Posted on

Republican Debate and Obama’s Job Speech

A friend of mine recently challenged me via Facebook to watch the Republican debate. I responded that I would if he would, in turn, watch President Obama’s jobs speech to Congress. My friend and I generally have opposite political views, so we took each other up on the challenge. The rules were that we had to watch both in their entirety (no edited, out-of-context sound bites) and no talking-head commentaries (Hannity, Beck, Colbert or Stewart).

So I watched them both. Last night. Via YouTube and the White House website. The nice thing about the internet is you can watch whenever you want. Without commercials, commentaries, etc. And my mind has been racing enough that I woke up this morning at 4:00 am with the debates and speech going through my mind. I finally got up at 5:00 and decided to start writing my opinions and observations. My wife had come home from a meeting near the end of my watching and asked if I was truly watching both with an open mind. I said, “I think so.” I’m not completely sure about that last one because we all have our biases and our opinions that are hard to change, but I tried.

I used to be what would probably be considered a Moderate Republican. But as the Tea Party rose and the Republican Party became more and more whatever they are, I left and voted for Obama in 2008. Or, to misquote Ronald Reagan, “I didn’t leave the Republican party, they left me.” Which leads in to my thoughts on the two topics at hand, since the debate was at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

THE DEBATE
Tom Brokaw had a comment about the debate format that rang true throughout the evening. He said they set up very strict rules on how the debate would run and then the candidates ignore them anyway. I found that generally true throughout the debate. The most frustrating thing was when a candidate would get a question and respond with “what I REALLY want to say is…” then totally go off on a tangent.

But I don’t want to get sidetracked with that. There were plenty of questions asked and actually answered to generate a good discussion.

Obviously, the economy was the major focus, as it was with Obama’s speech, too. However, probably the single most disturbing thing in the debate that I heard was that the economy was the ONLY issue. Pushed aside, denigrated, or ignored were the other two factors of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL): the environment and social equity. This was what bothered me the most. We should drill in the Everglades (responsibly, of course) to have domestic oil to help the economy. We need to first put up a fence along the Mexican border to keep people out (and, as Ron Paul aptly warned, keep us in) because of what they are doing to the economy, then deal with immigration issues. The economy is the single issue. If the environment or equity don’t fit the immediate economic model, let our immediate economic condition control.

THE JOBS SPEECH
I’m going to tie these together, but this seemed like a good time to segue to Obama’s Jobs speech. I’ve often recently believed and said that we need to increase revenue to get out of our economic mess. Not a popular idea in some no-tax-increase circles. But you have to increase revenue to make up the difference we currently have, regardless of how many spending cuts we propose. That can happen through higher taxes (Warren Buffet and other wealthy people seem to be on board with that) and/or through removing some tax breaks that are not needed anymore (a prime example would be the huge tax breaks oil companies still receive while at the same time reaping huge profits while renewable energy receives a tenth the subsidies and is labeled as “economically unfeasible”).

I’ve also believed for some time that spending money in this time to update our failing infrastructure (roads, transportation systems, electric grid, etc) is an opportunity we should not ignore. Look at history. Lincoln and the Transcontinental Railroad. FDR and the New Deal (granted, with mixed results) and Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System. Granted, each of these men and “programs” did more than just stimulate the economy. They set the stage for better things. The railroad opened up the West. The New Deal programs resulted in the Civilian Conservation Corps and much of our ability to enjoy our National Forests. The Interstate Highways enhanced our ability for commerce and, simply, connected our nation.

The overarching similarity in all of these (and, I believe, in the proposal the President put forth the other night) is they weren’t simply focused on one thing. When we get that type of tunnel vision, when we look solely at the economic aspect without also considering the social equity or the environment, we will have missed the boat.

CONNECTING THE TWO
I could go on a lot longer with my opinions. But this post is already long enough I’ve probably lost some people.

Our society, our culture, our lives are much richer and vibrant when we take a full and interconnected view of what we are doing. I said I was going to tie these two events together and that is it. While economic recovery in our country is important, we need to guard against single-issue tunnel vision. Too many aspects of our lives are intertwined with each other. Let’s not get so bull-headed about just the economy that we also strip away the beauty of the natural environment or the dignity of another human being.

Posted on

Energy Subsidies and the “Free Market”

Time and time again, I hear people say that renewables should be subject to the “free market” and should not receive government subsidies. After all, if renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal are viable, the consumer should decide, not the government. And while I understand (and even to a point agree) with those comments, the problem is we simply don’t have a level playing field. Nor do we have (or will we ever have) a truly free market economy. As Wikipedia says, “purely free markets… are theoretical constructs.” So after a recent spate of posts on a couple of threads on my Facebook page, I thought I would address some of the issues that came up.

PURPOSE OF SUBSIDIES
I think the purpose of subsidies is to get fledgling industries off the ground so they can be viable. Call it investment capital, call it what you want, that’s how our culture works. Entrepreneurs have an idea and get investors and/or tax breaks for a period of time so they can build a good foundation and become productive. There is often a huge amount of research and development costs associated with a start-up company. And I’ll be the first to say I’m not an economist. But I will go on to say this isn’t rocket science, either.

The chart I’ve included with this post is based on a 2009 report by the Environmental Law Institute report titled “Estimating U. S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008.” The source of the information in the report comes from the Internal Revenue Service, the US Department of Energy, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and the US Department of Agriculture. The report covers the 6-year cumulative period of 2002-2008.

It’s a telling chart because it shows just how disproportionate the playing field really is. 72% of Federal subsidies for energy go to fossil fuels, not renewables. And if you group biofuel in with the fossil fuels (I do; biofuel is stupid), it’s more like 88%. The report goes into a great amount of detail regarding how the subsidies are parsed out.

Historically, a large amount of the subsidies for fossil fuel goes to coal. You know, the same people who brought you mountaintop removal. And black lung disease (and those suffering from it also are subsidized). Oil companies also receive a huge amount of subsidies for off-shore drilling costs, foreign exploration credits and the like.

But I guess my point here is that oil and coal have received subsidies for decades and at least the oil companies, who realistically hold a monopoly over us, are still seeing record profits. It seems subsidies should help companies get established, then phase out, not add on to profits. And the argument that we need to look at how much tax the oil companies pay would be valid if they weren’t paying tax on money we give them. Would you be willing to pay $300 tax on my gift of $1,000 to you? I sure would.

ON AGAIN/OFF AGAIN
In the 1980s, there were some pretty substantial tax credits (yes, subsidies) for solar. During that time, my parents installed a solar hot water system on their house. It’s still plugging along, churning out hot water. Then the Federal credits expired in 2000, 2002, 2004 and almost in 2008. They’ve currently been renewed through 2016.

But in my home state of Oregon, with one of the most aggressive tax credit programs around, the Legislature may look at eliminating them.

It’s this on again/off again situation that never allows any renewable energy company to ever really get off the ground. Why can’t we commit to a consistent subsidy for renewables over 20 or 25 years? It’s that see-saw effect, much like Roland Martin said in his blog about gasoline prices posted here a while back. And it essentially is strangling any hope of renewable energy ever coming close to competing with Big Oil.

LOOK PAST OUR NOSE
It’s the short-sighted view we have, where we don’t look past our nose to the future. We have these spurts of knee-jerk reactions when things get “bad” then fall into complacency when it evens out temporarily.

We can’t keep living like that. If we evened out the subsidies and shifted $30 billion of the oil subsidies to renewables, it would help. I believe even with fossil fuels’ head start, that shift alone, if continued consistently for 20 years, would make renewables viable and an integral part of our culture. And it would go a long way toward leveling that playing field.

Is anyone willing to give it a try?

Posted on

Roland S. Martin – CNN Guest Blog

I have never posted verbatim another blog post until today. With the recent events in Libya, gas prices soaring (again) and the nuclear meltdown in Japan, I was going to write something, because I just couldn’t keep quiet. Then, I came across Roland Martin’s post on CNN today (March 12, 2011) and decided he said it better than I ever could. So, I contacted him and obtained permission to repost it here. It’s well worth the read but it would be even important if we actually paid attention to what he says.

CNN Editor’s note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for TV One Cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch with Roland Martin.”

(CNN) — Gas prices are skyrocketing nationwide and Americans are angry that they have to spend more of their hard earned money at the pump each week.

The crisis in northern Africa, specifically in Libya, has led the dramatic rise in the cost of oil, which now tops $101 a barrel, over the past month. And with summer approaching, Americans are fretting over whether to hit the highway for vacation because the price of gas, averaging $3.52 a gallon nationwide, is expected to go even higher.

Our political leaders? Some Democrats and Republicans are leaning on President Barack Obama to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and use some of the millions of barrels of oil we have on tap to provide some relief as a result of the price increase.

In a news conference Friday, President Obama said he’ll release the oil if needed.

“All options are on the table when it comes to any supply disruption,” he said.

Is this Groundhog Day or what?

Three years ago this nation went through convulsions when gas prices skyrocketed. Folks were sharing rides and pushing elected officials to broaden public transportation plans. Hybrids and electric cars started getting a second look from gas conscious drivers, and all the talk was about alternative energy and not being dependent on Arab leaders in the Middle East.

And when those gas prices went back down? We yelled, screamed and cheered, and then pulled the SUVs out of the garage, filled them up with gasoline and forgot all about the pain we endured.

This is the American story: Alleviate our pain so we can go back to business as usual. And when the crisis comes back, we’ll fret, scream and go bonkers.
Please, stop the madness!

When are we simply going to reach the conclusion that as long as this nation has a Charlie Sheen-like addiction to gas, our chains can be yanked at any time, which will send our economy into a tailspin?

The U.S. Energy Department predicts that with the dramatic rise in gas prices, the average American family will spend an additional $700 annually on gas. And with money already tight, that is a huge hit.

Unfortunately, our crack-like dependence on oil continues to lead us down the road of agony and despair, and our political leaders have no courage to own up to the special interests and gas lovin’ Americans and say, “Dammit, enough! We can’t move forward like this!”

Democrats and Republicans are now saying President Obama needs to allow for more drilling off the shores of the United States. Really? So that’s the only answer? Everyone knows there isn’t enough oil to satisfy America’s thirst. But oh no, we keep this charade up.

America will never be able to transition our system from an oil-dependent economy to an alternative plan unless we show the courage to make the tough choices today and get the payoff later.

I don’t care what Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says about energy efficient lightbulbs; the old ones were cheaper, used more energy and we had to buy a lot more. The government’s move to force a new lightbulb standard caused some pain on the front end with my wallet, but over the long term, fewer bulbs are being bought and I’m seeing a decrease in my light bill.

Until the nation accepts this reality, we will continue to be at the mercy of oil-possessing countries.

Embracing non-oil energy alternatives — wind, natural gas, electric and solar — can absolutely create jobs in this country, and we should require Americans to make their homes more energy efficient with products built by Americans. What’s wrong with that? How can the United States create solar technology and then allow the Chinese to become the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels?

No one alternative energy source can replace oil. It has to be a comprehensive plan that addresses our long-term needs. And it is going to mean we will have to spend money. Yes, we will be affected in the short-term, but if someone told me we could spend $500 billion today, and that would create millions of jobs over the next several years and lead to a transition to an alternative-energy economy, I would ask where I should sign up.

But if we have no courage, we will lose every time.

So, if the only thing you know is “drill, baby, drill,” and that gasoline is our only option, great. Have a wonderful time. And every time gas skyrockets, just smack yourself upside the head with that gas pump, because you’re the reason we remain stuck on stupid when it comes to energy in this country.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

But we here at thesimpleHOUSE share these opinions, too.

Posted on

Deep Green – Movie Review

“All I know is, I’m alive now and I can do something today, and I can’t in good conscience wait for somebody else to do it. I think the time is now; for me the time is absolutely now. It’s the only time anybody has”. Kathy Bash, Architect with DMS Architects in Portland, Oregon. Of all the people and quotes and sound bites from the film, this is the one that stuck with me the most.

Deep Green, a documentary from Matt Briggs, is not so much about the problem, but about solutions. In his description of his film, Briggs says: “Other films have done a great job of showing us the problem. We wanted ‘Deep Green’ to be about solutions.” And the film does just that. In an hour and 40 minutes (which, in my opinion could have been about 20 minutes shorter), Briggs focuses more on the ways people around the world are addressing ways to reduce their footprint and live a little lighter on the planet than on the problems with our lifestyles. Briggs himself has retrofitted his own home with numerous energy-saving, sustainable features. And he’s apparently still at it, adding some solar here, some composting there; yes, he’s living it.

The film starts out with some basic background data on global warming and climate change, but doesn’t stay there. It dives right in to what’s happening around the world in the areas of clean energy, high-speed rail, sustainable buildings, agriculture and out-of-the-box thinking. Briggs shows how everything is connected and “we all live downstream.”

What I appreciate about the film, enjoying its Eugene, Oregon debut (Briggs is a University of Oregon alum), is it does concentrate on what’s good out there, what we can do and how it makes environmental sense and economic sense. Too often, I think, filmmakers of this genre zero in on the gloom and doom aspects of climate change. We are so close to the tipping point, or have passed it, that the message gets lost in the futility. And that is what sets this film apart from the others. It was a bit long (I would have shown less detail on the clean coal segment and been a little less enamored with China), but still worth the watch. You won’t come away from this film discouraged, downcast or brow-beaten.

Which brings me back to Kathy Bash’s remarks. I know Kathy as a colleague and respect her as a fellow Architect. She has a passion, yet practicality in her view of sustainability. Which makes her opening quote so profound. I am responsible for what I can do. We must take responsibility for ourselves; if we all would do that, we would move forward at breakneck speed.

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

The Lawrence Street House – Bidding and LEED

I know it’s been a little while since I gave you all an update on the Lawrence House. With the holidays, I took a bit longer finishing the drawings and we really didn’t want to have to be doing open houses during the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. Open Houses are actually kind of a pain. Clean the house, keep it spotless, etc. for a two to three hour window on a Sunday afternoon. So we rested that for a while.

BIDDING
I also got the drawings done and ready to go out to bid. Based on my original budget, we had our present house priced at where we needed to be for a little negotiation and be able to go straight across. Part of the triple bottom line (the three “E’s” of sustainability) is economy and we didn’t want to end up with a mortgage when it’s all said and done.

But I’ve been getting preliminary bids back and they are actually coming in under my original budget (which, frankly, was pretty generous). So now we’re starting to get pretty excited. This may actually happen! We’re also currently at 5kw for the solar and are considering 6kw. We have room on the roof and believe it’s the right thing to do.

LEED
We had our first official LEED preliminary rating meeting Friday. This is where we sat down with Eli, our LEED rater, our landscape architect and our mechanical contractor. We’ve already done the design charrette and this is to make sure the major players understand the ground rules for LEED and also what we expect. Third party verification requires some stringent guidelines and we want to do it right from from the beginning. We should easily make Platinum on each house.

We discussed the mechanical systems and how they needed to be designed and installed. The way we are insulating our house, we are foaming the tops of the roof rafters so the heat pump indoor units and the ductwork will be within the conditioned space. That way we don’t have to insulate the ducts and it also makes the system run much more efficiently. We’ll still seal the ducts (the major area of mechanical system inefficiencies) and everything will be ceiling-fed.

We’re thinking the cottage will use a mini-split unit, or ductless heat pump. This is much more efficient, especially in a 776 sq ft house. The main house will have a conventional heat pump, but just a very high efficiency one.

Our landscaping is all low irrigation demand. We discussed at length eco lawn versus regular turf versus synthetic turf. We have just about 3% lawn area, but LEED, to maximize the points, doesn’t allow irrigation or mowing, otherwise you lose those two points. I’ve said all along we won’t chase points, but this is an area we want to be sure we do it right and also have something we will enjoy. An eco lawn in the location we have this might not be what we want. Our landscape architect suggested a synthetic lawn (I know, my first thought is “Astro-Turf“). We are going to go look at one here in town, but I’m skeptical about it. The term “Fake Lawn” is what comes off my lips. I’ll keep you posted.

SUMMARY
So that’s where we’re at. I’m hopeful we’ll have the bids come in well and we can get this house sold and start building. The prime building season in Eugene (March – September) is fast approaching.

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.