I'm Seeing Green

Zero Waste

From worldchanging.com, this story about a way to improve waste management; it is at present only a plan, but one that is an "an effective tool for discussion." "Lombardi explained that even if we reached zero waste, cities would still need residue facilities, but that zero-waste cities could expect to eventually down actual residual trash to about 10 percent or less of all the waste we throw away."

Eric Lombardi, the waste-management guru behind Boulder, Colo.-based recycler Eco-Cycle, is fighting incinerators around the world with a vision. Although his Zero-Waste Park may never be built, he has been able to use the artistic plan as an effective tool for discussion that has allowed city planners to consider alternative solutions.

The Zero-Waste Park was originally conceived by Lombardi when he was working with a Hawaiian community group called Zero Waste Kauai (we originally mentioned the design in our post on Vancouver's RCBC conference). The island of Kauai was facing a landfill closure, and considering building an incinerator to handle waste disposal. The park is sized to handle solid waste from about 300,000 people (about the size of Boulder County, or the entire island of Kauai).

This is what the park looks like:

The park would be a one-stop dumping ground for truck loads of already-sorted city waste. The park includes a composting facility for organic materials; reuse center for still-good items; a center for hard-to-recycle materials (Eco-Cycle has already successfully created one of these in Boulder); a materials recovery facility for recovering valuable technical nutrients like metals; a residue facility for handling any trash that is leftover after the former; and a public education center.

Aga Ranting

Living  a sustainable life is not only changing energy uses and switching to non-toxic cleaners. What you buy is also an indicator of how green you're living. One might argue that buying, say, a more-expensive appliance is no more pressure on our over-burdened planet than buying a less-expensive one, which is true up to a point. But the more-expensive one typically has a higher embodied energy, that is to say it took more energy to produce it, and to that extent the less-expensive one is "greener"

These thoughts come to mind as I obsessively read the brownstoner, a local blog about the brownstone community I live in. In my many comments on that blog (for which I get regularly excoriated as a socialist and even a communist, how quaint, I thought the use of that word pejoratively went out with the cold war,) I try, unsuccessfully for the most part, to point out the follies of buying something just because you have the money to do so.

I will never be a politician, I probably couldn't convince my 10-year-old.

One interesting thread lately concerned the Aga Cooker (actually the questioner was talking about the newer versions, but my automatic rage when I see the word Aga blinded me.)

What, you might ask, is the issue with the Aga Cooker?

Well, this unconscionable British device is a range that has several burners that are permanently on. You read that correctly, the thing uses a constant supply of precious gas,  24/7.

People who have the Aga rave about it's cooking abilities. They seldom mention the steep learning curve involved; since there's no way to regulate the heat, you control it by...get this...altering the distance from the hot spot to the pan! And it has several ovens constantly hot at different (fixed) temperatures, so you bake cookies in one and roasts in another. Saves you from getting carpal tunnel from twisting the oven temperature knob, no doubt?

But that's not the point.

It's the sheer waste of energy. One comment in a magazine that touted the Cooker said "it uses about the same energy as a dozen 100w bulbs." Do the math. That's like having a space heater on constantly, summer and winter. Well maybe in winter it can heat the kitchen as a side-effect, but in summer? And the waste of money too, with NYC rates, that's about $200/month extra. Add the additional air conditioning you will need in summer.

So people with more money than sense still buy this terminally wasteful device. And claim it works better than an adjustable range, a serious case of delusional adjustment if I ever saw one

Oh, and did I mention that it costs over $12,000? And weighs 910 lbs? And that's for the smaller model?

Sure is a pretty one, though.

Compact Fluorescents II

"Not for use with Control Devices" are the words we see on many CFL sites, meaning that you are not supposed to use then with dimmers (this is more obvious) but also not with timers, light sensors (dusk-on switches) and motion detectors.

When I first bought CFLs from a website called 1000bulbs.com, they were selling the SatCo brand, and I installed them in all fixtures, one with a motion detector and two with light sensors with no problem (actually I hadn't noticed the warning.) Later bulbs, however, of a different brand, burned out in a few days when so installed. I wondered why. It was difficult, even in these days of the ubiquitous wiki and other sites, to get that information.

Turns out that most control devices use a constant, very low level of current, to maintain their state (in the case of timers, to run the clock,) which is routed through the bulb or bulbs they control...which is why, when your bulb burns out, your timer stops as well. This tiny current has no effect on incandescent bulbs, but for some reason damages the electronics in CFL's. Voila...CFL burn-out.

Of course, you may wonder why the CFL manufacturers cannot account for this tiny flow, but that may be another story.

How can you get around this? If you have more than one bulb controlled by the same device, you can put one incandescent, say a 15w bulb, in one socket and CFL's in the others.

This works for many multi-socket hall lights, or multiple outside lights on the same timer, for example. The incandescent bleeds the vampire current and keeps the CFL's safe. Unfortunately there's a lower limit to the wattage of the bulb and 15w seems to be the minimum; if you use less, the CFL's get too high a proportion of the current and damage ensues.

Of course, you increase your energy usage a bit, but if you have, say 2 CFL's and one incandescent, you're saving 60% instead of 75%.

Or you can pop for special control devices that control CFL's...hard to find, and not always easily installed as they require a "neutral wire" in the switch box, which is not always there. You can use the ground, but that's against code, so I didn't say it.

One such device that actually knows when dusk and dawn are reached and switches lights on or off at varying times during the year (you have to program it with the latitude and longitude of where you are,) is the Aube Solar switch in the image.

It can handle all kinds of loads, including CFL's and small motors. Note that, unlike a regular wall switch,it has three wires, not  two. The third is the above mentioned neutral wire. So it can only be used where the switch box has an incoming neutral wire.

But it won't burn out your precious CFL's.

Compact Fluorescents, I

Have you switched to Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFL's) yet? If not, it is the one thing you can do save energy with the least amount of effort. Do not believe the canards associated with CFL's, which still surface regularly:

CFL light is harsh/blue/cold/insert other pejorative adjective. No, it isn't. Hasn't been for quite a while.

It may not be exactly like incandescents, but it's close. For some unfathomable reason, CFLs come in different light "temperatures" in the geek metric called degrees Kelvin. Remember this magic number : 3000°K. That's warm white, very similar to incandescent.  2700°K may be OK, too, but some consider it too warm..aka too yellow. Don't get cold white (why would you, anyway, with the name?) or, worse, full-spectrum, a marketing ploy for doubling the price of bulbs with a cold blue light that only fish could love.

The dreaded mercury problem. Yes, CFL's have mercury, and no, it's not much of a problem. The newest ones have less than half the mercury of the older ones, and you can (should) recycle the bulbs anyway, so it's kosher.

And no, you do not have to worry about a broken CFL, unless you're planning to lick up the remains. Regardless of the overblown EPA guidelines, cleaning up after a broken CFL just requires common sense. Wear gloves if you insist and wash you hands after. It's overkill to open the windows, shoo the cats and kids away,don a moon-suit, or call 311.

They don't fit the fixture. CFL's are getting smaller all the time, and while there may be some fixtures you may have difficulty with, they'll fit probably 90% of existing fixtures.

They are slow to turn on. Somewhat true; most of the spiral bulbs turn on almost instantly, but somtimes take a few seconds to reach full brightness; it also  depends on the manufacturer. IKEA bulbs are notoriously slow and may have single-handedly helped keep this almost-myth alive and kicking. For most applications, it does not matter.

I don't like their looks. Get over it. You're trying to help save the planet.

They are not dimmable. True, you have to pay a lot more for dimmable CFLs which don't dim all the way anyway. If you need that much control (I find that there are only a few lights in my house that I change the brightness of regularly) install halogen lamps in those locations; they are less efficient than CFL's but a few won't do much harm.

They burn out or cannot be used with timers and motion sensors; in fact, most CFL's are marked "not for use with control devices." Ah, this one is interesting as it took me a some research as to why this may happen, and how to get around it. Rest assured, it can be solved.

Answers to above tomorrow.

Gimme Plastic!

Modbury in England gained fame as the first comunity to ban plastic bags in 2007. "Request a plastic bag these days in Modbury and you will be asked politely if you really need one, and if you absolutely do, you will be charged 5p for a corn-starch alternative. "

And there are plenty of places that have followed suit, from Hong Kong to the entire country of China, to enlightened cities in the US like San Francisco and Seattle.

As the anti-plastic bag movement gains momentum, here's an interesting note of dissent, amazingly enough from an organic farmer's market. Turns out that one farmer (whose trucks run on recycled grease, no less,) decided to charge for plastic bags. 25c no less. This seems to have enraged several of the otherwise environmentally conscious, no doubt affluent clientèle; from the Chicago Tribune:

But as wildly popular as Henry Brockman [and his operation [at the Evanston Farmer's market] might be, there was one thing that drove the environmentally friendly farmer nuts. It was the plastic bags. He would hang them up in bunches, the wispy-thin grocery store jobs, and people would grab them up as if they were nothing, stuffing their beans in one, their zucchini in another and so on.

"That just grated on my nerves from the beginning," he said. "I'm an organic farmer, and here I am buying all these plastic bags and handing them out willy-nilly."

His business was slipping more than 30,000 petroleum-based plastic bags into the environment a year, and Brockman's conscience could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy

Brockman got an e-mail from Chicago attorney and longtime customer Joan Ferraro: "While I admire your dedication to trying to change the environment for the better, I have to tell you I find your plastic bag policy offensive. You are in the business of selling produce. If you don't provide something for the people to take your produce home with, you are not good businesspeople [sic]."

Apparently being able to write coherently is not a pre-requisite for an attorney. Another customer threw her vegetables onto the counter on being informed of the charge. If supposedly "green", probably affluent customers like these would balk at being charged for plastic bags, is it any wonder that a ban is the only way to go?

Double Green

Here's a good way to be green and green (green squared?) Recyclable pots made of material that can be composted at the end of their life seems like just the ticket to replace plastic pots (which don't last long anyway,) or clay pots (which get brittle in the winter.) And they're available at Whole Foods.

 There are plenty of pots made of recyclable material (some of which can be reccled again,) but these seem to be one of the few you can compost. From apartmenttherapy:

While running in for a bite to eat at a nearby Whole Foods, we stopped to check out this colourful collection of non-plastic garden pots manufactured from the husks of rice, other grains and starch-based, water-soluble binders and biodegradable additives. The ingredients almost sound better tasting than some of the healthy snacks inside the grocery chain...

Some Things Green

Green Planes from Bombardier:

Of course if you use the term "green" to mean "better than the profligate use of energy that our previous product used," these new aircraft are indeed green:

In announcing the launch of the 110- to 130-seat airliners that will seat five abreast, signaled that it is positioning its new jets as challengers to the smallest aircraft in the 737 and A320 lines built by Boeing and Airbus.

"The CSeries family offers the greenest single-aisle aircraft in its class," said Gary Scott, president of Bombardier Commercial Aircraft. "These game-changing aircraft emit up to 20 percent less CO2 and up to 50 percent less NOx, fly four times quieter, and deliver dramatic energy savings – up to 20 percent fuel burn advantage as well as up to 15 percent improved cash operating costs versus current in-production aircraft of similar size. The CSeries aircraft will set a new benchmark in the industry, consuming as little as two liters of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers in its more dense seating layouts."

Now maybe the cost of airline tickets will drop in 2015.

Greener Seafood from Whole Foods:

Whole Foods Market is now requiring farmed seafood suppliers to track fish from hatchery to processing plant, protect sensitive habitats, monitor water quality and discontinue using a number of chemicals.

The new rules are part of updated standards released this week that farmed seafood vendors must comply with. The first set of standards for farmed salmon was enacted in June 2007, and the company released standards for shrimp and other finfish last month.

Whole Foods already prohibited antibiotics, growth hormones, preservatives such as sulfites, poultry and mammalian by-products in feed and genetically modified or cloned seafood, so this is beyond the call of organic duty. Kudos.

Green MBAs

While getting a Master's in Business and being environmentally conscious may have seemed an unlikely combination even a few years ago, business has been playing catchup to environmental issues as it noticed that you can be green and grow at the same time. So, this from GreenBiz (primary source for other two stories as well):

While the corporate world is scrambling to devise strategies to address sustainability, business schools across the country have been incorporating it into their curriculum for the past several years, both in response to student demand and in line with industry trends.

Some schools, like San Francisco's Presidio School of Management (which contributes a for GreenBiz.com), the Dominican University in San Rafael, Calif. and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute in Wash. were founded with the idea of integrating the concept of sustainability with business education, but mainstream business schools are also making this shift.

MBA students graduating from these progressive schools will receive a solid grounding in environmental issues. These futuristic programs will prepare them for the reality of tomorrow's markets by equipping them with the social, environmental and economic perspectives required for business success in a competitive and fast changing world.

How Green is San Francisco

As California goes, so goes the nation? One wishes. Already California with its surprisingly progressive Governator, is implementing many "green" policies, far beyond those of the federal Government.

And San Francisco is pushing forward on its own. As Gavin Newson, its mayor, writes in the HuffPost: "In San Francisco, we are moving aggressively to combat climate change because we believe we can be a model for other cities."

As President George Bush has steadily rolled back environmental protections -- his shocking commitment to open up our beautiful coastlines to offshore drilling is only the latest outrage -- the responsibility to protect our environment has fallen to cities, states and many dedicated individuals.

San Francisco is one of the greenest cities in the country today because we did not wait for Washington. We are taking action now to green our environment and our economy from the ground up. But we are making so much progress because we are working with so many talented people.

One of our most visionary partners in protecting the environment is Van Jones. Van is the founder and president of Green For All. He is combining solutions to America's two biggest challenges -- social inequality and environmental destruction -- by creating and promoting green collar jobs...

With the help of people like Van we are establishing a new green economy in California while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, slashing the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the environment, and promoting clean and renewable energy. We are ensuring that the neighborhoods that were locked out of the pollution-based economy are locked in to the new green economy...

We have already attained carbon emission reductions that bring city and county levels nearly to 1990 levels, and city government emissions are already below 1990 levels. San Francisco has the highest recycling rate in the nation at 70%. And we have just committed to 75% by 2010.

SF has the coolest tools showing what's green as well. This map site which "introduces you to the area's many environmental education resources by pulling them together and creating a graphic portrait of the region's green reality," is representative. And if you're interested in SF's solar installations, this site is for you (the image above is from the site.).

Wish that New York city's mayor had a similar sensibility.

Greening the Lion House

Though the article from CityLimits says that the renovated Bronx Zoo Lion House opened with much fanfare, it's probably below the radar of the vast majority of us.

From the outside, the new Lion House... Photo courtesy FXFowle

However, what's important about the renovation is that:

[a] new city law took effect last year requiring many public building projects to meet tough standards for environmentally healthier construction. Eco-activists cheered its passage for mandating energy efficiency for city-funded projects of $2 million or more – especially because many projects had avoided green upgrades because they were considered cost-prohibitive.

The outer shell of Lion House, a Beaux Arts architectural marvel, was maintained even while the interior was being renovated with animals still in place.

But the debut of a new Bronx Zoo exhibit within a renovated historical building set to be the city's first landmark to earn Gold certification through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program shows how close collaboration between architects and city, cultural and utility company officials can make even the most challenging of green upgrades work – and save money. Roughly 4 to 6 percent more was spent on the Lion House's green upgrade than would be to renovate a traditional historic building – but the building will earn it back within about seven years due to large improvements in the building's energy, water and light use

Full story here.

California to Green ahead again

The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has said that he might want to be the Secretary of the Environment under an Obama administration, which might seem a strange aspiration for a supposed Republican. But Schwarzenegger is quite eco-conscious, and California is leaping ahead in the green stakes under his stewardship. The latest (via the Guardian):

The state of California yesterday unveiled an elaborate plan to cut pollution to 1990 levels within 12 years, taking on the fight against climate change in the wake of inaction from the Bush administration.

California regulators aim to force companies into either capping carbon emissions or buying permits from cleaner competitors that allow them to exceed the limits.

The system would resemble the "cap-and-trade" pollution reduction scheme that was defeated in Congress this month.

"This is by far the most significant step yet in California's effort to fill the void that's left by the absence of a national policy," Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state air resources board, told local reporters yesterday.

The California plan, devised in response to the anti-pollution law signed in 2006 by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, exceeds any climate change measure previously offered by US states or cities.

The standard for electricity derived from renewable sources would be hiked from 20% to 33%. Appliances would become more energy-efficient and new construction more sustainable.