Are We Too Locavoracious?

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

If you open the latest Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary, (or use it online) you'll now find an entry for "locavore". The New Oxford American Dictionary made it the "word of the year" way back in 2007, so no kudos for the Websterites...they're bit late to the party. In any case, Webster defines it as "one who eats foods grown locally whenever possible."

But the bigger question is why? The three reasons I hear come up most often are:

• it helps the environment,
• it's healthier and fresher, and
• it supports small farmers in your area.

I'm all for fresh and healthy food and supporting local farmers, and the locavore movement is also a statement against the many negative aspects of the global corporate food system. (Having recently seen Food Inc, these negative aspects in particular are fresh in my mind.)

But when it comes to helping the environment, local is not always better. "Food miles" aren't typically the largest component of the carbon footprint of a product. One Carnegie Mellon study put the transportation piece in the 5-10% range on average. Our own in-depth study of beer put transportation in the 3-4% range, jumping to 10% if your product is shipped cross-country (intermodal). Significant, but the use of recycled glass, organic grain, and green energy all have a potentially larger impact.

Another study from New Zealand found that New Zealand pasture grazing lamb was 4 times less carbon intensive than feed lot lamb. Not only does this negate the food miles, personally I would rather buy pasture raised meat from overseas over that from a local high density feed lot. Similarly, a local non-organic source may not be 'better' than an organic alternative from farther away, and a locally grown hothouse tomato may use a lot more energy than an outdoor tomato from another state.

One local supermarket chain in my area is advertising their produce section as an "indoor farmer's market" (yikes!), and "all natural" seems to be the most misleading adjective of the decade. We need to look beyond marketing claims, and try to really understand where our food comes from, and how it's produced. As one of the Carnegie Mellon scientists pointed out "for the average consumer, buying local is not as important as what you eat."

Photo: Creative commons license - copyright swanksalot at flickr.com.

Green Economy and A Moving Van

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

Did he or didn't he? We'll probably never know the true story behind Van Jones' signature on a 911 conspiracy petition that ultimately caused him to step down as green jobs czar. Politics is a dirty business (made dirtier by the internet) and he certainly is not the first or the last victim of partisanship. (Nor will he quietly vanish from the public spotlight!)

The real question is whether his passion for reinventing our economy so that tackling climate change actually creates opportunity will be a victim as well. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times did a profile on him in 2007 which featured a great quote summing up his position:

"The green economy has the power to deliver new sources of work, wealth and health to low-income people - while honoring the Earth. If you can do that, you just wiped out a whole bunch of problems. We can make what is good for poor black kids good for the polar bears and good for the country."

To that I would add that we also have a chance to solve problems in the developing world. While we tend to focus on the sky high average US footprint and the 'westernization' of successful economies (cars, televisions, appliances) leading to climate threats, there are a host of solutions to deep rural poverty issues that can be beneficiaries of action on the climate.

Imagine a future where we divert some of the $600 million we spend daily on oil imports (and $100 million per day on coal) to producing energy by capturing the wind, sun, tides, and heat. Imagine also trading out energy purchases for smarter design and construction of buildings, machines, cookstoves in Africa, and even cities. This future - where energy is a clean product rather than polluting resource controlled by a few large oil companies and countries, where we replace thoughtless disposable consumption with a skilled service and manufacturing sector, and where we practice natural capitalism (valuing ecological systems) - is an exciting and energizing counterweight to the normal doom and gloom surrounding the climate change discussion.

As Van Jones has said "Dr. King didn't get famous giving a speech that said, I have a complaint." Let's keep the dream alive.

Photo copyright psd at flickr.com

Youtilities

By Dave Rochlin - Originally posted on care2.com

Imagine generating solar, wind, or geothermal power for your home and selling the excess to your neighbors. In the future, will you be the power company? If we are serious about renewable energy, the answer could be yes.

In many other countries, they have successfully put in place feed-in tariffs to accelerate this. Unlike "net metering" which allows cleanly generated electricity to be fed into the grid to offset electric bills, feed-in tariffs basically require utilities to pay a premium price for renewable energy they purchase from homeowners and businesses that install wind turbines, solar panels, or other clean-energy generating devices on their properties. Many see this as a faster way to get to more renewables, while creating green jobs and avoiding the barriers that have slowed the changeover here in the US. Germany in particular has used this model very successfully.

What's the alternative? California has a 33% renewable energy target for the year 2020. Unfortunately, using large scale solar and wind projects to meet this goal (mostly in remote areas) creates the need for an estimated $12-15 billion for transmission lines alone, a figure that will no doubt go well beyond $20 billion if and when they actually build them. T. Boone Pickens' project to install hundreds of massive turbines in the Texas panhandle was abandoned due to similar transmission line issues, and a fight is brewing over who should pay for a $12 billion project to connect wind from the plains to the large cities in the Midwest.

Centralized power generation could be a thing of the past. Fast Company described the renewables push in the United States as "big, expensive, slow, and spectacularly uncertain." Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute compares the push for "big renewables" as similar to proposing more hardwired telephone exchanges and mainframe computers in a world that has moved on to internet telephony and laptops. The large power generators have some interesting technologies on the horizon, but creating a vibrant decentralized industry where individual energy customers can compete with the utilities is likely to create more change and a better long-term outcome. A variety of bills are moving through state legislatures and and congress...keep your eyes open!

Photo copyright mjmonty at flickr.com (Creative Commons license)

The Pentagon Ponders Climate Change

By Dave Rochlin - Originally posted on care2.com

It seems that over the last few years, more and more science fiction writers include climate change in their future-visions. It's their job to think of the future, and most seem resigned to envisioning the world quite different than it is today.

Now, a new type of futurist - the planners - are also painting a vision of a world altered by global warming. In California, the Natural Resources Agency is encouraging cities and organizations to prepare for rising sea levels and hotter weather. In France, President Sarkozy brought together teams of internationally recognized designers to develop bold visions for the transformation of Paris and its suburbs.

Even the US military may be getting into the act. As the New York Times reports there is growing concern in the Pentagon that the violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics caused by global warming could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions. The article also mentions that the key logistics hub for forces in the Middle East is located on an atoll a few feet above sea level, and touches on the possible military implication of an ice free Arctic.

As Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni said: "We will pay for this one way or another...We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind, or we will pay the price later in military terms." General Zinni is no lightweight.

Is military pragmatism the right motivation for the US to take a leadership position in climate change? Does it matter? You could argue that this is a selfish rather than altruistic motive. But if this particular way of analyzing the issue creates a more globally focused and active policy, I say "bring 'em on."

Barbarians at The Turbine

By Dave Rochlin - Originally posted on care2.com

In a recent column in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi described cap and trade as "a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an environmental plan" and further asserts that it will "allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme." A pretty scary critique.

Now I should start with the caveat that Taibbi is a somewhat opinionated and controversial figure, prone to hyperbole. He once described Thomas Friedman (NY Times writer and author of "The World is Hot, Flat and Crowded") as someone who "flies around the world, eats pricey lunches with other rich people and draws conclusions about the future of humanity by looking out his hotel window and counting the Applebee's signs." He called Goldman Sachs "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" and he also penned an infamous piece called "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope."

But for me, the Enron-induced market manipulation of the energy markets that nearly bankrupted California still stings, as does the more recent mortgage backed securities fiasco that may end up bankrupting our country (thanks to the TARP, housing bubble, and stimulus packages that it has spawned). While carbon prices should drive us to demand greater energy efficiency and use less energy, the real underlying purposes of carbon credits are to fund ecosystem services (such as vibrant forests) and to finance the cost of permanent changes to the world's energy production and consumption infrastructure. A poorly designed cap and trade scheme could lead to market manipulation and speculation that transfers most of the money to sophisticated financial firms and market intermediaries, rather than groups that actually do the projects. A carbon price "spike" could easily lead to $10 of paper profits for every $1 that actually funds firms making a difference.

We set up ClimatePath so that money goes to a nonprofit that permanently retires the credits...no resale or speculation. Many of our mission based project partners also insist that credit transaction lead to retirement, not resale. We avoid treating carbon as a commodity, by linking money spent to the underlying project work. These aren't the only answers, and I do believe that market making firms are needed to make cap and trade work. But it is important that the final cap and trade bill contains strong provisions and penalties to prevent a speculative bubble. The language is there now, but as Mother Jones reports "regulation of carbon markets will probably be swept up in broader financial reforms that are the subject of intense lobbying and political pressure. It's too soon to take for granted that cap and trade will contain rules that go far enough to prevent speculation and fraud."

If you write rules for Wall Street, they follow them. If you leave loopholes, they exploit them. In the end, if your utility ends up paying $50 a ton while they transition away from coal, while the renewables supplier, forest preservation project, or conservation project receives only $10, then we have legislated the massive wealth transfer that Taibbi fears.

Photo copyright artemuestra at flickr.com (CC License)

Getting along with less

By Dave Rochlin - Originally posted on care2.com

There's a new study out by the highly respected firm Mckinsey, which concludes that, in the US alone, we have the potential to reduce energy consumption by 23% by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste, and resulting in the abatement of 1.1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually – the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.

This is not based on new clean energy sources, or some future high tech solution like hydrogen powered flying cars. (Question: Does a flying car count as taking a car off the road?) It is based on energy efficiency - simply consuming less.

The cost? Well it isn't all free...but what is most interesting about the report is that they identify the expenditures that actually save more than they cost, and rank them based on their return on investment. High on the list are lighting, appliances/electronics, and water heating, things groups like Energy Star, utilities, and even ClimatePath have been touting for some time.

In a country where using fossil fuels is almost a sign of patriotism (a bizarre notion, given our reliance on foreign oil), some pretty sizable changes are needed to capture these savings. To sum up the Mckinsey study's conclusions, an energy policy based on supply needs to be replaced by one based on demand. Treating energy efficiency as an energy resource, more investment in energy efficiency, and cooperation between utilities, regulators, government agencies, manufacturers (and consumers) are all part of the solution.

A lot of this savings is in commercial buildings and facilities, where better codes and incentives to spend up front are needed. But that doesn't let us off the hook at home. Discover the operating costs of tankless water heaters, front load washers and other appliances before dismissing them in favor of cheaper models. And if you work in a commercial building, ask what your company and your landlord are doing to reduce energy costs. Especially in this economic climate, landlords will bend over backwards to please tenants...and they'll be saving money in the long run as well. Energy Star has a great guide for building upgrades.

Photo copyright janetmck at flickr.com (CC license.)

'Not in My Backyard' Won't Work for Climate Change

By Dave Rochlin - Originally posted on care2.com

I was on the beach last week, and watched a fellow beach-goer finish a cigarette, dig a small hole in the sand, and bury the butt. Presto, it was gone! As most of us know, cigarette butts are not biodegradable, so that solution was temporary, and just made the pain of that butt someone else's problem.

Hiding a problem does not make it go away, and for the environment, out of sight out of mind just won't cut it. This can be especially problematic when we try to raise the bar by doing things locally. For example, one of the California CBS affiliates recently reported that "California's recycling rules are so strict that we send our electronic waste across state borders. CBS 5 Investigates found a huge pile of glass from California's TVs and monitors in Arizona, a pile that environmental experts said contained potential environmental hazards...The pile consisted of thousands of pounds of glass, broken-up screens from California's supposedly recycled TVs and monitors."

It doesn't matter if you ban certain chemicals, or require local factories to use green energy or offset, if you turn around and buy goods from somewhere else that lacks these rules. The 'emerging' world economies (where much of our food and other goods are produced) are poised to pass the 'developed' world in emissions in the next decade, and in many cases the environmental bar is set lower. Even in the US, the carbon impact of a product can vary greatly depending on where it was made.

Conscientious consumers are figuring this out. More and more, we're asking for information and labels to make informed purchases. As a result, more companies are offering extra nutrition, recycling, organic, and fair trade labeling, with carbon labeling on the horizon. We can't vote in other states or countries, but we do get to vote with our wallet every day. When we do, we have the opportunity to enforce greener, cleaner practices wherever products are produced.