress is being made, and while I’m an admittedly impatient man, it is slow. The United States is filled with so many ignorant minions of the murderous Decepticons that the mind boggles. In the film, the evil Transformers destroy suns to harness energy. Funnily enough, our sun is giving us its energy for free and we refuse to take it. Stupid us.

The Most Interesting Man In The World

Well maybe not, but he must be close, and should definitely be in the next round of those strangely awesome Dos Equis commercials. The man I’m referring to is Gus Gustafson (sp?). I’d hate to call him just a home builder because I’d be leaving out a plethora of other things he does, and seemingly does well, but that’s what we were there to talk about.

My wife and I had the opportunity to meet this gentleman on Sunday and got a tour of his new home, which is currently under construction. The home is built out of structurally insulated panels (SIPs), which we plan to use on our future abode.  Our encounter was limited to only a few hours but we learned about everything from carpenter bees to waste water treatment methods, and all topics covered included tangible evidence to back up any claims that were made.

The home itself is near completion and comes in around 3,300 square feet on two levels (with no basement). The entire freakin’ thing is cooled by one window air conditioner and can run entirely on six car batteries. How? Because of the amazingly efficient building envelope created when constructing a house (or any building) out of structurally insulated panels. Using air exchangers to replace stale air with fresh, the building otherwise loses virtually no conditioned air to the outside regardless of exterior conditions. Because of this simple benefit, electricity bills for the entire house, which include every appliance a standard home has, run in the $20 to $30 range monthly. The level of comfort provided in every inch of the house by just one window-unit air conditioner was mind blowing.

I could write for pages on the other extremely interesting topics we covered but the main lesson to take away from our visit is that the old way of building is not the best way of building. Hopefully contractors of all types will educate themselves on new building techniques and start to incorporate them into their businesses. Only through this process will society speed up its evolution towards the more sustainable.

Oh yeah, using SIPS is faster, cheaper and makes the building stronger. What’s not to like?

The Cost of Meat

I suppose a person has to hear about something a very large number of times before he is willing to change his habits, especially if these habits (religion, diet, biases, etc . . .) were ingrained in him from birth. Hopefully Jane Brody’s piece, Paying a price for loving red meat, has added fuel to the fire.

Meat, if you eat it at all, should be a small part (read: not the entree) of one (read: not two or three) meal a day. If you don’t believe me, ask the FDA. But, American, and much of the rest of the world that has access to it, eats meat like they should be eating fruits and vegetables. What’s the problem with this? Hmmmmm.

First, the health effects. According to Brody’s piece, a recent decade-long study by the National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Retired Persons concluded that over a decade, “the deaths of 1 million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats”. Why? Because excess ingestion of red meat is directly linked to premature death, usually from either cancer or heart disease. This science behind these conclusions is concrete, as concrete as the research that shows smoking causes cancer. Believe both or neither, but you can’t choose just one.

Second, the environmental effects. Also noted in the article is the fact that, “In the United States, livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process, 37 percent of pesticides applied, 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water.” We’re tearing up the earth so we can make food that kills us faster. Sweet.

The ethical argument is the one that most falls on deaf ears, but while we can agree to disagree that killing animals for for is wrong, animals should still be treated humanely while they’re alive. This point is not debatable. Caged animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and the abuse of animals by physical means or through the use of drugs is completely unacceptable, and makes us less compassionate as people.

Finally, the social and political aspects of farming animals for food are nearly immeasurable. Deforestation, erosion, contamination and the like, while terrible from an environmental perspective, all rape the land and makes farming for plants virtually impossible. Small farms are being bought up by conglomerates all over the globe, making sustainability for farmers in developing nations difficult. Dictators take land meant for the people and sell it to global corporations so they can cheaply grow feed for cows and pigs and chickens while people starve as the harvest drives by their towns.

We’re all ignorant to some degree, myself included. But, what’s we’re doing to ourselves and to others for the sake of food is disgusting. The more people who realize this, the better off all of us will be.

Tailor Your Wardrobe

My tailor and I have philosophical differences about two-way zippers. I don’t even know if that’s their technical name but you know what I’m talking about, right? Zippers with two thing-a-ma-bobbies on ‘em so you can zip the coat closed with the top ’ma-bobbie and then open it from the bottom with the bottom ‘ma-bobbie. Great for sitting.

Why would a tailor, a veritable master of the use of fabrics, not like two-way zippers? Perhaps he’s a purist, or even a Luddite, and thinks even a single zipper is an abomination. The zipper led to the gear and the gear led to the automobile! Clothes should be tied on god damn it!

For the record, my tailor is a soft-spoken gentlemen who owns a shop in the Benton Park West neighborhood of St. Louis. I’ve only used him twice, so please don’t think he stitches custom-made clothing for me. I had the aforementioned two-way zipper put onto a fleece whose original zipper had bit it and had a pair of way-too-long jeans hemmed that I got for five freakin’ dollars from Old Navy. He did a great job on both.

I own too many clothes and tend to replace things more frequently than I should. I’m also fairly certain these clothes reproduce on their own but no one will buy that theory. I wonder if I covered each item in a dry cleaner style plastic wrap these would act as clothing condoms. So . . . when I decided to repair my fleece instead of just buying a new one, I felt a small bit of pride. The tailor charged almost what a new fleece would have cost – this one was of the Target variety – but there was nothing wrong with it besides the zipper issue.

What’s the point of this rambling? As I’ve mentioned before, I receive The Green Life newsletter from Sierra Club. In a recent series of posts the newsletter has focused on greening one’s wardrobe. The manufacture and distribution of clothing not a very green process. First of all, most of it is made overseas and needs to be shipped to the U.S. Second, the materials used are generally not very sustainable. The implications of putting people in developing nations out of work is a topic for another post. Admittedly, in the most simplistic way, I’m prioritizing environmental sustainability over social sustainability.

So, what should you do to green your wardrobe? Two things: buy vintage and take note of materials. The first idea is not a new one. Resale shops are becoming more common every day and they offer all styles and qualities of clothing. Frequent them and you’ll be surprised. I’m going to make a more concerted effort to preserve the clothing I have and buy “new” clothing in a more sustainable way. The second idea requires a little education, the bulk of which I’ll leave to the Sierra Club:

Buying used is greener, but if you do buy new clothes, at least make sure they’re made of sustainable material. Bamboo and hemp (much more comfy than they sound) are planet-friendly because both plants quickly regenerate and are easily grown without pesticides (hemp’s downside is that it must be imported since it’s illegal to grow in the U.S.). Organic cotton is another decent option; though cotton is a water-intensive crop, the organic variety at least forgoes the polluting chemicals. There have been developments in fabrics made of recycled stuff, including plastic bottles (Revenge Is is super soft) and other fibers (try Gramicci). Buying clothes from companies that donate to environmental charities and manufacturers that offset are other ways to vote green with your wallet. What to avoid? Synthetic fibers (polyester, vinyl, nylon), animal products (leather, suede), and cellulose materials (rayon). For more, check out Lucky‘s April issue.

Make note of the what to avoid list. Each material on this list is terrible in a different way; some require oil and some are produced through very violent and terribly resource-heavy processes. I would add wool to this list as well. Most of it is sourced in a way that’s worse than leather and suede, as sheep are filled with drugs to over produce wool and are repeatedly subject to misery and torture as opposed to just dying once for the sake of a pair of shoes or a purse. I’m guilty of owning some of these synthetic fabrics but am doing my best to replace them – when necessary – with more sustainably made clothing. I hope you do the same.

green | rising v3

So here it is. Version 3. New design, new focus. To look inward. Not necessarily reflection, but more personal association to the issues of the day. Staying motivated has been hard, and the reason is providing value in my posts has been hard. Commentary on worldly events is common in the blogosphere, as is commentary on all things “green”.

The issue that drives me is the sustainability of all things; myself, my city, my society. The new green | rising is about personalizing my writing, hence the new tagline of the site. I hope to be a little more irreverent, a little more insightful, a little more personal. I’m hoping to be more focused but also more diverse in my posts. The goal being to connect the outside to the inside, to humanize my passion and better connect to my audience. If it effects me it can/does/will effect you.

A Study In Contrast

Katie and I head back east (to the Midwest) tomorrow after 10 days of sun and fun, and a little bit of learning. We spent most of our time in Sacramento and San Francisco, though we drove between the two cities and got out to Marin County and the Valleys Napa and Sonoma.

From the perspective of sustainability, California is definitely a study in contrast. San Francisco is probably the only major city in the state that is truly sustainable from an urban design perspective. It’s European in character, has great public transit and is very, very dense. My wife and I took the Muni bus and train system on every trip around the city but one; we had to take a cab to a city seeing office ’cause the jokers forget to pick us up! The transit buses are zero-emission vehicles and are connected to a massive web of electric lines that run throughout the city. My only complaint is that they aren’t the prettiest things in the world, and they’re everywhere. But, no black smoke coming out of the tailpipes like back in St. Louis. Hell, even some of the FedEx trucks we saw were hybrids!

Sacramento, on the other hand, is worse than St. Louis from a sprawl standpoint. Massive four-lane streets connect every neighborhood in the suburbs. Admittedly, we didn’t get to spend much time in the urban core of the city but I doubt that would have made much of a difference on my opinion. City cores themselves are relatively sustainable purely from a density standpoint. How far the suburbs stretch in a metropolitan area is an entirely different story. The suburbs of Sacramento seem to have been developed using the following strategy: move outward from downtown until there’s a precipitous drop in land prices, build a neighborhood, and then do it again. What this has done is create acres and acres of undeveloped land between major developments. These pieces of land have signs on them, advertising parcels of developable lots, but no one seems to be biting.

That’s all for now. Heading out, on the bus, to dinner on our last night in Yerba Buena!

San Francisustainability

The wife and I are in San Francisco, California this week on vacation. 

As most of you probably know, no other city in America offers the same level of sustainability. From zero emission public buses to no plastic bags, from city-wide recycling to solar panels on AT&T Park (home of the SF Giants), San Francisco does more than any other U.S. city to help people reduce, reuse and recycle. Portland may disagree, but no matter who’s right, a healthy competition between cities to become the “greenest” there is can’t hurt, right?!

I’m hoping to gather a good collection of photos this week I can share with everyone that exhibit the various steps SF has taken to become more sustainable. By early next week I should have everything posted. I can’t promise anything but stay tuned this week for updates. If you don’t hear from me, it’s because we’re having way too much fun. If you do, then we’re only having as much fun as we can handle.

John McWhatThe . . .

I feel like I’ve been apologizing quite a bit recently for posting sparsely. Well, apologies for all the apologies, and once again for the original apology’s catalyst. The much more steady communicator, Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, sent me (and thousands, if not millions, of others) this email a few hours ago:

The Curious Senator John McCain
June 9, 2008

Richmond, VA — It’s getting harder and harder to understand where John McCain stands on energy. Here’s his story, just this year:

First he was against all subsidies. Then his policy staff told us that solar and wind did, after all, need tax credits even through McCain had voted against these. Then he was against subsidies again, except that there weren’t enough of them for nuclear in the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill, so he couldn’t support it. But he was definitely for renewables, efficiency, and for serious action on global warming. 

Then, today in Richmond, a donor offered him an entirely new version of his position, which McCain promptly embraced. McCain was gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. When a donor in Richmond summed up his advice as “nuclear, and drill wherever we’ve got it,” McCain responded: “You just gave my speech. Thank you, my friend.”

This new position contradicts all previous versions of McCain’s stated energy goals, makes doing anything meaningful about global warming impossible, and puts McCain solidly in the “all-oil, 24/7″ Bush wing of American politics.

What’s clear is that John McCain is not only John “McSame” in regards to the Bush Administration’s economic policies, he is also completely mercurial in regards to effective environmental policy. What’s most frightening is that McCain’s inability to advance a concrete set of ideas related to the environment will hurt not just the planet, but the economy as well. If smart environmental policies are not devised and implemented, America’s energy and economic future will continue to hinge on the decisions of other countries, only some of which are friendly towards the U.S.

I think I’m finally over the high caused by Obama’s yet-to-be-made-final triumph. The real work starts now, and the biggest part of repairing the harm done to this country over the last eight years is to raise the overall awareness of Americans. If the facts can be communicated to the average voter, Obama will win by double digits.