Welcome to COOL PLANET, the climate blog with a difference: The authors here have been providing solutions to climate change for years. There have been a lot of lessons learned. We look forward to sharing them – ours, and yours – here, as another step toward a COOL PLANET.
Send email to: Webmaster@cleanair-coolplanet.org
Clean Air-Cool Planet
100 Market Street, Suite 204
Portsmouth, NH 03801
603-422-6464
Bill Burtis
By Bill Burtis
Manager, Communications and Special Projects
Clean Air-Cool Planet
I’m going home. My work, apparently, is done. The globe is cooling; global warming has been called off, revoked, turned around – miraculously permitted to disoccur.
That’s the latest pitch by the global warming deniers in their continuing attempt to save the profit margins of big oil and big coal – big carbon – from a sudden decline. I wonder, do Rush, and Sean, and Glenn have stock in Peabody and Exxon? Maybe it’s part of the benefit package at Fox News.
Actually, I think it’s surprising that Fox has chosen to continue to make global warming a political issue and, therefore, one of its bull’s eyes on Barack Obama’s back. I mean, Fox is all about fear, disaster, horrible stuff of which you, Mr. American, need to be really, really afraid. And most of it is nonsense.
But here is something – catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, displaced millions, sea-level rising (Personally, if I worked for them, I’d be working up something on giant methane clouds that are going to ruin your wedding!) – that is actually happening. Or was, depending on whether you understand the science.
As near as I can figure, what these evil pitchmen have latched on to is the same kind of take-what-you-need-and-leave-the-rest approach to the science that the tobacco industry used in the sixties and seventies. Find something, anything, that indicates to the smallest degree that the science might be slightly different from what the main stream says and set it up as absolute evidence that what the main stream says is, well, not true. Or not true enough to keep selling cigarettes, tobacco, chew – or coal, oil, Tahoes, Denalis, Tundras, Sequoias (Ever noticed that a lot of the really big honkers are named after stuff they are destroying?) and seriously big houses.
What they’ve come up with this time is this “The planet’s been cooling for the last 11 years! Global warming is over!” hokum. How do they do it? Easy. 1998 was the hottest year on record – every year since has been less hot, with 2008 relatively cooler. Draw the line; it slopes downward.
But wait: Aren’t they doing the very thing they’d accused the IPCC of doing? Ignoring something? Like the fact that these are relatively small changes in a very large change for the planet – small changes accounted for by a sustained La Nina, volcanism, a low point in the sun-spot cycle and a downturn in global economic activity (read: carbon burning)? Yes, they are.
But they know that the people they are trying to reach – those who are scared enough to hate and spread hate and so spread more fear and get more advertising dollars for Fox – won’t bother to think beyond the propaganda.
And that’s why global warming is politicized. It’s not easy to prove – and few scientists worth the title are willing, or have been willing, to take the risk of stepping out from behind the veil of scientific uncertainty to say look, this is big trouble, period. It’s against their training – which is why we ought to trust them when they – 2000 strong with real climate-related credentials – say it’s really, really likely! If the dentist told you it was really, really likely you had a cavity that was causing that pain, would you fix it?
But you can’t see global warming. It’s covered up in weather and lost in the vastness of the planet. So, you have a hard to prove, naturally unpopular idea and you are trying to wrest power (read here: MONEY) from those who hold it. Grab it and wield it! Take the little doubt of the scientist and puff on it until it’s the size you need to get your pals back in power. Easy enough to see why these people are just as willing to throw away the future of the species as they were to let people continue to die for big tobacco’s profits.
Did I mention that Fred Singer, skeptic-in-chief, worked for tobacco, too? Sorry.
Teal Tigner, Clean Air-Cool Planet
By Teal Tigner
Corporate Program Consultant
Clean Air-Cool Planet
I have always loved vegetables. I’m probably the only 5 year old who asked for a dinner of steamed veggies … with a side of French fries, of course. I mean, I was still 5 even if I DID love vegetables. Fortunately, my love of veggies has continued into my twenties (so has my love of French fries, but that pesky metabolism thing mandates a reduction in their appearance). And, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more adventurous in my veggie choices. I’ve always loved okra, but moving to the East Coast 8 years ago gave me a whole new appreciation for squash varietals as well as rare, yet tasty, fiddleheads. But this winter and spring I found myself in a veggie rut. I was making the same spicy butternut squash boats and chicken parmesan stuffed acorn squash. I needed to branch out, but my local Stop & Shop wasn’t inspiring me. Enter my next door neighbors….
Last year, Kevin and Laura jumped on the chance to sow and reap the harvests of their own labors by signing up for a shared farm plot at Fodor’s Farm, right around the corner from us. Sadly, my fiancé and I recognized that we would not have the time to manage our own farm plot, so we set out in search of another solution. After talking to our neighbors, we heard about Stone Gardens’ Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program… and signed right up. Each week for 22 weeks, we get a ton of basic fresh vegetables including multiple types of lettuce, bok choy, swiss chard, salad fixings, and kale. In addition we get weekly “cool” vegetables, as I call them. These are the different, seemingly exotic veggies that you cannot find at most supermarkets. And, more often than not, you have to find a recipe in order to figure out what to do with them – although sautéing seems to be a safe bet for just about everything. So far, my favorite veggie has been Kohlrabi. Like the translation of its name implies, Kohlrabi is similar to a cabbage/turnip blend yet has the consistency of a potato (again with those French fries!). While Kohlrabi tops my list of “cool” vegetables, that list literally changes every week as we get new and exciting grab bags of fresh produce.
What’s even better is that cooking dinner has become fun againl For a while we were in a “couscous and salad” or “grilled chicken and salad” rut. The CSA share has put us back in touch with our cookbooks and spice rack…and has added a creative element back into cooking. In addition, we’re eating less because the produce is so flavorful. Lettuce, that green watery stuff that rarely has its own flavor sans salad dressing, has layers of flavor. Salad dressing is out the window. Now I can have a delicious bowl of mixed greens and taste pepper, lemon, and grassy goodness just by munching my way to the bottom of the bowl. And, because of the weekly herb plants we receive as part of our share, our backyard herb garden is exploding, making even my Sunday night Penne taste better. But most of all, it means something to me that I know where my food comes from and who is behind its lifecycle. I even e-mail with Monica, the lady who runs our CSA and is responsible for growing everything we’re eating. That’s much better than simply exchanging pleasantries with the Stop & Shop check out lady. Granted, our CSA goodies have dirt and the occasional garden slug on them. But that’s an easy tradeoff when I consider the benefits of eating local, supporting local businesses, and increasing my overall well being.
By Christina Bosch
Climate Fellow ‘09
Clean Air-Cool Planet
Energy rating requirements for home sales, subscription services for furniture, dematerialization, and small companies collaborating on issues it’s good to be bigger when facing…. These were all ideas bandied around this Monday in Cambridge, MA at EDF and Ashoka’s second “unconference” in a series of four that the organizations are holding to generate ideas, and maybe ultimately to change business as usual. The topic for the unconferences being held in D.C., Boston, San Jose, and Austin, is green business innovations.
By now, if you aren’t familiar, you must be wondering what the heck an unconference is. I didn’t know until I tried. Like other things that are named and defined by what they are not rather than what they are (non-profit, dairy-free, non-denominational), an unconference has a lot to do with conferences, and is most easily described by comparing and contrasting it to conferences. It’s a conference in the sense that it brings people together to discuss and share ideas around a central topic — to confer — with sub-topics and themes for smaller group discussion. It’s not a conference in that the focus is on group discussion. There are no presentations aside from some introductions and housekeeping (which in the case of an unconference, includes explaining what attendees are expected to do and then explaining that these expectations are flexible and few). There is no agenda until the participants make one by distilling themes from short small-group conversations first thing in the morning. There are no speakers, booths displaying literature, tote bags full of giveaways, or tables with logo keychains. With the agenda posted (topics included: supply chain, the dark side of innovation, dematerialization, behavior change, and green chemistry), the unconference then runs itself as participants move from session to session, each hosted by a volunteer who kicks off a group conversation. The day is capped off by a session with participants sharing “ah-ha’s,” insights, and ideas for next steps.
The Boston unconference attracted about 80 people representing non-profit organizations, students and academics, independently interested folks, and businesses. During the introductory session, when the facilitator from an organization called Dig In requested that each person state their name, affiliation, and up to three words describing why they came, motivations included things like “adoption of innovation” “curiosity” “networking” “ideas” “strategies” and “keeping it real in the environmental movement”… what became apparent quickly was that people there were thought leaders, and having been to other conferences, struggled with issues of environmental sustainability. Businesses were looking for a new way to discuss the issues, and share ideas. Also apparent was that several people (like those from MIT’s various open source and collaborative learning organizations) were just plain curious about the format — could it work?
It did work, and prompted some thought about ideas for me. I spend a lot of time thinking about, discussing and learning about how business and environmental goals can be aligned and synergistic in my dual master’s degree program at the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise. There are lots of exciting possibilities and some frustrating barriers between current practices and reaching this goal. This results in many examples of win-win solutions (both kinds of green) and an undercurrent of seeking out game-changing ideas that revolutionize business models, consumption, and our relationships with both business and the environment to go beyond energy and operational efficiencies to business that benefits the triple bottom line (people, planet, and profit).
Many examples were brought up at the unconference: reducing energy use, reducing fuel use, cargo-space sharing (coordinating with other companies on distribution to reduce the empty space being hauled by trucks contracted by one company at a time, or for one-way trips), and other logistics and operations twists and tweaks that save money. These types of efficiencies are increasingly possible and deep within supply bases as technology allows for easier tracking and planning. Business models that focus on services instead of products were discussed in their various forms: subscription, deposit, design for reuse and disassembly with required take-back programs to ensure proper management. Barriers to adoption (like our consumption-and-convenience culture), disparities in living standards, and the sheer magnitude of issues facing society were also hashed through at length.
These are all good ideas. At first, however, I found myself a little frustrated with this wide array of examples that skimmed the surface of sustainability and with whether or not they fit the “innovation” bill of the unconference. But I think that that is the point. Many have remarked that our best ideas take shape when we least expect it (like in the shower or while exercising), noting that there is something to having a variety of inputs floating around in our minds that can interact and overlap and congeal into new ideas when we relax and stop thinking in a focused way. I think the unconference served to provide a zillion ingredients that now will simmer and hopefully generate positive innovations — minute and mega — for business and the environment. In this sense, the unconference potluck was the best variety of “’group think.”
If this event intrigues you, there is loads more information available including notes and discussion from the individual conference sessions at: http://greenbusinessinnovators.wetpaint.com/
By Bob Sheppard,
COO and Manager of the Corporate Program,
Clean Air-Cool Planet
When Clean Air-Cool Planet came into being the concept of businesses working to reduce their firms’ greenhouse gas emissions was still in the embryonic stages. In those days meetings with corporate executives frequently meant watching their eyes roll back, fidgeting in their seats, and the checking of wrist watches as they reached the boundaries of their comfort levels.
The world today is very different. Rising energy prices, the recession, action by competitors, consumer and media interest in climate change are all powerful drivers in helping to promote behavior change – and now there is the specter of federal action. Where once there were few groups such as Clean Air – Cool Planet encouraging voluntary action, there are now a range of non-profits, start-ups, large consulting firms and local activists helping businesses measure, monitor and manage their carbon emissions. As someone who has been involved in the field of sustainability for a decade knowing the significant reductions that must still be achieved, this is a sign of hope. Another such sign that is not getting much attention — though this is more of a personal observation than a proven fact — is that despite the current economic recession few U.S. companies appear to be laying off the people charged with implementing carbon reduction strategies. That was certainly not the case in 2001-02 when many sustainability coordinators/managers in corporate America got their walking papers as they had yet to prove their value to their organizations.
One of the new challenges on our radar screen is bringing more than three-dozen business leaders who are partners of Clean Air-Cool Planet to a greater level of engagement in discussions about designing and implementing a national plan to reduce carbon emissions. As a result of a December 2007 merger with the Washington DC-based Climate Policy Center we now have the ability to provide executive level briefings on best ways to regulate carbon to serve the twin goals of environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency.
Recently I was charged with bringing together business leaders in the state of Maine to review and share insights on the debate that is taking place in Washington. Over the years we have advised these firms on a range of energy efficiency and conservation projects, encouraging them to pilot on-site power generation, switch to bio-fuels, convert their fleets to hybrids, explore the implications of the embedded carbon in their products, and shape messages to vendors, employees and customers.
A May 22 invitation-only briefing featured Clean Air-Cool Planet’s president Rafe Pomerance, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State who has international experience as a policy negotiator on environmental issues. He talked about an economy-wide plan to regulate carbon upstream that would be phased in to minimize the costs of compliance to both businesses and their employees. For a local perspective we included a presentation by Tom Tietenberg, a retired Colby College economist who has written extensively on environmental and natural resource economics and the role of the market in regulating pollutants. Tom has advised the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Agency for International Development and the Environmental Protection Agency as well as several state and foreign governments.
This gathering involved key decision makers from the financial service, manufacturing, retail, and transportation sectors, who are responsible for thousands of jobs across the region. These firms have taken steps to reduce their carbon emissions and realize that legislation under consideration in Congress will impact their ability to compete in the global marketplace. As these business executives, Corporate Social Responsibility Managers, Green Officers, Directors of Sustainable Development, and Vice Presidents joined in lively discussion one thing was abundantly clear. They understood the complexity of issues on the table, favoring a plan that would send a clear message to the market, phasing in regulation of carbon to minimize the impacts of higher energy costs to business, their employees and customer base. They told us loud and clear they want measurable emission reduction targets coupled with price signals that would allow each corporation to make individual decisions on where to invest precious dollars in the most effective and pragmatic solutions.
But there was one underlying theme that also emerged from the dialogue: that “no good deed goes unpunished”. Those businesses who demonstrated climate leadership by taking voluntary action in reducing their emissions want to see a plan from Washington that takes their efforts into consideration in the form of allocations that are fair and equitable for all who are responsible for generating carbon emissions. As the debate over climate legislation heats up this summer it will once again be interesting to see whether the phrase “as Maine Goes So Goes the Nation” extends to this critical environmental issue. Stay tuned…
Amanda Muise
By Amanda Muise
Development Officer, Clean Air-Cool Planet
For my birthday last month, my boyfriend Dan bought me a season pass to the Massachusetts State Parks system. He chose this gift with a very specific purpose in mind: I recently relocated from Norwalk, a small city on the Connecticut coastline, to western Massachusetts, and Dan was hoping that a pass to some of the area’s lake beaches would help make up for the loss of Norwalk’s beautiful Calf Pasture Beach.
A golden ticket to spend the summer sitting in a beach chair with my toes in a lake reading Us Weekly would have been birthday present enough – but of course the parks pass also provides free access to hiking, bike trails, fishing and more. In the few weeks since my birthday, we’ve visited no less than seven State Parks – sometimes two in one weekend. Highlights so far: the basalt cliffs of Mount Tom, which put me at eye level with peregrine falcons and parasailers alike; the summit house atop Mount Holyoke, complete with restored guest rooms and a view to Hartford from the wraparound porch; and of course Lake Wyola, a worthy (and jellyfish-free) substitute for the Long Island Sound.
These and the other parks we’ve visited all have one thing in common: Much of their infrastructure – including things like roads, hiking trails, dams, campsites, and picnic shelters – was created during the Great Depression, as part of a New Deal program called the Civilian Conservation Corps.
I learned this by reading a very interesting signboard at Wendell State Forest – whenever I see one of those signs, I invariably make a beeline for it, since you can bet that it’s got some worthwhile information, cool vintage photography or at the very least some humorous graffiti. Anyway, according to this sign, the Civilian Conservation Corps was created to provide jobs for the unemployed, particularly veterans, in the years between 1933 and 1942. Nearly 100,000 men in Massachusetts alone participated in the CCC, living in 68 camps across the state and creating the bones of a State Park system out of 170,000 acres of cutover land and inaccessible wilderness. The Massachusetts CCC planted more than 12 million trees, earning the nickname “Roosevelt’s Tree Army.” They improved existing forests through selective thinning, firefighting, and pest control and created an infrastructure of roads, campsites, and support buildings that are, in many cases, still in use today.
The story of the Civilian Conservation Corps is particularly fascinating in light of the recession we are facing today – because many climate activists and organizations, including Clean Air-Cool Planet, consider the new generation of “green jobs” to be a vital part of both economic and environmental recovery. Today’s green jobs tend to be clean, safe, skilled positions in brand-new, fast-growing industries like renewable energy, carbon accounting or sustainable construction. The green jobs created by the CCC were perhaps a little more rough-around-the-edges – Corps members lived in tents or barracks, contending with New England weather, local wildlife, and the dangers inherent in activities like felling trees – but the twin objectives of the program were ones we would do well to fulfill today. In the short-term: Generate new jobs to improve the economy and help struggling Americans feed their families. In the long-term: Build a new infrastructure that will help our country realize its goals of environmental protection and stewardship.
Although the CCC has since been dissolved, its spirit lives on in the Department of the Interior’s recent allocation of $50 million to create a twenty-first century Youth Conservation Corps. The new Corps is intended to “build an ethic for environmental protection” by providing young people with conservation training and increased access to outdoor activities. In its turn, this announcement has galvanized non-profit organizations across the country to develop their own related initiatives: For example, the Santa Fe-based Earth Works Institute is establishing the Climate Change Conservation Corps (4C) to train young adults between the ages of 17 and 27 in five career pathways focused on mitigating the effects and reversing the causes of climate change. And of course, regular readers of this blog are probably already aware of Clean Air-Cool Planet’s own Climate Fellowship program.
Education and professional development opportunities like these will be crucial to realizing a new green economy and effecting a fundamental change in the way we think about natural resources and energy. If we are still reaping the benefits of the current green jobs revolution 75 years from now – just as today Dan and I can enjoy a State Parks system dating back as early as 1933 – we will know that the movement has been a success.
Meg Giuliano
By Meg Giuliano
Climate Fellow
Clean Air-Cool Planet
Jenny, one of the garden managers at Strawbery Banke, is a practical, no-nonsense woman who really knows her stuff. As I sat down to meet with her about my new community garden plot, it was as if she knew what I was going to say before I even opened my mouth. I can’t quite remember how I had intended to begin the conversation (I was probably thinking something like, “So, I don’t have any idea what I am doing”) but she cut me off after my first word, saying, “You know more than you think you do.”
Perhaps…but I still wasn’t sure exactly where to begin. I had just arrived at my home for the summer – Hough House, at the Strawbery Banke Museum – and unfortunately, I was a bit too late to plant from seed. Worse, it looked like the other gardeners had set their plots into motion ages ago. I knew in the back of my mind that all would be well in the end, but it was totally unclear to me how I was supposed to start. So, I sat there, staring at my weedy patch of dirt.
Gardens are actually very familiar to me, from the wonderful smell of a tomato stem to the feeling of warm, damp soil on my hands. I spent the summers of my childhood playing alongside (and in!) my parents’ extensive vegetable garden, a veritable forest of tomatoes and broccoli and eggplant and towering sunflowers. These days, during the academic year, I volunteer on local farms and organize community events at my graduate school that are centered on sustainable food and agriculture.
But this seemed different, somehow. Perhaps because this was my very own plot, my own “bit of earth,” as Mary Lennox called it in The Secret Garden (one of my favorite books as a child), and I alone was responsible for helping it to grow productively. Unless you count a failed attempt at city-style bucket-gardening in Somerville, MA a few years back, I had never tried to make a garden. This time, it was my job to choose the plants and plan their spots, to think about how to use the limited space and nutrients and sunlight most efficiently.
For me, new things are sometimes intimidating, even when they shouldn’t be. Maybe it’s because I am a perfectionist at heart, though my experiences as a scientist and teacher have taught me that nothing ever happens perfectly the first time. When I don’t know what’s going on, I usually turn to books, and this time was like all the others – I went straight to the library and found a pile of books about organic gardening, kitchen gardening, growing food. They were helpful, of course, but they still didn’t tell me exactly how to start, what to plant, or where to plant it.
I quickly realized that my fellow gardeners were going to be my best resource. Jenny, of course, is full of knowledge and tricks and information, and some of the other gardeners have had plots in this place for ten years. Yet, for these folks, each summer is a new and creative experiment – an adventurous endeavor in gardening. Each year, the community gardeners try to grow something new, or, better yet, something old in a new way.
In the end, we decided that I should go to the Portsmouth Farmers’ Market to buy seedlings, which I did two Saturdays ago. I planted Sungolds and Brandywine tomatoes, red and green lettuce, bell peppers, basil, cucumbers, beans, kale…really, I just walked around and snapped up whatever caught my fancy. After an hour or so of weeding and turning (being sure not to harm the tiny rogue seedlings of orach and dill that Jenny identified for me), I planted my little veggies and hoped for the best.
Now, a week and a half later, I have a couple of yellow flowers on the tomatoes, and everything is still alive and mostly thriving (yay!). I’m looking forward to future hours of playing in the sun and dirt, and to the (eventual) harvest, and I’m excited to meet and learn from the other gardeners. It turns out that starting a garden is not so hard after all.
Last year, I read a wonderful editorial by Michael Pollen in the New York Times, entitled “Why Bother?” In this piece, Pollen sets out a case for planting a garden, as one example of something individuals can do to simultaneously combat climate change and improve the quality of their own lives. He closes with the following paragraph, which I think about whenever I check on my seedlings:
“At least in this one corner of your yard and life, you will have begun to heal the split between what you think and what you do, to commingle your identities as consumer and producer and citizen. Chances are, your garden will re-engage you with your neighbors, for you will have produce to give away and the need to borrow their tools…The garden’s season-long transit from seed to ripe fruit…suggests that the operations of addition and multiplication still obtain, that the abundance of nature is not exhausted. The single greatest lesson the garden teaches is that our relationship to the planet need not be zero-sum, and that as long as the sun still shines and people still can plan and plant, think and do, we can, if we bother to try, find ways to provide for ourselves without diminishing the world.”
Anne Stephenson
By Anne Stephenson, Ph.D.
Campus Outreach Coordinator
Clean Air-Cool Planet
Monday night I went to Town Meeting. I didn’t want to go… but I know that most who attend are there to nit-pick over the budget, and those who think the town should be spending more rarely go. So I went, mostly in response to this wonderful, clear, op-ed written by my friend Molly Colman on why we should support the budget as written by the Town Council. Those who have been to a town meeting will appreciate it I think.
Molly is a neighbor of mine in South Berwick. We serve on a number of committees together, and until this spring, co-chaired our sustainability committee. Molly considers local activism to be the most important form of civic participation – and she goes to every open hearing, meeting, and workshop that she can manage to attend. This isn’t always to forward an opinion of her own, and I’ve never heard her “get on a soap box”, except maybe, at the end of the day amongst friends. Instead, she goes to be present, and to help convene conversation in a town that has had divisive town politics for years. She is a professional convener in fact. Town meeting has been a location of shouts and tears and if last night’s relatively tame meeting was any proof, Molly’s presence and her call for greater positive, civic participation has been met by many.
South Berwick is a funny town – it’s big – but it’s between bigger towns – Dover, Portsmouth, and Portland. We don’t have a newspaper of our own and although we’re proud to be Mainers, many of us South Berwickians hop in the car or on the train to work in Portsmouth or Boston. Molly stumbled on the fact that we were missing a forum to be a community – a place to have healthy civic dialogue – and so she created “The 236 Diner” a blog named after the busy road that takes us out of town that should, but doesn’t, have a diner. Until she actually starts cooking eggs for us all in the morning before work, her blog is the next best thing, and it’s given the town a place to meet outside of Town Meeting – and Town Meeting is the better for it.
So, that’s the positive. My friend Molly makes me think every day about what it means to be a neighbor. And what it means to do the work I do, not just at Clean Air-Cool Planet, but as a South Berwick citizen. With her encouragement, I work with my neighbors on sustainability programs and we have invited a number of interesting guest lecturers to town. At the urging of many in town, the Town Council formed a municipal Energy Committee and Molly and I serve on it.
But here’s the catch. Debate last night revolved around cutting the budget anywhere one could. At times, the quality of ambulance service was threatened. But of particular note to me was the endless debate about our capital budget reserves. Couldn’t we use those for on-going expenses? Why do we need $10,000 in reserve for our municipal buildings? In the context of Town Meeting, all money is fair game, but putting money aside for future capital expenses is particularly vulnerable. As our Energy Committee prepares to meet next week for our second official meeting, I wonder – how will we ever get any efficiency project done that requires any initial expense? Even if the payback was within a year, I have trouble imagining an efficiency line-item making it through last night’s gauntlet. Perhaps I just don’t have the faith in civic participation that Molly does, but can citizens spend now to save money, fossil fuels, the planet, later?
Individually yes. Even if you asked them outright, yes. But in the budget? That seems to me a different question. At the end of Town Meeting, I’m not certain a cogeneration, insulation, or renewable energy line-item would be left intact. Last night, some of my neighbors turned themselves into IT, phone network, and ambulance repair experts and questioned the veracity of the budget claims. Certainly that is within their right as voters, but I doubt that some speaking up last night could be experts in all of those fields. If presented with an efficiency project, how many of the auditorium would stand as experts? Everyone?
But I am new to Town Meeting, not just in South Berwick but in my work. My colleagues Roger, Christa, Sara, and Julia, work with Local Energy Committees across New Hampshire to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions, and to begin municipal efficiency projects. So I call on them to tell me how other towns have been successful with energy projects when presented to the town at large. Town Meeting is a way of life here – and the passing of the warrant article about climate action in New Hampshire Town Meeting in 2007 made for a busy time here at Clean Air-Cool Planet, as the prime mover for the Carbon Coalition. It meant for extraordinary civic discussion about climate change. But that was a resolution – no funds were up for discussion. Now we put the rubber to the road, or our money where our mouth is, etc. etc. So, what is the next step for Town Meeting? Are neighbors able to collectively hedge against future fuel price volatility?
For me, until and unless Molly, with her wonderful faith in civic civility, convinces me otherwise, I am an Energy Committee member who is a little pessimistic. We will achieve great energy savings for our town – of that I’m certain. But if I have anything to do with it, those savings will be placed in a dedicated revolving loan fund for energy projects and my neighbors won’t be able to touch it come next Town Meeting.
By Claire Roby
Carbon Accounting Coordinator
Clean Air-Cool Planet
Last Thursday, I had the pleasure of meeting Clean Air-Cool Planet’s 2009 Climate Fellows. These promising young leaders came together to meet the CA-CP staff and each other as well as to learn about logistics for the summer program. As members of this highly competitive program, each student or recent graduate will spend the next 10 weeks gaining real-world experience developing the low-carbon economy with one of the CA-CP programs or our external partners. For example, Jennifer Kleindienst will be helping York Hospital create a greenhouse gas reduction plan. Maria Leonardi is helping the Adirondack region of New York distribute their inventory work, create municipal energy committees, and move towards a cohesive regional plan.
Learning about the fellows’ summer projects was interesting, but the best part of the two days we had together was seeing the diversity of expertise amongst this year’s fellows. Of course we have people who are interested in campus sustainability or corporate greening, but we also have Ginny Brown who focuses on historic buildings and Carrie Petrik who is interested in biogeochemistry. Their dream jobs range from running a green historical site museum (Katie Miller), to building a powerful lobby for small farmers (Julia Meisel), to being a corporate sustainability strategy consultant (Helen Mou). Their diversity of interests mirrors the breadth of careers involved in identifying, promoting, and enacting solutions to climate change. We need to remember that a low-carbon economy will involve many more than the solar panel installers and the policy wonks. And for that matter- as proud as I am of our fellowship program- it will involve many more people who don’t focus solely on energy and climate issues. We need sustainability minded grocers, bankers, and stylists.
Watching the fellows get to know each other was “more fun than a barrel of endangered voles,” as our colleague Brooks Yeager would say. Neda Arabshahi, Yale MBA and Masters of environmental science candidate, learned about the ideal mixture of compost from 2008 fellow Greg Williams, who recently won a business competition to start a new composting business in Maine. Natalie Berland advised 2008 fellow Casey Roe on tasty restaurants in Minneapolis, where Casey will be moving for the Summer of Solutions. This last exchange highlights part of the fellowship program that is just at important as the work the fellows will be doing this summer: we are creating a cadre of connected young climate leaders. As a 2008 Fellow, I know that each new class introduces me to other young people doing great climate work, and those are connections I will be able to use throughout my career.
I’m proud to be part of the inaugural class of fellows, and I’m excited to follow our past, current, and future fellows’ accomplishments. For example, Ben Wessel and Neda Arabshahi will both be in Copenhagen for the climate negotiations in December. Maybe they will write a post for us from Copenhagen?
Click here to see the list of books our fellows and staff members recommended to each other. A few examples:
Dire Predictions, Michael Mann (Carrie)
Climate science for laypeople
A Field Guide to American Houses, Virginia and Lee McAlester (Ginny)
Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough & Michael Braungart (Jessamine)
Ishmael, Daniel Quinn (Claire)
Native Tongue, Carl Hiassen (Brooks)
Anything by John Clare (Adam and Bill)
By Krista Macomber,
Clean Air-Cool Planet
As the summertime approaches and gas prices begin to climb, I am reminded of last summer when oil peaked at an incredible $147 per barrel. In today’s economy, very few can afford to fill their cars’ gas tanks at such prices. It definitely hurt our wallets, but it was beneficial to the environment because people were burning a smaller amount of fossil fuels by driving less. Fuel efficiency became an issue, but since gas prices have dropped I think it has become a less pressing matter to the public.
This is why I am relieved that President Obama announced a new fuel efficiency policy last week. The policy aims for a national, industry standard in cars sold in the US of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. President Obama hopes to reduce America’s carbon footprint, strengthen and unify what he describes as the “inadequate, uncertain, and in flux” regulations currently governing the country’s fuel economy, and reduce its outrageous demand for oil with this policy.
President Obama says that, over their useful life, the new, efficient cars that will be produced as a result of this policy can save the typical driver $2800 with better gas mileage. “As a result,” he said, “we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that’s more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined. Here’s another way of looking at it: This is the projected equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year.”
This will be huge because our nation’s oil dependency contributes significantly to climate change and also makes us reliant on often unstable and volatile foreign relations. We use 25 percent of the world’s oil for 5 percent of its population and currently import about 66 percent of that oil. These numbers are incomprehensible to me. Consuming so much is so dangerous that I really can’t grasp it. It is destructive to our environment and puts our nation in such a vulnerable position. I can’t believe we haven’t taken comprehensive steps sooner to correct our oil driven lifestyle and economy sooner.
Americans are going to have to reprioritize and sacrifice in order to attain President Obama’s goals. As a society, we cannot maintain our current lifestyle much longer. Our planet simply will not be able to support it. Science tells us this – in fact, it has been for several years now. Regardless, I do not think that we will change until we are forced to, or until the planet’s resources collapse. Obama’s policy will be a major step forcing America as a whole to begin alleviating its contingency on oil. Since the country is the leading consumer of oil, and more than half of this oil is burned in its vehicles, this policy has the potential to make a dent on global greenhouse gas emissions.
With all of the gains that come from fuel efficiency, it is difficult for me to understand why some people oppose this new policy. A major argument against the new policy is that its restrictions will hinder our already hurting economy and auto industry. The reality, as I have found, is the contrary. Paying less money at the pumps will send less money overseas to oil giants, leaving more money to be spent at home and support the American economy. Also, car shoppers will benefit from these new vehicles – they will make back the extra money they may spend on a more sustainable vehicle within just three years’ time in gas money, says President Obama.
Our new president is reminding us that, while gas might not currently cost us $4 or $5 per gallon, we still need to be wary of the amount of gas we are burning for the sake of the planet and our economy. Gas is contributing just as heavily to global warming whether it costs $5 per gallon or $1.80 per gallon. At either price, it is still going to run out. We still import the large majority of it from nations which we do not have secure relations with. This is dangerous news, considering how vital this resource is to the American way of life and economy.
Bill Burtis
By Bill Burtis
Manager of Communications and Special Projects
Clean Air-Cool Planet
Anne Stephenson recently opined, appropriately and eloquently, in this space about “carbon sins.” Shoes, she noted, were her downfall. I don’t have that problem.
Pineapples, on the other hand, are a big problem for me. I love them – and I don’t mean the little cans of chunks – I mean the whole honkin’ fruit. Flown in from – I don’t know, Hawaii, I suppose. I don’t want to know, really.
My friend Faith told me once she thought I could keep eating pineapples as long as I was willing to pay what it truly cost to have a pineapple here in the cold Northeast. I respect her opinion because she and her husband have worked and studied diligently to craft a style of life that is remarkably sustainable. I could cite dozens of examples of this, from harvesting their own fuel and maple syrup to their wonderful garden. But my favorite example is the ducks.
Their ducks (Shirley, Mercy, and Grace) are in residence to remove slugs from the leafy green vegetables in that garden. They also provide, in the warmer months, an egg apiece every day – and these are large and very good eggs.
In the winter, they reside in the hoop house, where they provide fertilizer for dormant beds that will come to life in late winter. The plastic-sheeted structure sits in the sun in front of the hillside into which is built a root cellar, providing a protected way in and out during the long, cold months.
My friends have made a choice to live this way, and there are certainly tradeoffs. They are not hippy back-to-the-land types; they both hold professional positions in nearby small cities, and ply their carefully crafted, very real version of sustainability in the evenings and on weekends.
Theirs is a choice that is relatively all encompassing. The choice to pay for the pleasure of eating a tropical fruit (How to calculate that cost is one of the reasons CA-CP is working on a “Foodprint” project, about which colleague Jennifer Andrews wrote last week) next to a woodstove would be another, while choosing to eschew the lovely fruit would be a more sensible one – one more in keeping with the life-choice of my friends, who have at their sumptuous table the fruits of the season in Vermont.
These are choices on a personal scale. I recently read with some alarm about another choice, a choice on a much larger scale: tapping natural gas from methane clathrates, massive deposits frozen in and on the ocean floor in the Arctic and other locations where the water remains cold enough to hold them. These deposits comprise the fuel for one of the climate doomsday scenarios: They unfreeze, due to warming of the ocean above them, and huge amounts of methane, many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, are released into the atmosphere in the beginning of a vicious feedback cycle that spirals the planet into runaway warming.
Science in the region is beginning to indicate that this scenario is a possibility. And so other scientists have put forward a way to use the methane to create energy and 1) displace other fossil fuels polluting the atmosphere; 2) reduce the global warming potential of the gas to that of CO2; and 3) prevent its release into the atmosphere in massive amounts. It sounds good – and it may be necessary.
But I worry about choices of this magnitude, because if they are not properly managed, bad things can happen. If, for instance, we simply choose to rely on this source of energy as a solution to global warming, we might not develop other, non-polluting ways of powering our lives. It could be another yellow gas cap. We are, after all, prone to choosing the easy way out, paying for the pineapple, instead of giving it up.
Increasingly it appears the only real choice we have is to use every available means – from personal choices to policy choices – to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we are emitting, and we have to do it quickly. We’re past the point of just the “low-hanging fruit”, the “no-brainers” and the quick fixes.
If we’re going to leave the planet in any kind of shape for coming generations, we have to make every choice we can, from the little stuff that adds up to the big stuff that might save us. We are going to have to get our ducks in a row.
