Posted on

Global Warming and Snow in Oklahoma

You know, I’ve never really liked the snow. I’m sorry, but I get tired of the snow. And it really gets down to whenever it snows somewhere unexpectedly or unseasonably, I invariably hear comments and remarks like “so much for global warming” or “how about that Al Gore” or some similar misinformed comment.

It recently snowed in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And not just a little bit of snow, it broke records. February 2011 was the snowiest month on record for Tulsa with 22-plus inches. It also broke the all-time winter record for snow at over 26 inches. The previous record was 25-plus inches in 1923-24.

So when snow like this hits Oklahoma, or Chicago, or New York, people are quick to discount the whole concept of global warming. I see it on my Facebook account all the time; snide, snippy remarks that are quick and heavy on the draw and very slim on the facts.

Politics aside (because that’s really what’s behind so many of these comments, not actual facts), NASA has some very good, complete scientific information about the Earth’s temperature over the last 130 years. They have numerous graphs you can view that show how global land-ocean temperatures have increased consistently from about 1880 and are rising at an exponential rate since then. I find it interesting and not coincidental that this timing is almost exactly parallel with the exponential rise in industrialization.

Naysayers will say this is part of the Earth’s natural cycle, but that seems too much like the ostrich putting its head in the sand so it doesn’t see what it knows to be true. Also, please, please be careful not to look at just one year’s data; look at long term trends. If you single out just one year, you can pick a slice of that graph that shows what you want it to show and over the next 10 or 20 years make a fool of yourself in the process. Global warming is real; and we are at the very least part of the problem and more likely the cause of the problem.

But back to the snow in Oklahoma. This is where knee-jerk reactions to overall climate change (oh, yeah, when it snows, they change the term to “climate change”, now that’s convenient) are foolish. If you’ve read any of my blogs or heard me speak, I subscribe to the idea that there are consequences to anything. Barry Commoner was right: everything is connected to everything else.

So when we have unseasonal snow in Oklahoma, I believe it really is due to global warming. Because global warming creates changes in the weather patterns we’ve come to know and expect for the last however many years. Industrialization and, specifically CO2 emissions, warms the atmosphere and changes the weather patterns so that we are seeing trees dying in the Amazon, which affects the amount of oxygen and moisture in the air, which affects the size of the Sahara Desert (it’s getting bigger). And all of this contributes to unseasonal, record snowfalls in Tulsa and New York, flooding in Australia and drought in the Southern US.

We need to stop making stupid remarks about global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it and make changes in how we do things. We need electric vehicles and we need them now. We need a sustainable energy policy in our country and we need it now. We need to stop cutting down rain forests and we need to stop it now. We need to stop blowing the tops off our mountains in the Southeastern US and we need to stop it now.

We need to work at reversing the effects of all the crap we’re putting into the atmosphere and our world and respect creation for the beautiful, wonderful gift it is to us. Let’s be good stewards of this Earth and let’s be that now.

Posted on

Van Jones and Green Jobs

Van Jones was appointed by President Obama early in his presidency. After a short six months as Special Advisor for Green Jobs in the Obama Administration, amid controversy over several issues, Jones resigned. My wife and I had the privilege of hearing Jones speak Monday night at the University of Oregon in the EMU Ballroom.

Jones is an engaging speaker, expressive and animated. But beyond that, the guy is simply smart. Actually, he’s wise. I make a distinction between smart and wise. Smart is the head knowledge that fills up your brain; wise is applying that head knowledge in practical, useful, helpful ways. And when it comes to all aspects of the triple bottom line (environment, economy and equity), Jones is definitely wise.

His lecture was titled “Beyond Green Jobs: the Next American Economy” and was presented as part of the University’s Humanities Center Tzedek lectures. As I have reflected on his talk, I’ve been trying to think what tidbit of something he said should be the focus of this post. That’s difficult. He touched on many topics across the spectrum of politics, the environment, social justice and economics. And I think the challenge I’m having distilling his talk down to one (or a few) talking points is the same challenge I had with my seminar at the Good Earth Home Show titled “Lifestyle of the Simple and Sustainable.” And that is: everything is connected. And because everything is connected, a linear thought process simply falls short.

So Jones’ talk, while it touched on many topics (Hurricane Katrina, politics, social justice, economics, the BP oil spill and his dad putting himself and several relatives including Jones through college), it was all connected. Because life and culture are all connected.

But I guess if I had to single out just one thought from Jones’ talk, it would be the concept that we have built our energy economy on death. Oil is dead dinosaurs. Coal is dead plant material. So we drill and dig (or blow up mountaintops) dead stuff to burn it for fuel and create even more death through pollution, illnesses, greenhouse gases, etc. Instead, we should be looking to the sun and renewable energy sources and the life they give (plant life, animal life, human life) and capture that through solar energy and wind power for starters. And I suppose that is what was so profound to me from Jones’ talk Monday. It’s profound because it’s so simple. Life? Or death?

I wonder what would happen in our neighborhoods, our regions, our world if we looked at everything through the lens of life rather than the lens of death? If we looked at every action, every process, every political decision, every social decision, every environmental decision through that filter, as cliché as this might sound, the world would truly be a much better place. It would benefit our environment, it would benefit our social equity and it would benefit our economy. Let’s start.

Posted on

Good Earth Home Show 2011

This was the second year, we were at the Good Earth Home Garden and Living Show. My architectural firm, Arbor South Architecture had a booth last year and we did it again this year.

This was also the second year we did a seminar. In 2010, we talked about our award-winning LEED Platinum home, theSAGE. This year, I was asked to speak again as part of an Architect focus. By the time I was asked, the topics of building a smaller house, energy efficiency (specifically via the Passivhaus concept) and why to hire an Architect were already taken. So I thought I’d share some of my thoughts that I’ve been sharing with you all here on my blog.

So if you attended the seminar today and enjoyed it, thank you; I enjoyed presenting it. I know the topics were a bit circular and not linear, but as I mentioned, everything is connected. And when everything is connected, it’s very hard to go in a straight line. This affects that and so on. But it’s rewarding to realize how one thing we do can affect another, which in turn can affect yet another. It kind of makes the shift in our paradigm and lifestyle choices all worth it.

I appreciated your questions and comments today. I do welcome your comments on the seminar. What you liked and even what you didn’t like. I also encourage your suggestions on what I should talk about next. Topic ideas are always helpful. For those who are interested, Click Here for my Front Porch article.

Thank you for allowing me to present you with a “shameless plug” for this blog. And again, thanks again for attending!

Posted on

Will We Ever REALLY get an EV?

Well, the Detroit Auto Show started Sunday. The Chevrolet Volt was just named Motor Trend’s Car of the Year for 2011. And I’m getting really really cynical. I know the picture for this post isn’t a Chevy Volt. But more on that a little later.

When I was a teenager, I subscribed to Motor Trend. I loved looking at the latest cool ideas coming out for cars. My first car was a 1974 Chevy Nova. Bright Red. SS. 350 4-barrell 4-speed. Mag wheels. White letter tires. 8 miles to the gallon. Then gas went to 75 cents a gallon and I felt the pinch. So I bought a sports car: a baby blue Porsche 914. 23 miles per gallon in town and 32 mpg on the road. That was 1975.

I had that car for a long time. Actually until we had our daughter. Then, in 1985, after 10 years and 120,000 miles, I traded it off. Three people and a two-seater car just wasn’t practical. So we got a Toyota Corolla. A lot less sexy. But it got about 23 mpg in town and about 30 mpg on the road. And we could all go places as a family.

Fast forward to 2003. I now have a Volkswagen Beetle. An awe-inspiring 23 mpg in town and about 28 to 30 mpg on the road. Do you see where this is going?

In the last 35 years, small car gas mileage has realistically stayed pretty static. Even a Hybrid Prius (the best mileage car out there) only gets about 50 miles per gallon (most small cars get about 23 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the road at best). So in 35 years, we’ve managed to increase gas efficiency by about double in the best case scenario. While gas prices have quadrupled.

The concept of electric cars has intrigued me. I watched the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and was maddened and was tempted to become cynical. I was hopeful when I heard about the Chevy Volt. Finally, an all-electric car made in the good old U.S. of A. The original media on the Volt was it would be all-electric.

Then, my cynicism returned: The Volt would end up with a gas generated back-up. My heart sank. Did Chevy cave to “range anxiety?” Or is there some sort of conspiracy? (GM actually wants to trademark the term “range anxiety”… now THAT makes as much sense as Apple wanting to trademark the lower case letter i). The Nissan Leaf EV is coming soon (we hope). Maybe. Still in the reservation stage. But it’s actually kind of ugly. Sorry, Nissan.

So I turned to the Th!nk City, a Norwegian car that has been throughout Europe for years, is ALL electric and has a range of about 100 miles. And it’s pleasing to the eye. Please bring the Th!nk to the USA! They say they’re going to. I’m on “the list.” But, honestly, I’m not holding my breath.

Which leads me to the Ford Focus EV shown above. All electric (as of today). Coming to showrooms near us this Fall (we hope). Made in the USA. Please, Ford, don’t cave to range anxiety (GM may own the term anyway…).

Be bold and go for it. I think I’d sell my Beetle for one.

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #7

at least it's an honest fake...
GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #7 – THE SIN OF WORSHIPPING FALSE LABELS
This sin is a relatively new one to the report. According to terrachoice, this sin “is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists; fake labels, in other words.” So in my ever diligent research mode, I set out to find some of those fake labels.

But then I thought I’ve been trying to get you all to do some of this for yourselves (after all, many of you don’t know me; how reliable am I, anyway?). So I thought I’d post an obviously-fake label to show how ludicrous things can get. I’d bet that I could put the above label on a product and some people would buy it thinking it was actually sustainable, green and eco-friendly. It’s similar to the label on the “organic cigarettes” in my post regarding Sin #5 where they were actually honest in saying “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” They’re actually quite upfront and “honest” about it, but we still buy the product. Why is that?

I’m reminded of the old bumper sticker that says “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

We have reached the final sin of greenwashing published by terrachoice in their report titled “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing”. It’s been an interesting journey for me. I have always enjoyed research and finding out the underlying facts to any claim or “news” story. I hope you have enjoyed this series, too.

I’ll leave you with this charge: Don’t get outraged, just pay attention and take the time and energy needed to check it out. And that applies to whatever “it” is.

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #6

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #6 – THE SIN OF FIBBING
Outright lying drives me nuts. I can understand stretching the truth (although I don’t agree with it or condone it), but deliberately messing with the numbers or stats to give a result you want is not acceptable. Period.

Early in 2010, LG Electronics, maker of the refrigerator pictured above admitted to using an illegal device on some of its refrigerators to skew the energy saving results. It’s interesting because the refrigerator actually uses MORE electricity to operate and could endanger your food. So not only was LG lying, it appears they don’t care about your health and safety as much as they care about their energy label.

There was also apparently another instance of a manufacturer putting the big yellow Energy Star guide on their dryer. Does anyone know what’s wrong with that picture? (hint: dryers don’t have Energy Star labels).

As with everything that we read, see or hear, I believe it is our responsibility to check out all claims as best we can from reliable sources. This won’t be a fool-proof 100% guarantee, but I can tell you I’ve easily found the information I’ve wanted for about 95% of the cases I’ve tried to check. That means the correct data is out there and relatively easy to find. We just have to go looking for it. The manufacturers who outright fib are betting we don’t.

And, judging from most of the political stuff ( I thought of a few other, less kind words) out there I’ve heard over the last couple of years, the manufacturers will win that bet; we won’t go looking for that information.

Next Post: Sin #7 – The Sin of Worshipping False Labels

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #5

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #5 – THE SIN OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Well, I struggled with this sin. Not that I gave in (have never smoked, never had the desire to smoke), but that there were a couple of pictures I could have used. The lesser of two evils sin deals with making a claim that diverts your attention from the real problems. The picture I decided to use is that of a company that makes organic cigarettes. Really. Organic cigarettes.

And not only that, but the smoke screen (pun intended) continues because not only are these cigarettes organic (natural tastes better, after all), their tobacco has been grown “in a responsible, sustainable way through our earth-friendly and organic growing programs.” The ad goes on to list how they are reducing their “footprint on the earth by using recycled materials and renewable energy sources like wind power.” And, as ATIS547 from flickr (who posted the photo) added after their quote “protecting the earth is as important to us as it is to you” by saying “in other words, the earth is fine — it’s YOU we’d like to see dead.”

I used their picture because they seem to win the prize (at least in my book) for the most attempts at diversion. But I have to confess it was a close one between these cigarettes and the 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV.

The Tahoe hybrid gets an amazing 20 mpg in town (better than the 15 mpg of the standard Tahoe) and hauls up to eight people. My problem is I rarely see more than one or two people in most any SUV. And that’s where the issue arises for this sin: the increase in fuel economy actually diverts your attention from the real problem. And that is that most times, you don’t need an SUV for carting one or two people around.

So I guess I just want to point out that we should, once again, be very discerning in the ads that bombard us all the time. The cigarettes even have the disclaimer “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” Oh, really?

And I’ll be the first to say if you regularly cart six or eight people around, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid might be a good choice for you. But if you’re like most of us who drive around with one (at most two) people in our vehicles, maybe a smaller car (or the bus…) might be a better option.

Don’t get sucked into the hype; stay focused on the real issues.

Next Post: Sin #6 – The Sin of Fibbing

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #4

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #4 – THE SIN OF IRRELEVANCE
By now, you can probably see there is a lot of overlap in these sins. As I have been relating the sins and some examples, I’m finding things like vagueness and irrelevance and no proof have a lot of commonalities. The Sin of Irrelevance is “committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.”

The example the TerraChoice studies use is that of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs have been shown to deplete the ozone layer and as such have been heavily regulated sine the 1970s. And, in 1978, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol cans. Yet, some aerosol cans still carry a label “CFC-Free”. Totally irrelevant and completely misleading. I liken it to advertising a new car as having seat belts for all seats. Wow. I’m underwhelmed.

“All natural” is another term that is really, totally meaningless from an environmental standpoint. And I say that because the following are “natural” products: arsenic, uranium and formaldehyde. So just because something is natural, that doesn’t mean it’s good for us. By the way, formaldehyde also qualifies as “organic.”

I have also learned that everything, in improper quantities can actually be poison to us. Water, necessary to life, in the wrong quantity can poison us. It’s called “water intoxication” and is basically the opposite of dehydration. And very small quantities of certain chemicals can be beneficial. An example would be medicines. So we have to be careful making blanket statements.

And we have to be aware of statements that ultimately have no meaning. The proliferation of green products and the subsequent marketing related to selling those to us, should put us, the consumer/purchaser/user on a heightened level of awareness. We have as much responsibility as anyone to verify statements and sort through irrelevant and meaningless claims.

So be careful, be informed and be aware.

Next Post: Sin #5 – The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #3


GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #3 – THE SIN OF VAGUENESS
The Sin of Vagueness is when a manufacturer makes a claim that is unsubstantiated or what I’d call so “milk toast” as to have no meaning. As an example, the logo shown here says “eco-friendly”. OK. The product is friendly to the ecology. Friendly how? What’s THAT supposed to mean? Does the product enhance the environment, cause minimal harm or what? It’s kind of like the other phrase “all natural” that I’m saving for my next post on irrelevance.

But in the same sense, when a manufacturer makes a claim about the environmental benefit of their product, there needs to be substantive evidence that what is said is something that can be backed up. Otherwise, just let the benefits of the product stand on their own without clouding it with vague claims that really mean nothing and are only made to sell the product.

I understand marketing and I understand the “need” in our current culture to sell products. We are a consumer society (and whether or not that’s good or bad is a debate I will save for another post). But what the Greenwashing Reports we have been referring to talk about is some clear, concrete guidelines on what the claims actually mean. And being able to find the information, accurately and clearly would be so helpful.

Which leads me to what I think is a pretty cool discovery. As I was researching this article, I came across a Natural Home Magazine article from July, 2009 (OK, there’s a lot of information out there and I try to stay up on the latest, but still often miss stuff) with a site that intrigued me.

It’s called The Good Guide and is also available as an iPhone app. And that also was interesting because I have an iPhone and am a big fan of Apple products. So I downloaded the app and tried it out. It’s free and currently has about 70,000 products available.

Products are rated in the areas of health, the environment and the company’s ethics related to society. A simple scale of 0 to 10 in these three categories is established and an overall rating is given. There are a lot of really neat features with this site and the iPhone app. Probably the most exciting for me is the ability to use my iPhone’s camera to scan the bar code and get the rating. I’ve tested it and it seems to work quite well.

So if I’m in the store, shopping for an item, and have a question or concern, I can whip out my trusty iPhone (always fun to do, regardless of the outcome), scan the bar code and generally get the info I want.

And The Good Guide has more detailed information available if I want it. That helps get past the Sin of Vagueness.

Next Post: Sin #4 – The Sin of Irrelevance

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #2

"Mother Earth Approved"
photo by Adam Kuban
Today we’ll dive into Sin #2, The Sin of No Proof. But first, as a reminder, here’s a definition of Greenwashing:

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #2 – THE SIN OF NO PROOF
The Sin of No Proof is one where there isn’t a readily-available way to verify the claim. So my picture here of a wine “bottle” that claims to be “Mother Earth Approved” would be deceptive in that you can’t verify that claim. I visited the website for this wine and I think this is probably done largely in jest, but it’s still a claim that can’t be substantiated. The cartons are made of paper, “a renewable resource that comes from trees.” and are recyclable (much like milk cartons).

But many of the claims on this particular product’s website about package ratio, CO2 footprint, fuel efficiency (because they are lighter to transport) would be difficult to quantify. Sometimes a manufacturer will make claims that try to snow you with facts or figures or fine print that really can’t be determined or with data that is irrelevant or so vague as to be irrelevant.

“Green Guides” is a publication of the Federal Trade Commission that is seeking to set out some strict guidelines for what is appropriate in an advertiser’s claim and what isn’t. One example they give is a good indicator of what we need to be aware of:

“A trash bag is labeled ‘recyclable’ without qualification. Because trash bags will ordinarily not be separated out from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for recycling, they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the bag is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.”

As with all advertising claims, green or not, we as consumers need to be smart and aware. We need to pay attention, read closely how claims are worded and be sure we make the best decisions we can on our product purchases. The purpose of advertising is to get us to buy the product. And while many manufacturers will make accurate claims, there are those who will not. And with the proliferation of “green” as a consumer buzz-word and desire most of us have, we need to be even more aware.

Next Post: Sin #3 – The Sin of Vagueness