GreenBuildIndiana

Green Business Network Hosts Seminar on Greenhouse Gas Legislation

 

The Green Business Network is hosting a seminar on Greenhouse Gas Legislation  on Thursday, September 3 from 5-9pm at the Columbia Club in Indianapolis. To register and get directions go to the Green Business Network registration page.  Though the House narrowly passed a climate change bill in late June, the Senate is moving slowly, partly due to its preoccupation with health care legislation.

A recent article in the New York Times noted that ten Democratic Senators from coal-producing states have sent a letter to President Obama noting the kinds of protections they want from a climate bill in order to lend it their support:

"They called for transition aid for energy-intensive manufacturers in the form of rebates on their energy costs; negotiation of a strong international agreement on emissions; programs to monitor emissions in other countries; and significant financing for clean energy technology (my emphasis).

The authors also proposed “border adjustments,” tariffs, on goods from countries that do not agree to an international program for carbon dioxide reductions. The House bill gives the president the power to impose such penalties on goods from countries that do not adhere to an international climate change regime.

The 10 senators were Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan."

Most experts believe that some kind of carbon limiting legislation will be passed in the next year, and business owners of all sizes will want to know how to plan ahead and take advantage of tax incentives, etc. Thanks to Lena Lucas and the Green Business Network for organization these informative events.

Why Isn't the Human Brain "Green"?

This may seem a departure from Green Building, but work with me, people.  "Why Are Our Brains not 'Green'?"  is the headline of an article in the New York Times Magazine today, and it goes to the heart of a question I often ponder: why is the human race so blind to the fact that its collective actions are so harmful to its own survival?  (Put another way, why do humans, unlike no other animal, persist in sh___ing in their own nest. This is such an important question for me that I'm going to break the "short blog posting" rule to give it more space.)

The article centers on the work of CRED (The Center for Environmental Decisions) at Columbia University, where social scientists are studying how humans make decisions regarding the environment.  Some of the findings agree with those in the economic arena, for example:

• Phrasing can affect a decision: People will decline surgery with a 20% mortality rate, but will accept surgery with an 80% survival rate.
• Our analytical brain (left brain) makes short-term benefit decisions, while our emotional decisions can be more group-centered and long-term focused. (Watch Jill Bolte Taylor's "My Stroke of Insight" at TED. 
• Humans have a "finite pool of worry" so that when a financial crisis comes along (like now) it displaces our worry over the planet.
• Humans have "single action bias" which leads them to quit working toward solving global warming after they buy their Prius or build their green home.

One finding of CRED's lab experiments with human groups is particularly striking:

"...when subjects made decisions as a group first, their conversations were marked far more often by subtle markers of inclusion like 'us' and 'we'...groups can be more patient than individuals when considering delayed benefits. What if the information for decisions, especially environmental ones, is first considered in a group setting before members take it up individually, rather than the other way around?"

Since often the most important environmental decisions are made by groups, such as corporations, boards, and communities, activating collaboration can be instrumental in achieving action.  For example,

"The lab experiment designed by Weber and Handgraaf actually took a cue from research done by another CRED member...who studied farmers in southern Uganda. In 2005 and 2006, Orlove observed how the behavior of the region’s poor farmers could be influenced by whether they listened to crucial rainy-season radio broadcasts in groups or as individuals."

I wasn't surprised to learn that humans' typical decision-making process often does NOT help them make the best choice.  (Time to read Collapse by Jared Diamond.) That is why humans need a Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. (Nudges help humans overcome their natural tendency to be stupid.)  Some examples of nudges that help us save energy are SmartMeters and the Wattson -- instruments that turn off energy so we don't have to think about it, or provide visual feedback loops and spur us to compete to save energy.  Now that I've brought the discussion back to Green Building, it's time to end this post.

Image Credit: Illustration by Christoph Niemann 

Only 4% of Americans Know that Buildings Represent 48% of CO2 Emissions

Green building advocates have a lot of work to do to build awareness among the public about the role of buildings in climate change, according to a new study commissioned by Autodesk and shared in advance of the U.S. Green Building Council's annual conference in Boston this week.  In fact, according to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), buildings are the leading cause greenhouse gas emissions. This is especially worrisome since, according to Jay Bhatt, SVP of Autodesk, "...half the buildings in which Americans will live, play and work by 2030 have yet to be built."

Here's how it breaks down:

• Buildings: 48 percent of CO2 emissions
• Transportation: 27 percent
• Industry: 25 percent

Perhaps the USGBC should create consumer-level demand for green buildings in the same way drug companies have: by bypassing doctors and going direct to consumers. I'm sure that will be on the agenda at the conference next week.

"Neighborhood Effect" Resulting from High Oil Prices

The cost of oil is putting a crimp in globalization, according to the New York Times.  As the cost of fuel rises, products shipped around the world become less profitable and it makes more sense to produce them nearby to consumers.  Locavores will already be ahead of the game, as food is one of the products that will start to be produced locally. 

Production chains that no longer make sense include that of Tesla's electric-powered cars, whose 1,000-pound battery packs were made in Thailand, shipped to Britain for installation, with the partially-assembled cars shipped to the U.S.  Now they'll be entirely made in California.

"Globe-spanning supply chains — Brazilian iron ore turned into Chinese steel used to make washing machines shipped to Long Beach, Calif., and then trucked to appliance stores in Chicago — make less sense today than they did a few years ago....The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to $8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing shipping times." --The New York Times

Other signs of the "neighborhood effect":

• Ikea opened a factory in the U.S. and more furniture is being made in America
  
• Electronics companies who moved to China from Mexico are moving back
• Chinese steel exports to the U.S. are falling while U.S. production rises
• Avocadoes in Chicago in January and bananas all year round will make less and less sense

Architecture 2030: Green Design Imperative

Architecture 2030 is a non-profit, non-partisan and independent organization established in response to the global-warming crisis by architect Edward Mazria.  Because "buildings are the major source of demand for energy and materials that produce by-product greenhouse gases",  Mazria is calling on everyone in the field of design and architecture pledge to change to sustainable design. Architecture 2030's  research page is sobering:

"Think you're making a difference?  Think again: There are 151 new conventional coal fired power plants in various stages of development in the US today.  Home Depot is funding the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US to help absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions...  The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant, in just 10 days of operation, will negate this entire effort."

 

Going Green: Just a Fashion?

Sunday's Chicago Tribune featured a story titled Green is the New Black lamenting the co-opting of green living.   

'"Here's one popular vision for saving the planet: Roll out from under the sumptuous hemp-fiber sheets on your bed in the morning and pull on a pair of $245 organic cotton Levi's and an Armani biodegradable knit shirt.

Stroll from the bedroom in your eco-McMansion, with its photovoltaic solar panels, into the kitchen remodeled with reclaimed lumber. Enter the three-car garage lighted by energy-sipping fluorescent bulbs and slip behind the wheel of your $104,000 Lexus hybrid.

Drive to the airport, where you settle in for an 8,000-mile flight -- careful to buy carbon offsets beforehand -- and spend a week driving golf balls made from compacted fish food at an eco-resort in the Maldives."

We agree that consuming less is the answer, and merely consuming "green" stuff will not get us out of this mess.  For example, according to the Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook televisions account for 4% of energy use in the United States (just let that sink in for a moment......FOUR PER CENT) and your old set uses a lot less energy than a plasma-screen energy hog. 

On the other hand, if someone is already having to buy something, it can be a great time to switch consumers over to green products.   

"After you buy the compact fluorescent bulbs," said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Rainforest Action Network, "you can move on to greater goals like banding together politically to shut down coal-fired power plants."   John Passacantando, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, argued that green consumerism has been a way for Wal-Mart shoppers to get over the old stereotypes of environmentalists as "tree-hugging hippies" and contribute in their own way.

This is crucial, he said, given the widespread nature of the global warming challenge. "You need Wal-Mart and Joe Six-Pack and mayors and taxi drivers," he said. "You need participation on a wide front."

So go ahead and get your friends and relatives to shop for those CFLs...it can be just the start of changing an entire lifestyle.

Richard Branson's Council of Elders: The Ultimate "GreenGeezers"

The Council of Elders announced its formation on July 18th.  The group was organized by Richard Branson, the famous British multibillionaire who pledged $3B dollars to help solve global warming at last year's meeting of the Clinton Climate Initiative. The group includes President Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Graca Machel, Kofi Annan, Li Zhaoxing, Mary Robinson and Muhammad Yunus.  The Council of Elders will dedicate itself to fostering peace and resolving global crises.

   

Carbon Offsets: "Incredible Nonsense"

Spiegel Online covers the wave of green business in Germany, and also comments on the market in carbon offsets:

"Critics say that this method is a temporary solution at best. Although she welcomes such initiatives, Regine Günther of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is highly skeptical of the reforestation programs offered by some agencies. "There's an incredible amount of nonsense out there," she says. It also remains to be seen whether these contributions will be sufficient to offset environmental damage being done elsewhere. For example, someone who purchases gold jewelry online from Christ Jewelers through Climatefriends pays a "climate contribution" equal to 4.5 percent of the sale. This is a modest toll, though, considering that, according to the Wuppertal Institute, more than half a ton of earth has to be moved to mine a single gram of gold -- not to mention the tremendous volume of water consumed in the process.

State of Denial

Thirty-nine years after the publication of Paul Ehrlich's  book The Population Bomb,  which predicted imminent disaster caused by population growth, the subject of population control is almost never brought up these days.  Though Ehrlich's conclusions were widely derided because of his faulty time horizon, can anyone still claim that there are not simply too many damn people on the earth?    Even in the middle of the present greenification of business, commerce, fashion, and architecture, the p-word is almost never mentioned. Why is this?  It seems so obvious, and yet in all the discussion of water shortages, carbon emissions, and the fact that untold millions of Chinese will soon buy their first car....the subject just isn't brought up, even by ardent environmentalists.   Some kind of mass state of denial? 

"China's car debate stands out because its population is the planet's largest. Across the country, rising incomes and falling auto prices have led to an explosion in car sales, up 54% in the first three months of 2006, compared with the year-earlier period. China's auto market is now the world's second biggest, and the motor-vehicle industry employs 1.7 million workers.

The shift is happening so quickly that McDonald's Corp. said last week that it expects at least half of its new outlets in China to be drive-throughs.

And the car craze here has just begun. China now has about 25 vehicles -- and fewer than seven cars -- for every thousand people, roughly the same level as the U.S. had in 1915. If auto sales continue apace, there will be more than 130 million vehicles on China's roads by 2020 -- up from about 33 million today. That could help double China's demand for crude oil and lead to a sharp increase in greenhouse-gas emissions, according to estimates by the government and environmental groups."   Wall Street Journal Online

Take a look at The Breathing Earth,  a website that graphically shows the earth's birth, death, and carbon emission rates,  and the fact that, in the ten minutes or so that  it took me to compose this post, over 5,000 people have been born.

Carbon Emission Credits Losing their Gloss

The New York Times on attempts to assuage carbon guilt through buying carbon-offset credits:

"Yet another perverse effect, say critics, is that some types of carbon offset initiatives may actually slow the changes aimed at coping with global warming by prolonging consumers' dependence on oil, coal and gas, and encouraging them to take more short-haul flights and drive bigger cars then they would otherwise have done.   Climate Care, for example, has linked up with Land Rover, a maker of sport utility vehicles, to help the company offset its own emissions.  As part of a promotional program, Climate Care also helps purchasers of new Land Rovers offset their first 45,000 miles of driving."