Is it the end of green buildings?

I do not believe in coincidence. That is not to say that I believe in predestination, but as Sherlock Holmes has said, "Universe is rarely so lazy." With that point of view, I cannot help but connect the recent announcement by the City of Chicago that the Chicago Center for Green Technology will close as of this Friday, October 31. Just yesterday, the US Green Building Council, whose LEED rating system spurred the City to assemble a team to create the CCGT, announced that they will not require their next evolution of that "industry leading" LEED rating system - which was developed in 2013 - to be in widespread use until October 2016.

A bit of background, for those who might not be as aware of the roots of this era of the green building movement. Back in 1993, the US Green Building Council was formed by a group of people who believed that business could be part of the solution to designing and constructing buildings that did no harm to humans at any stage of their existence. Since the early 1970s, we had become conscious of two major issues: That we do not have limitless energy, and that many chemicals used in common manufacturing could harm us. By the 1990s, builders and manufacturers were touting "green" products with no way to back it up. In forming a separate trade association (originally, at least) to provide a common standard, it was hoped that business would find a way to make non-harmful buildings and materials at the lowest cost possible.

To accomplish this, the USGBC created a rating system for building design called LEED for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Owners and their architects would keep track of the best practices they employed to create a building and receive credit for those activities that they could prove met certain standards for human health, energy performance, or other environmental metric. The system debuted in 1998.

Coincidentally, Mayor Richard M. Daley had recently seen the green roofs of Germany and wondered what Chicago could do to make such a bold statement. Many in his administration, especially those in the now-defunct Department of Environment (more on that later) pointed toward this new system that could document and award green buildings. With the help of local industry, the mayor decided to move forward with a trial of this system. From this was born the Chicago Center for Green Technology. It achieve, at the time, the highest level of performance any green building could achieve. With rainwater capture, geothermal heating/cooling, solar PV, lots of natural light, and many other features, it was a testament to what we could do. The mayor and his administration then backed this up by requiring that all new public buildings achieve some level of LEED certification. The City would become one of the largest green builders in the country.

Flash forward to 2012. The LEED rating system has undergone three major (and a couple of minor) revisions and improvements. In its wake, the system drove the improvement of energy codes, changed the industries associated with furniture and finishes (paint, carpet), and has contributed to the conversation around building people-centered communities. Buildings like the CCGT no longer represent the future or even the present. In order to remain on the front line of the industry, LEED needed to move onto the next challenges associated with green building, and so it released version 4.

And all hell broke loose.

Among other things, LEED v4 started to require that some (not all) materials used in projects disclose the chemicals in them, thinking that if owners/occupants knew what was in the building, they could make a rational choice. It would also drive architects and engineers to ask the question, and accept the answer. This drove the manufacturing and chemical industries crazy, to the point where they started supporting alternative rating systems to challenge LEED (e.g. Green Globes). They started lobbying cities and states that had adopted LEED as a standard, and even challenged USGBC with one of the Council's staunchest supporters, the General Services Administration. USGBC had pushed the edge and found strong resistance.

Meanwhile, just before this wild party around LEED started, Chicago's mayor of twenty-two years decided not to run for another term in office. His replacement would be a politically-saavy former Congressman and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Immediately upon taking office, Mayor Emanuel eliminated the Department of Environment and scattered its functions among other City departments. Given the times, he naturally focused on budget certainty, job creation, and business development. The previous administration's focus on delivering high performing buildings fell to the wayside...as long as industry could still deliver them, there was going to be no resistance from the administration, but they would not drive the industry. They had other fish to fry.

That brings us to today, and the coincidence. It is rumored that the City's building arm, the independent Public Building Commission of Chicago, was going to drop building LEED certified buildings because of internal assessments that showed it might cost more with the new v4 rating system. The vision of a new "green town" centered around the Chicago Center for Green Technology never came to fruition (even with the building of one of the largest green high schools in the country, Westinghouse, right around the corner). Chicago's green ambitions became more easily achievable to reflect the concerns over economic development. The Chicago Center for Green Technology, despite a legitimate effort to make it economically viable, no longer served a purpose as a public building with public programs. With previously staunch supporters, like the City of Chicago, waning in their interest with LEED, and attacks on all fronts, the USGBC had a choice: stand by their position that LEED needed to live up to the "Leadership" part of its name, or evolve into something more reactive to the market.

It is obvious what it has chosen.

In August, the USGBC announced a partnership with the American Chemical Council, apparently coming to a truce with one of its most ardent attackers. Then yesterday, after last week's national Greenbuild conference, USGBC announced that it was extending the date for LEED v4 enforcement to October 2016...a full three years after its original launch date and fully seven years after the last iteration of the rating system. After years of attacks in the media over real performance, and attacks from threatened industries, it seems that USGBC has changed its approach.

The question on both accounts is whether this spells the death knell for the green building movement or whether this signifies successful integration into the market. Twenty-one years ago, the vision was market transformation through a green building standard. With the chemical industry now partnering with the Council, and after withstanding a vigorous and well-funded assault, does a re-positioned USGBC see the opportunity to become less about leadership on the edge, and more about leadership from the front ranks. LEED has always been about moving the market forward toward a goal, not defining it, and with at least two other rating systems (PassivHaus and Living Building Challenge) defining the "end goal", should LEED need to worry as much about leading the pack.

In Chicago, with the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code, and the assumed adoption of its updates every three years, does a focus on the development of green tech industries really mean that the City will be less interested in the environment? Many of the human health concerns around buildings have become so well known, thanks in no small part to LEED, that a builder or architect who chooses to ignore them risks litigation, even if they are not fully codified in law. The economics of the energy industry recently forced the closing of the last two coal-fired electricity plants in Chicago, so even just by happenstance, the city's air will become better the breathe.

There is a chance that there has been enough "transformation" in the marketplace that cities like Chicago no longer need to lead, and organizations like the USGBC can become a place for more gradual change. Only the next few years will tell whether that is the case. I, for one, see the possibility, but cannot resist lamenting the loss. My life in green buildings dates back to the launch of  CCGT. Through the energy created from that icon, I worked for years on green schools, part of a team that saw the design of some of the most student-friendly schools in the history of the city. LEED was the sword we - as well as thousands of others - swung to get through the thicket, and some amazing designers and builders swung that sword with us to establish a new standard for building in the city and across the state. At each obstacle, we proved that building structures that made all people's lives better were not only possible, but easier...especially when we trusted our own ingenuity. Many will continue to blaze this trail until every student, worker, citizen gets to study, work, and live in a building that completely supports their life and health. Until that day, we can all find strength in the knowledge of what needs to be done to achieve that.

And maybe we will no longer need entities like the City of Chicago or the USGBC to lead the way.

Update: November 3, 2014, 12:15 CDT:

Several people have pointed out accurately that the building housing CCGT will not be closing. It will continue to house the business tenants. The CCGT as a public building with education programs and resources is what will be closing.

Which Titanic character are you (in the battle against climate disaster)?

An entertaining fad - which may have run its course - asks people a series of innocuous questions with multiple choice answers and using them as a basis, tells you what Disney princess you are, what NASCAR driver you are, or even what color you are. (I'm green, for the record.) These quizzes provide some fun fodder for Facebook posts, but they provide little real insight into a persons character. I offer the following to you as a self-assessment. No lead-in questions about your favorite animal, what you would do with $1,000,000, or which record you would take with you to a deserted island. Just some straight talk.

We all know about the Titanic: the (at the time) largest, fastest cruise liner that ran into an iceberg and sank in the North Atlantic. Over the 100 years that have followed, the story has become part lesson and part legend. As we move further away, we are tempted to isolate it as a story of the past that we would never relive, however, in many ways our current battle with climate change mimics much of the thinking and reactions swirling around the sinking of the Titanic. Fortunately, I am not yet certain that we have struck the iceberg, but we are definitely in the cold waters of the North Atlantic pushing out faster than we should without enough lifeboats to go around. Take a look at the following characters and see which one most closely describes your approach to action on climate change.

J. Bruce Ismay: served as chairman and managing director of the White Star Line which included the Titanic. He claims to have been on the Titanic to gain the passenger experience and see how it might be improved on future crossings, but when the largest first-class cabin opened up as JP Morgan canceled, Ismay took it for himself. As part of the legend that will never be verified, it was Ismay who pushed for the Northern route even though iceberg warnings had been issued. In addition, he pushed for the speed so that Titanic would make the fastest crossing on her maiden voyage. As the Titanic sank, Ismay jumped into a lifeboat instead of going down with the ship as so many other men of high esteem did.

In the climate challenge we face, are you pushing for ever greater progress regardless of the consequences, and when the consequences do come, will you be the first in line looking for help from others?

Molly Brown: gained a measure of immortality when Meredith Wilson wrote the 1960 musical about her famed survival of the sinking of the Titanic. The Colorado socialite devoted much of her time to charitable causes: working soup lines, helping soldiers, fighting for workers' rights. During the fateful crossing, she supposedly helped others to board lifeboats until she was forced to get on one herself. Then after the ship sank, she supposedly fought the ranking officer aboard her lifeboat and turned the boat back to look for survivors.

Have you been working on other social justice issues, but recently have been turned toward climate change realizing the impact it has on the most disadvantaged in the world?

Thomas Andrews: designed the Titanic and sailed on her maiden voyage. Each of the accommodations that management (personified by Ismay) requested to provide comfort for the first class ran through Andrews. He designed her to be fast and to withstand almost every form of accident without sinking. (It should be noted that there is no record of anyone publicizing the ship as "unsinkable" prior to the crossing. There is some record of calling it "less sinkable" or a similar phrasing, but not "unsinkable".) It can never be known for certain how much he fought the changes to the bulkhead which, if left in tact, could have resulted in a slower sinking or perhaps even none at all. In addition, instead of providing enough lifeboats for all, he designed in the minimum required to make sure there was enough room for the niceties of travel.

Are you fully aware of the risks of climate change, but unwilling to stand up to those making decisions about what infrastructure is best for us? Worse yet, are you a person with some standing who would rather retain your position than make the changes that are both possible and necessary?

Edward Smith: captained the Titanic. Because he went down with the ship, we can only surmise both his role and reaction. Fictionalized accounts have him resistive to the demands of Ismay that the ship make the dangerous crossing at high speed, but ultimately we judge him by the results. He was the captain, and the route, speed, and reactions were all his responsibility. It was rumored that Smith would retire soon after the Titanic's maiden voyage, and that his role was to see her through this first journey then turn her over.

Have you resigned yourself to follow our current path because the most damaging impacts of climate change will likely occur after your passing? Do you accept responsibility for your actions?

William Murdoch: will serve as a proxy for the crew as a whole. All accounts are that they did exactly what they were supposed to do in every facet of the voyage. As we will see in a minute (see David Blair), there was some confusion early on as to who would assume which role of leadership, but on the whole, with the tools they had, the crew did everything they were supposed to do in the way they were supposed to do it.

Are you along for the ride? As consequences come, will you work to adapt and help others to do so as well, but right now, all you can do is continue along our path hoping that those "in charge" will make the right decisions?

John Jacob Astor: and several other of the world's wealthiest sailed aboard the Titanic because of the prestige of making the maiden voyage on the world's most magnificent display of man's mastery of nature. Astor and his peers drove the progress of civilization and amassed a wealth they considered to be divine providence for their actions. When the ship sank, they admirably followed their duty (for the most part...Astor certainly) by letting the women and children go to the lifeboats while they went down with the ship.

Are you a person who knows there is potential for disaster, but your fortune is tied to the current system, so you would rather go down with the ship than jeopardize your position?

David Blair: "could thank White Star line corporate red tape for saving his life. He had been appointed as second officer of the Titanic, sailing with her during her sea trials, and making the trip from Belfast to Southampton. But he was not on board when the Titanic set sail for America. His appointment also caused confusion as the ship was about the depart for America. In his rush to get off the Titanic and onto the Olympic, Blair took with him by accident, the key to the crow’s nest telephone. Most importantly, as it would turn out for the men in the crow’s nest keeping watch for ice that fateful night, Blair also mislaid the crows nest binoculars. Blair had stowed the lookout’s binoculars in his cabin and failed to inform anyone aboard the ship. When lookout Frederick Fleet went for them, they were not there. So Fleet had no binoculars when he was in the crow’s nest, looking for ice. (Source: Listverse)

Are you in the lucky position to live in an area where climate change will have the least impact on quality of life, yet your actions continue to put others at risk?

Rose and Jack: are not real. They are fictional characters of James Cameron's creation as part of the worldwide sensation that was the 1997 movie. Although compelling, the characters are simply a vehicle to make money off the tragedy.

Do you think climate change is just a fiction created to serve someone's larger agenda? 

Which of these fits your approach to climate change, and which do you wish fit? There is no reporting mechanism, and only time will tell who is right. Until then, sail on!

What's in a label?

Last week, I heard three different people use the phrase "those environmentalists". The first was the former CEO of one of the largest coal companies in the world, the second the head of one of the largest tar sands companies in the world, and the third was a major real estate developer. In each of these cases, the label of environmentalist was used to describe someone against progress under the guise of "protecting the environment". It's a convenient instrument - labeling someone - for it automatically allows one to define someone in a way that makes their opposition dismissible.

This dismissal caused me to do some soul searching. Am I an "environmentalist" under any definition of the word? Do I perceive the word differently than those who used it so derogatorily? I do believe that we have acted in a way that ignores the impacts on the environment, that uses our environment as a toxic emissions sink, and that jeopardizes the stability of the environment.

But I do not do this on behalf of the environment, but on the behalf of us.

I want to live. I want my children to live long and happy lives. I want my grandchildren to have the same opportunity as I have had. Thanks to my upbringing, I also want every person on the planet to have the same, equal opportunity for them and their children and grandchildren. I know that the only way that we are allowed to keep living is to take care of those systems that support our lives. The air, water, and food we so desperately need to keep living all come from the environment around us. I call for us to protect that environment to protect us.

Each of the corporate leaders who dismiss environmentalists as unreasonable obstacles firmly believe that they are doing what is best for humanity...supplying the energy and shelter that will maximize quality of life. The one error they make is that they accept sacrificing the quality of life of some to raise the quality of life of others. They accept that poisoning the atmosphere, putting the lives of workers at risk, and lessening the pool of resources available to everyone are acceptable circumstances as long as we create progress for some.

We have passed that point long ago.

We have more than enough knowledge, resources, and capacity to generate the energy we need, supply the food we need, and create a high quality of life for all without sacrificing the life of anyone. The only label that need be placed in this debate is on those who still believe that we must sacrifice the lives of one group to raise the lives of another....they are wrong, plain and simple. Not evil. Just wrong.

As for me, I prefer not to use labels for myself or anyone else. You can call me an environmentalist, or a tree hugger, or a social entrepreneur. The only time you will get an argument from me is if you try to suggest I am standing in the way of making life better for others.

Friday Five: October 10, 2014...A New Hope

Although stories of hope appear regularly in the weekly news, this week saw an abundance of them, starting with improved air quality in Southern California...perhaps what we might call the birthplace of the modern air quality movement. Beijing 2014 reminds us of LA 1973...the moment of clarity when we figured out we couldn't just dump everything into the atmosphere and hope for the best.
Cancer risk from air pollution drops in Southern California
"The analysis found that exposure to dozens of toxic air contaminants could result in 418 cancer cases per 1 million people over 70 years, or a lifetime. That is down from an average risk of 1,194 cases per million found in the air district's study of the region in 2005.
Health experts recommend a limit of 10 cancer cases per 1 million people over 70 years.
Current state guidelines underestimate the true cancer risk, air quality officials acknowledged, and are expected to be revised upward next year based on new science that shows breathing toxic substances has more serious health effects than previously thought."

Economics does not improve without an increase in scale. An increase in scale does not happen unless there is a market. There is no market without education and innovation. There is no education without groundbreakers willing to change the way we do things. Thank you to all those who fought for a change in our energy systems....your efforts are finally paying off.
Two large forces moving business closer to climate action
"The We Mean Business report cites an internal rate of return of 81% (that’s a ridiculous payback) on energy efficiency in the U.S., and an IRR of 27% for those companies with the most aggressive, science-based goals and actions on climate. Even the most “expensive” options like renewables are becoming cheap so fast that it’s making CFOs’ heads spin. Even those hippies over at asset manager Lazard calculate that the cost of solar PV technologies has dropped nearly 80% in five years. Assuming that we’ll lose money by radically cutting carbon has become a radically outdated idea."

In 1999, the Chicago White Sox traded a young center fielder named Mike Cameron to the Reds. The Reds would turn around the next year and trade him to the Seattle Mariners who went to the playoffs that year. Mike would go on to win 3 Gold Gloves, make the All Star team, and finish in the top 25 in MVP voting twice. In return the Chicago White Sox got Paul Konerko...the Reds got Ken Griffey, Jr. Trades are good...especially when they benefit both parties.
Climate trades
"Liberia has much of what remains of West Africa’s rain forest, but logging is rampant. The initiative is not an act of charity but a trade: Liberia gets income, which it needs; Norway gets to preserve biodiversity and take a small step against climate change. A similar deal that Norway struck with Brazil years ago helped slow deforestation there. Economists call arrangements of this kind 'payments for ecosystem services,' and they follow a rationale known as the Coase theorem. In 1960, the economist Ronald Coase argued that bargaining between parties could, under certain conditions, produce a mutually beneficial and efficient solution to problems like pollution. Trying to force Liberia to stop chopping down trees (by using, say, sanctions) would be high-handed and probably ineffective. Paying Liberia to do so makes both sides better off."

We bet on humanity because we have an infinite ability to come up with solutions that allow us to adapt. The question is not whether we can, but whether we want to.
In virtual mega-drought, California avoids defeat
"Under that scenario, experts say, irrigated farm acreage would plunge. Aquatic ecosystems would suffer, with some struggling salmon runs fading out of existence.
Urban water rates would climb. The iconic suburban lawn would all but disappear. Coastal Californians would stop dumping most of their treated sewage and urban runoff from rain storms into the Pacific and instead add it to their water supply."

As we have had our faith shaken in government by the politicking of big business, we are left with only consumer-driven advocacy as our tool to combat unethical business practices. The irony is, sometimes, that advocacy works.
Bust out the LEGOs: The toymaker cuts ties with Big Oil
"LEGO’s move may prompt other companies to think twice about partnerships with Big Oil, but that doesn’t mean that everything is awesome quite yet. Shell still plans to drill offshore in the U.S. and explore off the coast of northern Alaska in 2015. Which makes us wonder: How many tiny, drowning LEGO fishermen would it take to put a stop to that?"

Happy Friday!

The ten reasons Tom Cruise is the greenest person in America

I apologize, but this article is not about Tom Cruise...it's about Tim the bottle man. Some of you may have clicked simply because of the title...baiting people into clicking on a story has a lot to do with giving them an incentive. Sometimes it's using a celebrity, sometimes the incentive is money or self-growth, and sometimes it plays to even more base desires such as sex or revenge. In any case, the incentive is what drives us.

Which brings me to Tim.

When I was growing up, Tim was a fixture in the neighborhood. We would see him roaming the alleys with his cart, collecting glass bottles from the garbage cans. At that time in Illinois, a person could turn back a bottle for a refundable deposit. Many people would go through the hassle of lugging bottles back to the store for the deposit, but many others would just throw them in the garbage. Tim took advantage of that opportunity and gathered what he could and brought them back en masse. It got to the point where some people would leave the bottles out or meet Tim in the alley to give him the bottles for that week.

Tim was an entrepreneur...because there was a market and inefficiency that needed addressing.

Flash forward to today, and a smaller number of states have refundable deposit policies in place. According to a post by Phil Sego from Sierra Club, beverage companies are going after the refundable deposit laws, ostensibly because the perceive them as a tax that inflates the cost of their product. From the point of view of supply and demand, the beverage companies have a good point: Just a small shift in price can decrease demand and hurt revenue. Even though the program has no net impact on the consumer if they return the bottle, the sticker price could prevent the customer from purchasing in the first place.

With proper recognition of the position of the beverage companies delivered, I must also note that at the same time they raise a reasonable economic concern, they completely ignore their ethical obligation...to include all the cost of the product in their expenses. The bottled beverage industry specifically - but most industries in general - push off as many expenses as possible on others in order to boost profitability. This makes sense - not from an ethical point of view, but from a profit point of view - because companies cannot charge more for a product just because it costs them more, so anything they can do to minimize costs increases profitability. In this specific instance, the companies produce the drink and the packaging, but take no responsibility for the packaging once the consumer has used it. They leave it up to the consumer and then eventually the local governments to handle the cost of the waste. Even in recycling, in areas without refundable deposit policies, the burden goes on the consumer and government.

Refundable deposit policies are effective at returning raw materials to the industrial system precisely because there is an incentive. Return the bottle and you get a reward...a tangible, financial reward. If that reward is not enough for you, then someone else will take advantage of it and find the most economically efficient way to do it. It is free-market economics at its finest. All it takes is putting the onus on the consumer to pay up front for the cost of recycling, and then getting their money back when they do. Since the bottler will not take responsibility for their product, this makes sure the consumer does something about it, or if they will not, someone steps in to do it. It also places an incentive on the manufacturer. If they want to avoid having to include the deposit in the sticker price, they can come up with a way to make the packaging so that it biodegrades naturally, or they can take over the collection of the used packaging themselves, or any number of other ways that they can use their leverage and knowledge to solve the problem.

In the end, it is the manufacturer's problem. Only they know what the value of the material is, and how best to recycle it. Consumers want their beverage product, but have little to no knowledge or incentive to make the decision to properly recycle it. As for governments, to talk out of one side of their mouth and say government intervention in business is inefficient and bad for the market, but then require government to clean up the mess is hypocritical. It is time for business to take personal responsibility for their actions.

We have already seen this in several states who have electronics recycling laws that require the manufacturer to reclaim the product and eliminate landfilling to the greatest extent possible. We have even seen beverage companies implement their own incentive programs where people get "points" for returning empties to specific stations. And we have decades of proof from the Tims of the world that even small financial incentives will work. For the last decade, we have pounded on all 316,000,000 Americans to each step up and take personal responsibility for your waste and recycle bottles and cans. It's time to take the much more efficient step of putting the responsibility where it belongs, with the manufacturers. We need a nationwide deposit system, or we need bottlers to directly manage reclamation and recycling of materials.

It would make Tom Cruise...and Tim...proud.

Flashes: October 8, 2014...A pollution puzzle that is not as easy as it seems

Annual, global greenhouse gas emissions:   34.5 billion tonnes

US direct contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions:  5.52 billion tones (2012) (16%)

Chinese total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 10.01 billion tonnes
Chinese contribution used to make products for sale in the US:  2.00 billion tonnes

Indian total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 2.00 billion tonnes
Indian contribution used to make products for sale in the US: 0.30 billion tones

Mexican total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 0.48 billion tonnes

Mexican contribution used to make products for sale in the US: 0.35 billion tonnes

Brazilian total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 0.45 billion tonnes
Brazilian contribution used to make products for sale in the US: 0.05 billion tonnes

US total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 8.22 billion tonnes (2012) (24%)
US total contribution to annual, global greenhouse gas emissions: 4.00 billion tonnes (1970) (26%)

Per capita emissions 2012: 26.4 tonnes
Per capita emissions 1970: 19.7 tonnes

Enjoy the journey!

A (sensible) government regulation is keeping me from installing solar

My house is old. It was built before McKinley was shot...that's how old. Back then they used a phenomenal quality of wood to build things, they kept ceilings high, and they installed almost no insulation. (So that last one may be too general, but they certainly installed none in my house.) On the whole, home building is different than it was 120 years ago, but it's not better or worse on the whole...just different.

That said, building codes have changed drastically in the past 100 years. When my house was built, the structure holding the roof was perfectly logical, and given that it has survived 100 years, seems to have been particularly effective. Today, we would use a different system for the roof structure, and our codes reflect the knowledge we have gained from the past to establish a roof that will provide us safe shelter.

And that's where what killed my home solar project.

Without getting into too much detail, the roof structure used on my home would not meet today's building code, the law that establishes the minimum building practices that architects and builders have to follow to provide a safe and healthy home. Under normal circumstances, I am not required to redo my roof to meet the new code, however, if I decided to add weight to the roof...say through the installation of solar panels...then I would have to make sure my roof met the same level of integrity as the code-compliant roof does. Although this regulation affects my ability to put solar on my house, it makes complete sense to me.

As I previously noted, at the subsidized prices offered by the Solar Chicago program, my cost to generate would be less than utility, and it would be locked in for the life of the panels. Bringing my roof to compliance would negate that benefit. Economically speaking, it would not make sense to do solar on my house now. Some might argue that reinforcing the roof makes sense anyway and I should not consider it part of the cost of solar, but this ignores reality. When I set out to improve my home and my relationship with energy, waste, water, and other aspects of sustainable living, I promised that I would do things only if it was reasonable for anyone to do them. I could pay more for solar just to say I have solar, but then widespread adoption would rely on everyone to pay more for solar, which will not happen.

In addition, with solar now more expensive than utility-based electricity - at least until panel prices continue to drop and utility prices increase - it makes more sense for me to use the resources I would have put toward the project to better use improving the efficiency of the home. Installing a ground source heat pump system to replace my aging boiler might make more sense than solar, or replacing the upper-story windows, or looking at innovative ways to insulate the walls of the house. Any of these might be better uses for my investment...both economically and environmentally.

I am still committed to installing solar on the house one day. If a lighter-weight panel type comes along, or the price of the panel plus structural work drops below the price of utility, I will be the first in line. Until then, I will find the most economical - and legal - way to minimize how much grid energy my house needs.

Friday Five: October 3, 2014

Over a hundred years ago, we reversed the flow of the Chicago River because we realized that we couldn't throw our excrement and industrial waste into our waterways without consequences. We still have not completely learned our lesson.
A rising tide of contaminants
"Caffeine drifted through the river water, testament to local consumption of everything from coffee to energy drinks. There were relatively high levels of acetaminophen, the over-the-counter painkiller. Acetaminophen causes liver damage in humans at high doses; no one knows what it does to fish."

We have not found a good way to account for the economic value of our natural systems. Even without those significant benefits, our natural spaces create significant economic value.
Clean water drives economic growth
"We know clean water is a health priority, but it's also an economic necessity. Our communities, schools, businesses, and farms can't run without it. A cleaner Boston Harbor has meant higher property values, more shipping, and more jobs. In 2012, more than 50,000 jobs in Boston were tied to port activity -- from cargo and seafood processing to cruises and harbor tours."

There used to be a time when the conservative policy was to protect open space because of the value it brings. Nowadays, it seems like we have lost the common sense that led to that policy.
Protecting public lands is good policy
"For decades politicians have respected this love of nature and acted to protect the places that people love. Every president since the signing of the Wilderness Act 50 years ago has signed wilderness legislation; more than 120 national monuments have been designated, with almost one-third going on to gain additional protections as part of our National Park System through Congressional action; and poll after poll has shown that voters favor those that support public lands."

The carbon bubble is real and the next big shock to our world economy. It's a lose-lose situation that we have backed ourselves into, and one that will take immediate action.
China's coal ban ruffles industry
"China has announced it will cease the import and local sale of low-grade thermal coal, which is primarily used for heating and power generation, in key coastal regions starting January 2015. The news set in motion a wave of upset and speculation across the coal industry as conflicting media reports were issued concerning the ban’s breadth and potential impact."

Because when we start changing gravity (no matter how slightly), that should be a bit of a wake-up call.
Antarctic ice melt causes small shift in gravity
"Though we all learned in high school physics that gravity is a constant, it actually varies slightly depending on where you are on the Earth’s surface and the density of the rock (or, in this case, ice) beneath your feet. During a four-year mission, the ESA satellite mapped these changes in unprecedented detail and was able to detect a significant decrease in the region of Antarctica where land ice is melting fastest."

Happy Friday!

Does our future depend on a lone genius or collaborative discovery?

As part of a recent discussion with some friends, we debated whether truly groundbreaking innovation comes from the inspired individual working either alone or in complete control of the process, or whether a group of collaborative individuals can produce better results. It is an interesting dilemma to consider. On the one hand, I have witnessed that in problem-solving situations, groups of students and workers almost always get to a more elegant solution faster as a group than individually. That said, our understanding of motion and higher mathematics comes from Newton. The nuclear age rests on the shoulders of Einstein and Niels Bohr. All of our modern electrical systems owe their existence to Faraday and Tesla. In order to start to understand whether there is an answer to this question, I decided to take a look at some of the most important advances in human history and categorize them as to whether they were the result of a "genius" or whether they came through planned or accidental collaboration. The results are interesting.














I want to note that the list of advances comes from an Atlantic article from the end of last year. I do not hold it up as the singular list, but it contained most of the advances I would have expected. After the top eight, I think that the ordering is somewhat irrelevant, but other than the top ten, my analysis did not pay much attention to order. Also, as I looked into each issue, I did not do a full historiography of the topic, but looked at a source or two to get an idea. If the source unequivocally mentioned a person as the inventor or discoverer, then I took that for now. If the source mentioned several people who input or made no immediate mention of an individual, I took that for collaboration.


As a process story, although some fit very easily into one category or another (such as electricity or the Internet), many required a bit of discernment. Most notably, determining whether something was a true collaboration or a series of work by lone authors. I separated one from the other based upon whether the first, last, or major advancement was of a lone author or resulted from a collaboration (even if it is a collaboration through reading the writings of others). Not surprisingly to me, the top four and six of the top ten were the result of lone geniuses.

Next, for some of the older developments, it was impossible to know if some one individual had invented the technology or made the discovery, or whether it took shape over hundreds of years with the input or many. On the other hand, although people like Bell, Tesla, Ford, and Pasteur had labs or staff that performed functions for them to advance the work, I considered those individual achievements as long as there was no evidence that another participated as an equal in the discovery. Admittedly, these are not exact analyses, but my guess is that any inaccuracy created by the former is matched by the inaccuracy in the latter, and will not significantly affect the overall result.

Lastly, before discussing the overall picture, it should be noted that some of the names mentioned previously: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and some other geniuses of science and mathematics (Planck, Bernoulli, Clausius, Descarte, Kepler, Kelvin, Hooke) do not appear on the list although their scientific discoveries certainly led in part to many of the listed discoveries.

The overall result is that about half came from collaborative ventures, and about half came from "lone genius" efforts. One one side, it appears that advances of high value - the printing press, green revolution, and communications - all came from works of genius, while destructive ones - gun powder, oil drilling and refining, paper money - came from collaborative work. That oversimplifies greatly because although the green revolution allowed us to feed the world, it also expanded populations greatly - a burden we have yet to understand how to handle. Also, sanitation systems and anesthesia have had some of the greatest impacts on the length and quality of life of anything on the list, and they came from collaborative efforts.

One thing that does strike me is the absence of individual scientific or technological achievement in since around 1950. As populations have grown, and educated, developed populations continue to expand, the "lone genius" has lost some value. We still celebrate Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and even Mark Zuckerberg...but we do so more for their personality than for their individual technical achievement. We see them as the genius among geniuses that garnered the publicity, but rarely do we want to elevate them to the status of a Newton or Einstein.

I wonder if this reluctance is a matter of the time we live in or a reflection on the past. Do we have no more Newtons or Einsteins because they never really existed in the first place...perhaps they are just products of history? Or can a Newton or Einstein not get voice in this modern cacophony where achievements of comfort and entertainment get greater praise than achievements that truly improve quality of life or move science forward. In the past, science was the work largely of the wealthy who had the resources and education to devote time to the endeavor. Since Faraday, we have opened science more to all. In doing so, however, the work becomes separated from those who have the platform to publish and promote.

The ultimate answer to the question has a significant impact on public policy. Should we be providing outlets for those with true aptitude for excellence in science and technology, and give them the freedom to pursue thought and exploration? Or should we continue to funnel resources to large institutions and corporations where collaboration mitigates risk of not finding a solution to a particular problem? We currently have no public policy incentive to develop the next true geniuses, and given that many of the advances that have provided us the quality of life we currently enjoy have come from those geniuses of the past, perhaps we need to think about letting the pendulum (discovered by Galileo) swing back toward cultivating freedom of thought.

Flashes: October 1, 2014...Greening the Heartland edition

Architects Bruce Zahn & Ralph Wafer, along with Edge Grain & Butterfly Energy Works bring Passive Houses to the Heartland.

Contracts that tie payment to performance for designers can deliver according to @EnergyCenterWI, @UChicago, & @NREL.





In @LaCrosseWiscons, @gundersenhealth & @perkinswill show that planning for a hospital means more than building a structure.





And @smithgillarch shows that density has its limits, and maybe Paris does have it right.




Enjoy the journey!

The $30 billion jobs opportunity

In an election year, you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a political ad, photo op, or campaigning politician. In a country still reeling in many ways from the economic collapse of six years ago, the largest talking point still centers around job growth. Regardless of one's opinion on how many jobs we really need as we develop more and more efficient ways to maintain our quality of life, the current state of affairs in Illinois comes down to 433,000 people who want and need to work who cannot find a job. With approximately 150,000 to 200,000 job openings in Illinois going unfulfilled, we would need to create about 250,000 new jobs in order to obtain full employment. With manufacturing making a slow recovery, and nowhere near fast enough to create that kind of growth, where can we turn for good paying, productive jobs?

Clean energy and energy efficiency.

Currently, Illinois' residential and small business consumers spend over $30 billion a year for energy. Almost all of that capital leaves the state, with only a small portion getting recycled back into the Illinois economy. If we can find a way to tap into that capital already being spent, and turn that into job growth, we can both improve our employment situation and create a cleaner, healthier future. In addition, that $30 billion, at current rates of escalation, can be $35-40 billion within only a year or two, so economically, it behooves us to move quickly.

The key to the job growth comes from the need for almost all energy efficiency and clean energy work to use local labor. The fixing up of homes and small commercial buildings, installation of solar panels, and construction of wind turbines uses, almost exclusively, local labor. Dirty energy industries, including nuclear, employ somewhere between 5 and 8 people for every $1 million spent. Clean energy and energy efficiency employ about 16 to 17 in good, median income-scale jobs. That means that our $30 billion each year could fund as many as 495,000 jobs in Illinois. Even if we only took half of our current energy expenditures and switched them to clean energy or energy efficiency, we would more than eliminate our current unemployment. In addition, we would build a stronger, more resilient economy less susceptible to shocks from energy price increases.

It will take much work in our financial sector to develop the mechanisms to make this change happen, but it can happen within months, not years. We have the capacity to train workers through our robust community college network. We have the knowhow through years of programs managed by local consultants and non-profits. All it takes is for the financial system to let small building owners tap into the same tools to which institutions and large customers already have access. Tools like on-bill financing, property-assessed clean energy, and community energy cooperatives provide the mechanism that can turn $30 billion a year in energy expenditures into a $500 billion construction program.

It will also take political will...to bring big energy companies and utilities to the table when any program like this is in the interest of the consumer but not large energy companies. It will be interesting to see if either candidate for Governor has the insight or will to make something like this happen.

Friday Five: September 26, 2014

As over half a million people made their voices heard last Sunday, it is disheartening to know that it likely will have a minimal impact on the politics...and it desperately needs to have a significant impact on the politics. 
Why the (awesome) climate march won't change American politics
"The march slogan was, “to change everything, we need everyone,” which is telling, because it won’t change everything, because it didn’t include everyone. Specifically, it won’t change American politics because it didn’t include conservatives."

The politics are so difficult, not only for the demographic reasons noted above, but also because of how much those in control of the market stand to lose...enough to make it worth it to them to threaten the lives of everyone on the planet.
The new Abolitionism
"The last time in American history that some powerful set of interests relinquished its claim on $10 trillion of wealth was in 1865—and then only after four years and more than 600,000 lives lost in the bloodiest, most horrific war we’ve ever fought."

Even those who distribute the energy have much to lose, and without a political solution, they will continue to fight the expansion of renewable energy at a time when we desperately need their support.
Berkeley Lab report quantifies the financial impacts of customer-sited photovoltaics on electric utilities
"A core purpose of the study was to evaluate measures that could be pursued by utilities and regulators to reduce the financial impacts of distributed PV. The report considered a large number of such measures, including changes to utility rate design and ratemaking processes, mechanisms that allow utilities to recoup revenues lost due to distributed PV or to earn profits on distributed PV, and a variety of other strategies."

Because no matter what conventional industry may say, the substitution of one fossil fuel for another fossil fuel does not improve our chances of survival.
Natural gas is not a good climate solution, even without methane leakage
"The only case in which more abundant natural gas would take a bite out of emissions, according to our modeling, was with a renewable energy mandate. We looked at a case in which utilities were required to get a certain percentage of their electricity from renewables, rising year after year to reach 50 percent by 2050. In that case, the competition between natural gas and renewables would be minimized — so natural gas would compete primarily with coal, making cumulative emissions about 13 percent lower."

You know what does improve our chances of survival? Every one of these people...not only through their teaching, but also through their doing.
Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE) winners
"The Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators recognizes outstanding kindergarten through grade 12 teachers who employ innovative approaches to environmental education and use the environment as a context for learning for their students. Up to two teachers from each of EPA's 10 regions, from different states, will be selected to receive this award. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers this award to nationally honor, support and encourage educators who incorporate environmental education in their classrooms & teaching methods."

Happy Friday!

Adrees Latif/REUTERS

#TBT: Corporations are not people, but they might be drug lords

I live in Chicago, and we have come under national scrutiny for the high homicide rates that have continued in some of the areas of our city. Having lived here all my life, I know the city is much safer than it has ever been, but I also see that some areas continue to struggle with gang violence related largely to the trafficking of illegal drugs. In the same vein, we hear of the troubles in the Mexican border towns where drug cartels move their products. In both these cases, and other similar situations, we have people trying to live their daily lives under the specter of risk posed by the presences of businesses operating outside the law.

And then I read Tim Dickinson's brilliantly written but troubling account of the history behind Koch Industries and how they grew their wealth and turned it into a powerful platform from which to create more wealth and protect their interests. From everything within the article, it became abundantly clear that the only difference between the actions of the various businesses related to Koch Industries and the actions of the street gangs and cartels of the drug business....

Is that gang members go to jail or get killed when they kill people...the Kochs just get richer.

[NTSB] Photo of explosion that killed two teens in Texas in
 1996. The explosion was the result of a poorly maintained
pipeline

Reading the details of the piece - much of it garnered from the Koch's own words, details of court cases against them, whistle-blower reports, and as much information about a private company as can be garnered from FOIA requests to governments with which they deal - it becomes abundantly clear that the Kochs consider human life to have a finite value that gets figured into the equation of how to run their business. Unlike, say a person, who would lose their freedom, property, and any hope of continuing on in a normal existence, if the business practices of the Koch's cause someone to die (which they have) or shorten the lives of another (which they have) or cause irreparable harm to a community (which they have) it is simply a part of doing business. A person's life is only worth what they are likely to get in a lawsuit against the company. The value of a community is only worth what they might have to pay in fines for clean up. This kind of capital-centered capitalism follows the same thinking of the Capone operation and today's gangs.

Yet, we as a society celebrate people like the Kochs and (rightly) seek to imprison the drug gangs. We place this value on business "excellence" but only to the point where someone might end up holding a gun to our face. If our truck gets blown up because a pipeline leaked, that's an accident, even if the "accident" came from the deliberate negligence of a business leader. Because the decision that lead to the death was a business one, that somehow makes it ok in our book.

It is not ok.

We need to have much less tolerance than we do for people's lives being subject to their value on a balance sheet. At the turn of the 20th century, it was conservatives who understood that unbridled capitalism will devalue human life, the environment that supports that life, and the social structures that join us as people...all the things that give us high quality of life. It is no coincidence that once we understood that and put safeguards in place, we enjoyed the greatest growth in lifespan, quality of life, and social equity yet experienced in human civilization.

And then we blew it.

Today, and really since the 1970s, we have allowed morally bankrupt capitalists to tell us what society values. We have allowed them to control more of our economic capital, given them the keys to own our political system, and placed our lives in their hands by the choices we have made. We have - on the whole - accepted the line that business is always good and regulation always bad. Our political system has decided that money is speech, and those with more money get to say more, and that by virtue of their attainment of wealth, they have earned that privilege. We have been wrong, and we need to stop treating people like the Kochs as valued men of high achievement, and call them what they really are...

Criminals.

The outrage against violence in my city should be equal to the outrage we cast on men like the Kochs. Anyone who trades human life for their own gain should end up in prison and not on the cover of business magazines. Until we start holding the people within corporations to the standards we ask of people in general, we will never reach the just, equitable, and peaceful society that our Constitution holds as our nation's aspiration.

Those who operate both legally and morally in our country's economy should - and often do, at least as far as I see - have disdain for the actions of people like the Kochs. Regulation, when properly applied as it is most of the time, provides a transparent description of the marketplace that we the people regard as equitable and of value to us as a country. Requiring those who pipe flammable products across the country to maintain their infrastructure at the highest level of safety is not an onerous and superfluous requirement...it recognizes that selling something while killing people is wrong. Requiring that those who speculate in a commodities market have the capital on hand to back their gamble is not totalitarian domination, it is common sense that every casino in the country follows. Asking our business leaders to comport themselves with the same moral approach that we ask of every single member of our society is not an anti-business philosophy...

It is a pro-people philosophy.

We need our capitalism to be more person-centered and less profit-centered. The modern manner of executing capitalism has not found a manner for the system to value people, so we turn to regulation. With the market completely manipulatable by business, the consumer can usually only demand change in drastic circumstances...and even then only if an independent media draws attention to the matter, and government calls those responsible to the carpet, and almost always only after many people  have been killed. It is up to us whether or not this is acceptable. If you do not find it acceptable, then make noise...with what you purchase, with how you vote, with where you spend your time...in every conceivable way, make some noise.

Kudos to Tim Dickinson and Rolling Stone for putting the truth in print. I only wish I could shake the feeling that a large portion of our population will not read the piece and see it for how it gives a glimpse into the consequences of unbridled, morally corrupt capitalism, but will celebrate the Kochs for what they have done.

Many steps and many voices

Yesterday's People's Climate March in New York City succeeded in at least part of what it set out to do. Early estimates have the turnout at 310,000 people (and it could climb to 400,000 after final analysis) in NYC alone...not counting the dozens of sympathy marches taking place everywhere from England and Australia to Oklahoma City. Those who challenged the event to relevancy had their challenge met and exceeded. At least some of those who might have some say in the outcome...Bill de Blasio, Ban Ki-moon...attended, giving even more hope to those that attended.

AP/Jason DeCrow

Only time will tell if it made even the slightest bit of a difference.

In 1963, approximately 250,000 marched on Washington to demand  peaceful and political solution to the civil rights atrocities that institutionalized people of color as second class citizens in this country...the land of freedom and equality. Half a century later, despite achieving short-term political solutions, the dreams given voice that day still have yet to fully materialize. The voices of those opposed to ceding any economic or political power still have control, albeit much more subversively than they did fifty years ago.

In time, however, those voices will - quite literally - die out. It's hollow solace for those who still have to work twice as hard to achieve half as much, but their children will live to see an equal country.

On the issue of fossil fuels, the pollution it causes, and the impact on human life, we do not have that kind of time, and we face a similar, less subtle foe. A search of the hashtag #climatemarch yesterday in the hours that followed the event found both hopeful messages of those who attended or wished they did as well as a healthy mix of trolls* providing counter point to the issue of climate protection. Although we can casually brush off that kind of rhetoric as uncivilized, uneducated, or even irrelevant, one crucial point remains.

The opposition to acting on climate is real, well-funded, and poignant.

Among the schoolyard name calling and pictures of Nicholas Cage, one can find some valid criticism of the climate movement that we need to address if not directly, then at least obliquely. First and foremost, we need to get better at focusing on the issue at hand and not the hyperbolic predictions. Talking about the dangers of sea-level rise, then having to admit they will happen over a hundred years into the future blunts the argument. People believe in the innovative spirit, and trust that that spirit will solve a problem that long into the future. Our aims must focus on much more immediate threats.

Second, tying onto that thought, we need to exercise caution about how far we reach. The science surrounding drought and extreme storms has only just begun to investigate the role that greenhouse gas emissions play. To blame climate change for the California drought, Sandy, and the polar vortex makes for great headlines, but it smacks of the same pseudo-science that fills the counter arguments. Also, it sets up deniers to make similar claims when the US experiences one of the coldest winters on record. We have so many issues with immediate impact: The dangers of mining, the damage to countrysides and water resources, air pollution...we do not need to grasp opportunistically for every straw that comes our way.

Third, we need to get away from arguments that cost more. I personally know that morality tells us to prioritize the lives of people near fossil fuel extraction fields or thermal plants, or those who live in endangered island nations. But I also know that imposing morality on another creates confrontation not solutions. This gets especially true when every argument for solutions ends up recommending solutions that cost more than current options. We need to put our human ingenuity to work and create solutions that cost less. Economic analyses are starting to make the argument that a clean energy future will save us money...blunting any argument for including fossil fuels in any new energy plant. We need to focus on that future, and the dwindling availability of fossil fuels in a world with expanding population and increased development. (In fifty years - a time horizon that people can connect with since most of us expect to live that long, we could be almost out of fossil fuels. The reserves that industry themselves admit to being available, coupled with the current rate of increase in exploitable reserves, still does not match the rate of consumption we will experience over the next half-century.) That means increased prices and decreased quality of life unless we respond. That's a story that people can connect to as we have experienced several such shocks in the past decades.

Lastly, and yesterday's march rightly starts this discussion, we need to focus on the clean energy fight as one of innovation and equality. Amidst the recent public discussions of marriage equality, several conservative pundits noted that they heard a compelling argument on behalf of those seeking the right to marry, and no counter argument to the idea of free choice. We need to have the same focus in the fight on climate. Emissions of any sort provide an opportunity to make sure that prices for sources of energy include all costs associated with each source. If we frame the argument in terms of our communal desire for freedom and a fair market, clean energy wins each time. The more we focus on common themes, the larger a tent we create and the greater our chance of success.

In many ways, the climate march was the art of the possible. The economics favor systems that use less energy, and at every juncture over the past decade, when faced with a challenge to reduce energy use while preserving quality of life, we have succeeded (eg. cutting refrigerator energy use by more than half, increasing fuel efficiency in cars, improving the energy efficiency of buildings). We no longer need to act like a fringe movement nipping at the heels of industry. The growing industries are on our side, and all we need to do is remain consistent and the economics will continue to favor the cause of pollution reduction. If we keep clouding the issue with ideas that do not resonate, and even worse give fuel to opposition, we threaten all the hard work. The next steps forward need to be ones of community...solutions that work for all.

That even includes the trolls.


*trolling is an internet term for those who seek to create discord by playing devil's advocate and saying whatever they can to get a rise out of people.

Friday Five: September 19, 2014

This next week will be a telling one for the movement to stem the effects of climate change. Ahead of an international meeting in New York next week, environmental organizers have gone all in by collaborating with previously un-tapped partners to try and pull off the larges climate march in history. If they succeed, it could be a watershed moment for the movement, if they fail, it could spell the end. Or, it could just be another Sunday in NYC.
How to define success for the People's Climate March
"Organizers of the march have set themselves a high bar—two high bars, actually. First, they’ve proclaimed that this will be the biggest climate change demonstration yet. That means organizers have to turn out no fewer than 100,000 people—the estimated size of the Copenhagen march—or be judged a failure; a lower turnout would send the signal that the movement is waning rather than growing. Further, organizers have declared that the People’s Climate March will be “historic,” meaning it will be looked back on as a key moment in the climate struggle. This definition in turn requires that the March lead to more and better things down the road—that it be not merely one day of protest."

The numbers have been coming in, and it looks like somewhere between saving us 10% and costing us 5% is the range of net impact of addressing climate change on the economy. If you believe that eliminating fossil fuel emissions will do absolutely nothing, then it's a 5% add. If you believe that clean energy will eliminate most energy bills, improve human health, and increase property values, then it saves 10%. My best guess is probably not a 10% savings, but a measurable one.
Fixing climate change may add no costs, report says
"While the commission found that the requisite steps may make economic sense, that does not mean they will be politically easy, the report says. For instance, the group will recommend that countries eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, which cost about $600 billion a year but are vigorously defended by vested interests.
It will urge nations to take a fresh look at the potential of renewable energy, whose costs are plummeting, and also recommend the adoption of initiatives to halt destruction of forests, use land more efficiently and limit wasteful urban sprawl, among many other steps."

As a bit of forewarning, the article does not deliver on the headline (which is rarely the author's fault), but it does raise particularly interesting issues relative to the conversation around almost every environmental issue...or for that matter, every economic issue. It paints an image of people on all sides who claim factual impartiality, but only from their decidedly isolated point of view.
How to talk about climate change so people will listen
"In the best of times, this problem—given its apocalyptic stakes, bewildering scale, and vast potential cost—would be difficult to resolve. But we are not in the best of times. We are in a time of legislative paralysis. In an important step, the Obama administration announced in June its decision to cut power-plant emissions 30 percent by 2030. Otherwise, this country has seen strikingly little political action on climate change, despite three decades of increasingly high-pitched chatter by scientists, activists, economists, pundits, and legislators."

Meanwhile, on a particularly practical front, consumer and environmental advocates in Illinois have teamed up to call for transparency on carbon emissions. Instead of pounding the table for widespread action, they ask just to know what is happening at each of Illinois' electric utilities.
CUB, EDF push for comprehensive smart grid metric on carbon emissions
"The greenhouse gas petition, filed by CUB and EDF Wednesday, is related to major power-grid upgrades, collectively called the "smart grid," that were approved by the Illinois General Assembly in 2011 and are now being launched by Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Illinois. The improvements, including new digital electric meters, have the potential to make Illinois' electricity system cleaner and less costly."

And while we stage protests, denigrate scientists, and do so from the comfort of our 99.999% reliably electrified homes, people in non-electrified parts of the world are showing us the truth about solar economics...solar is cheaper.
There's a place in the world that is fighting poverty with solar panels.
"He laughed. It’s much simpler than that, he said. 'I just wanted electricity.'"

Happy Friday!

Tim McDonnell/Climate Desk

What do we do when there are no villains?

I was lucky enough last night to see a new play written by a friend of mine (which I highly recommend you check out). One of the thoughts that stuck with me is how differently we respond to situations when we perceive someone as a villain. This has a particularly poignant application to the discourse over improving our quality of life in a sustainable future.

When discussing our use of resources and the resulting impact on the environment, the most common theme from those advocating a sustainable energy future centers around the evil corporations...especially those directly involved in fossil fuel extraction. Admittedly, the Koch brothers in particular make it easy to cast them as the devil, but in casting the net in such a fashion, we automatically give individuals - people - in these organizations no role in solutions or in the future.

On the other hand, business leaders create a picture in their mind about the environmental advocate as an uncompromising rabble rouser intent only on creating a communist state in which corporate leaders are put into the stocks for public humiliation. There are some who merit this designation, such as the former coworker who would stalk people in the bathroom and shame them for overusing water, but 99% of the environmental community loves a high quality of life and a freedom to pursue ones passions...they just want it with less damage to life.

The thought argument then goes, what happens if we stop treating the other as a villain? How would the opportunity change if we had some sort of "truth and reconciliation" associated with our interaction with the environment?

We have already seen how some of that might play out. As the cost of renewable energy has dropped significantly, we see both business and regulatory agencies choosing new renewables over expanding fossil fuels. Although initially a failed effort, we saw an attempt from BP a decade ago to move "beyond petroleum". With the vast financial resources at their disposal, today's fossil fuel giants have the best capacity to move the needle toward renewables faster than we can accomplish without them.

For environmentalists, seeing how these large, evil corporations also employ tens of thousands of people who need the security of that paycheck to have any sort of quality of life, we should look for opportunities to engage with those businesses instead of ostracizing them. We have seen large energy companies and utilities work successfully with organizations like NRDC and in Chicago, ELPC. We have also seen people realize that we share in the blame for the existence and strength of these industries, and try to rectify that through divesting in those companies that will not change. It is all too easy to place all the blame on another, but when we too have to change, we often find a better way to solve the problem.

Removing villainy from the equation would not solve the problem overnight, but it will do so faster than digging in for a long fight. While I advocate for working together, I do not advocate compromising on facts. Remaining beholden to fossil fuels will cost us more than a renewably-powered future, it will harm more lives, and it will jeopardize our existence. We have to come to terms on that truth part of the equation as well as agreeing to work together.

If we can, together, accept the truth and agree to work together, history has shown there is nothing we cannot accomplish.