The above video is an example of effective viral marketing, in which a short, well-made video spreads on a variety of social media platforms. I’ve seen this on Facebook and Twitter repeatedly in the past two days. With clever graphics and succinct narration, its ideas are easy to digest (to paraphrase: “people have been predicting that overpopulation would lead to humanity’s demise since that nutjob Malthus in 1798. Conspiracies about a Malthusian Catastrophe have found new crazy sponsors in every generation, and they always prove wrong…ergo, it’s gotta be hogwash!”). But who is behind the video? Do these ideas gel with scientific consensus? Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Does any of this matter? Did I lose you at “Malthusian?”

Who is behind the video?

The video comes from the Population Research Institute, a VA-based non-profit organization that, according to its site, is dedicated to “presenting the truth about population-related issues.” PRI argues against the notion that human overpopulation is occurring. It’s useful to contextualize the argument presented in the video, but a few layers of the onion need to be peeled back to reveal the specific agenda- PRI is a “pro-life” organization, largely funded by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., which some liberal watchdog groups refer to as one of the country’s “largest and most influential right-wing foundations.” It’s a dangerous game- mixing a political and moral debate (the sanctity of life vs. woman’s right to choose) to construct a scientific argument (”don’t believe what you hear that overpopulation is biggest threat to the environment”).

What does scientists say?

Do these ideas about population growth gel with scientific consensus? A report by the United Nations suggests that world population will reach 11 billion by 2050. The U.S.’s population is expected to rise from 305 million (2008) to around 440 million by 2050, which will make fielding a kick-ass Olympic team easier, but we may have to start paving our open spaces (first dibs on Yellowstone). Global life expectancy, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Scientific estimates put the carrying capacity of the Earth- that is, the level at which we can achieve a sustainable economy and divert disasters- at around two billion people.

In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. The World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet” report suggested we’re consuming three times more of the Earth’s resources than we’re able to regenerate. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year research effort by 1,360 of the world’s leading scientists commissioned to measure the actual value of natural resources to humans and the world, “The structure of the world’s ecosystems changed more rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century than at any time in recorded human history, and virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have now been significantly transformed through human actions.”

I could continue, but I think it’s fair to say that a scientific consensus exists- that, though technological optimists might be right that we can continue to develop new ways of increasing food production to sustain a larger population, the Earth’s resources are being stretched perilously thin.

Social Media as new battleground?

Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Definitely. It’s the most effective way to broadcast your views, and, studies have shown, people trust Facebook and Twitter as a source of real and relevant information. The video is a smokescreen for the debate between Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers. That debate, of course, is fraught with landmines - you either believe life begins at conception or you don’t- which make the two sides irreconcilable. That’s why introducing such a moral component to a Pro Life audience about Population/Climate Change efforts is fiendishly brilliant- and unhelpful.

Does any of this matter? Arguing against the ‘myth of overpopulation’ is like arguing against next Tuesday arriving after next Monday. It’s going to happen- many would argue it has happened- and so those of us interested in green innovation should be hard at work. You know, just in case thousands of the world’s leading scientists end up being right.

St Patty’s Day is still eight months away, but we’re all drinking green beer. Well, that’s the way it seems, as more and more beer companies broaden their sustainability initiatives. In the past year, we’ve done a number of posts on the trend (including MolsonCoors being named #1 most socially responsible brewer, MillerCoors providing beer-made ethanol to power vehicles at the DNC,  an Anheuser-Busch brewery getting 55% of its power from landfill biogas, and more). The trend du jour in beer packaging…the mini fridge keg. MillerCoors, for example, has begun testing the sale of $20 “Home Draft” system. They don’t seem to be marketing this as part of their green strategy- appropriately- but are their some distinct environmental benefits?

The 1.5-gallon recyclable “Home Draft” (Miller Lite and Coors Light) is being tested in places like Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego. Much like Heineken’s 5 liter (1.3-gallon) DraughtKeg, which enjoyed an enthusiastic welcome but has since been scaled back to holidays and special occasions, the Home Draft fits in the fridge, keeps beer fresh for about 30 days and sells for about 15% more than the 18-pack equivalent.

Is it intentionally eco-friendly? No. But it effectively reduces packaging waste by encouraging multiple uses before being recycled. It just might save C02 emissions from the car trips you would have otherwise made to the local bar (not to mention the risk of a dumb and wobbly drive home).

Regardless, it’s an interesting trend to watch, as other brewers roll out their own premium fridge keg. Earlier this summer, Heineken launched it’s Newcastle Brown Ale in draughtkeg form.

In case you missed it, here’s a weird and compelling spot about the DraughtKeg from Heineken.

Kenya will soon have Africa’s largest wind farm, an ambitious project with 365 giant wind turbines, on more than 160,000 acres of desert around Lake Turkana, at a cost of an estimated $880 million. The Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP) project, backed by a Dutch consortium, will have a capacity of 300 MW, which represents 25% of Kenya’s current installed power.

By comparison, though the U.S. harnesses roughly 28,000 MW through wind power, that represents less than 1.5% of the country’s installed power. The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center (735 MW) in Texas is the world’s largest wind farm.

In developing countries, the long-term potential of renewable energies has massive economic, political and social implications. In a continent such as Africa, rife with conflict, poverty and drought, cultivating sun, wind, hyrdo and geo-thermal technologies could be one key step in achieving some stability- and in tackling the issue of climate change.

As Xan Rice explains in a recent piece in The Guardian, fewer than one-in-five Kenyans has access to electricity, but demand is rising quickly. Kenya’s electricity is already green by global standards- nearly 75% of the state power company’s installed capacity comes from hydropower and a further 11% from geo-thermal plants- but drought and erratic weather patterns threaten the reliability of hydropower. Kenya hopes to add 500 MW of geo-thermal and 800 MW of wind energy to the grid within the next five years.

Lake Turkana

Kenya is one of a handful of  African nations with wind energy ambitions. Morocco, Ethiopia and Tanzania are all exploring the potential of wind power. South Africa is another country looking to harness wind. Rice writes, “in March, South Africa, whose heavy reliance on coal makes its electricity the second most greenhouse-gas intensive in the world, became the first African country to announce a feed-in tariff for wind power, whereby customers generating electricity receive a cash payment for selling that power to the grid.”

The paradox is that developing countries are often the places that could benefit most from clean, sustainable (green & cheap) energy technology, but the initial cost barrier remains an issue. As Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the UN’s Environment Programme, points out, “Kenya’s natural fuel should come from the wind, hot underground rock and the sun, whose potential has barely even been considered,” said Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme. “After the initial capital costs this energy is free.”

[sources: Lake Turkana Wind Power project, The Guardian]

Philip Stankard's solar ac unit

Love the environment? Check. Hate heat stroke? Check. Industrial designer Philip Stankard has invented the green gadget for you: the solar-powered air conditioner, dubbed Frost. The solar panels “gathers electricity during peak sunlight hours and stores the energy for later use in order to spin the fans for a fresh breeze.” Stankard’s nifty concept includes a removable freezer pack, which inserts into the window unit and chills the air circulated by the fans.

Pretty simple, but, if Stankard is able to develop this and market it, I can see sales really heating up. We like this gadget’s potential to lower utility bills and your dependence on traditional electrical outlets and to help you be the hippest coolest person in your apartment building.

[source: EcoFriend]

“Shrink and Save” $2500 from Brighter Planet on Vimeo.

Here’s a clever video from our friends at Brighter Planet, connecting the dots between your footprint (with all the excesses we rarely stop to consider) and your hard earned money! BP asks, “What if every time you switched from hot water to cold you could hear bills being stuffed into your wallet? Talk about a good reminder to do your part for the planet.”

To make their case, the good folks at BP have done the math for you to show how significant the impact of simple green tweaks can be for your budget. “With a minimum of effort, the typical American can SHRINK their carbon footprint by a third and simultaneously SAVE $2500 over the course of a year.”

For more on Brighter Planet, check out our video on them: Carbon Offsets 101

Ever wondered where 747s go when they’re retired from the fleet? Canibalized for parts? Left to languish in a desert scrapyard? Well, in the case of one plane, the answer is Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport, as a hostel. It’s not your average hostel- the ones I’ve slept in looked nothing like this. Jumbo Hostel is an innovative reuse of a decommissioned jumbo jet, parked near other airport hotels. Entrepreneur Oscar Dios and his team have stripped the plane of its 450 seats and added 25 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms and some lounge areas. The hostel even boasts a honeymoon suite- in the cockpit, naturally.

Heading to Stockholm? A room in Jumbo Hostel could be yours for around $160 a night. Not going to Sweden anytime soon? No worries, Dios and his team want to build a fleet of jumbo jet hostels all over the world.

Anyone stayed there? Send us photos and a review!

Bogotá's B.R.T. has reduced fuel use- and associated emissions- by 59%

“If Bogotá can do it, why can’t we?” This question should be on the lips of civic leaders everywhere, in response to the success of Bogotá’s low-emission public transportation system. In a recent article in the NY Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal describes how the city’s bus rapid transit (or B.R.T.) system is changing the way people view the challenges of lowering emissions in urban areas.

As Rosenthal explains, “emissions from cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles in the booming cities of Asia, Africa and Latin America account for a rapidly growing component of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. While emissions from industry are decreasing, those related to transportation are expected to rise more than 50 percent by 2030 in industrialized and poorer nations.” B.R.T. systems like Bogotá’s, called TransMilenio, Rosenthal writes, “may hold a key to combating climate change.”

The B.R.T. felt more like a modern subway than your grandfather's bus

Buses are often viewed as the ugly step child of the sexier subway system, but the B.R.T. demonstrated significant results at a fraction of the cost and time necessary for building a subway.  In fact, TransMilenio’s planners sought to challenge the negative stereotypes of city buses by creating a system that felt more like a modern subway than your grandfather’s bus. Rosenthal writes, “the city commandeered two to four traffic lanes in the middle of major boulevards, isolating them with low walls to create the system’s so-called tracks…[and] built dozens of distinctive metal-and-glass stations. Just as in a subway,..hundreds of passengers can wait on the platforms, avoiding the delays that occur when passengers each pay as they board.”

Jakarta's own version of B.R.T.

The data has been compelling. The city has removed 7,000 small buses from its roads, “reducing the use of bus fuel — and associated emissions — by more than 59 percent since it opened its first line in 2001.” Developing cities around the world are following Bogotá’s example, including Mexico City (which has already received substantial grants from U.S. E.P.A. to reduce its bus emissions), Cape Town and Jakarta (pictured left).

“If Bogotá can do it, why can’t we?” Perhaps this large, poor and crowded city’s success can be a model of efficiency. Subways cost more than 30 times as much per mile to build than a B.R.T. system- between $8 – 16 million per mile- and 3 times as much to maintain. And bus rapid transit systems can be built more quickly.  Rosenthal quotes Walter Hook of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, in New York: “almost all rapidly developing cities understand that they need a metro or something like it, and you can get a B.R.T. by 2010 or a metro by 2060.”

[source: NY Times]

Check out these related posts from LTT:

50 cars vs 1 bus: An advertising campaign in Sweden demonstrating the difference in emissions between a car and a bus. The math is very straightforward- a car averages 1.2 passengers, while a bus can carry 50. Meanwhile, a bus produces the equivalent emissions of about 4 cars.

Daniel Sperling’s take on ‘Two Billion Cars”: In the book, authors Sperling and Deborah Gordon describe a future, 15 years from now, when the world will have close to 2 billion cars. Given that greenhouse gases are already creating havoc with our climate with an estimated 1 billion cars, the set up for very troubling consequences is obvious.

Audi is making the case- and the above ad is pretty compelling- for ‘clean diesel.’ The company has launched a social media campaign called ‘Truth in Diesel’ that seeks to cast the car buying decision as an opportunity to get behind a good cause. With the viral video and a Facebook Cause, Audi hopes to show that diesel is “no longer a dirty word,” suggesting that if a third of US drivers switched to cars with TDI technology, we’d shed our dependence on the 1.5 million barrels of foreign oil the country uses per day.

As part of its online campaign, Audi has partnered with The Nature Conservancy. Every time someone supports its Facebook Cause, Audi donates $1 to The Nature Conservancy’s voluntary carbon offset program, the Tensas River Basin project. The move is meant to highlight Audi’s “belief in real solutions to CO2 emissions” and its claims that its TDI clean diesel engine reduces carbon emissions by 20% over gasoline and is 30% more fuel-efficient.

In building a case for diesel, Audi is casting a wide net in appealing to the concientious driver that also cares about performance. From it’s site:, some ‘quotes’ from the type of person that should consider its new diesel-run cars: “I always thought diesels were slow and sluggish.”  “I think the US needs to work towards being more energy independent.” “Minimizing my impact is important to me.”

For those people, Audi provides the following info to bolster its case:

• A U.S. EPA analysis found that if one-third of Americans fueled their cars, pick-ups and SUVs with clean diesel instead of gasoline, the United States could send back 1.5 million barrels of foreign oil per day.

• One drop of diesel fuel has 12% more power than one drop of gasoline.

• TDI clean diesel engines reduce carbon emissions by 20% over gasoline engines.

• If one-third of Americans switched from gasoline to clean diesel, it would be the equivalent of planting 2.2 billion trees.

It’ll be interesting to see how successful the campaign is and whether TDI technology will catch on. Could it replace hybrid technology as the more realistic option of the next decade?

I admit, I was late to join the iPhone party. Now that I have, I’m obsessed. Apps, apps, apps. Soon, I’ll take out a loan to fund my “oh, I should try that app too” addiction. The iPhone has opened up a multitude of procrastinating tools that I didn’t know existed, from Bloom to Slugger 3-D. It’s also made me more invested in the types of things AT&T is doing to go green.

So, what is it doing? Well, it’s making a play to be a leader in green grid technology, by developing a multimedia access gateway product in its laboratories. The idea is that the MAG would become a services hub in the home, able to support remote energy management and maintenance. As  a leading internet service provider, AT&T would seem to have a natural competitive advantage over other players. We’ll watch this closely.

What else? How about a small move that will go a long way?! The telecom giant has announced plans to switch the lighting on signs in 6,500 of its stores to an LED lighting system from General Electric, a move that will save nearly 6 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year.

The company is unveiling a redesign of the AT&T logo, so the signage needed to change anyway. By choosing the more energy efficient bulbs, the signs will be about 80% more efficient than the neon predecessors. In addition to energy savings, the company expects to eliminate 3,500 metric tons of C02 annually.

For Shawn McKenzie, senior vice president of Corporate Real Estate at AT&T Services, it was a “sustainable business decision, both environmentally and financially. We researched our options, analyzed the data and ultimately chose the GE system for its reliability, energy efficiency, environmental benefits and long-term value proposition. It also helped that GE is built to handle such large-scale efforts.”

As the GreenBiz staff points out, the city of Los Angeles made a similar move when it switched out 140,000 streetlights with LEDs earlier this year. The city expects to save $48 million a year in electricity costs.

Which major brands/cities will be next?

You’ve convinced your boss of the business value of going green. You argued that greater efficiency would translate to lower costs and bigger profit. You pointed to the efforts of your competitors- “every serious company is addressing this, so should we.” You talked about the positive impact these initiatives would have on your brand’s reputation. Your boss is on board. Now what?

In her piece for GreenBiz.com, Deborah Fleischer provides “in-the-trenches advice for new sustainability directors at companies just getting started on implementing a sustainability strategy.” We think it’s great advice, so we’ve included some excerpts below [along with our comments from the peanut gallery]. For the full article, click here.

1. Look at the big picture and identify your company’s greatest impacts. Review your key business operations to understand the key environmental issues for your business and the opportunities and risks presented by these issues.

[increasingly, whoever you do business with (clients, consumers, partners...) will expect you to know what your overall impact is.]

2. Land some quick wins — go for cost savings. To start, prioritize and focus on capturing the low-hanging fruit. Look for opportunities that will deliver results quickly, such as increasing efficiency and reducing waste. Scan your business and look for logical opportunities to save money and develop measurable metrics to track results.

[if you can demonstrate that going green actually saves money, you'll be a rockstar]

3. Be authentic. If you are going to use sustainability as a product differentiator, be sure you have done all you can to be authentically green. This does not mean you have to be perfect. Consumers want honesty and transparency, not perfection. But with today’s social media tools, it only takes a moment on Twitter for someone to accuse you of greenwashing.

[this is the crown jewel in Fleischer's list of tips]

4. Develop internal partners. For directors getting started, begin to network throughout the company and create relationships with directors who oversee key functions, including product design, procurement, sales, supply chain, governmental affairs, social investment, analyst relations and employee engagement.

[diplomacy is key. no one enjoys being embarrassed for being 'wasteful.' you're team building here, not exposing weak links]

5. Engage your stakeholders. Include your supply chain, customers, investors and employees in your outreach so you can understand what leadership looks like or what risks may be coming. What issues do they care about? What is important to them? How are they tackling their end of the equation? Answers to these questions can help inform your strategy and programs.

[you can still craft a genuine green strategy even when 'playing to your audience']

6. Engage employees. If you are short on resources to implement new programs, look to your employees. Bonnie Nixon, Director of Environmental Sustainability at Hewlett Packard, explained that the company engages employees on multiple levels, ranging from providing them energy kits to reduce their personal carbon footprint at home to offering incentives for biking to work to encouraging them to innovate more and find ways to imbed sustainability into product design, the supply chain and the sales process.

[seeing their company take a stand on this issue will also boost pride]

7. Develop a communications strategy. A key component to a sustainability program is communicating both internally and externally about your efforts and results. Develop a strategy that details how you are going to communicate your efforts — both your successes and future areas for improvement.

[identity drives success, so being able to articulate your sustainability message is key]

8. Develop a long-term strategy. Going green does not happen overnight. Hunter Lovins, the president and founder of Natural Capitalism Solutions warns, “avoid the temptation to be green all at once. This is a years long process, like continuous improvement.”

[setting achievable goals along the way will make that sustainability project...well, sustainable]

Deborah Fleischer is the founder and president of Green Impact, providing strategic environmental consulting services to mid-sized companies and NGOs who want to launch a new green initiative or cross-sector collaboration, but lack the in-house capacity to get it up and running. She brings expertise in sustainability strategy, program development, stakeholder engagement and written communications.

[source: GreenBiz]

At last week’s ‘gameplan’ summit on sustainability in Burlington, VT, some of the leading voices in the environmental community took time to acknowledge Wal-Mart as a real agent of positive change. For all the ways in which the mega-uber-store is portrayed as a villain- and anyone who’s seen the documentary ‘The High Cost of Low Price‘ knows it’s often justified- Wal-Mart has, quite surprisingly, become one of the most forward-thinking businesses when it comes to green initiatives. Now comes word that Wal-Mart will force its suppliers to provide detailed information about the environmental impact of each product it sells.

As Jay Yarow writes for Business Insider, “the program will force suppliers to look at greenhouse gases emitted at each step along the way of producing a product. Wal-Mart will be sending out questionaires to its suppliers next month, to assess the difficulty of the program. Then, in the next two to three years, labels about the “sustainability” of products will appear on Wal-Mart goods.”

Skeptics are quick to point out that Wal-Mart is making a business decision (tightening up the efficiency of the supply chain) rather than a moral one. But to care about the ‘why’ misses the point- we welcome a company of Wal-Mart’s size, with its scope of influence, demonstrating “how measuring sustainability can drive innovation in the supply chain and in products consumers purchase.”

Going green is going green, and, you just might be surprised to learn, Wal-Mart is doing a pretty good job.

Bill Becker and the folks at the Climate Action Project have gathered in one place some powerful web-based visualization tools aimed at teaching/encouraging/explaining sustainable living. The above video is about ULTra (Urban Light Transit), an electric, battery-powered, 100-mpg-equivalent, elevated PRT (personal rapid transit) system under development at London’s Heathrow’s new Terminal 5. Working as circulator transit for office parks, airports, universities, and other major activity centers, ULTra is faster than a car. In these applications, ULTra makes carpooling and transit more effective, by solving the “last mile problem.”

David Holdcroft, BAA ULTra Heathrow Terminal 5 Project Manager: “This innovative system forms part of BAA’s plan to transform Heathrow, improve the passenger experience and reduce the environmental impact of our operation through the development of cutting edge, green transport solutions. It offers a completely new form of public transport - one that will deliver a fast, efficient service to passengers and bring considerable environmental benefits, saving more than half of the fuel used by existing forms of public or private transport.”

It’s time for another “we choose the moon” speech. Instead of the moon, we need to set our sights on our own planet. It’s time to take a page from JFK’s play book and set the country on the path towards world changing innovation. The U.S. has the resources to lead the green charge, it just lacks the political will.

On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy announced before a joint session of Congress an extraordinary and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. Like the Manhattan Project before it, the race to the moon mobilized an entire generation of the best and brightest minds towards a single and common purpose. Bi-partisan support in Congress and strong leadership in the White House focused the nation’s determination to achieve what many felt was impossible. In July of 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the lunar module and onto the Moon’s surface, capping a remarkable period of innovation and commitment to progress.

This week, we (the U.S., mankind, sci fi geeks) celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Apollo 11’s mission. Time, now, to imagine an ‘Energy Race,’ like the ‘Space Race’ of the 1960s, spurred on by national pride and global concern. Kennedy’s speech to Congress in May of ‘61, like his “we choose the moon” speech at Rice University in September of ‘62, remains a stirring reminder of the power of that office to inspire- especially for 21st century listeners; we know the challenges, the odds and, ultimately, the triumphs. Obama has the opportunity to lay down the gauntlet, to set us boldly on a course of pursuing something remarkable, something that would still inspire awe forty years from now.

“We choose to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels within a decade. We choose to ensure that all new homes built in this country produce as much energy as they consume. We choose to create the infrastructure for smart grids, a network of green bullet trains, highways with battery swap stations…,” he could say. And, as he did in Cairo, he could say it in a way that could inspire hope in the dignity of American ideals.

When Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the moon, the whole world was watching and cheering. It was mankind’s triumph. But Kennedy was motivated by Cold War ambitions and was aided by two important factors, that rivalry with the Soviets and, perhaps more importantly, a clear goal.

The Cold War

A month before his speech to Congress in May of ‘61, Kennedy wrote a memo to Vice President Johnson, putting him in charge of assessing the state of our space program. Kennedy asked, “do we have a chance of beating the Soviets by putting a laboratory in space, or by a trip around the moon, or by a rocket to land on the moon, or by a rocket to go to the moon and back with a man?” Later that month, Johnson responded, “the Soviets are ahead of the United States in world prestige…[but] the U.S. has greater resources than the USSR for attaining space leadership but has failed to make the necessary hard decisions and to marshal those resources to achieve such leadership.”

We could say the same about our efforts to confront climate change- others are ahead of the U.S. in world prestige, and, though the U.S. has greater resources, we have failed to make difficult decisions and to marshal those resources effectively.

Johnson argues in his note to Kennedy that the world will align itself with whichever nation it sees as being the “world leader” and that “dramatic accomplishments in space are increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.” In conclusion, Johnson writes, “the American public should be given the facts as to how we stand in the space race, told of our determination to lead in that race, and advised of the importance of such leadership to our future.”

For Kennedy, the race to the moon had strategic military and political value- our way of life was in jeopardy.  Few questioned whether it was in our best interests to remain ahead of the Soviets in space exploration. For Obama, the narrative is more nuanced (a scientific consensus exists, but the political debate remains complex). But it’s still very much a story about the risks to our way of life, and Obama, as good as he is at delivering poignant speeches, could make that case convincingly.

A clear goal

Kennedy also had a very clear goal- get to the moon and back: a narrative with a beginning, middle and end, a mission with a concise rallying cry. The goals for Obama are more abstract and don’t come with a singular moment of triumph, like a man walking on the moon. The leading voices in the green movement- some of whom I saw speak last week at UVM’s “gameplan” summit- need to provide Obama with dramatic, appreciable goals that would have the power to inspire and provide a rallying cry. While we welcome green innovation from other parts of the world, the U.S. remains uniquely positioned to influence world economies- if we went green, the world would follow. And, let’s remind the Senator Inhofes and Rush Limbaughs of the world, if we don’t lead the way, we’ll be buying that technology from somewhere else.

Kennedy said of the ‘Space Race,’ “it will not be one man going to the moon…it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last.” Forty years on, the fact that we once mobilized the brightest minds to solve the most ridiculously complex of challenges should inspire us to do the same in our time. Any failure to make this effort will make us all last.

Read the full interview here:

Every stream I fish now is not as good as it used to be. If you keep your eyes open as you travel around, you realize we are destroying this planet. I’m very pessimistic about it. I’ve created this business that I don’t really need.

The Pentagon says new wars are going to be resource wars. We’re a long way from having a sustain-able society.

You have to get away from the idea that it’s philanthropy. I look at it as a cost of doing business. Every business should say, We’re polluters, we’re using our nonrenewable resources, and therefore we should tax ourselves.

We’re working very closely with it on establishing criteria for sustainable clothing. Wal-Mart is dead serious about this. It asked me what’s the single most important thing that it could do, and I said, “Take responsibility for your product from birth till birth.” It’s trying to do organic-cotton clothing, and there’s not enough organic cotton in the world to ever supply Wal-Mart. There never will be. So it’s going to have to get into making, say, work clothes out of 100% recyclable polyester and then when customers are done with it, recycling it back into its original polymer, and making more work clothes. We have to stop the idea of consuming-discarding.

What is it with electric motorcycle inventors and their zany accents? The above video is from the BBC, about a Berlin inventor who has developed an electric bike which you power by pedalling that can reach speeds of 50 mph.

Stefan Gulas- gotta love his enthusiasm- has come up with a system that amplifies the effort you put in by a factor of 50, meaning you can accelerate quickly and maintain high speeds with very little effort. In the video, Steve Rosenberg reports on the ‘E-Rockit,’ which could be yours for a cool $40k!

[via BBC]

Is U2 rocking the planet too hard? Bono may be out there saving the world, but his band’s new world tour is drawing criticism for its massive carbon footprint. As Sean Michaels writes in his piece for The Guardian, “the band’s 44 concert dates this year have the equivalent carbon footprint of a return flight to Mars. And U2 have the same number of shows planned for 2010.”

U2 is probably the coolest band in the world- what other bands have made relevant, chart-topping albums for 30+ years? And their live show is legendary, alongside Springsteen (for energy) and the Stones (for spectacle). And, we acknowledge, it’s hard to avoid a rock n’ roll sized footprint when you’re out touring the world, but one this big?

If the band used sea, rather than air, to transport their three 390 ton stages to North America, they’d be cutting their emissions by about 75%. But even then, according to the Belfast Telegraph, they’d still be producing three times the emissions than Madonna’s 2006 world tour.

Helen Roberts, of carbonfootprint.com, puts this into context: “Looking at the 44 concerts, U2 will create enough carbon to fly all 90,000 people attending one of their Wembley dates (in London) to Dublin.” Michaels puts it another way, “U2’s CO2 emissions are reportedly the equivalent to the average annual waste produced by 6,500 British people, or the same as leaving a lightbulb running for 159,000 years.”

Supporters point to the incalculable good that the band does, in support of the world’s poor, women’s rights, victims of Darfur…(the list really does go on and on). It raises some interesting questions: does this “utility maximization” justify the band’s carbon excesses? Would U2 as effectively connect with its audience and excite a generation of do-gooders without the bells and whistles of big time rock ‘n roll spectacle?

[sources: The Guardian, Belfast Telegraph and U2]

We’ve given Burger King a hard time lately. But just because some of its franchise-owners have gone crazy (see our posts about a handful of Burger Kings in Memphis, TN mocking climate change on their billboards), it doesn’t mean they’ve all turned their back on the green movement. As Sharon Vaknin explains in her piece for CNET, “a Burger King franchise in the New York metro area has announced that it…will install a speed bump designed to harness the kinetic energy produced by the hundreds of cars that pass through the drive-thru daily.”

Last month, we reported on a Sainsbury’s in Gloucester, England that has installed similar “kinetic road plates” in its parking lot which will provide enough electricity to power the store’s checkout aisles. Similarly, the Hillside, NJ Burger King will install plates through a section of the drive-thru lane. The MotionPower technology is developed by Burtonsville, Md.-based New Energy Technologies, and is depicted in the video below.

“More than 150,000 cars drive through our Hillside store alone each year, and I think it would be great to capture the wasted kinetic energy of these hundreds of thousands of cars to generate clean electricity,” said Andrew Paterno, co-owner of 12 N.Y. metro-area Burger Kings.

Nice work, Paterno!

[source: CNET]

At Tuesday’s summit on sustainability (see the summary in our last post), Bill Becker, of the Climate Action Project, pointed me towards his group’s site which has aggregated some effective web-based visualization tools for teaching/encouraging/explaining sustainable living. I stumbled upon a video from a couple of years ago set in a sustainable future; looking back from the year 2055 to the year 2005, it traces the steps we “undertook” to avert climate crisis.

The video, A Crisis Averted, seems a bit outdated already- talk of an Obama-McCain ticket for 2008 election?- but the ‘future’ it suggests- McDonald’s opening a chain of veggie oil gas stations called McFuel, politicians increasingly unable to justify their close ties to the oil companies…- does still seem possible. And we begin to see how we arrive at this ficticious (and hopeful) 2055.

Produced, in collaboration with Stonyfield, by RenewUs, which evolved into Climate Counts, an organization that brings consumers and companies together in the fight against climate change. The group scores the world’s largest companies on their climate impact to spur greater corporate responsibility.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll feature some of the other videos Bill and the folks at the Climate Action Project have collected.

This is one post I couldn’t wait to write- a brief summary of yesterday’s start to Burlington, Vermont’s summit on sustainability, organized by Bob Costanza of the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and hosted by Seventh Generation and featuring some of the country’s top sustainability experts. The proposed goal of the summit is to produce a detailed road map to move the U.S. economy to one that is ecologically sustainable, socially fair and economically efficient.

Each guest expert had ten minutes to present five points, and over the next two days they’ll break into small groups to further develop these ideas. The resulting ‘game plan’ will be published in Solutions, a new journal focused on finding real solutions to society’s pressing problems and creating a sustainable and desirable future.

Participants include Jim Hartzfeld of Interface Carpets, Bill Becker of the Presidential Climate Action Project, Bob Costanza of University of Vermont, Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University, Larry Forcier of University of Vermont, Richard Heinberg of Institute for Global Communications, Jeffrey Hollender of Seventh Generation, Jon Isham of Middlebury College, Wes Jackson of The Land Institute, Hunter Lovins of Natural Capital Solutions, David Orr of Oberlin College, Will Raap of Gardener’s Supply, Larry Susskind of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mary Evelyn Tucker of Yale University.

David Orr, Wes Jackson, Jon Isham, Larry Forcier

There was consensus that the environmental community needs to reshape the narrative of climate change, but the manner by which we achieve “transformational change,” even amongst this group of experts, remains a very lively debate.

Arguing against incremental change, Hollender suggested, “we have systemic issues that won’t be addressed simply by having a new generation of corporate leaders that are more sensitive to the environmental landscape.” For him, immediate, transformational change is possible- just as a woman who has a baby adjusts overnight to the radical changes in her life, responding quickly by necessity to her new sets of responsibilities.

MIT’s Larry Susskind, who often works as a mediator in land and environmental disputes, played the role of devil’s advocate, arguing that the environmental community needs to better appreciate that there is a vast landscape of groups that do not accept at all that which this group of experts takes as given. The community needs an approach that melds indigenous needs and understanding with scientific knowledge.

Others echoed Susskind’s call for a more localized (less global) approach to sustainability, suggesting, as Yale’s Mary Evelyn Tucker did, that we need a “multiform, locally differential planetary” vision.

Middlebury’s Jon Isham described his preference for an “aspirational approach,” rather than a “limits-based approach.” In other words, he said, “those of us interested in sustainability have failed to provide the glue” necessary to positively connect the dots between the decisions of individuals and communities to environmental necessities, that we should borrow from other disciplines (such as economics, philosophy, social sciences) to construct a “utility maximization” approach directed at happiness. The human condition is not limits-based, but rather it thrives on positive, forward progress. In explaining the inter-connectedness of distinct aspirations, he gave the example of a woman in Mumbai who decides one day she wants to learn the tuba- the process through which she moves closer to and ultimately achieves that goal is reliant on other individuals (where she buys the tuba, who delivers the tuba, from whom she learns the tuba, for whom she plays the tuba…). That acknowledgment of inter-connectedness, and its role in our happiness, is a powerful motivating force.

Bob Costanza in search of solutions

One of the questions I walk away from the conference with is this: how do we move forward with people who may accept long term assumptions- that climate change exists, that it’s bad- but reject short term solutions?  Finding solutions that make sense for every community is a virtual impossibility, so can we successfully develop a broad game plan that allows for distinct local approaches? As Hunter Lovins pointed out, “when the environmental community is in trouble, it circles the wagons and shoots in.” What’s more, the din of special interest voices on the Hill often drowns out these disparate- and sometimes competing- narratives of the scientific community.

Other highlights include a revelation from David Levine, of Green Harvest Technologies, that during his meeting with Lisa Jackson, the new head of the EPA, she said “speak to me as a mom;” Hunter Lovins and Thomas Dietz each referencing the significant roles played by Wal-Mart and McDonald’s in moving their industries toward greater sustainability; Mary Evelyn Tucker discussing the positive role that religion has played in bringing about a green moral philosophy; Richard Heinberg’s prediction for the shape of our economy’s recovery (not a V, with a brief low and quick recovery, or a U, with a prolonged low before the recovery, but rather an L, a re-defining of our economy, a recalibration towards something more sustainable, less volatile); Wes Jackson describing the fact that many in Kansas (where the Land Institute is based) do not believe in climate change (or evolution, for that matter), but many of those people believe in recycling and shutting down coal plants…because “it’s the right thing to do.”

I have, of course, only scratched the surface of what was said during the summit’s first day, but, in summation, it’s clear language is vitally important to the success of the sustainability movement. The movement needs to be multi-lingual (so that we can frame and evaluate scenarios borrowing from a multitude of fields) to create new narratives, it needs to account for local economies (e.g. what makes sense for Vermont might not for Iowa), it needs to educate and support policymakers, energize the youth, and, as Mary Evelyn Tucker suggested, it needs to put forth a world view that is restorative rather than extractive.

Greenpeace has released its Guide to Greener Electronics, in which the environmental group “ranks the 17 top manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TV’s and games consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change.” With HP (14th place) delaying its promise to eliminate PVC and BFRs until 2011, and Apple (11th) continuing to use “unreasonably high threshold limits” for “products that are allegedly PVC/BFR free,” Greenpeace has judged harshly some of the industries green pioneers.

The top spot goes once again to Nokia. According to Greenpeace, Nokia scored “maximum points for its comprehensive voluntary take-back programme, which spans 84 countries providing almost 5000 collection points for end-of-life mobile phones. It now also scores top marks for the information it provides to customers on what to do with their discarded products.”

Nintendo remains in last place, despite what Greenpeace describes as a “glimmer of hope,” the Wii maker’s decision to put “on the market games consoles whose internal wiring is PVC-free.”

Here is the full list.

	7.45	Nokia — Scores top marks for leading competitors on toxic phase out. More
	7.1	Samsung – Holds second position for commitment to reduce absolute emissions. More
	6.5	Sony Ericsson — Up two places with better product energy efficiency reporting More
	5.7	LG Electronics — Up two places but needs to eliminate hazardous chemicals from all products More
	5.5	Toshiba — Moves up two places with an extra point for promising to cut GHGs More
	5.5	Motorola — Scores higher and climbs two places because of use of renewable energy More
	5.3	Philips — Falls from 4th to 7th position and needs to put its commitment to responsible recycling policies into practice More
	5.3	Sharp — Rises from 9th to joint 7th place with its energy efficient products More
	4.9	Acer — Put 16 new models of a monitor that are almost free of hazardous chemicals and climbed two places from 11 to 9 but still need to sort out the power cord More
	4.9	Panasonic — Advance from 12th to 10th place for energy efficiency and pvc free product range but still bad on e waste More
	4.7	Apple — Drop one position to 11th with no change in scores but get kudos for their green macbook More
	4.5	Sony — Plunges from 5th to 12th place for inadequate commitments on eliminating hazardous chemicals, e waste policy and cutting GHGs More
	3.9	Dell — Stays at 13th place because of backtracking on toxics phase out More
	3.5	HP — Is at 14th position and has no products on the market free of toxic substances More
	2.5	Microsoft — Loses a point for a poor recycling policy but stays in 15th position More
	2.5	Lenovo — Down two places with no set timeline for toxics phase out on all products More
	2.4	Fujitsu — Debuts second from last with no products that are free of hazardous chemicals More
	1	Nintendo — Stays put in last position with a glimmer of hope with partially pvc free consoles More

Fortune has put out its list of the “Dumbest Moments in Business” for 2009- midyear edition, anyway- and the top spot goes to General Motors. GM’s strange partnership with Segway produced a new personal transporter, called PUMA (Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility), which we reviewed back in April. As we wrote then about GM’s odd efforts to leap frog to the other end of the gas guzzling spectrum, “it’s hard not to think that it comes a day late and a dollar short for the struggling carmaker.”

But Fortune has gone one step further in calling the PUMA the single dumbest business decision of the year.

“It became clear this spring that General Motors was going to have to get smaller to survive, but this was ridiculous. A week after President Obama gave the company a 60 day deadline to avoid bankruptcy, GM took time out from its turnaround efforts to unveil the PUMA, a two-seat vehicle being developed with Segway that looked more like a rickshaw than a car.

The vehicle, capable of going only 35 mph and traveling 35 miles between charges, got lots of attention, but did little to change popular opinion about the company that had ridden large SUVs to the cusp of failure. On June 1, GM filed for bankruptcy.”

We weren’t surprised to see the #2 spot on the list of the 2009’s dumbest business moves going to Tropicana for it’s ill-conceived (Peter Arnell’s moronic) plan to redesign the packaging. A $35 million branding campaign was such a colossal failure that, within a month, Pepsico (which owns Tropicana) was abandoning the new “Squeeze” concept and returning the tried and true “straw-in-an-orange carton” look of old.

Being green around the holidays can be tricky. Many of our best rituals (Thanksgiving, July 4th, Labor Day, Super Bowl Sunday…) rely heavily on consumption (and, by extension, produce a ton of waste). So, for this July 4th, we thought we’d share some simple tips for green tweaks.

1.) Go Local

You don’t need read Michael Pollan to know food just tastes better when you know where it’s from. Maybe it’s the satisfaction of knowing you’re supporting local farmers. Perhaps it’s because your body knows when you’re eating fresh and when the food is processed. Either way, you’ll be doing the planet some good by buying food that hasn’t been trucked in from across the country.

2.) Go Easy

It’s nice to have leftovers, but how many hamburger patties and hot dogs got tossed last year at your July 4th party? When you’re buying and prepping the goodies, go easy. When you’re stacking your plate with potato salad, beans, ribs, hot dogs, watermelon and whatever else, keep in mind you’ll probably be throwing some of that out. So for all the piggies out there- myself included- there’s no shame in multiple trips to the food table.

3.) Go Gas

If you’re a purist, charcoal might be the only option for you. Try a 100% All Natural Hardwood Lump Charcoal. Fewer chemicals are always a good thing, but they also produce less ash than generic charcoal. Another good option is Wicked Good Charcoal, which is made from industrial scrap wood. Kingsford Charwood is good too. But gas is probably your greenest bet- it produces about half the emissions of charcoal.

4.) Go Silver

Well, maybe not silver, but at least think about using the silverware. Most July 4th meals are finger foods anyway (do we need more than a spoon?), but it might be worth busting out the cutlery instead of using the plastic alternatives. But if you’re hell bent on disposable products- and, I’ll be honest, I don’t blame you- there are some good biodegradable products you could choose. Branch and Eatware both have some good sustainble/compostable picnic accessories.

5.) Go Green

Let’s see, in my July 4th overall roundup… Be safe. Have fun. Recycle. Compost (if you can). Enjoy the fireworks (hopefully these new “eco-friendly” fireworks will catch on). Don’t go on any carnival rides- I’m still not feeling right from my ride on the tilt-a-wheel.  Go see The Hangover (finally saw it and it’s hilarious!). And, oh yeah, go U-S-A!

The Anheuser-Busch brewery in Houston, TX will have 55% of it energy needs met from landfill biogas. It’s a big move for the country’s leading brewer- AB holds a 49.2% share of U.S. beer sales and is a subsidiary of the world’s leading brewer, Anheuser-Busch InBev- and, if the program is a success, could bring the entire industry along with it. Landfill biogas consists of roughly 50% methane, a green house gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and is created when organic material decomposes in landfills. It can be converted into alternative fuels, heat, steam or used to generate electricity.

The project is a partnership between the brewery, Republic Services (a leading provider of solid waste collection) and Ameresco Services (the largest independent energy services company in North America). Pipelines connect the brewery to McCarty Road Landfill, the main recipient of refuse from the residents and businesses in east Houston and surrounding suburbs.

In the project’s press release, AB explains, “the benefit of this clean energy project is equivalent to planting more than 121,050 acres of pine or fir trees or taking 97,550 motor vehicles off the road. Additional gas from the McCarty Road landfill also is captured, processed and sold to a local utility.”

Check out our previous posts on various green initiatives by brewers.

[source: Anheuser-Busch, PR Newswire]

For those who haven’t seen Elephant Journal’s great interview series, “Walk The Talk” Show, it’s time to put it on your must view list. Waylon Lewis, the laid back host of the show (and brains behind the journal itself), has spoken with an impressive roster of guests on a remarkably broad range of topics.

Episodes of note include conversations with Graham Hill (founder of TreeHugger.com), Rick Peyser (of Green Mountain Coffee) and Bill McKibben (professor at Middlebury- my alma mater- author & environmentalist). Most recently, Lewis had an interesting chat with Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma) about the link between a healthy diet and the environment.

In that conversation, Pollan explains

“our eating decisions- what happens on our plate- represent our most profound engagement with the other species we share this planet with. We change the land more through our eating than anything else we do. We change the climate more than anything else we do. We change the composition of species on the planet more than anything else we do.”

Click here to go to Ele’s site and watch the rest. And while you’re at it, follow Waylon and co. on twitter.