E2C2 - Sustainable Planning/Design

The Candidates on Energy/Environment

On Friday April 11th I attended a Society of Environmental Journalists sponsored press conference featuring the Climate/Energy Advisors for the Clinton, Obama and McCain Presidential Campaigns. Representing Clinton, Obama and McCain respectively were: Todd Stern, Michael Grumet and James Woolsey. Each policy advisor made a 5 minute opening statement on his candidate’s climate and energy position, followed by questions from two press moderators. The final part of the conference was press questions from the floor. All representatives expressed that their candidate’s support for some form of carbon cap and trade. Clinton and Obama already offer fairly extensive energy/environment policies (see links below) The differences between them are fairly nuanced. While McCain supports cap and trade, biofuels and energy efficiency, his policies are considerably less specific. See these links for the official policies of each candidate and a transcription of a speech outlining McCain’s positions. Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Clinton: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/ McCain: http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/mccain_speech_on_energy_policy.htm At the press conference, neither the Clinton or Obama representative strayed from the policy stances outlined officially, but McCain’s advisor Jim Woolsey offered a few more policy ideas than available from the campaign website. Therefore, rather than trying to recap the questions and answers from the press conference I have provided verbatim energy/environment policy statements from the candidates’ websites below, plus additional remarks from the press conference expanding on these policies. Clinton: Website Policy on Energy/Environment States: • A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence; • An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs; • A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan; • Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency • Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030; • 10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies; • An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards; • A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient; • A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements; • A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. • Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch. • A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.” • Policy advisor Stern stated Clinton would consider nuclear power if safety issues addressed Obama: Website Policy on Energy/Environment States: • Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. • Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. • Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe. • Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources. • Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry. • Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products. • Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S • Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025. • Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. • Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013. • Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries. • Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020. • Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030. • Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines. • Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal. • Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency. • Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage • Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues. • Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it. • Grumet stated Obama would consider nuclear power if safety concerns have been addressed. McCain: Website Policy on Environment States: “He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.” • Woolsey added that McCain supports Cap and Trade for Carbon. He did not elaborate if initial credits would be awarded or auctioned. (McCain and Joe Lieberman sponsored the first Senate Cap and Trade bill in 2003 but McCain has not updated his official position.) • Woolsey added funding for clean energy initiatives by removing current subsidies on energy technologies that can stand on their own. No specifics about what these technologies might be. • Woolsey added emphasis on biofuels in addition to corn based ethanol • Woolsey added emphasis on hybrids, plug in hybrids and flex fuel vehicles • Woolsey affirmed nuclear power if safety issues addressed.

Green Trends and Prospects

State of Green Business 2008

We commend readers to State of Green Business 2008 a highly informative synopsis of trends in green enterprise by the editors of GreenBiz. This report is available free for download. It concludes that while green approaches have made major inroads in business, the overall verdict is still mixed. Here are a few interesting findings:

• Wal-Mart has committed to doubling its truck fleet's fuel efficiency by 2015. It will replace 386 of its big rigs with hybrid versions of the same truck by 2009.
• On the other hand, nearly a third of companies queried in one report have no way to monitor their own carbon emissions, let alone the indirect emission of their supply chains, and have no plan to begin doing so.
• More than 28 major corporations joined major environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and others, in signing on to the US Climate Action Partnership, which advocates, among other things a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.
• However, one survey found that consumers are reluctant to pay a premium for green products. And perhaps justifiably so, in reviewing more than a thousand consuming products bearing environmental claims, another study found all but one product included false or misleading information about its environmental benefits.

The overarching issue is that while corporate and government commitments to clean energy and green practices are on the upswing, meaning fewer energy inputs and less pollution for every dollar of GDP, they must be measured against a growing, energy consuming, global economy that will overwhelm conservation measures without dramatic, wide ranging action.

Solar Sails: PV Goes Kinetic

We now have a working, proof - of - concept, prototype of the Solar Sails kinetic sculpture. When the sun shines the sails move in changing patterns, based on sun position and weather. We are seeking partners for full size installations in corporate and public venues. You might ask how the Solar Sails piece advances a greener future. We believe it showcases solar photovoltaic (PV) energy by transforming a static technology into something dramatic and entertaining; and placing it in high visibility environments.

Bottled Water - Taking Out the Carbon, But Not the Fizz

Did you know bottled water is a thousand times more carbon intensive than filtered, carbonated tap water? And, we're not talking about the carbonation bubbles. Transporting filtered and/or natural mineral water from bottling plants is an energy intensive business that results in large carbon emissions. Green Lodging News reports that The Scandic Hotels chain has stopped selling bottled water in its 160 hotel Nordic business as one, among many measures, to further its goal of carbon neutrality by year 2025.

We all want to drink clean water, but using filtered tap water is a much better approach than shipping it dozens, not to mention sometimes thousands, of miles from its source. Scandic will offer guests filtered and carbonated tap water on premises and even provide bottles for guests when they venture out.

Is the (Green) Future Local and What Will It Look Like?

Speaking of local production, many green scenarios emphasize locally produced goods. For example, LEED green building standards promote local sourcing. We wonder if the present cosmopolitan, global economy, where large percentages of consumer goods are produced and delivered halfway around the world to consumers will be viewed retrospectively as an aberration. Will future economies necessarily be more local?

We now take for granted consumer items made far away and shipped long distances because energy is cheap and labor is drastically less in the developing countries where they are manufactured. But, what will happen as global energy costs rise and wages in China and other Asian countries begin to approach parity with the West? Will we see a resurgence of local manufacturing in lieu of foreign goods, or perhaps just higher prices and less stuff?  Will there be fewer, incredibly cheap plastic party favors from China, shipped around the world to be used once and thrown out? And doesn't less stuff moving around the world mean less economic activity, resulting in lower standards of living? In the past almost everything was produced and consumed locally.

Salt was one of the first global commodities subject to long distance trade. Everyone needed it. As with salt three millennia ago, there are certain goods and commodities that economies cannot do without today, such as energy supplies and feed stocks that will always be worth trading over long distances. But what happens to the all other, more marginal stuff? Is it possible to maintain an affordable and high standard of living without relying on cheap energy and foreign labor? Or will we in the West have to redefine our standard of living, not only from the standpoint of geographic equity, but also out of economic necessity?

More Diesel Choices - Hybrids Face Competition

Some readers may be considering vehicle purchases in the coming year. While hybrids generally come to mind among environmentally conscious consumers, there is a new generation of diesels presently - or - soon to be available that offer many, if not more advantages than, hybrids. Diesels generally offer about 30 percent greater efficiency, meaning better mileage than gasoline engines and don't require the large battery packs of hybrids, which, at some point need to be replaced.

Most of the diesels now offered in the US by Mercedes, Jeep and other manufacturers aim to make larger, fuel thirsty models more fuel efficient, rather than delivering high, absolute mileage. For example, the Mercedes E Class diesel sedan gets 32 highway mpg as opposed to the gasoline version which gets 24 mpg. This is good, but not great mileage.

However, 2009 should see the introduction of some high mileage diesel models from manufacturers like Volkswagen, BMW and Honda, offering consumers both real efficiency and performance. In Europe, almost half of new car sales are diesel. As of 2009 all states will offer low sulfur diesel fuel. Volkswagen even rolled out a diesel hybrid Golf Prototype at the Geneva Auto Show with a claimed 70 mpg.

Green Building Prospects

We still notice occasional reluctance from prospective clients about the cost and complexity of green building; particularly in implementing the LEED Certification system. Our response is that like it or not, LEED has become the de facto standard for green building. USGBC, the promulgator of the LEED system, expects more than 100,000 building projects to be LEED Certified and more than 200 public agencies and organizations have adopted it as their standard.

Moreover, our suggestion to building professionals is that rather than feeling burdened about some of LEED's more detailed analysis and reporting aspects they should embrace it as a means to improve the environment and their own bottom lines. As well as providing healthier and more energy efficient buildings, LEED services represent value - added for the design professions and increased revenues. Furthermore, in a growing number of cases, the additional costs of LEED are more than offset by energy savings, so everybody wins, with the possible exception of the power companies.

E2C2 Client Shorepower Electrifies Trucking in Pacific Northwest

E2C2 has been working with a Portland, Oregon based client, Shorepower, to bring electrified parking spaces for trucks, Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Plug In Hybrids (PHEVs) to the nation's truck stops, rest areas, and parking facilities. With support from a Climate Trust grant Shorepower has now equipped six travel plazas on Interstate corridors in Oregon and Washington with electrified parking spaces. Every electrified Shorepower space used 8 hours per day, instead of idling a big diesel rig during rest stops, saves 30 tons of carbon emitted to the atmosphere during a year.

We look forward to your comments as always.

The Looming Challenge

Conventional wisdom dictates that these communiqués should be breezy and upbeat, touting accomplishments and prospects. However, my chosen line of work, sustainable design, faces an ominous challenge. For that matter everyone, and every profession faces this looming crisis; substantial – to -catastrophic climate change. So, forgive me if I dispense with light hearted banter for a few paragraphs.

I recently read The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright’s investigation of the historical and ideological underpinnings of Al Qaeda and the events leading up to 9/11. I suggest the threat to global security posed by the energy/climate challenge is even greater in the long run than that posed by terrorism. In fact, a growing global energy and climate crisis may spawn more terrorism.

Earlier this month I participated in the National Council for Science and Environment’s Climate Change: Science and Solutions Conference , here in Washington DC. This meeting drew more than 1200 academics and others interested in the intersection of environmental science and policy. Speakers included leading climate scientists. I also had the opportunity to chair a breakout discussion on green building solutions and climate change.

Sobering Scenarios

The takeaway from the conference is sobering. Consensus is not merely that climate change is underway and that it poses a threat; something that the scientific community has known for years. Rather the discussion now focuses on how much climate disruption will occur, what its impacts will be, and what we can do about it. To summarize, given the current pattern of human activity the earth will probably warm at least 2º C even with substantial mitigation in the form of energy efficiency and renewable energy by the end of this century. This means further melting ice caps, more frequent floods, droughts, landslides, hurricanes, sea level rise and associated human disasters and ecosystem disruption, much of it in the developing world. And, the scientific consensus is that if we cannot avoid 3º warming by 2100, cataclysmic changes may ensue that could render large portions of the earth uninhabitable. See the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPCC) 2007 Synthesis Report for a summary of global climate scenarios.

Dr. John Holdren, of Harvard, who delivered the Chaffey Memorial Lecture at the NCSE Conference, summarizes our choices in the face of the crisis as a combination of the following: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. Mitigation, in the form of concerted energy efficiency, renewable energy, reforestation, nuclear power development and carbon capture from conventional fossil power plants will only offer a partial solution. Adaption, such as civil works to prevent floods, massive relocations of people from threatened areas, etc, only delivers some of the answers. Unfortunately, the balance is left to suffering: human misery, ecosystem destruction, and so on. It’s not a pretty scenario but it’s delivered by one of the world’s most respected authorities. So it’s up to us to maximize the mitigation and adaptation to minimize the suffering.

Coal is a Major Culprit

Coal is the most readily available energy source, but the dirtiest fossil fuel and the greatest single contributor to atmospheric carbon. On top of current coal - generated pollution levels, China and India have hundreds coal power plants in the development pipeline to energize their rapidly growing economies. The US, too, has dozens of such plants in the works. These power plants represent huge additions of carbon to the atmosphere, in addition to growing inputs from transportation, industry, and domestic activities. Alternatives to coal must be implemented quickly to stem carbon emissions.

A carbon cap and trade system or carbon tax are the most widely mooted policy mechanisms to help limit carbon emissions to the atmosphere. But when will they be implemented and how effective will they be? Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, while highly desirable, and benefitting from a carbon pricing system that makes them more attractive, will nevertheless only provide a partial solution to the energy challenge; meeting no more than about 15% of the energy budget. Nuclear energy, even though it presents storage risks for waste materials, will be required in increasing amounts. And while it presents massive technological challenges and uncertainty, carbon capture and sequestration from fossil fuel power plant emissions will be necessary.

Buildings Are in the Middle of Things

Buildings are responsible for about half of total energy consumption in this country. About 75% of building energy consumption is in the form of electrical power and here in the US about half of that power is generated from coal. This situation puts those of us in the building design and construction industry right in the middle of climate issue. In case you were thinking there was an easy way out by simply building green with the LEED standard, think again. While LEED is a good place to start, basic LEED Certification for buildings does not automatically guarantee superior energy efficiency, and associated carbon emission reductions.

LEED represents a composite green building “score” summing several criteria including energy, materials, indoor building environment, water conservation, etc.; all of which are desirable. But less than half the score of a typical LEED building specifically assesses its energy performance. Only at the higher reaches of the LEED rating system, e.g. Gold and Platinum, can one reliably expect substantial energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.

While not as ambitious as hoped, the 2007 Energy Bill, signed by President Bush in December, included several pieces of good news. Among them are mandate that inefficient incandescent light bulbs will be phased out for most applications beginning in 2012. Furthermore, new and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be carbon-neutral by 2030. This will make federal buildings models of the type of energy efficiency that all buildings need to adopt. These new targets should also spawn innovation and price competitiveness for a host of technologies.

What We Can Do:

In view of the above, here a several things we in the building and construction community must do to reduce building energy consumption:

• Elevate energy efficiency measures to the top of the list for both LEED and non LEED buildings. Inform clients of the critical nature of energy efficiency, its economic advantages and the need to act now.
• Lobby local municipalities and states to adopt more stringent energy performance requirements and incentives.
• Push for higher energy performance criteria in LEED as updated standards are considered and promulgated.
• Emphasize the use of renewable energy sources and lobby for incentives supporting them.
• Model wise energy use in our professional and personal lives.

 

Solar Sails: Photovoltaic Levity with a Message

Finally, on a note that I hope isn’t too frivolous, considering the gravity of the messages preceding this, I have been working on a kinetic sculpture concept utilizing thin – film solar photovoltaic cells. Solar panels are often static arrays, unseen on rooftops. This proposal demonstrates the potential of solar power in a dynamic fashion. As the sun strikes the thin film solar panels, electric power generated by them causes the sails to move. As the sun pattern changes, so does the pattern of sail movement; a sun choreographed dance of sails.

The Year of the Carbon/Climate Connection

The theme of this post is 2007 - Year of the Climate/Carbon Connection. Selecting such a topic was fairly simple since The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged the vital importance of the climate challenge by recognizing Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the Nobel Peace Prize. I am pleased to note that my friend, Ken Andrasko, formerly with the EPA, but recently of the World Bank, was a member of the IPCC.

Elsewhere, in recognition of the need to improve environmental quality, you may know that several cities, counties and states have adopted green building standards for public structures, including most of the nation's largest municipalities; among them New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Washington, DC. But did you also know the public agencies and organizatios going green now number more than 150? This means there will soon be thousands of new and remodeled facilities, fleet vehicles and plants operating more cleanly and efficiently.

Green Doesn't Have to Break the Bank

A recent Colorado study of 11 projects showed that while deployment of the LEED green building standard entailed a 1-6% premium over conventional construction, these costs were offset in most cases by resulting energy savings, with estimated paybacks of 3 years or less. LEED remains the most recognized standard of green building but there are also simpler assessment tools for projects that wish to be green, such as Green Globes. After all, the point isn't to achieve any particular standard for its own sake; it's to build sensibly and save energy, money, and slow climate - disrupting greenhouse gas emissions.

Local Initiatives Trump National Gridlock

As 2007 ends, it remains to be seen if Congress and the Whitehouse will agree on an Energy Bill that substantially increases corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards, mandates renewable portfolio standards for utilities and tightens up federal requirements for energy efficient appliances and lighting. However the good news is that state, private and local energy/environment initiatives move ahead regardless of what happens at the federal level.

For example, there may be a long national debate before achieving a workable national carbon emissions strategy based on mandatory caps, but states such as California, municipalities and various consortia have already taken on the issue themselves, adopting carbon emission standards and trading arrangements. At the most basic level, Personal Carbon Trading has been mooted as a way to encourage individuals to take control of energy use. This is an interesting and potentially significant approach, since individual choices account for about 50% of national energy expenditures through residential and personal transportation energy consuming activities.

On the renewable energy side, sales of Photovoltaic (PV) solar cells and panels reached record levels, but prices have not come down appreciably due to global demand and continuing shortages of silicon wafer material comprising most units. And even with continued, and very welcome growth PV will comprise a small fraction of the electrical power portfolio.

In the Marketplace

Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) continue gain market share in specialty lighting for automobiles, camping and hard-to-maintain applications such as traffic signals. But in the mass market Compact Fluorescent lights (CFLs) are cheaper than ever for consumers. A walk down the light bulb isle of your local Home Depot demonstrates that CFLs have made sizeable gains; now taking up about a third of the shelf space. Wal-Mart sells a CFL for under $3.00. Using the EPA's Energy Star CFL calculator one can see that every 60 watt equivalent CFL replacing a conventional bulb saves more than 650 lbs of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. CFLs make excellent economic and environmental sense and like other energy efficiency measures, are the fastest, cheapest and simplest way to address the energy/climate challenge.

Yet, as the Architecture 2030 initiative has noted in a recent ad, the climate will not benefit from all the energy saving measures technologies noted above if the US and many other countries continue to rely on coal as the electrical power feedstock of choice. Coal is the most abundant, but also the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and is in especially wide use in the Eastern part of the US and we simply have to use less of it and when we do, curtail its emissions.

Opportunities

What does this all mean for architects, engineers and designers of products and transportation systems? It suggests that business opportunities abound for energy smart, environmentally friendly structures and technologies. Public awareness of the need for energy saving, climate mitigating strategies is at an all time high. With oil at $100 a barrel, the energy saving message hits everyone's pocket book and encourages innovation.

We've been doing our part this year at E2C2 to advance the energy and environment agenda. The E2C2 website offers more details but here are a few highlights:

·   Bringing Photovoltaic power to a park facility in Arlington, Virginia

·   Attaining LEED Certification on four projects in Washington, DC and Northern Virginia

·   Introducing an energy saving Truck Electrification System to a network of sites in Washington and Oregon

·   Teaching green thinking to designers at Washington's Corcoran College of Art and Design.

The Phone Thing

With the arrival of the holiday season it's time for a roast; in this case a curmudgeonly commentary on the phone lifestyle. Let me stipulate here that I don't like talking on the phone - any phone. I admit it's a useful device to convey information and it can be helpful in emergencies. But, my number one gripe about this century - old technology is that you can't see the other person. For me, communicating on the phone is like trying to swim using only one arm and no kick. Lacking visual feedback and no text, phone verbal communication is crude, necessary, but ultimately limited.

So, given these biases, here's my holiday list of phone related irritants and conundra: 

1. Leading off and probably topping everyone's list, the phone that goes off in the art gallery or other quiet gathering place. Bad enough that it rings, but when the gallery patron answers it rather than turning the offending device off, incredible in its rudeness. When approached, people always claim they "forgot" as if that makes it ok.

2. Those phone ads that portray everybody on the phone smiling broadly while gabbing away. How often do you grin while talking on the phone; when you win the lottery? 

3. The Bluetooth "talking to no one" phenomenon; I suppose handsfree operation is a good thing but it encourages a lot of needless and sometimes dangerous multitasking, like driving while conversing. And, to be in the presence of someone talking and unaware of their Bluetooth earpiece can be downright disconcerting. Fortunately, Bluetooth - as - style accessory seems to have crested, which leads me to my next rant about cell phones in holsters. I suppose it's an ergonomic convenience to have your phone clipped to your belt, but it appears to me to be a rather anachronistic reference to bygone days, when weapons were worn on the hip. I suppose communication devices are the new weapons.

Finally, you may have gathered I simply don't understand what appears to be the need, demonstrated in almost any public place, for people to be in constant in touch with someone not in their immediate presence; their physical bodies one place but their minds engaged elsewhere. For example, recently on many a beautiful Fall day here in Washington, mild weather, trees ablaze with color and there's someone approaching me, yakking on the phone, oblivious to the glorious environment. I ask myself, isn't it more than enough for them to simply be where they are, simply enjoying physical world?

Personal Carbon Trading

A couple of weeks ago I attended a presentation by the RSA, a British think tank, on personal carbon trading. The basic motivation behind this concept is that individuals - as well as - institutions (governments, corporations, utilities) significantly impact energy use and carbon emissions through choices made in transportation and home energy use - by some accounts as much as half all energy consumed. The idea is that by government fiat at some starting date, each household would be allotted carbon credits, based upon the number of resident individuals. Then, as people went about their lives, working, playing, traveling, etc. they would expend these credits proportionate to their energy consuming activities. For example, individuals that had lengthy solo commutes, living in large homes in hot or cold climates and taking vacations to far flung spots would expend more credits, while those working at home or retired, living in small houses or apartments and not traveling much, would expend fewer credits. Normal transactions such as gasoline purchases at service stations and utility payments for gas and electric bills, or airline ticket purchases could easily be adapted to monitor energy use and thus carbon emissions.

The key to this approach is not simply monitoring carbon emissions but provision of a market mechanism to encourage savvy energy use. Via an online clearinghouse individuals with excess carbon credits could sell those who might need them; the price of which would be set by supply and demand. The result of putting a price on personal carbon emissions would be presumably more efficient energy use and a contribution to climate stability.

It's an interesting concept that encourages individual - as well as - institutional change in energy policy and usage. Personal carbon trading could occur compatibly, but not in conjunction with, carbon credit trading on markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Bumper Economics

Living in Washington, DC and parking both my cars on the street here on Capitol Hill I’ve long thought there should be a better, more durable approach to bumpers. Body – color plastic bumpers are attractive coming out of the showroom and may work well for people who garage their cars but not every owner has that luxury – particularly urban dwellers, like me. I daily observe otherwise well maintained new vehicles with unsightly dimples and scratches on their rear bumpers; often due to careless “touch and feel” parking by others, not their own negligence. Parking sensors are only half of the solution.

Couldn’t there be a manufacturer offered, abrasion resistant, clear peel - off coating ala NASCAR windshields that could periodically be removed from the bumper, revealing a smooth surface. Or, what about a self healing resin insert for the most vulnerable part of a bumper – generally the area where someone else’s license plate screws tend to leave dimples. When I see hundreds of dollars of damage on otherwise nice cars it makes me nostalgic for the bad old days of black polyurethane, or even chromed steel bumpers that actually did what their names implied; that is, receive - and - give little bumps with minimal damage. The sustainability angle here is that all the little bumps and scratches eventually add up into costly repairs, requiring petroleum based patching and painting that should be avoidable with a little thoughtful design. It would save car owners, and perhaps insurance companies, millions of dollars a year! 

On Becoming a Green Designer

I am asked quite frequently how to become a green designer. Generally, these queries arise from folks not currently working as design professionals, but possessing an interest in the environment, green architecture and materials and sustainable living. They are considering a change of careers or continuing their education in a green direction. Here are a few ideas and sources from my experience.

No Single Way to Do It: the Power of Hyphenation

My first response to the "how to" question is that there is no single way to become a green designer. Instead, it is quite possible to approach green design from a number of directions including, but – not – limited - to: architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, environmental planning, engineering, product design, materials science and chemistry, etc. In each of these disciplines you can follow a green track, depending on the academic and career path chosen.

By the same token you will in all likelihood not find academic or professional programs that begin with green design. Instead, within the professional world, green design is often an adjunct to a larger discipline; thus the hyphenation. For example, architects don’t just practice green architecture; they practice architecture with a green slant. In fact, much of even a green architect’s time will be spent doing other things than addressing green design problems. Similarly, you may pursue engineering with a green orientation, product design with green emphasis and so forth. The point is you should find a profession or discipline you enjoy and are good at, as well as one that offers green opportunities.

Is it the Green or the Design that Most Interests You?

You may find that your interest in green design has more to do with the adoption of sustainable products or policies and less to do with the making or creation of them. If this is the case they are ample opportunities to be involved in marketing green products, promoting green policies and lifestyles and very importantly, teaching others about these issues.

Local Resources

Check your local colleges and universities for continuing education courses that will introduce you to green design topics or to a profession like architecture, associated with green design. This is a low cost way to sample various career options without a major commitment. Local organizations, such as your Audubon Society www.audubon.org, will probably have green oriented programs too. If you like building see if there is a Habitat for Humanity www.habitat.org program in your area.

The Web

You probably found me through a web search, but this is just a start. There are hundreds of web sites offering reputable information on green design and living. Here are just a few options:

· US EPA’s Energy Star Program www.energystar.gov is a good place to learn about energy efficiency in the home,

· US Department of Energy’s various national laboratories support research in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. www.nrel.gov, www.lbl.gov, www.netl.gov, www.ornl.gov,

· US Green Building Council sponsors the LEED Certification Program, www.usgbc.org,

· Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC, www.nrdc.org, has numerous green initiatives

· Green Biz www.greenbiz.com provides a roundup of corporate greening efforts.

· Terra Pass www.terrapass.org, allows you to purchase carbon offsets and learn about ways to reduce your carbon footprint.

The Bottom Line

Green design is still a new and dynamic field. This is both bad – and good – news, depending on how you look at it. The bad news is that there are few totally established career paths. The good news is that you can make it up as you go!

Environment in Art and/or Art in Environment

How do artists view and incorporate environmental themes in their work. Does the environment simply provide the artist a palette of materials or setting to work with or is the artist’s work specifically about the natural world, its status and future?  A related issue is that one of the most pejorative terms in modern art criticism is the word, decorative. This ties into the ongoing dialectic in contemporary art between beauty and provocation. So much of what has been called environmental art is indeed, pretty.

Most art history surveys point out that after the Greek and Roman Classical Period, Western art focused exclusively on religious subjects until the Renaissance. It really wasn’t until the 16^th century that art subjects other than human received much attention. By this time natural scenes began to appear as background to human activities. Landscape painting didn’t really develop until the 17^th Century with practitioners such as Claude Lorrain. In this country the Hudson River School, exemplified by Frederic Church gained popularity in the mid 19^th Century about the time of Frederick Law Olmstead was inventing landscape architecture as a profession. My point is that the environment as a conscious subject for art is a comparatively recent topic.

Fast forwarding a bit, in the 60s, sculptors such as Robert Smithson and others began creating site specific pieces utilizing the landscape, a tradition carried on by diverse practioners including Christo, James Turrell, Andy Goldsworthy and Maya Lin, among others. One limitation of such site specific art is the need for land, and often large equipment to realize the work. It requires money and probably several types of approval. This is a far cry from the stereotype of the renegade artist in a small studio working on a controversial subject using paints, canvas, video or a computer.  

Call it Green or just good Town Planning

Many principles of green design are not advanced, high tech secrets. In fact, most are simple, and fairly time tested approaches. A recent trip to Finland showed some of these in practice. The interesting thing is that many of these measures have been in place for years in Finland and elsewhere in Scandinavia, under the rubric of town planning. On my recent trip I observed Finnish towns of even modest size (<10,000 people) encouraging density in their centers with low rise apartments. This in turn justified infrastructure such as parks, playgrounds and squares. Even suburban areas near cities featured dense development allowing the foregoing amenities. And bicycle paths, which do double duty as ski tracks in winter, were everywhere, even in the countryside, many kilometers outside of towns.  American cities of corresponding size would have few, if any of these features. Yes, the Finns have higher taxes to support these and other services, than we do here in America. But the Finns also see tangible paybacks in the quality of their towns and cities.