Recently in Green Living Category

I live in the Pacific Northwest where the weather for the past several days resembles what has become the norm on the East Coast: hazy, hot, and humid.
 
The smaller businesses and most homes in this part of the world aren't equipped for this with little or no air conditioning, big glass windows, and limited drapery. The husband of one of my wife's colleagues has to sleep on the basement floor, and few homes here have basements. Fortunately we live/I work out of a new apartment with central air.

And in contrast the East Coast has been hit with rainy weather that is the norm here, except that the rains are harder. I joked in an e-mail to someone there about shipping umbrellas from my part of the world.

Then again I and others shouldn't be surprised that this is happening. When you or let greedmongerers mine the forests, pave open land and wetlands to plant sprawling homes and 'office parks' that you then buy or lease, and you pour tons of emissions into the atmosphere from vehicle, power plant, and factory exhausts, you wouldn't think there would be consequences?

To quote Walt Kelly, creator of the brilliant, incisive comic or more accurately commentary strip Pogo: "we have met the enemy and he is us."

The solution lies in the words of late pop star Michael Jackson in certainly my favorite song of his in, "the man in the mirror".

One can't do much better than what Mr. Jackson recommended, to change your ways to "make the World A Better Place".

Here's how:

--Don't buy homes or lease property on new subdivisions or office park unless they are re-uses of brownfield sites. Buying only encourages more sprawl. 

Instead purchase/rent and renovate i.e. reuse existing space. And when doing so use the latest green methods for energy conservation

--Locate on well-used transit routes, where there are sidewalks and paths, and where there is excellent broadband connectivity

--Demand and vote for elected officials who not only promise but do act green. For insurance find out who contributes to their campaign sto discover who really has their ears.

--Take transit, cycle, walk, telework and enable and encourage your staff to do likewise. Charge them for parking to get the message

--Take buses, trains, and video/web conference instead of driving and flying, fly only for medium to long distances, and when flying access airports on mass transit. If you are in coastal areas walk-on--not drive--when using ferries

--When driving drive used, lifecycle-economical in vehicles made to last, and get the most out of every trip

Enjoy the weekend

 

I recently moved cross country from the East to the Pacific Northwest. As polluting and contributing to congestion as driving is there is still nothing like it to give a full and complete picture of the landscape.

And for the most part it is a beautiful one that, still worth waxing poetic about, but which I will leave to more accomplished scribes except to say everyone should travel by land from coast to coast at least once in their lives.

The sights that one is familiar with only on screen come alive when you are surrounded it by them...the spectacular architecture of Chicago: its downtown and its neighborhoods, the rugged scenery amidst the charming-in-their-own-right tourist traps around the Wisconsin Dells...the Rhine-like setting of the Mississippi Valley...the wide open spaces in central South Dakota...the amazing transition from grasslands to lush forests west of Rapid City in the Black Hills...and how the Rockies loom above the barren mounds west of Gillette, Wyoming...

There are amidst this green shoots: downtown revitalization in Port Huron, an amazingly high quality South Shore Railroad electric commuter/former interurban line, and the endless fields of wind turbines fenced in by HV lines parallel to I-90 in southern Minnesota, though in the case of the latter on can understand the visual pollution concerns (though my wife calls them beautiful).

Yet there is also endless (and mindless) low-density car-friendly but walking/cycling/transit hostile sprawl stretching out west of Toronto, southern Michigan, and Chicago amidst huge swaths of already-serviced vacant industrial land and rundown cities and neighborhoods. There is sadly more greenwash than green.

Why would anyone in their right mind allow building on greenfields amidst a housing and commercial market glut, when homeowners are desperate to sell and businesses want to get out from under leases other than small-minded greed amongst local politicians and their developer campaign contributors, is beyond common sense.

There is nothing wrong per se in living in large homes on treeless lots and locating businesses in 'office parks' and 'power centers'. It is that this development has been getting free ride on the environment, land use, and transportation, which distorts the residential and commercial real estate marketplace and fosters waste and destruction whose pricetag that has to be paid by all of us.

 

This Labor Day weekend, literally walk the walk on going green, and keep the car at home or at least minimize its use. Here are some ideas:

--Walk, cycle, and yes, take transit (even the lowly bus) to local parks, historical sites, shopping, attractions, and to special events in your community. It is amazing how much more you see and experience, especially with your family, when you're freed from 'looking out for the other guy'.

--Consider taking the train, bus or ferry as a foot passenger (s) to out-of-town destinations that have attractions that are easy to get to on foot. 

Many 'commuter rail' networks and 'commuter buses' have excellent weekend service; there are often connecting local buses and/or taxi service to downtowns/activity centers.

Some of my favorite, and transit accessible communities with weekend commuter rail/bus are, in no particular order:

* Rockport, MA (Quaint fishing/artist village in northeast suburban Boston, MBTA commuter rail from North Station)

* Woods Hole, MA (Walkable village, home of the oceanographic institute, buses from Boston with ferries to Martha's Vineyard)

* Provincetown, MA (famed, loud, proud, historic, beach tourist and fishing town with direct summer ferry service from Boston, plus buses via Hyannis)

* Burlington, VT (Vermont's largest city, great downtown, train ride plus ferries across Lake Champlain, Amtrak and Greyhound from New York, Greyhound from Boston over the gorgeous I-89 north west of Concord, NH)

* Cold Spring, NY (Quaint community, onetime military arsenal town that lies across the Hudson from West Point, Metro North from Grand Central Terminal, New York City--the train ride alone is worth it)

* Watch Hill Beach, Fire Island, NY (Long Island Rail Road to Patchogue, ferry to Fire Island--inquire about beach packages--Watch Hill is the nicest and the quietest of the barrier beaches)

* Ocean Grove, NJ (NJ Transit commuter rail to Asbury Park, short cab ride or walk into town. Ocean Grove is a quaint, and dry, family community founded by the Methodist Church)

* Old Unionville, Ontario [near Toronto] (TTC subway to Finch then York Region Transit. Old Unionville is a quaint Victorian village set in sprawlburbia)

--Or better yet, stay at home. Turn off electronics, hang loose in your back yard, and spent time with your family, loved ones, or chill without the distractions and the stress.

Have a great weekend!

"Just go out for a breath of air/And you'll be ready for Medicare"--Tom Lehrer

The Canadian Medical Association released a literally devastating report earlier this month titled: "No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution" that bears out the brilliance, prescience, and unfortunate timelessness of Mr. Lehrer's musical satire.

The contents should make you gasp, think about saving energy, think again about locating in car-oriented 'greenfields' no matter 'green' the buildings are, ...and consider instead strategies like teleworking and situating offices and homes in higher-density, walkable, transit-accessible, and healthier truly green communities.

Among the key and very disturbing data:

* In 2008, 21,000 Canadians will die from the effects of air pollution. While most of these deaths will be due to chronic exposure over a number of years, 2,682 will be the result of acute short term exposure

* By 2031, almost 90,000 people will have died from the acute effects of air pollution. The number of deaths due to long-term exposure to air pollution will be 710,000

* The number of premature deaths associated with chronic exposure to air pollution is expected to rise 83 percent between 2008 and 2031

* In 2008, almost 11,000 hospital admissions will result from exposure to air pollution

By 2031, close to 18,000 people will be admitted because of air pollution: a 62 percent increase during that period

* Over 92,000 emergency department visits associated with air pollution exposure are expected in 2008 increasing to nearly 152,000 by 2031

* It is estimated that there will be over 620,000 doctor's office visits in 2008 because of air pollution. This total is expected to rise to over 940,000 visits in 2031 if air quality does not improve.

With these impacts there are huge pricetags: The economic costs: healthcare expenses, loss of productivity and destruction of quality of life resulting from air pollution will top $8 billion in 2008. By 2031, they will have accumulated to over $250 billion.

The numbers get uglier when translated to the US by multiplying by 10 to reflect Canada's smaller population. US employers can apply on top of that about 70 percent of the healthcare losses to their bottom lines given Canada's taxpayer-supported medical systems. 

So who is the key culprit of air pollution, and the resulting medical visits and deaths? Look no further than your parking lot.

Private vehicles account for over 60 percent of air pollution from transportation sources, and a significant share of total emissions.

To illustrate, a report published by Hydro-Quebec, the province's electric utility, compared greenhouse gases from different transportation modes. A single-occupant--and most commuting trips are just that despite futile efforts to get people to carpool--SUV pumps out 405 grams per passenger-kilometre while a compact car releases 214 grams per passenger-km.

In contrast, even a half-full diesel bus spews out 56 grams. An electric light rail or subway car is responsible for much less, even zero if the electricity is derived solely from renewable sources such as hydroelectric dams, solar, and wind.

These reports understate the emissions because they do not take into account the pollution created from road construction and maintenance, and from delays caused by the work, no matter how fuel efficient some vehicles may be.

The heavier cars and truck are the more road capacity and wear-and-tear on pavement and surfaces they incur, requiring more trucks and equipment to repair this infrastructure. Rail vehicles, because they have a lower friction coefficient that cuts energy demand, causes less wear-and-tear, and delays are more easily managed because trains operate in a controlled environment.

There is another set of health kickers: one that makes locating in 'greenfield' commercial and housing developments deadly, no matter how 'LEEDing edge' they are in energy consumption...and these are accident rates and lifestyle illnesses and deaths resulting from car-oriented sprawl.

* A research review by the Ontario College of Family Physicians demonstrated that suburban areas have a higher incidence of cardiovascular and lung diseases including asthma in children, cancer, obesity, diabetes, traffic injuries and deaths.

The report concluded that air pollution, gridlock, traffic accidents, lack of physical activity, and negative social impacts such as road rage lead to a variety of these health problems

* A study in The American Journal of Health Promotion and the American Journal of Public Health reported that Americans living in sprawling developments are 6 lbs heavier and are at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure

* The nonprofit group Smartrisk reported in 2006 that motor vehicle collisions were the second most costly source of injuries in Ontario, at more than $1.1 billion

* Todd Litman, of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute reported that the number of traffic fatalities were 26.3 per 100,000 people in the most sprawled cities as compared with just 5.6 per 100,000 in the least sprawled metropolitan areas

Such data makes the decision to locate even green office buildings in sprawl, surrounded by acres of free parking even more unsustainable healthwise as well as for other environmental plus energy and traffic congestion reasons. 

A brilliant recent article in The Montreal Gazette pointed out this contradiction between green PR and environmental reality, which the less charitable brand as 'greenwash'. 

The story cited as one example Bell Canada's new campus-- the first new project in Montreal to follow green building LEED principles...

...which is located in a traffic hotspot, in a remote communitywise part of the city and a long way from the famed Metro underground and expanding commuter rail network...and has plenty of parking: 2,050 spaces or 1 for every 2 employees. Even though private vehicles generate 1/3 of the province's greenhouse gases.

"That's not so green," wrote Henry Aubin about the Bell project. "To get serious about global warming means building real estate projects that are not so dependent on car travel." 

The same goes for getting serious about improving our health and controlling healthcare costs...

 

There have been a lot of articles lately about green buildings and homes. So when I find out about the ones located in 'office parks' and low-density subdivisions on what had just been open space i.e. 'greenfield development' I just shake my head.

A 'green' building surrounded by a huge car-packed parking lot and a 'green house' on a cul-de-sac with a couple of SUVs in the driveway are the environmental equivalent of the fitness fanatic who jogs to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes.

For no matter how energy efficient these structures are the gains don't fully compensate for the environmental losses caused by (a) perpetuating transportation patterns that favor the private automobile, which consumes more resources and emits more pollutants both directly and indirectly than any other mode and (b) the loss of oxygen-generation, water supply, erosion control, food production capacity and other life-giving benefits when land is paved over.

That's why I placed single quotes around 'office parks' because their environmental consequences contradict what real parks should be about and that is rejuvenating one's own health rather than painting a pretty picture, like the billboards that hide the destruction in the film Brazil. 

Both 'office parks' and their residential counterparts by their location and low-density design make transportation access by means other than the private automobile impractical and expensive to provide. While main line transit routes serving downtowns and high-density residential and commercial hubs do well financially, those that serve sprawling office and residential developments incur high operating costs and low demand, and are often the first to be cut during budget crunches.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) based in Victoria, BC, Canada, is a leading authority on the direct and indirect costs of transportation, including land use. I've worked with VTPI's executive director Todd Litman and he knows his stuff.

For example the VTPI compared the land consumed by sprawl and compact development. For an office with 1,000 square feet and needing four parking spots, if it is sited in an 'office park' it would have an environmental footprint of 2,640 square feet while if it is placed in a three-story urban location with 1 on-street parking space it would leave a mark of just 580 square feet. 

Similarly for a home with 1,250 square feet, one located in a sprawl development would have an environmental footprint of 2,580 square feet while one located in a compact urban area would consume just 1,040 square feet. http://www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf

This last point illustrates one of the potential environmental downside of teleworking. Its benefit of reducing commuting, and emissions could be degraded if the teleworker decides to buy a larger home, like on a subdivision that once had been a field, and which removes public transit, cycling, or walking for non-commute trips.

To illustrate the total environmental impacts of sprawl especially transportation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Canada's better-heeled equivalent of Fannie Mae) and the Natural Resources Canada, a federal government department, published a report that shows that a family living in a low-density suburban type home in the outer suburbs emits 11,800 kilograms of CO2 annually. Instead if they lived in a medium-density inner suburban compact development they would emit just 6,100 kg, largely because public transit is more readily available. ftp://ftp.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/chic-ccdh/Research_Reports-Rapports_de_recherche/eng_bilingual/Green%20Gas%20EmissionsEN_FINAL.pdf

Therefore, if you truly want to go green in your office and home/home offices you need to:

* Select locations and buildings for offices and homes on long-existing already-serviced land including brownfields (i.e. recycle, reuse, renew), in mid-to higher-density areas, well served by transit, and with cycling and walking access. The one exception are new walkable transit-oriented developments at rail and bus stations and at ferry terminals;

* Develop and implement strategies to encourage driving alternatives i.e. no free parking, subsidized transit passes, bike rakes, and devising and expanding telework programs;

* When choosing homes for home offices maximize your existing space like basements, garages, and spare bedrooms or if not possible build a loft or an extension.

--BBR

Today is garbage and recycling day in my neighborhood. As I sort out the plastics, paper, and metals from the blue bin under our kitchen sink I am reminded why producer/seller-pay e-waste recycling programs like that just announced by the Province of Ontario http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2008/071001.php can and will work: by assigning costs to waste. 

My community charges for trash pickup. You have to buy garbage tickets. The way to minimize the number of tickets you need to purchase is by recycling. Which is why I had my head under the kitchen sink this morning.

E-waste is a lot nastier than what I was rummaging through (I won't get into the subject of my other trash, which includes the so-far literally insoluble problem of handling cat litter). The hardware that we rely on relies on metals and plastics that are extremely toxic, such as cadmium, lead, chromium, PVCs, and polybrominated biphenyls, when released into the environment i.e. don't drink, breathe, or eat something that has been exposed to this stuff. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (hmm. does 'DNR' mean the environment? Never mind...) has a great set of pages on this topic http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/ewaste.html

By assigning costs to disposing e-waste hopefully the manufacturers and resellers will be prompted further to find ways to 'green-gineer' their products to reduce the amount of this garbage that could well end up in our bodies (making these goods also spews out toxins). At the same time, by making these items more expensive the buyers i.e. you and I will think twice about throwing them out and instead repair or find new uses for them. 

I'd like to see some entrepreneur buy discarded PCs and CRTs, strip them out and turn them into dumb thin-client terminals and web appliances, to be sold at the fraction of the cost of computers. Just like the smart people who thought of recycling inkjet cartridges. 

Rebuilding these units locally/regionally also reduces the enormous amount of greenhouse gas and other emissions incurred in shipping new computers such as from Asia. The hulking diesel-burning container ships are a major pollution source in port cities like Seattle and Vancouver, BC as the prevailing winds spread and dump the gases and particulates on homes and businesses.

The market is there. Most corporate functions such as contact centers do not require their individual users to make sufficient amounts of computations to demand processing capabilities at their desktops. Many residents just use their computers to websurf and send e-mail and SMS. So why buy all this toxin-larded hardware that also consumes a lot of power, thereby releasing more pollutants, when it isn't needed for the tasks at hand?

Applying costs to waste, and rewards for efficiency is the best way to get all of us to go green.

• Opening Keynote Address by Rick Snyder, President, TANDBERG
• Top Ten Ways to be GREEN through Better Networking Presented by Cisco
• Maximizing Benefits of a Virtual Workforce Presented by Arise Virtual Solutions
• Empowering Teleworking with IP Telephony and Web Services Presented by BlueNote Networks, Inc.
• Virtual Meetings: A Faster Path to Lowered Emissions Presented by Polycom, Inc.
• Alleviating the Carbon Footprint of Corporate Travel though Conferencing, Collaboration and Video Conferencing Presented by IP Unity Glenayre
• Green Case Study: Pat Lobb Toyota Presented by Pat Lobb Toyota
• The Greening of the Data Center Presented by Digital Realty Trust, AMD, and Foundry Networks

• Keynote Address by Joan Vandermate, VP of Marketing, Polycom
• Paving the Way for a Greener Approach to Deploying Telecom
• Networks Presented by RadiSys
• Advanced TCA -- Green Conferencing in Data Centers Presented by Polycom, Inc.
• Truly Green Application Specific Computer Design Presented by Arlinx, Inc.
• The Future of Green Technology Presented by Ericsson, BT Conferencing USA, and Cincom Systems, Inc.