You may not have heard about it during your local traffic report this weekend, but anyone negotiating the Beijing-Tibet expressway in recent days is painfully aware of the problem: a 62-mile jam that slowed traffic to a crawl between the Chinese capital and Jining city. But while such huge traffic jams aren’t unheard of, China’s traffic woes are unique in their duration – the current traffic snarl (it’s still ongoing) has been unfolding since August 14, making for nine days of gridlock.
This story provided welcome perspective this morning, after my 8 minute commute was stretched into a “maddening” 15 minutes (!!!), on account of the annual late-August arrival of anxious parents and excited college freshmen. I’m not gloating. The thought of a nine day traffic jam makes my brain hurt. But a story like that reminds us that “one degree change” is, by necessity, a relative concept. Course corrections throughout the day depend on the choices each of us face. The single greatest influence on what those choices may be is where we live. It’s easier here, perhaps, than other places to consider “pace, space, and interface,” that is, to take a moment to consider our pace of life, to connect with our surroundings and notice our interactions (with each other, with products and technology).
But we’re also lucky to travel, and we know that, while the choices that we can make everyday aren’t achievable by all, one degree change is realistic for everyone anywhere. We spend a lot of time in Asia, and we’re working to build a design community that uses LTT as a lens to develop products and practices to support the growing concerns of a new generation, living in the one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
Why “one degree change” is a relative concept, innovative solutions are often born out of the most challenging of situations. Somewhere in that 62 mile long traffic jam, there’s an innovative thinker saying, “how could we do better?”
According to PopSci, the Beijing-Tibet expressway traffic jam puts squarely into focus the global impact China’s car manufacturing boom is having. “While Detroit declines, China is quickly becoming the world’s largest auto economy. China is selling passenger cars to its own citizens at a pace that seems unfathomable during an overall global economic decline (last year China automotive market moved 13.6 million cars, compared with 10.4 million in the U.S.). China is also on the brink of becoming a major automotive exporter, meaning Chinese manufacturers and designers will soon be deciding what commuters drive in other parts of the world.”
Last year we covered an initiative from Levi Strauss & Co. to encourage its consumers to “donate to Goodwill,” rather than simply discard used clothing. In partnering with Goodwill, Levi’s was the first major clothing brand to add special care tags which, along with the traditional care instructions (i.e. “machine wash cold”), provided instructions on ways to consider the lifecycle of those button fly 501s. The initiative was aimed at curbing the approximately 23.8 billion pounds of clothing and textiles end up in landfill each year. Their latest campaign is aimed at curbing the environmental impact of caring for clothes.
Levi’s has launched the Care Air Design Challenge, a contest that is looking for the most innovative and effective method to dry clothing.
A clothes line, for example, isn’t necessarily innovative, it’s also banned by some city/town ordinances, but it does provide some great energy savings:
The average household uses 6% of its energy from operating clothes dryers
Just one pair of jeans consumers as much energy as powering a computer for over 550 hours.
About 50% of a clothing item’s climate-change impact occurs after its purchase by a consumer.
The contest begins June 1st and runs through the end of July.
“Play to your strengths.” It’s an old adage for success, but it could also be the ‘one degree’ approach to sustainability. Case in point? Morocco, which is investing $9 billion to build 2 Gigawatts of solar power, distributed between 5 solar power plants in the next decade. African and Arab countries, often associated with their large reserves of fossil fuel, also happen to be sitting on an abundance of something far more sustainable, sunlight. The North African desert kingdom, for example, gets over 3,000 yearly hours of solid reliable sun power – every year. Imagine the shift in the geo-political landscape if Morocco’s neighbors followed suit.
The proposed solar plants will supply 40% of the nation’s electricity to 32 million Moroccans. As Susan Kraemer explains for CleanTechnica, this represents “fairly modest energy needs,” compared with American levels of energy consumption.
Morocco’s Finance Minister Salaheddine Mezouar says that the project will send a very clear message about the need to face up to the challenges of climate change, and this project reflects the country’s desire “to leave green footprints in the sands of time.” He said, “Morocco is determined to protect the environment in all its future projects.”
It’s a reminder that however interconnected we all are against the challenges of climate change, the solutions tend to be localized. What makes sense for sun-drenched Morocco doesn’t for rain-soaked Seattle. But innovative ideas fuel practical solutions, and successes fuel optimism. Optimism, in turn, sparks innovative ideas. We need to be better at closing the circle and, as the old adage goes, playing to our strengths.
Last March, we did a post on David de Rothschild’s ambitious plans to sail a boat made entirely of plastic bottles from San Francisco to Sydney Australia. The adventure is aimed at drawing attention to plastic waste- including the Texas-sized swirling mass of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean.
The boat, dubbed the Plastiki, is ready for its voyage. Here’s an update, via NY Times:
Topside, the layout is simple: an angular igloo provides the only shelter, with six thin bunks softened by six thin cushions. There’s a tiny galley with a sink (in which a bottle of Kombucha was sighted) and a two-burner stove. There’s a tiny desk with room for a laptop, a logbook and a G.P.S. unit. There’s — oddly — a skateboard, as well as several sailing tomes, like “The Log of the ‘Cutty Sark,’ ” by Basil Lubbock.
Power is provided by a small array of solar panels and windmills, and exercise is provided by a stationary bike. Asked how he and his five-member crew might entertain themselves for the planned three-month journey, Mr. de Rothschild said, “sunbathing.” (He later added chess, dominos and, yes, live blogging.)
The hulls’ bottles help absorb many blows from passing waves, but they also deprive the Plastiki of a certain new-boat smell, Mr. de Rothschild said.
“If you were on another boat, it smells of fuel and it smells of that horrible fiberglass and all those other things,” he said. “This doesn’t.”
Green Mountain Coffee is one our favorite examples of a company who’s success is shaped by a commitment to responsible choices. Free trade is just the beginning, as the company works to “brew a better world,” with a range of initiatives such as its “Changing Climate Change” competition- four grants of $200K each to support work that reduces climate change- and the state’s largest solar array. The latest project is an online competition to find and help fund creative solutions for motivating local citizens to strengthen communities across New England and New York.
Green Mountain Coffee has teamed with Ashoka’s Changemakers, an organization with over three decades of finding, funding, and expanding the work of social entrepreneurs across the globe, to launch Revelation to Action. GMC explains the partnership on its site: “With its long history of supporting the work of social entrepreneurs, Ashoka is the perfect partner for Green Mountain Coffee as we explore and celebrate ways to strengthen communities across the Northeastern U.S.”
The “Revelation to Action Your Place. Your Idea. Your Change.” competition will “discover promising initiatives, explore fresh ideas, and encourage collaboration on the best ways to inspire community action. Ideas could include rallying a regional group to support a local food bank, helping a community address its carbon footprint, establishing a program to incentivize recycling, or mobilizing a neighborhood to do an annual river clean-up.”
Community members are invited to nominate individuals and organizations with community solutions, discuss and share ideas and success stories, comment on proposals, and vote for finalists. Winners will be judged on innovation, social impact, and long-term sustainability. The best innovations will be awarded prizes totaling $50,000.
We’ve heard from a few people who thought we took a cheap shot at Bill Gates by claiming that, as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, Gates is destined to be the George Harrison of tech innovation. Of course, how can we question the genius of a man who has so clearly changed the world? And, by the way, continues to do so through his philanthropy. In fact, it may be for his efforts to reduce poverty and increase access to healthcare and technology throughout the world that Gates will ultimately make the biggest difference. So, we’re not down on Gates- but how much influence does he continue to have on the ways in which Microsoft develops and rolls out product? Again, his role now seems to be as a billionaire philanthropist difference maker. And in that role, he has no equal (other than his collaborator Warren Buffett, who has given more than $30 billion to Gates’s foundation).
So, it was in that role, as influencer, that Bill Gates recently wrote on his blog that we need “innovation, not just insulation” in order to reduce CO2 to manageable levels. Small-scale tweaks to the system might get us to 30% CO2 reduction by 2020, but the long-term goal of 80% reduction by 2050 may be impossible without large-scale innovation, significant changes in the way we use energy, the types of energy we use, and the technologies we use for energy conversion.
Gates writes, “because 2020 is too soon for innovation to be completed and widely deployed, behavior change and efficiency still matter” the goal should be large-scale innovation and legislation that focuses on 2050. “Innovation in transportation and electricity will be the key factor,” he says. “I hear a lot of climate change experts focus totally on 2020 or talk about how great it is that there is so much low hanging fruit that will make a difference. This mostly focuses on saving a little bit of energy, which by itself is simply not enough.” Gates warns that “the danger is people will think they just need to do a little bit and things will be fine.”
Two years ago, Craven, a high school science teacher, shot an online video he dubbed “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” offered as “a suggestion for how to cut through the shouting match and draw your own conclusion in the debate, without needing to decide which side to believe.” In two years, the video has been watched nearly 8,000,000 times, spawned 7 hours of follow-up videos, led to an offer for his own TV show (which he declined) and a book (which has been hailed as a ‘must read’ by the likes of Bill McKibben, Gen Anthony Zinni and others).
Watch for yourself, and let us know if you think Craven has a bulletproof approach. But more interesting, perhaps, is whether this “little YouTube video that could” might help shape the conversation.
During the dog days of the most recent Presidential campaign, CNN partnered with YouTube to solicit questions from YouTubers for it’s televised debate between the sparring candidates. During the campaign, CNN also introduced the Wolf Blitzer/Darth Sidius hologram machine, but we digress. CNN and YouTube are at it again, this time providing viewers an opportunity to pose questions to world leaders at the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. As part of a live CNN debate on December 15, viewers can submit recorded questions to be aired to a collection of world leaders and influencers attending the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Submit your own at youtube.com/cop15.
Copenhagen is dreaming of a green Christmas this year. As it prepares to host the highly anticipated international climate change conference (some have called it the most important meeting in the planet’s history), the city is relying on volunteers to pedal-power the traditional Christmas tree in City Hall Square.
Fifteen bicycles encircle the large tree, and, when pedaled, will provide the power for the 700 LED light bulbs on the tree.
During the lighting ceremony this past weekend, a group of children, the city’s mayor, and a handful of international VIPs pedaled together to power the Christmas lights.
For more on the conference- and the host city- read some of our previous posts.
A White House official has announced that President Obama will, after all, be attending the global climate conference in Copenhagen next month. The official says the president will attend the conference before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
As we noted in a post last week, Obama has acknowledged that securing a legally binding climate deal in Copenhagen is very unlikely. The president favors, instead, plans to delay until next year at the earliest. Some have suggested Copenhagen comes one year too soon for Obama, but it’s hard not to see the summit as another occasion in which we’ll talk the talk and not walk the walk.
The administration says it plans to present a target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Copenhagen, but it has resisted talking specific numbers without the backing of Congress, which is not expected to pass climate legislation until next year at the soonest.
Can a green technology co-op with powers to direct a global transition away from carbon-heavy technology be successful? That’s one of the questions participating countries will wrestle with at next month’s climate conference in Copenhagen. Much of the focus in Copenhagen, and beyond, will center on the need to slash CO2 emissions, but the path to achieving those goals must eventually lead through this complex gateway, a worldwide transition to green technology (such as wind power, solar, energy efficiency/waste prevention measures).
How does such a transition take place? Some are suggesting a new central executive, political body, within the existing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, should have powers to command a coordinated clean tech roll out.
Not surprisingly, the United States and many European countries want any such body to be an advisory committee. As Alok Jha explains in The Guardian, “their main concern is that a strong political body may end up channeling funds into state enterprises rather than keeping a level playing field for all businesses.” Meanwhile, Jha writes, “developing countries say an advisory body would have little power to drive the dramatic changes needed.”
The momentum (at least rhetorical momentum) for battling climate change has gone global. What remains, however, is for the world to formulate a coordinated plan for phasing out high-carbon economies and transitioning towards greener ones. Expectations are low, but we’ll be watching closely to see if any progress is made in Copenhagen.
President Obama threw in the towel over the weekend. He (and, to be fair, other world leaders) acknowledged that securing a legally binding climate deal at next month’s Copenhagen summit wasn’t likely, favoring plans to delay until next year at the earliest.
After months of politcal wrangling had watered down the ultimate goals of the summit, the announcement is hardly a surprise. Back in July, we attended the Gund Institute’s Solutions conference, a gathering of some of the country’s leading climate change experts (Bill Becker of the Presidential Climate Action Project, Jon Isham of Middlebury College, Hunter Lovins of Natural Capital Solutions and others), many of whom spoke skeptically about the likelihood of achieving a meaningful pact in Denmark.
Instead, we can expect lots of strongly worded proclamations about the importance of curbing emissions, the dangers of ignoring climate change, while diplomats aim for a “politically binding” agreement.
Michael Froman, US deputy national security adviser for economic affairs, explained, “there was a realistic assessment … by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days.”
As Bryan Walsh writes in his piece for Time, “the reason is simple: the deadlock between developed nations and developing ones. Developing nations refuse most responsibility for climate change, arguing that warming is primarily the fault of rich industrialized countries, and want the developed world to take on strict short-term emissions reduction targets. Developed nations, led by the U.S., argue that fast-growing developing nations like China and India will emit the vast majority of future carbon emissions, and that any deal that exempts them from action — as the Kyoto Protocol did — is a farce. Despite months of negotiations in Barcelona, Bangkok and other world cities, that gap remains vast.”
[From The Guardian, Obama says no deal at Copenhagen: 'What's needed is a strong political signal']
Denmark’s prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the host and chairman of the climate talks, flew to Singapore to meet with leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (APEC) and urge them to consider Copenhagen as an important stepping stone towards firmer action.
Froman said Obama supports Rasmussen’s proposal to delay and cautioned the group not to let the “perfect be the enemy of the good.”
While some have suggested Copenhagen comes one year too soon for Obama, it’s hard not to see the summit as another occasion in which we’ll talk the talk and not walk the walk.
Our friends at Brighter Planet, a leading carbon offset firm, have launched a new “Sustainability In The Workplace” survey to gather reliable data about what companies are doing to encourage and support greener habits.
As Brighter Planet’s Outreach & Parternship Manager, Robbie Adler, explains, “we are trying to get a better feel for how successful employers and employees are interacting around the issue of sustainability. It is increasingly common for corporations to talk about sustainability initiatives, but how many of them are engaging their employees on the subject, listening for feedback, etc?” Adler continues, “it is our belief that in order for sustainability to be part of a company’s DNA, it must be a principle supported by all levels of employees. Employees are the front-line of any company. If they are not involved in a company’s sustainability initiatives, chances are those initiatives are not having much impact on directing the company’s growth.”
We encourage you to fill out the survey, where, incidentally, you’ll be automatically entered to win $200 cash.
According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, overall water consumption in this country has declined in the past 25 years. Remarkable, especially considering the fact that population has increased 30% and use by individual American households has increased. The study, compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, suggests that despite significant population growth, greener technologies and conservation efforts can counterbalance increased demand. As Tina Casey writes in CleanTechnica, the data provide “tantalizing clues about the ability of the U.S. to sustain its legendarily consumer-centric lifestyle while stabilizing and ultimately decreasing its contribution to carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses.”
The rise of water-conserving and more efficient technologies, especially in the industrial and commercial sectors, has significantly reduced waste. As Casey explains, “the real champs in water conservation have been the one-two punch of more efficient irrigation systems and the shift away from once-through cooling technology in electricity generating plants.”
The findings only further highlight the potential of green innovation- energy-efficient appliances, renewables, waste-reducing measures…- in counterbalancing inevitable population growth, where demand rises on diminishing resources. For more, check out Casey’s full article in CleanTechnica.
Last year, we wrote about the Brazilian city of Curibita, sometimes called the “greenest city in the world.” Curitiba is often viewed by environmentalists and urban planners alike as a world model of sustainability. Thirty years ago (30!!!), the town implemented the ’Curitiba Master Plan’ to address the problems of urban living through progressive transportation systems and enviro-friendly social programs that address recycling creatively, expand green space and develop industry. Check out Frontline’s great coverage here.
“You have to keep things simple, and just start working … You have a lot of complexity-sellers in this life. We should beat them, beat them with a slipper,” explains Lerner.
His first major coup was pedestrianising the main central shopping street in 1972 – in a weekend.
“We started one Friday night, and finished on Monday morning. If we’d had to stop and do things regularly, I wouldn’t have made it, and I could have been fired. So we took the risk. By the Monday night, business was so good, the head of the local businessmen came to me and he gave me a petition and said: ‘We want the whole street pedestrianised.’”
Lerner heard about a possible protest by drivers who planned to drive through the newly pedestrianised thoroughfare. So, he enlisted hundreds of children, armed them with paintbrushes and paper, and set them to play in the street. The protest never materialised.
Using three-section bendy buses in dedicated bus lanes, the city’s transport system carries passenger numbers comparable to an underground – 2 million a day – but at a cost of $1m per kilometre rather than $100m. Fares are flat, and the city was encouraged to grow along the bus routes, so any Curitiba resident is never more than 400m from a bus stop. Only the cars get stuck in traffic jams
Recycling in Curitiba is perhaps the most radical reform of all. In 1989, residents in a nearby favela were dumping their trash in surrounding rivers and fields, as there were no collections from their narrow streets. Lerner arranged for a truck to visit the favela at fixed times each week, and residents’ rubbish was exchanged for bus tickets, football tickets and shows. Soon, the locals were cleaning the rivers and fields of old rubbish to sell. Schoolchildren were given new plastic toys for old bottles and bags in a scheme called “Garbage that’s not garbage”.
Separation of organic and non-organic waste improved efficiencies further. Local homeless people and alcoholics were employed at the recycling plant, where they also retrained on computers they rescued from the city’s bins. Curitiba’s fishermen were paid to fish for rubbish.
Floodplains surrounding the city were bought up and converted to parks with boating lakes acting as overspill areas. This solution, far cheaper and more effective than culvetting rivers with concrete, increased the green space available for residents from 0.5 square metres each in the 1960s to over 50 square metres per resident today.
Housing was tackled in a similarly simple, revolutionary way. Land next to the electricity company’s lot was converted into housing estates, and residents were encouraged to redesign their interiors, so they felt more pride and ownership over their properties.
Lerners’ reforms have been widely popular and they appear to have improved the peoples’ lot. GDP per capita in Curitiba is 60% higher than the average in Brazil. “Those that were most against us transformed into our greatest supporters – they just needed to see the results. Now they are proud of their city.”
The NY Times had an interesting update last week about Paris’s bike share program. Back in September, we wrote about the city’s “Vélib’” rental program, which provides bikes at hundreds of ’service points’ around the city and allows Parisians and tourists alike a green and convenient option for getting around town. It costs €1 for a day ticket or €5 for a seven-day ticket, and riders can return the bike at any other Vélib’ station.
Sounds great, right? That’s what we thought, but, as Steven Erlanger explains in the NYT piece, officials are finding “this latest French utopia has met a prosaic reality: Many of the specially designed bikes, which cost $3,500 each, are showing up on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa. Many others are being spirited away for urban joy rides, then ditched by roadsides, their wheels bent and tires stripped.”
Eighty percent (80%!!) of the initial 20,600 bikes have been stolen or damaged, and, Erlanger suggests, as the city-subsidized budget sky-rockets, it’s been a major “blow to the Parisian psyche.”
“The symbol of a fixed-up, eco-friendly city has become a new source for criminality,” Le Monde mourned in an editorial over the summer. “The Vélib’ was aimed at civilizing city travel. It has increased incivilities.”
Erlanger writes,
The heavy, sandy-bronze Vélib’ bicycles are seen as an accoutrement of the “bobos,” or “bourgeois-bohèmes,” the trendy urban middle class, and they stir resentment and covetousness. They are often being vandalized in a socially divided Paris by resentful, angry or anarchic youth, the police and sociologists say.
Used mainly for commuting in the urban core of the city, the Vélib’ program is by many measures a success. After swiping a credit card for a deposit at an electronic docking station, a rider pays one euro per day, or 29 euros (about $43) for an annual pass, for unlimited access to the bikes for 30-minute periods that can be extended for a small fee.
Daily use averages 50,000 to 150,000 trips, depending on the season, and the bicycles have proved to be a hit with tourists, who help power the economy.
Still, last year, the police saw a 54% increase in Vélib-related theft and vandalism. As Erlanger notes, the bicycle rental system that was to inspire “a new urban ethos for the era of climate change” is being tested. We’ll be interested to see how the city responds.
CNET’s Martin LaMonica posted a fascinating account of his recent green barn raising. Last month, he joined about 40 other volunteers to help weatherize a two-family home. Modeled after barn raisings of yesteryear- when a community would gather for a day to help a family…well, raise a barn- the event was organized by Cambridge, MA-based HEET, or Home Energy Efficiency Team. HEET is a volunteer group aimed at bringing neighbors together to weatherize homes in Cambridge and works to reduce the carbon footprint of specific houses, teach participants skills that they can use to make their own homes more energy efficient, and build a sense of community. All work is done on a volunteer basis.
On a rain-soaked day, LaMonica joined what he called the “caulk gun militia,” and, he says, “for less than $500 in material, a good amount of planning, and a bit of sweat equity, we did pretty well.” As he explains,
Weatherizing homes won’t solve all our energy and climate challenges. But while many folks are intent on high-tech (and high-priced) solutions to our energy problems, weatherization is a sensible, low-cost place to start. About 40 percent of the energy in the U.S. goes to commercial and residential buildings and investments in efficiency typically have the fastest payback. Weatherizing a home could cut energy use by as much as 30 percent, according to the Department of Energy, and many steps at are relatively inexpensive.
Even at an event devoted to the potential of solar power–the Solar Decathlon–U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu last week underscored how important energy efficiency is to the country’s energy policy and people’s pocketbooks. In every place they’ve lived, Chu said he and his wife have made a game of trying to cut energy bills in half from the previous owner.
He suggests people get an energy audit to help them form a home efficiency game plan. “Many of them are free, sponsored by states or utilities, while others can cost about $500 for more extensive work (Go to EfficiencyFirst to find an auditor in your location).” For more, check out LaMonica’s post on CNET.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is having a rough week. First, Apple Inc., PG&E and others resigned their membership in opposition to the Chamber’s use of funds to oppose climate change legislation. Then, last Thursday, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu applauded those companies for resigning. “I think it’s wonderful,” Chu said at a solar energy event in Washington D.C., calling efforts to reduce greenhouse gases “part of our economic future in the United States.” Chu called on more companies to follow the lead of Apple, PG&E and the others who have quit the chamber.
Greenpeace, which (strangely) has not always been quick to defend Apple’s green innovation- the two clashed publicly over toxic waste- posted a statement of support on its site on Thursday: “Apple has stormed out of the biggest lobby group in the United States. At issue is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s use of funds to oppose climate change legislation. Apple has done the right thing, and IBM and Microsoft should think different too.”
“Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort,” Catherine Novelli, Apple’s vice president of worldwide government affairs, wrote in a letter to chamber President Thomas Donohue.
Donohue was quick to respond, arguing that his organization has been the target of a green lobby campaign if misinformation. “We are not arguing the science,” he said. “While we do support legislation to address climate change, we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits.”
Still, Apple is the fourth company to leave the chamber in the past few weeks, and environmental organizations like Greenpeace, and now the Energy Secretary, have challenged other companies to follow Apple in departing the Chamber of Commerce.
Concerned about global climate change? Of course. Feel like world leaders need to be more courageous in how they respond to the growing set of environmental challenges? Definitely. Time to go swim up Mount Everest!
This is Lewis Gordon Pugh’s response, anyway, as the British endurance swimmer plans to swim across a glacial lake more than 17,000ft up Mount Everest. Mr Pugh, nicknamed “the human polar bear” after swimming across the polar ice-cap, will attempt the feat in April 2010.
He hopes his swim will draw attention to the impact of global warming. Pugh, 39, points to the fact that this swim is possible at that altitude as evidence that glaciers are receding at an alarming rate.
As he explains in the video above, from ITN/Telegraph, Mr Pugh will swim in just a speedo, swimming cap and goggles and expects to spend about 20 minutes in the waters of the Khumbu Glacier.
Two years ago Mr Pugh swam for almost 20 minutes across a patch of open sea at the North Pole to raise awareness of the effects of rising temperatures on the Arctic.
To hell with the panda! It’s not strong enough to survive in the wild and the millions spent on preserving it could be better spent elsewhere. That provocative suggestion, from Chris Packham, a wildlife expert and British television presenter, is being slammed by conservationists (as “daft,” “reckless,” “completely moronic”) but it draws an interesting line in the sand that’s worth considering.
Should we pour millions into protecting a species that, as Packham puts it, has “gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac,” rearing it in capitivty in hopes of releasing it into a habitat that can no longer sustain it? Would that money be more usefully invested in protecting species and habitats that can be saved? Or in conservation projects that have broader results? Or, dare I say it, in R&D for green tech?
Packham believes that our irrational attachment to the panda is based on its cuddly looks and blinds us to the fact that it’s a waste of conservation funds. “Unfortunately, it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund – and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity.”
Fellow wildlife expert David Bellamy agrees with Packham. “When I was a WWF trustee I begged them to buy big chunks of the land in which these animals live, not just go on spending millions on rearing pandas in captivity. You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.
Not everyone agrees, of course. Dr Mark Wright, a conservation science adviser for WWF called Mr Packham’s comments “irresponsible”. Pandas, he said, face extinction due to poaching and humans moving into their habitat, and that if left alone they would not be under threat.
I expect we’ll be hearing more about the latest contender in the quest for energy efficient lighting, ESL (electron-stimulated luminescence). This new type of bulb works by using accelerated electrons to light up a phosphor coating on the inside of a glass bulb. ESLs have no delay, no flicker, can work with dimmers, and creates a light quality that’s similar to incandescents and halogens. Vu1, the manufacturer, put together the above documentary to list the many reasons for claiming the ESL bulbs are the better choice.
CFLs have long been hailed as the green alternative to incandescents, but critics point out some major flaws. For one, CFLs contain about 5 milligrams of mercury, a small amount but enough to prompt some jurisdictions to ban dumping them in the trash. Burnt-out CFL bulbs should be disposed of with hazardous waste where possible or returned to the retailer, which then recycles them. The EPA recommends evacuating the room if a CFL bulb breaks. ESLs contain no mercury. Light quality remains a problem for CFLs, while the light from an ESL is “essentially indistinguishable” from incandescents, according to the company.
Seattle-based Vu1 has been working on the ESL for five years. The new bulbs are expensive- around $20/bulb, but can last up to 6,000 hours, about three to four times the lifespan of incandescents and comparable to CFLs. They also produce 50% less heat than incandescents.
In the farthest, coldest reaches of the Arctic Circle, you’ll find biodiversity warrior Cary Fowler hard at work at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. He and his team are trying to preserve wheat, rice and hundreds of other crops that have existed as long as man has tended crops, at risk now thanks to the science of genetically modified foods and climate change.
It’s partly an exercise in anthropology, looking back through the history of crops. Mostly, of course, Fowler’s seed vault exists to ensure the world’s food supply has the diversity needed to stand against the omnipresent threats of disease, climate change and famine. In this video from TED, Cary Fowler explains what’s happening inside his vast global seed bank, buried within a frozen mountain in Norway, as he saves biodiversity of key crops one seed at a time.
This seems particularly relevant, in the wake of Norman Borlaug’s passing. Borlaug, the plant scientist who did more than anyone else in the 20th century to teach the world to feed itself and whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, died Saturday night.
We think the ‘street view‘ feature of Google maps has been a remarkable project. The 360 degree cameras, typically mounted on cars, capture street level photographs that allow users to pan, rotate and zoom through neighborhoods in cities throughout the world. While the project has raised some privacy concerns- Greece has banned Google from adding new photos within the country until the company addresses some of these issues- it has been largely embraced as another of Google’s genius innovations.
This summer, Google will add a green touch to this celebrated project by sending out a fleet of tricycles to capture map areas of Britain inaccessible by Street View cars. The Google Trike, which the company calls “a mechanical masterpiece comprising 3 bicycle wheels, a mounted Street View camera and a very athletic cyclist in customized Google apparel,” will capture areas of the UK chosen by the public. Britons will chose locations from five categories: castles, coastal paths, natural wonders, historic buildings and monuments and stadiums.
For those of us who work towards a more sustainable future- and, thankfully, that’s a quickly growing demographic- the challenge is in opening our eyes to the gravity of our situation while maintaining a healthy dose of optimism. With all the doomsday reports, it’s sometimes difficult to see our way out of the mess we’ve created.
I once asked Roger Lang, a remarkable conservationist and entrepreneur out in Montana, whether he thought of optimism as a vital component of the environmental movement. “I don’t think so,” he replied. “I have dark days when I’m convinced developers will pave all these beautiful open spaces. But I think these bouts of pessimism actually keep me engaged- pure optimism is synonymous with naivete. I think to be dedicated to conservation means you better have a good appreciation of the challenges, or else you’ll be blind-sided by them.”
A new study by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies provides, perhaps, the right balance of realism and optimism. An analysis of 240 independent studies, it found that most polluted or damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within as little as 5 to 10 years “if societies commit to their cleanup or restoration.”
The Yale researchers studied seven ecosystem types and their recovery from man-made disturbances (logging, mining, oil spills, overfishing, industrial pollution…) and natural disasters (hurricanes, cyclones…). They found, for example, that forest ecosystems recovered in 42 years on average, while ocean bottoms recovered in less than 10 years. While the damages to these ecosystemss are serious, the researchers see the results as an indication that “if societies choose to become sustainable, ecosystems will recover. It isn’t hopeless.”
The study does conclude that about 15% of damaged ecosystems are beyond recovery. But the researchers suggest that, as bad as things are, “speculation that it will take centuries or millennia for degraded ecosystems to recover” is, in general, wrong. Holly Jones, one of the study’s co-authors added, “we recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.”
It’s fitting that the agency that enabled us to view our own planet from a distance, providing mankind with a new environmental perspective, is building a place here on Earth to protect that vision.
Forty years after the Apollo 11 lunar module touched down at Tranquility Base, NASA is creating a research center at its Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA that will develop sustainable design, green technologies and other innovative projects.
Sustainability Base will provide a window to the future on Earth. An intelligent, cognitive, intuitive building designed to be native to its place. NASA ingenuity applies lessons from space exploration to living sustainably on Earth.
The building itself will be a state-of-the-art net zero complex, powered by ground-source heat pumps from 72 geothermal wells, solar hot water collectors and a network of sensors to react to changing conditions, such as sunlight, temperature, wind, and energy usage, all monitored by a web-based smart meter.
NASA expects to use 90 % less water than an ordinary equivalent-size building.
“Cradle to Cradle” author William McDonough has been contracted to design and build the $20.6 million building, to be completed by the end of 2011. NASA expects to get the Platinum level LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, the highest level.
“Leadership is often described as being taken to some place you would have never gotten to on your own,” says McDonough. “The kind of leadership has exhibited in space is exactly the kind of leadership we need exhibited on Earth.” He continues, “the world needs a whole new way of thinking about the way we design and make things because the current designs are destructive to the Earth and its systems, and we need new designs that are positive.”
Love Tomorrow Today brings products and ideas to people who envision a better tomorrow.
Blog
Highlighting innovative ideas, profiling difference makers and reflecting on the issues that will shape our tomorrow, we provide daily fodder for creative minds. We seek to aggregate inspiration and fuel a lively conversation.
