Category: Energy & Sustainability

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Energy & Sustainability, Innovation Tagged with , , ,

This morning, I chanced across Green Inventions: 10 Hot Eco-Innovations That Could Change The Planet on Huffington Post Green. It’s a good list, including such modern wonders as LED lighting, industrial-scale composting, and LEED green building certification. However, it’s far from complete.

At the end of the article, readers were offered a chance to add to the list. Here’s what I wrote:

There are so many wonderful innovations: Zero Waste, passive solar design, urban rooftop farming (something I’ve been advocating since about 1980), small-space vertical gardens for apartment dwellers, lower-impact adaptive technology like using a tiny wheelchair hatchback instead of a big galumphing gas-guzzling wheelchair van (the hatchback door becomes a ramp–no hydraulics needed), solar chargers, the Stretch building code…the list goes on and on.

It’s an exciting time, and I am optimistic. Yes, it would have been easier to make all the sweeping changes 30 years ago–and we already knew how. I know of a house deep in the Colorado Rockies near Aspen (think snow, cold winters) that was designed so well–in 1983–that not only doesn’t it need a furnace, it has banana trees in the sunroom. But we can still get it together and reverse the damage to the planet while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. All we need is the will.

I realize I didn’t even mention the money we save when we do these things, though I did get one of the economic arguments in (jobs).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy & Sustainability, Social and Economic Justice, Technology

Many developed countries have embraced the Precautionary Principle, which states that new processes and products have to be proven safe, and if we don’t understand their effects, we wait.

The United States, on the other hand, passed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” which not only utterly violates the Precautionary Principle, but actually removes the court system’s power of oversight over GMO (genetically modified) food safety, even when the products (developed not only by Monsanto but by other agribusiness/chemiculture companies) and  have been found to cause health risks.

This horrible law was slipped into a much larger bill and has the potential to wreak havoc in all sorts of ways—not the least of which is the threat to organic agriculture if their fields become contaminated by windblown GMO seeds (and the further threat to farmers’ livelihoods when Monsanto actually sues the farmers whose fields it contaminates, for using their seeds without permission). Organic farmers have countersued Monsanto, but by logic I don’t understand, the courts have generally sided with Monsanto, ruling over and over again that the chemical giant’s pollution and ruination of organic crops allows Monsanto to collect damages for the illegal use of its products, while denying the organic farmers compensation for trashing their crops.

And now, there’s a threat to US exports: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the entire European Union are among the countries canceling contracts and testing shipments after a Monsanto-developed GMO “zombie wheat” contaminated a wheat farm in Oregon.

Oh, and let’s not forget that many genetic modifications are designed to allow plants to tolerate larger quantities of herbicides whose safety is widely questioned—including Monsanto’s own Roundup.  Yes, in a triple-whammy, Monsanto sells “Roundup-ready” GMO seeds, and then sells the Roundup to spray on those plants, which causes weeds to develop resistance, so farmers respond by spraying even more Roundup. Eeeeew!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Business, People Helping People, Technology Tagged with , , , , , ,

Since about 1980, I’ve felt that we could solve a lot of our urban problems by seeing flat city roofs (and for that matter, roofs in suburban shopping centers, etc.) as resources: places where we can harvest energy with solar collectors—but also harvest food.

But when I started talking about my brainstorm, people told me that the roofs were not designed to bear the weight of a dense garden, and the amount of reinforcement they needed would make the whole idea unworkable. I never quite believed this. It seemed to me that if you were to put one or two 200 square-foot gardens onto a 2000 square foot roof, the weight load could be distributed across the entire rooftop without much difficulty. But I’m not an engineer.

Still, I wasn’t surprised to see the “green roof” movement emerge over the past ten years or so—but I was disappointed at how few green roofs seem to grow edible crops.

I do think community food self-sufficiency—particularly in urban areas–is a big part of the answer to “how do we reclaim our economy—and our bodies?” and a great antidote to the very dangerous practices of “chemiculture” [a word I personally coined, BTW], GMO seed strains, and the attempt by Monsanto and similar companies to exercise a terrifying degree of control over (and damage to) our food supply.  So I was delighted when I found these folks in the Bronx, using 6000 square feet of the 10,000-square-foot roof of a city-owned apartment building, to commercially grow hydroponic greens. With hydroponics, there is no soil, and therefore the issue of weight and roof support is moot. In this short video, Farm Manager Kate Ahearn gives us some background about the project. (I did make one error. I referred to a supermarket rooftop farm in Lynn, Mass. It’s actually in LynnFIELD.)

This model, with hydroponic gardens and protection from the elements, offers a 12-month growing season and numerous harvests. Yes, it’s more expensive to set up than a basic soil-based garden, but the payback is much greater. And as a green marketing guy, I see profitable, sustainable, earth-friendly businesses like this as a big step forward not only in economic development but in human rights and the rights of other living things.

Note: there will be more on this story. My old buddy Ted Cartselos did another shoot, with a better camera, on Friday. (Thanks, Ted, for working with me on this.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Greenwashing, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

I’ve been debating with a couple of nuclear apologists on Twitter this week, following my public celebration of the permanent closing of San Onofre’s twin nukes.

My German correspondent Rainer Klute sent me to a very interesting article in Forbes, “How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?”

The article made quite a number of valid points, including the very high death toll from unregulated coal in China—something that could be slashed quite easily just by adopting US pollution standards.

But when I got here, I had to wonder what the author had been smoking:

The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear have all been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects. The reason the nuclear number is small is that it produces so much electricity per unit.  There just are not many nuclear plants. And the two failures have been in GenII plants with old designs.  All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely.

Two failures in the US nuclear sector? Off the top of my head, I can think of three major nuclear failures that could have put wide swaths of the population at risk, had there been breaches of the sort at Chernobyl and Fukushima: Enrico Fermi in Michigan, 1966; Browns Ferry, Alabama, 1975; and of course, Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, 1979. And I knew there were plenty more, so I did some searching. A list of nuclear accidents at https://pec.putney.net/issue_detail.php?ID=18 lists at least 59 incidents in the US. 59 times that could have led to calamity!

While Gen III designs, with several new layers of redundancy, are clearly superior to the Gen II, they are untried, and some scientists have serious concerns about their safety:

Other engineers, although not outright saying that they are not safer, are more conservative and have some specific concerns. Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has challenged specific cost-saving design choices made for two generation III reactors, both the AP1000 and ESBWR. Lyman, John Ma (a senior structural engineer at the NRC), and Arnold Gundersen (an anti-nuclear consultant) are concerned about what they perceive as weaknesses in the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000. They say that the AP1000 containment vessel does not have sufficient safety margins in the event of a direct airplane strike.[3][4]

And let’s not forget that the Generation II plants were themselves a reaction to (and supposed improvement over) safety flaws in the old Generation I series.

Also, for all the talk about withstanding the worst-case disaster, let’s not forget that humans have often drastically underestimated the power to create havoc. Nobody thought that a tsunami would breach the seawalls at Fukushima. No one thought New Orleans would be flooded not by Hurricane Katrina flooding the Mississippi, but by the storm’s breech of the levee holding back the waters of Lake Ponchartrain.

Oddly enough, my discussion with Mr. Klute had mostly been on the question of the carbon impact of nuclear, and my contention that all the many steps in the fuel cycle, starting with mining, have a significant carbon footprint. But the Forbes piece didn’t address the issue, and that conversation will have to wait for another day.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government Tagged with , , , , ,

Outrageous! Under normal circumstances, the legal limit for radioactive iodine 131 in water is 3 picocuries per liter.

But in case of a nuclear accident, that standard goes out the window (or perhaps I should say, out the cooling tower), with the recent adoption by the Environmental Protection Agency of a Bush-era backdoor plan for nuclear accident response. A Forbes article about this travesty, “EPA Draft Stirs Fears of Radically Relaxed Radiation Guidelines,” sounds the alarm:

The new EPA guide refers to International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines that suggest intervention is not necessary until drinking water is contaminated with radioactive iodine 131 at a concentration of 81,000 picocuries per liter. This is 27,000 times less stringent than the EPA rule of 3 picocuries per liter.

This is one of many alarming standards relaxations in the new regs. Another, allowing for 2,000 millirems of radiation exposure over time, is expected to increase the number of cancer deaths  from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 23.
Though it’s only a draft, it has been adopted as interim policy. And there’s enough concern that Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility issued a press release harshly critical of the new regulations.
My thanks to local journalist Stephanie Kraft, whose article in the Valley Advocate alerted me to this.
This is an absolute outrage!
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Kansas State Representative Dennis Hedke is definitely in the running for Idiot Politician of the Year. This clown has introduced HR 2366, a bill that

would prevent public funds from being used “either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development.” The prohibition would extend to “any activity by any state governmental entity or municipality.”

The bill defines sustainable development thusly:

“sustainable development” means a mode of human development
in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but
also for generations to come, but not to include the idea, principle or
practice of conservation or conservationism.

In other words sustainable development—development that has the audacity to meet human needs now and into the future—would become ineligible for any government funding in Kansas. Forget about a school building designed to last 90 years, or even 25. Forget about economic incentive programs that use the green economy to create jobs in impoverished. How could sustainable development make an enemy?

Especially since the business case for sustainable development is so strong. All the research I’ve seen shows that sustainability pays huge dividends to companies, governments, and consumers.

If this ridiculous bill were to become law, presumably government money could only be used to build buildings or bridges that disintegrate in less than one human generation…that have zero energy efficiency features…that will lock their owners into a downward spiral of spending more and more money to feed an avoidable fossil-fuel “jones.” And how you can separate conservation from sustainability or sustainable development is beyond me.

One could even read the definition as preventing any contracts with companies like GE, Ford, General Motors, Walmart, even oil companies that have also invested in solar wind, or hydro.

But wait—it gets worse! There’s a nice little bit of reactionary censorship and thought-control in the legislation—just the sort of thing that right-wingers who claim to love freedom should oppose:

This prohibition on the use of public funds shall apply to: (1) Any activity
by any state governmental entity or municipality;
(2) the payment of membership dues to any association;
(3) employing or contracting for the service of any person or entity;
(4) the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet,
publication, electronic communication, radio, television or video
presentation;
(5) any materials prepared or presented as part of a class, course,
curriculum or instructional material;
(6) any current, proposed or pending law, rule, regulation, code,
administrative action or order issued by any federal or international
agency; and
(7) any federal or private grant, program or initiative.

And yet this guy claims to be such a defender of liberty that the bill contains this explicit agenda:

to support, promote, advocate for, plan for, enforce, use, teach,
participate in or implement the ideas, principles or practices of planning,
conservation, conservationism, fiscal responsibility, free market
capitalism, limited government, federalism, national and state sovereignty,
individual freedom and liberty, individual responsibility or the protection
of personal property rights…

What kind of nutcase would write and submit such a law? How about one who happens to have a day job as a geophysicist whose clients include some 30 oil and gas companies (according to this article in TriplePundit). And one who has also introduced legislation to have school teachers argue against the evidence of climate change. Liberty, apparently, does not extend to those with whom Rep. Hedke disagrees.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , ,

Before Fukushima, Japan was second only to France in the percentage of electricity it generated from nuclear (some 30 percent). With 54 reactors, only the US and France had more (China only has 15, with 30 more under construction).

When all those plants were shut down following the 2011 accident (and only two restarted since), a lot of experts predicted that Japan would have an energy crisis. However, the whole country went on a deep conservation spree, and the results are terrific.

Now, Japan’s utilities are predicting a surplus of electricity even during the summer crunch. Yippee!

And this means the whole world really can learn to live more lightly with the same standard of living, replacing environmentally disastrous coal and fossil-fuel plants with conservation and renewables.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , ,

I’d originally thought I’d be working these notes into an article. But two weeks after the event, I have to face the reality that I have more pressing priorities. So let me share the raw, unedited notes from the Green America/Global Exchange Green Festival of
April 2013 as a quick snapshot of the green consumer universe:

 

Hot product categories: Fair-trade handicrafts from recycled/reused materials (necklaces from magazines and newspapers, flip-flops from tires—Mushana.com; purses from tires—Aria; rainbarrels that used to be olive barrels (Hudson River Rainbarrels)…

By far the most ethnically and racially diverse green event I’ve ever been to: lots of blacks and Latinos especially, both exhibiting/performing and attending

Less in the building trades than in previous large urban green fairs I’ve been to—I did see a solar tube skylight and a very few solar panel vendors, much more in home, fashion, food. Food aisle is mobbed, especially Sunday. Lots of free samples: hemp seeds, chocolate (Theo and Equal Exchange), nutrition bars (Clif Bar, Raw Revolution, crunchy snacks including not just kale chips but arugula and cabbage. Lots of attention to gluten-free, GMO-free, organic. Much on reusable/compostable alternatives to throwaways: Kleen Kanteen (reusable water bottles), Susty Party (compostable plates, straws, napkins, etc.). One vendor had rewashable glass straws. Great concept but I’d worry about breakage, especially with kids.

Gardening products included a few different vertical small-space garden kits, a manufacturer of polypropylene breathable flowerpots and compost bags, business cards with embedded herb seeds.

Several local green retailers, relatively few environmental organizations.

Very few books other than speaker books.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Green Business Tagged with , , ,

If ever there was a profit-driven, bottom-line-focused corporation, it’s
Walmart—not exactly a “tree hugger” company. Yet, Walmart’s bottom-line-driven approach to sustainability creates hundreds of millions in new product revenues.

First, there is Walmart’s pressure on its suppliers to green up its act. Walmart puts all of its suppliers through a rigorous evaluation process that examines both manufacturing and packaging practices,

Second, Walmart has looked at its energy footprint, and taken big steps to use less energy—saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Looking at everything from the way its truck cabs are climate-controlled to store design to optimizing delivery routes, Walmart has discovered that green business practices can also save boatloads of money.

Third, Walmart sells enormous quantities of organic food to people who never shop at Whole Foods.

Walmart’s quest for green-friendly practices ripples throughout its massive supply chain with global impact.

The net effect is far more than I or any other green activist can hope to achieve.

Watch a video of Shel Horowitz discussing Walmart’s sustainability strategies, interviewed on Earth Day on the Bill Newman Show, WHMP, Northampton, MA:

 Shel Horowitz on Bill Newman Show, Earth Day 2013

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , ,

Good article in the Guardian saying that activists could get more traction on climate change issues if we approach it from a public health perspective.

And that’s certainly true—but it’s nowhere near the whole story.

We can gain converts to the clause of reversing catastrophic climate change on several grounds:

  • Economic
  • Health
  • Environmental preservation

And probably others. In all of it, we need to focus on the direct benefits to the people we’re talking about, who may not be committed greens. To put it another way, we need to reach each person with the arguments that resonate with that specific person

I can think of many talking points on each of these three broad topics, and I’ll be writing about them in my June Green And Profitable column. And I’d welcome your ideas on how to expand this discussion—you may even make it into my article (and if you do, I’ll credit you publicly). Please comment below.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail