Every so often, the e-media vs. paper-media debate flares up again. We’ve covered it a few times on this blog, including a One Degree TV clip of our conversation with Brad Robertson of GannettLocal. Earlier this year, in a post about the growing landscape of E-readers, we noted that it was easier to measure the considerable environmental impact of the publishing world, from deforestation, to waste water and carbon emissions. Measuring the relative impact of E-readers (from manufacturing to daily use) was, at least then, more difficult. Last week, Brian Palmer examined this question in his piece for Slate, Should You Ditch Your Books for an E-reader? As the infographic (left) suggests, the planet might prefer you to read your books electronically.

Palmer explains, ”environmental analysis can be an endless balancing of this versus that. Do you care more about conserving water or avoiding toxic chemical usage? Minimizing carbon dioxide emissions or radioactive nuclear waste?” But, in quoting Cleantech, which aggregrated a series of studies on this subject, Palmer delves into the numbers that shapes this debate.

A few excerpts from Palmer’s piece for Slate:

A single book generates about 7.5 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents—the value of all its greenhouse gas emissions expressed in terms of the impact of carbon dioxide. That includes production, transport, and either recycling or disposal. (Attention students: Your textbooks are particularly bad, releasing more than double the CO₂ equivalents of the average book.)

Apple’s iPad generates 130 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents during its lifetime, according to company estimates. Amazon has not released numbers for the Kindle, but independent analysts put it at 168 kg. Those analyses do not indicate how much additional carbon is generated per book read (as a result of the energy required to host the e-bookstore’s servers and power the screen while you read), but they do include the full cost of manufacture, which likely accounts for the lion’s share of emissions. (The iPad uses just three watts of electricity while you’re reading, far less than most light bulbs.) If we can trust those numbers, then, the iPad pays for its CO₂ emissions about one third-of the way through your 18^th book. You’d need to get halfway into your 23^rd book on Kindle to get out of the environmental red.

Water is also a major consideration. The newspaper and book publishing industries together consume 153 billion gallons of water annually, according to the nonprofit Green Press Initiative. It takes about seven gallons to produce the average printed book, while e-publishing companies can create a digital book with less than two cups of water. (E-book publishers consume water, like any other company, through the paper they use and other office activities.) Researchers estimate that 79 gallons of water are needed to make an e-reader. So you come out on top, water-wise, after reading about a dozen books.

E-readers also have books beat on toxic chemicals. The production of ink for printing releases a number of volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, including hexane, toluene, and xylene, which contribute to smog and asthma. Some of them may also cause cancer or birth defects. Computer production is not free of hard-to-pronounce chemicals, to be sure, but both the iPad and the Kindle comply with Europe’s RoHS standards, which ban some of the scarier chemicals that have been involved in electronics production. E-readers do, however, require the mining of nonrenewable minerals, like columbite-tantalite, which sometimes come from politically unstable regions.

[Source: Slate]

We spotted this post from PopSci:

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.”

Time to ride my bike to work!

[Source: Popsci]

Starting next year, the city of Cleveland will introduce a $2.5 million hi-tech recycling monitoring system that has residents divided. Is it an example of forward-thinking city governance, nudging residents towards habits that serve the greater good? Or is it an invasion of privacy?

Here’s how it works, according to a recent piece in Fast Company; “chips embedded in recycling carts will keep track of how often residents take the carts to the curb for recycling. If a bin hasn’t been taken to the curb in a long time, city workers will go rummaging through the trash to find recyclables. And if workers find that over 10% of the trash is made up of recyclable materials, residents could face a $100 fine.”

According to Cleveland.com, the city has actually been testing the system since 2007. As Fast Company explains, “if the chip system works in a city as big as Cleveland, other small to medium sized cities will probably take note.”

What should a city’s role be in fostering better habits among its residents? San Francisco has made composting mandatory, for instance, and threatened to fine residents who don’t comply. What role should government play in making sure we love tomorrow today?

[Source: Fast Company]

Researchers at New Mexico State University are trying to figure out whether simple modifications to shopping carts could translate into profound modifications to consumers’ diets. (NMSU photo by Darren Phillips)

Could better shopping carts help us make better decisions about what we eat? Researchers at New Mexico State University are studying whether simple tweaks to shopping carts could profoundly change the way we eat. In one trial, Collin Payne, an assistant professor in marketing at NMSU’s College of Business, and his research team placed a yellow line across the width of shopping carts with a sign designating one side of the cart for fruits and vegetables and the other for everything else.

“We showed a 102 percent increase in people buying fruits and vegetables, without showing a decrease in supermarket profitability,” he said. “Allowing retailers such as supermarkets to maintain their profits is important in achieving buy-in for these kinds of tools. Whether the profits of food manufacturers are affected remains to be seen.”

“It would be a sad day if companies ever stopped making candy bars, but consumers need better tools,” Payne said. “There’s been such a dramatic decrease in the consumption of fruits and vegetables over the past few decades, which corresponds to an increase in certain cancers, diabetes and other ailments.”

If we are what we eat, we’re also what we buy. Even within one broad event- such as ’shopping for food’- there are countless small decisions. Type of food? Brand of food? Organic from New Zealand vs. non-organic from just around the corner? Payne’s research may help us to make those decisions more thoughtfully. One degree…changes everything.

[Source: NMSU via Dan's Plan]

We don’t often repost entire articles, but after we read Nature’s series ‘Can Science Feed The World,’ we’re doing just that. As the science mag explains, “more than one billion people go hungry today, and the vast majority of them are in low-income countries. Increasing yield sustainably — using less water, fertilizers and pesticides — is going to be a crucial part of the solution.” In the series- highly recommended reading- Nature asks what role science has to play in securing food for the future.

Thanks to Dan’s Plan for bringing this series of articles to our attention. And here’s an article entitled ‘Food: The Growing Problem.’

more…

Via Fast Company

The penny just got a face lift, apparently. The question is why. Do we really need a new look for the penny? Do we need the penny at all? In 2008, we dug into this issue, and pointed to David Owen’s piece in the New Yorker as an excellent overview of the economic and cultural debate. Put simply, the argument against the penny goes like this: at a cost of 1.7 cents a penny, the US Treasury runs an annual deficit of an estimated $50 million to produce this most annoying of coins. Add to this its relative buying power (or lack thereof), and we begin to really question the penny’s utility. But let’s consider the ecological backpack of those pennies in the jar on your dresser.

Most of the half trillion coins made during the last 30 years (the average lifespan of a coin) are pennies, but the US Mint estimates that less than 300 billion are currently in circulation. That means that billions of dollars are missing. Where are they, and do we really miss them? If we can avoid carrying around a penny we do. We horde them in jars, under the mats in our cars, between cushions. We don’t even bend over to pick them up on the sidewalk. As Owen puts it:

“A modern penny simply isn’t worth enough to worry about. In 1940, an average one-pound loaf of bread sold for eight cents…That means that a penny in those days bought enough bread to make a good-sized sandwich. These days, a penny doesn’t buy much more than a bit of crust. Accurately comparing monetary values (and bread loaves) across decades is impossible, but by almost any economic measure a 1940 penny had more purchasing power than a modern quarter does.”

Who would miss the penny? There are plenty examples of countries that have painlessly taken their small coins out of circulation. Sweden led the way in 1972, and Norway, Australia, Denmark, Israel, Hungary and others have followed suit. In fact, in 1857, the United States stopped making the ½ penny back when a ½ cent coin had considerably more buying power than a dime does today.

The debate will continue in the United States.  Does it make economic sense to hold onto the penny? Probably not. Does it make sense from a cultural standpoint? Unless you’re from Illinois or a numismatist, not really. A penny’s environmental impact is difficult to measure, but it’s certainly worth considering. We talk about conservation, but we should also consider what is NOT worth conserving.

Can a YouTube video help shape the debate surrounding Climate Change? The issue of whether climate change is caused by humans seems to provoke emotional responses from both sides. With deniers and doomsday predictors pitted against each other on cable news, the debate turns to feedback and white noise after a certain point. Greg Craven, author of the book “What the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate,” presents the argument dispassionately, and his accompanying YouTube series might be able to do what Al Gore, for example, could not.

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.

[Sources: GOOD, CNN, YouTube]

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.

[Sources: Times, AP/HuffPo]

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.

[Sources: The Guardian, Time]

[Your Planet, Brighter from Brighter Planet on Vimeo.]

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.

For more info on Brighter Planet, check out their site, and watch a clip of our visit there (”Carbon Offsets 101“).

A recent post on PSFK sparked an interesting conversation here- does being wired lead to being green? The PSFK post explained that “Finland is set to become the first country in the world to make broadband Internet a legal right, according to their Ministry of Transport and Communications.” Next summer, all residents of Finland will have access to one-megabit broadband connections, and within five years all Finns will have access to one hundred megabit broadband.

Can we say that hi tech geekery lowers one’s carbon footprint? Not always that simple (the more gadgets=more electricity + more landfill fodder), but it’s interesting to note that the most forward-thinking city in the United States (San Francisco, and the Bay Area more broadly) is both the center of technology and of green innovation. In addition to Finland’s new “broadband for all” policy, the country was recently picked fourth on the list of “greenest countries in the world” by researchers at Yale University. The Environmental Performance Index weighed carbon and sulfur emissions, water and conservation practices.

Switzerland, Sweden and Norway topped the list, all innovators in their way (think watches, Ikea, Volvo, meatballs, A-ha). It’s an obvious point, perhaps, but you can’t affect change if you don’t know how to use the tools.

Our recent post featuring William Kamkwamba’s presentation from July’s TED Conference inspired some great responses from readers. As a 14 year old son of a Malawian farmer, Kamkwamba visited a library in the midst of a terrible famine, and, inspired by pictures he saw in a book, he built a windmill at his home which would eventually provide power to his small village.

Kamkwamba appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart earlier this week. It’s a great interview and an amazing story.

Cause For Concern:

It’s been a week or so since Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column (The New Sputnik) sent shivers down our spine. In the piece, Friedman predicts the defining summary of 2008/2009 may well be the story of how we let China leap ahead of us in green tech.

Friedman writes,

Most people would assume that 20 years from now when historians look back at 2008-09, they will conclude that the most important thing to happen in this period was the Great Recession. I’d hold off on that. If we can continue stumbling out of this economic crisis, I believe future historians may well conclude that the most important thing to happen in the last 18 months was that Red China decided to become Green China.

Friedman suggests China’s decision to go green is one of necessity.”What do we know about necessity?” he writes, “It is the mother of invention,…[and] unless China powers its development with cleaner energy systems, and more knowledge-intensive businesses without smokestacks, China will die of its own development.” The “greening of China” is, he argues, the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet’s launching Sputnik, an event that stunned the U.S. and “spurred America to make massive investments in science, education, infrastructure and networking — one eventual byproduct of which was the Internet.”

Glimmer of Hope:

In these pages, we’ve argued many times that America (the government, public and private companies, individuals) should welcome the opportunity to be a leader in green innovation, because, someday soon, we’ll either be buying it or selling it. So, it’s with a tempered sense of relief to read about construction projects like the Russia Wharf Tower, the 31-story building that is taking sustainable construction to new heights with a state of the art “rain harvesting” system.

The developer, Boston Properties, estimates that the green building will harvest nearly every drop of water that lands on its expansive roof. Rather than releasing the water into storm drains, the water will be used for air conditioning and landscaping. The system is designed to conserve more than 12.5 million gallons of water a year.

“Capturing this level of storm water prevents it from flowing into our waterways as runoff,’’ said Jim Hunt, Boston’s chief of energy and environment. “That’s critically important to preventing pollution after we invested billions of dollars to restore Boston Harbor.’’

As people like Thomas Friedman (appropriately) chastise the U.S. for its complacency in all things green, perhaps its only fitting that we see the Russia Wharf Tower as a hopeful sign of a new chapter in our history. A short walk from the new development brings you to the site of the Boston Tea Party- no, not the confused and rag-tag gatherings sponsored by hysterical radio personalities, but that original act of American defiance, one that set the country on a path to independence.

Is this development (750,000-square-foot office tower, 70 residential units, several restaurants, and a waterfront plaza) a sign of good things to come? Stay tuned.

[Sources: Boston Globe, EcoFriend, NYT]

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.

[source: Telegraph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

“We should be much further ahead than we are!” says David Letterman, who welcomed to his show Elon Musk, Chairman of Tesla Motors. Letterman’s voice is cracking and raspy, almost losing his voice,but he manages some great questions of his guest. Letterman seems excited about the development of electric vehicles, but around the 8min 15sec mark he mentions his chief concern: that “it would magnetize my nuts.”

It’s not hard to find evidence to support Tom Friedman’s ‘Flat Earth‘ theory, especially these days. The U.S. subprime meltdown went through the global economic bloodstream like a virus, infecting economies big and small- poor Iceland is still in intensive care. Speaking of viruses, the World Heath Organization says the Swine Flu pandemic is imminent, classifying it as a Phase 5 outbreak. Chrysler announced yesterday it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and merge with European carmaker Fiat. The pitfalls of globalization are everywhere you look, but they also stand as a reminder of the speed at which change can arrive- for worse, clearly, but also for the better.

When it comes to green innovation, we’re often left daunted by the challenges. Can we act fast enough to stave off climate disasters? Won’t it take years to integrate these new green products/technologies into the mainstream? And as long as China is building coal plants at a rate of once a week, aren’t we putting our own economic interests at risk by setting strict emissions standards?

While it’s true we lag behind on a lot of green thinking, the US is still the flagship in the fleet of trends. If we can go green, the world will follow. If we can invest in cost-effective, energy-efficient smart grids, plug-in hybrid technologies, electric vehicle infrastructure like the kind Shai Agassi at Better Place is developing, the world will buy it.

Am I suggesting the current world crises could have been avoided with a little more “green thinking?” Pretty much, yeah. Chrysler? I’m sure there are lots of factors (labor costs, stiff foreign competition, yadda yadda), but, c’mon, have you seen these cars? Do they look like the cars of tomorrow? Is the Sebring exciting you? The Chrysler Aspen Hybrid? Really? That’s what you’ve got?

Some are already seeing the Swine Flu outbreak as a result of factory farming. “When the CDC and the USDA conduct their investigation in Mexico,” writes Sarah Fobes, “they will start with the industrial scale pig farms that have been growing in numbers over the last decade…[noting that many] American pig companies have been opening up pig factories in Mexico, where the outbreak started.”

And, while it was probably greed and a lack of oversight and personal responsibility that helped create the conditions for the subprime meltdown, green innovation might help create the conditions for recovery. Just yesterday, the Metropolitan Transit Authority said it will save $200,000 annually just from having changed to compact fluorescent lightbulbs at Grand Central Terminal.

With our tongue firmly in our cheeks, we say, yes, of course “going green” will solve the world’s problems!

Print Media and The Environment from lovetomorrowtoday on Vimeo.

For our latest installment of One Degree TV, we sat down with Brad Robertson, the Publisher of the Burlington Free Press, a Gannett paper,. We struck up a conversation with Brad after we had written a post asking whether the demise of print media was possibly a good thing for the planet. After an interesting email exchange, we arranged a sit down to discuss further. We’re looking forward to continuing the dialogue in the coming months as this topic is on a lot of our minds. Thanks Brad.

Last Friday, an article in the NY Times about the demise of print media sparked an interesting debate here. Is it such a bad thing? If newspapers go the way of the dodo, will we miss them?  If we turn to online editions, won’t that be a good thing for the environment? For many, the question itself is blasphemy. The ritual of reading a paper at the breakfast table, on the subway, at the cafe and wherever else is as important to some as breathing.

Beyond ruining people’s breakfasts and morning commutes, of course, print media’s demise will result in a significant loss of jobs (from journalists to delivery boys/girls and everyone in between). And while that might be an okay thing from the standpoint of the industry’s negative impact on the environment- cutting down trees, production, delivery, waste disposal- it’s not as clear cut as you might expect.

more…

An Eco-Entrepreneur’s New Model Of Sustainability:

What would you do if your boat came in? We’ve all spent idle moments contemplating it, what we’d do if we won the lottery or, say, started and then sold a successful derivatives and financial risk management software company. OK, maybe not so much the last part, but that’s what happened to Roger Lang when, in 1996, he led his company, Infinity, to a successful (and profitable) merger with SunGuard Data Systems. Three years later, at age 40, Roger ‘retired’ and set his sights on a bold experiment in conservation that’s been described as “part anthropology, part economics, part Gunsmoke and part Greenpeace.” With no previous ranching experience, Roger purchased Sun Ranch, a 20,000 acre ranch in Montana’s Madison Valley, 40 miles north of Yellowstone National Park, and set about challenging the traditional relationship between ranching and conservation and to demonstrate that not only could cattle ranching and environmentalism coexist, but, ultimately, they can save each other.

more…