HumanityScape Journal

Legacy Sustainability

2012-01-06T23:46:00.001-05:00

What exactly is sustainability? Like most things in life, it means different things to different people; however the generally accepted definition was put forward by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

There are many ways to interpret this definition; and these variations are the cause of much political, economic and idealogical debate.

Some act like "the more money I make now, the more my legacy will endure into the future." Well, other than large donations to alma maters and hospitals aside, one does not get to choose ones own legacy. While there are a number of ways one can semi-permenantly immortalize one's own legacy (or infamany); it is important to point out that a personal or family lagacy should stand the test if time. I suppose it is difficult to project the impact of one's actions into the future, but it is likely that misdeeds are not the best path to building a reputation than others will admire well into the future. Culture, values, and social norms change as time passes. therefore, it is likely that teh best way to preserve ones one legacy is to act as honroably as possible while we have the power to do so.

So how does sustainability relate to family legacy? Well, family legacy is sustainability. As some of the more select members of our capitalist society aggrandize their personal coffers, little attention is paid to how the personal aggrandizement is achieved. Some believe that how they achieve a positive future legacy by building a lasting personal fortune and then make substantial donations to organizations who will put their name in buildings and other more permenant structures. As evidenced by a building at a private catholic college in New Jersey that removed the name of the benfactor when the benefactor was found guilty and jailed in connection with the gain of their wealth and the source of their endownment. A certain famous college football coach, who had donated much of the wealth he had earned through good service to the school was connected to a scandal. Will the building that bear his name be renamed, will his records be exspounged, will his accomplishments be dismissed? That remained to be seen.

A New York family have dedicated multiple generations to doing charitable works for the public good. This has become almost a family obsession due to the reputation of the man who acquired the wealth. This man build one of the largest corporations in US history and become renowne for his ruthlessness. The list goes on of people who attempt to repair their reputations through charitable giving after a career of macheavellian business practices.

Even US Presidents attempt to leave a positive legacy on the society with monuments and policies to which they can attach their name. However, history can be a harsh mistress. Some of us will be scrutanized more than others. Like all all actions in lift we are presented a set of options. Some are more economical, some are more expediant and some are just the right thing to do. Shortcutting the right thing with an expedient or economical actions rarely in a positive legacy in the long run.

If one has to thing long and hard about the ethics of a decision, not taking the moral or ethical high ground may have serious consequenceses for one's postmortum reputation and their heirs. A career of ethically poor decisions may never be repaired regardless of how many billions of dollars are donated to charity.

A policy of sustainability involves a deep hard look at the long term impact of the chain of decisions leading to action or policy. Life cycle analysis and cradle to cradle evaluation some of the many tools that can identify potential ruts in the road to family legacy. The more one values personal or family legacy, the more sustainable decision making becomes important early on in establishing a long term positive legacy.

At first glance, reputation building or preservation using sustainbility may appear counterintuitive. traditionally

What is Sustainability?

2011-12-30T22:29:00.025-05:00

When I remark to someone that I am in graduate school, the next question is what am I studying? When I tell them Sustainability Management, they usually ask what is sustainability? The conversation then takes a turn. Sometimes they are interested and we discuss it for quite a while; or they change the subject due to lack of interest (How about them Yankees?).

The goal of sustainable action is to benefit the environment, society and the economy. The photo shows three circles intersecting. If one of those components is not addressed in an action, it is not sustainable. While it may be a good action, sustainable actions always have all three components. But not necessarily in equal parts. Like shades of grey, there are actions which benefit one or two of the "pillars" more than the other one or two. For example, replacing occupancy sensors in a building would be considered a sustainable action. It saves energy and reduces pollution (environmental and social), it saves money (economical) and our country is less dependent on a resource from a foreign country. (also social). Let's say a company buys up land and creates a wildlife preserve. That is also a good action, it helps the environment and people can enjoy the wildlife (environmental and social). Where is the economic value? Perhaps it is helping to offset an unsustainable action elsewhere in the organization and may be used as a marketing instrument to benefit the organization's image or brand, which will have economic benefits in the future. So creating a wildlife preserve is a sustainable action.

Nearly everything we do consumes resources in some way, either directly or indirectly. For example, suppose you need to go to the store to get milk. While milk is a sustainable resource (it came from a cow); it took power (powered by coal, natural gas or oil to generate the power) to get the milk out of the cow; it took energy to pasturize the milk to kill the bacteria in the milk; it took oil and energy to make the plastic bottle holding the milk; it took energy to fill the bottle; it took oil to transport the bottle to your local market; the market is consuming energy to refrigerate the milk; and then you consumed oil in the form of gasoline in your vehicle to go get the milk. On top of that, you are consuming energy to keep it from spoiling in your fridge. Everything we do can be analyzed in this manner. Just sitting in front of the TV uses more energy than you realize.

Some of you are thinking: "Wow! I had no idea that what I consumed had a such a direct impact on environmental health of the planet. What can I do to reduce my impact?" Others are saying: "So what, aren't all those environmental regulations and my taxes supposed to be cleaning things up? What more can I do than what I am already doing to help the situation?" Do you recycle all your paper, bottles/cans, compost your food waste, etc.? Good that is a start, but do you take your car for trips of less than a half mile? Do you carpool or take mass tranportation to work? Do you drive a car that gets less than 30mpg combined? Does your large flat panel TV run for more than few hours a week? Does your computer stay on most of the time? Do your outdoor lights remain on all night? Do you keep a window opened a crack for fresh air in the winter/summer when the heat/AC is on? There is a whole lot we can do, but it will take some effort. The vast majority of Americans and those in other developed nations for that matter are not willing to do what it takes to be truly sustainable. As a matter of fact, many people, law makers, and corporations are not only questioning the effects of our modern lifestyle on the planet's climate, but actively refusing to accept that their actions are having any negative impact at all. The power of ignorance and self-righteousness is not to be underestimated.

Lots of people ask about "greenwashing". The word is derived from "whitewashing", which is a term to mean that an action is used to obfuscate the dirtiness thay lies underneath, literally cover with white paint. So a so-called "green" action may be used to coverup un-green actions. This are seven fairly well know greenwashing catagories listed here. They are know as the "Seven Deadly Sins of Greenwashing".

I want to start by saying that I am a great believer that sustainable behavior and actions will put off our civilization's ultimate destruction. That may sound a bit morbid, but I think it will come to pass. Just like the internet, global warming/climate change was not invented by Al Gore. Unlike the internet, which was developed by the US military in the late 1960's; climate change is the result of countries developing. It started during the industrial revolution in Europe, but really accelerated after World War II. Our civilization's modern (or semi-modern) lifestyles and conveniences demand a greater need for industry, energy, raw materials. For a long time, it was considered patriotic to want more of everything (some still think so). But what did it get North America, Europe, developed Asia, etc.? Well a whole pack of environmental trouble; and more indirectly, lots of social problems (i.e.: sweat shops, blood diamonds, oil-rich dictators, etc.) Our demand for everything has caused greed to take control of most government institutions, business entities and many non-profit organizations, which has resulted in many social and environmental Injustices.

There is an online quiz here that lets you determine how many planets would be needed if everyone consumed the way you do. While I scored very well in all catagories except carbon footprint associated with vehicle travel, which is way too much but a necessity for my job. My score was five and a half planets, but the average American is almost seven planets. What this means if if everybody on earth consumed the same as me it would take the resources of over five planet earths to be sustainable. If I took public transportation or biked for most of my traveling, it still would be four planets. It is nearly impossible to for a person living a modern lifestyle to score below four planets. Fortunately, there are two billion people living in abject poverty and another two billion people living near poverty in under-developed areas who consume far less than those in developed areas that helps offset environmental costs of all the developed country's modern lifestyle. Unfortunately the rate of consumption, pollution, and climate damage is taking place faster than the planet can replenish.

While I'm not saying that we are going to destroy ourselves soon, we are on the path of destruction. Like a drug user who says "I can handle it, I have it under control", we can neither handle it nor do we have it under control. I am as guilty as most people, but my wife and I are making active changes to our lifestyle to minimize our impact on the environment, but there is only so much we can do on our own. And that is the problem, many of us are locked into a system that makes it very difficult to actually be very sustainable. However, that is no reason to not try to make a difference in our own personal lives. Every little helps.

Healthcare Eco-efficiency

2011-11-13T20:51:00.003-05:00

According to an analysis released in 2009 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the health care industry represents 16 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and an estimated 8 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. With construction activity approaching $16 billion and more than 100 million square feet per year, the healthcare sector is one of the few bright spots in this weak recovery. Many of the problems with this situation are similar to that of the recent real estate boom, the Dot.com bubble and the financial bust. It is built on an unsustainable economic model. As the population gets older, their need for medical services increases, they then live longer, less underproductive lives. The payment system for the US healthcare model is based on a vastly greater number of younger, healthier, less costly workers paying into a pool of money that is able to pay for a more costly minority.

Unfortunately, the healthy majority is shrinking in size and is experiencing reduced economic opportunities. This means fewer young workers buying health insurance and lower state Medicare contributions. Less money is going into the pot. Conversely, the baby boomer population is aging; many of their lifestyle choices have had health consequences; and the nutritional quality of convenience/semi-prepared/packaged foods has diminished over the last forty years. The US is experiencing mal-nutrition on a scale not seen since the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl years. Unfortunately, the lack of nutrition is being compensated by an increased volume of cheap low-grade food. You really do get what you pay for. However, severe economic crisis is aggravating this situation. Many people are knowingly making the compromises. All of which is making the also degrading the health of the nation. I won’t even get into our reduced physical activity levels.

While, there has been much public debate about the food corporation’s culpability in the quality of the calories we are consuming, I believe they are neutral parties. There is no conspiracy to make its customers less healthy, or over-burden the healthcare system. They are driven by profits. If consumers will buy more of a product that is priced lower, it is imperative that the product be cheaper to produce. "There is no product that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper; those who buy on price alone are this man's lawful prey.” -John Ruskin.

So how does this related to healthcare sustainability? Simple: efficiency. Healthcare is expanding to accommodate the increasing aging and sicker population; healthcare systems are competing for fewer sources of revenue; advancing technology; consumer demand for “best practices; and high fixed operating costs will force a shake-out in the industry in the next 20 years. The industry must do more with less; it is the natural order. Those healthcare systems that cannot adapt will perish. Therefore, I recommend that a sustainability strategy of eco-efficiency be incorporated for most of not all healthcare facilities in the US.

Unfortunately, funding for non-essential services is difficult to obtain, and in the words of healthcare executive with whom I am acquainted: “If it does not have a 24-month payback, it’s not going to happen.” So what options does that leave healthcare facilities? Unfortunately, it is difficult to realize premium pricing for service differentiation based on environmental benefit. Therefore, eco-efficiency is the only viable path to create a competitive edge in the market by lowering operating costs.

Bottled Water-It Could be Worse...

2011-08-09T23:28:00.007-04:00

I have done a bit of research lately about the environmental sins of bottled water here and here. I want to comment on the possible benefits of bottled water. First, a little disclaimer: 99% of the water I drink is either filtered tap water or straight from the faucet. On extremely rare occasions I purchase bottled water. Also, my wife and I purchase bottled flavored seltzer water regularly. We could buy CO2 cartridges and make our own from tap, but we don't. However, we do return all of our bottled to the market and put them in the redemption machine, where they are shredded and sent to a recycler.

So what are the advantages? For one, convenience. No preparation is needed to buy a bottle of water in a store. Second, temperature. bottled water sold in convenient single serving sizes (1/2 liter) are usually sold cold. Many people prefer their water cold. Third, good healthy choice. If one goes into a US convenience store they are many options for liquid refreshment. 99.9% of the time the healthiest option is plain water. Fourth, flavor. I don't mean flavored waters, I mean different companies offer different sources of water. Spring water, filtered water, sparkling, flat (as they say in Europe, "with or without gas"), etc. I like Spa, Perrier and Poland Spring, but dislike Evian, Aquafina and Dasani. I also prefer carbonated, or "with gas" more than flat water.

Compared with the plethora of artificially sweetened, caffeinated or alcoholic options, water is a much better choice. Considering, the massive health problems facing our increasing obese population in the US, bottled water is not the worst choice. Just remember, all the choices come in some sort of packaging that will likely not be recycled, even if there is a cash deposit redemption on the container.

If you are going to buy a bottled beverage in a store, make it water and try to find a way to recycle the bottle or can afterwards.

Behold the Power of Pizza!

2011-08-09T23:20:00.002-04:00

Did you know, on the energy contained in one piece of pizza, a car could travel 100 feet, a person could walk 3.5 miles, and a bicyclist could bicycle 10 miles!? Additionally, depending on a person’s diet (vegetarian, average US citizen, or something in between) a bicyclist gets between 196 and 104 miles per gallon (of fossil fuel input). I guess whether or not you are wearing cycling shorts or other cycling apparel is important as well.

Source: Planetsave

House of Reps attempting to defund climate change studies...

2011-08-09T23:01:00.005-04:00

Regionally, climate scientists had predicted that the US would increasingly see more hot summers like this past one, and worse, over the next few decades, with longer periods of higher temperatures becoming the new normal.

Over the last few months the fossil-fueled GOP majority House of Representatives has been attempting to defund the collection of weather data. In March, the House passed funding cut-offs for NOAA. In July, the Republican-held House Appropriations Committee passed the Fiscal Year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill which baldly states “It is the Committee’s intention that no funds shall be used to create a Climate Service at NOAA.”

But it is not just one defunding bill. This is among more than 100 bills shutting off climate science and anti-pollution bills passed by the House Republican majority.

If they get these through the Senate with the procedural tricks and last-minute brinksmanship the party has shown itself to be only too good at leveraging, they will succeed in shutting down data collection such as has been provided by NOAA for decades, through both Republican as well as Democratic administrations. In that case, 2011 could be among the last years of climate data collected for the US.

Instead of confronting the challenge, as the US enters a decline into a new Dark Ages of self-imposed ignorance, we will see more mendacious Republican governors leading their hapless states in prayers for rain.

Source: Clean Technica

Update:

A friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous made the following comments:

I love it, this is capitalism at its best.

1-Oil spills and increased fresh water (caused by glacial melting) slow the jet stream. The glacial melting's biggest contributors being greenhouse gasses.
2-This causes hotter summers and colder winters, and shorter mid-seasons. (which also increase glacier melting!)
3-Which causes more energy use from air conditioners and heaters during the respective months. (creating more greenhouse gasses, and more importantly more profits!)
4-So destroying the planet is beneficial to big business. And its escalating, hooray for continued increases in profits!

Its a good thing our politicians and government officials have the best interests of the people in mind.........oh wait.

Drinking Less Beer and Wine is Good for the Environment

2011-07-29T13:15:00.002-04:00

People often reduce the amount they drink to save their health, jobs, and relationships. But reducing the amount of alcohol you consume can also help save the Earth. It takes much more energy to make alcoholic rather than non-alcoholic beverages. For example, for beer, you have to harvest and process the wheat and hops, power the distillery, and brew, bottle, and distribute the beer. When you do drink, you should try and choose organic brands - they are less likely to use nitrogen fertilizer which produces a potent greenhouse gas.

The calculations are based on the Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA model. The GHG emissions over the lifecyle of beer are 744 metric tons of CO2e, of wine - 667 metric tons of CO2, of hard liquor - 349 metric tons of CO2, per 1 million 1997 dollars, according to the model. We assume that the CO2 emissions are pretty uniform across the brands and types of beer, type and hard liquor.

Exxon Mobil Oil Spill-Yellowstone River

2011-07-29T13:11:00.002-04:00

Businessweek reports: The tally released Tuesday by Montana Department of Environmental Quality director Richard Opper offers one the first clear gauges of the scope of the spill after weeks of high water slowed access to fouled areas. Just over 40 percent of shoreline inspected to date had light to very light oil. Seventeen percent had moderate oil. Just 1 percent was heavily contaminated. The state says the July 1 spill, which came amid flooding from mountain snowmelt, dumped up to 1,200 barrels of oil, or 54,000 gallons, into the Yellowstone near Laurel. Exxon Mobil says it lost 1,000 barrels.

Bottled Water. Can it be More Sustainable?

2011-07-29T01:16:00.013-04:00

If you did not know already, bottled water is really terrible for the environment. You can read more about that here. Below, I offer a few ideas to make bottled water more sustainable as an industry that will not likely go away anytime soon, unfortunately, 60 Million plastic bottles a day are disposed of in America alone! Massive amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from manufacturing the plastic bottles. Millions of gallons of fuel are used daily transporting filtered tap water across America and around the world. It requires 3 times as much water to make the bottle as it does to fill it. It is an exceptionally wasteful industry.

Bottled water has, until recently, enjoyed a favorable public perception regarding product quality and its health benefits. Unfortunately, bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans, much of it collecting in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", which is estimated to be as large as the continental United States. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food.

Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere. Nearly all water bottles are PET plastic bottles. There has been growing concern about the safety of PET plastic and the environmental impacts of its usage. While not all PET plastics contain BPA, there is a growing perception that all PET bottles contain Bisphenol A (BPA) and other toxins. In September 2010, Canada became the first country to declared BPA a toxic substance. The banning of BPA will likely be a trend in most developed and developing countries.

While the most sustainable option for bottled water is fill your own container since most independent studies on bottled water show contamination from bacteria and/or synthetic chemicals are present, not everyone is either able or willing to do so. Packaged water options are “Coil-to-Can” aluminum bottles (like used for beer) which contain 57% to 65% post-consumer recycled aluminum; BPA-free LDPE drink boxes; gable-topped 98% renewable pressed-paper boxes; or corn plastic bottles that use 1/3 the energy of PET and have little to no toxins. According to Charles Strand, author of the book All About Water and Editor of WaterWarning.com "It is impossible to get chemical-free water from a plastic bottle or from the tap. A home water purifier is the only sure solution for clean healthy water... "

Ideally, eliminating the single use bottle is the best solution, this is where the water companies make most of their profit. A gallon of water (128 oz.) in the supermarket is $0.99 to $1.49, but a 16.7 oz. of bottled water is $0.99 to $1.99. Tap water is 1-2 cents a gallon. If you enjoy paying for large execuative bonuses, corporate jets, and expense marketing and ads to get you to think you need their water, by all means, buy bottled water. Please recycle that bottle!

An Investor's Sustainability Checklist

2011-07-28T23:34:00.004-04:00

In attempting to create a checklist for investors to evaluate the potential long term risk of an investment in BP or any other company, there may be too numerous factors to consider and may require significant technical background to fully understand their implications. However, there are a few things worth noting. The SEC’s interpretive guidance on public company disclosure relating to climate risk document suggested the following factors:

• Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.

• Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.

• Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.

• Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.

• Natural disaster damage exposure: Do firms have facilities or resources in regions susceptible to damage from natural disasters like, coastal areas which may be impacted by storm events, flood zone and river basin exposure where the frequency of events are trending up, does snow and ice buildup in regions without adequate removal infrastructure (MD, DC, VA, etc.) pose operational or transportation disruptions which will impact the financial health of the company.

• Is there an Emergency Management Plan in place? Has it been vetted or tested for effectiveness in an actual emergency? What contingencies does it cover and to what degree? Is the chain of command experienced in handling emergencies? Are there provisions for backup locations to continue operations? What equipment does the company own close to risk-exposed faculties to deploy to an emergency site without relying on rental or borrowed equipment?

• Past or present litigation: Is the company at risk for substantial financial claims due to on-going lawsuits? Does previous culpability expose them to future claims? Does the company have funds set aside to cover the higher end of the compensation range and possible punitive damages? Class-action lawsuits from non-environmental issues may indicate a pattern of risky behavior throughout the company.

• What is the history of violations? The number of issued safety and environmental violations may not offer a complete picture of the pattern of risky behavior the company is engaged in, especially is there is the possibility of agency capture or revolving door syndrome. Other regulatory areas may offer insight, like worker safety issues, financial reporting issues, product safety/quality issues (recalls, etc.), and what was the resolution of the violations? Did the company paid them, fight them, were they dismissed by judges elected in the region where the violations were issued?

• High turnover of key personnel: Often a potential indicator of risky behavior or mismanagement is high turnover in departments that are responsible for minimizing risk, enforcing internal compliance. Department Directors may be held responsible for negative events. In order to avoid the stigma of being the scapegoat or a whistleblower, there will often be a high turnover rate in compliance departments of companies who engage in risky behavior.

• Investment in high profile green projects: If a company makes a sizable investment in an ambition green project, does this investment match other sustainable activities in the company as a whole? If not, the investment may be designed to draw attention away from other more risky operations. There should be a company wide holistic approach to their negative environmental impact reduction strategy.

• Greenwashing: Do they walk the walk? Has their sustainability activities been vetted by third party group not supported by the company? Can their claims of green benefits be independently verified? Are they publishing hard numbers to support their plans? Are they making and disclosing mid-course corrections? Are they providing information for unexpected negative trends or progress?

If a company makes a sizable investment in an ambitious green project, does this investment match other sustainable goals for the company as a whole? If not, the investment may be designed to draw attention away from other more risky operations. There should be a company-wide holistic approach to their environmental-impact reduction strategy. Does the company walk the walk? Has their sustainability activities been vetted by a third party group not supported by the company? Can their claims of green benefits be independently verified? Are they publishing hard numbers to support their claims? Are they making and disclosing mid-course corrections? Are they providing information for unexpected negative trends or progress?

Revolving Door Between Corporations and Regulatory Agencies

2011-07-28T22:44:00.008-04:00

It is highly doubtful that the revolving door between corporations and public agencies will get disclosed voluntarily. Few stakeholders want that. The companies don't want to disclose that they are influencing or hiring the agents sent to inspect, oversee or regulate them. The agency personnel don't want open disclosure of this practice on the hope that they will one day get a lucrative offer from one of the firms they are watching. They don't want to alienate those for whom they hope one day to work; or they turn a blind eye to avoid issues with other co-workers or their supervisors. Elected officials turn a blind eye as long as political contributions are coming in and the firms are creating jobs and economic growth for their district. Local communities that enjoy the economic benefits that having the industry in their towns don’t want to rock the boat. Municipalities want to attract business and investment to increase the tax base for the region. Local news outlets, like newspapers, television and radio, may be depending on revenue from these firm through advertising, so they are disincentivized to expose any wrong-doing of these companies. In some cases, so-called "watch dog" non-government agencies (NGOs) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) may be relying on contributions from corporate benefactors. And finally, whistle-blowers are discredited or bought off. In a perfect world the personnel movements from agency to regulated corporations should be publicly disclosed, who is going to pay for an NGO or another layer of bureaucracy to inspection the inspectors. The taxpayers?

While it might be easy to search online for the present or past revolving door actions by larger companies, but mid-sized and small companies are less likely to be exposed for these activities. Also, smaller regional firms have stronger ties to the communities they operate in and therefore it is even more difficult to gain access to such information. If a company can control negative information regarding regulatory oversight, incomplete vetting of potentially risky corporate behavior or extraction activities by regulatory agencies is virtually assured. Some NGOs that are advocating for the activity that the business engages in are often fronts for the industry or the company itself. If the NGOs are publishing documents or white papers that endorse the company’s activities, or the NGO have any ties to the industry with funding, board members or technical support, they are highly suspect groups. Industry groups routinely emphasize the positives of environmentally risky activities and downplay or omit the negatives. This propaganda and misinformation is commonplace and should be summarily ignored. Publications by NGO/NPOs and watchdog groups with no bias to the issues should be referenced against other data. Verify all statements by any stakeholder.

Why should the public care about a revolving door issue at a company? After all won’t the company be more likely to enjoy higher profits if they have the agents in their pocket. If your retirement accounts have invested, you may get a better return. A firm's capture of its regulating agency is indicative of poor management, compromises to achieve short-term goals, general disregard for the rule of law and natural resource stewardship. "Let us get the maximum out if the ground now before the political winds change the laws for the worse". If a company can control negative information regarding regulatory oversight, what else is it hiding from the public? If the enforcement of existing laws becomes more stringent due to political change or an event that exposes the captured agency’s situation changes the dynamic of the investment’s return on investment (ROI), the financial fallout may impact the investor more than that direct costs of the disaster. Does the current ROI adequately price the true risk of a company's behavior, and are the risk levels likely to increase over time. What is the time horizon of the investment in a firm? Will the present value and future value of the returns be commensurate with the risk? The longer a security is held, the more likely that an event with negative consequences will occur to the company. Eventually, the people at the captured agency will throw the comp[any under the bus to save their own butts. Investors have the opportunity to influence companies to practice less risky environmental behavior if the company understands that stock price may linked to management practices and operating procedures. Maybe BP has learned this.

Links:

Image: http://neoelitism.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/public-service-private-profit-revolving-door/

Regulatory Reform & Breakup of MMS
http://www.boemre.gov/reforms.htm
[no mention of revolving door]

Washington Post, August 21, 2010
'How the Minerals Management Service's Partnership with Industry led to Failure'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082406754.html

NYT May 24, 2010 ?
Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil ? and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general?s report to be released this week. The report said that investigators "could not discern if any fraudulent alterations were present on these forms."

Project on Government Oversight
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/testimony/natural-resources/nr-oil-20060914.html
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/natural-resources/drilling-the-taxpayer/nr-rik-20080918.html

The Second Term Revolving Door
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/revolving_door.pdf

Business Ethics & Leadership - Another Turn of the Revolving Door
http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/blog/tag/bp/

Wikipedia - Revolving Door at MMS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ocean_Energy_Management,_Regulation_and_Enforcement#Gifts.2C_gratuities_and_the_revolving_door

BP's Flawed Sustainability Report as an Investment Tool

2011-07-28T22:14:00.007-04:00

Does British Petroleum’s (BP) Sustainability Report (SR) offer any value to an investor in evaluating the company as a potential investment? Is BP’s commitment to environmental, health and safety (EHS), community building, and preservation of the long-term continuation of financial performance for the benefit of environmental, social and investor goals indicated in the SR? Does the SR show operational progress towards corporate and policy goal setting benchmarks? BP has grand intentions of being perceived as a responsible corporate citizen and they have made a significant investment towards that goal. In reviewing the last 13 years of BP’s SRs and comparing the statements and claims made in them to BP’s own financial reporting documentation and third-party sources of information, serious questions are raised regarding a developing pattern of risky behavior to minimize costs and improve production.

After review of BP’s SR issued since 1998, there were three key themes that came out of our research. The reports were designed by BP as an overt ‘Eco-branding’ tool for its ‘Beyond Petroleum’ campaign, essentially greenwashing reality. In general, the SRs were short on meaningful and useful sustainability metrics. Many indicators are missing or glossed over from BP’s SR that would have pointed out issues of risky behavior and unsustainable business practices. There was little information in BP’s SR and in other public documents that highlighted the significant risks in BP’s business model leading up to the catastrophic Macondo blowout in the Gulf. An investor must research other publicly available information, such as safety/environmental violations, litigation and legal proceedings, and non-government and other research organizations (CDP, CERES, GRI, UNGCI, etc.), along with the Sustainability Reports that would give a more accurate picture of a company's true Sustainability standing. Finally, standard sustainability reporting is assessed regarding its effectiveness as an inventor research tool and offer suggestions for information and measures which can be added or enhanced to give an investor a more complete picture of a company’s commitment to sustainability.

Sustainability reporting has emerged over the last two decades as a way in which corporations can communicate their efforts to “meet and integrate existing environmental, economic and social needs without compromising the well-being of future generations.” (Sustreport). Such reporting began in the late 1980s by chemical companies that used them to repair image problems and by other businesses that were more aware of the importance of tracking and communicating such issues. Sustainability reporting offers both external and internal benefits to stakeholders. Internal benefits include improving environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices within the organization, solidifying management’s understanding of environmental policy changes, and their overall impact on the environment. External benefits serve to help stakeholders gain a better view of the company’s efforts to be more sustainable as well as compare a firm’s ESG achievements within its peer group.

Sustainability reporting is gaining a broader acceptance and use among a wide variety of companies and yet the practice is still evolving. Environmental standards such as ISO 14001 and United Nations Global Compact Initiative (UNGCI) are guiding companies to rise to a higher level of consistent standards. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides the most thorough guidelines that a company should strive towards. GRI sets certain principles for defining report content and ensuring report quality. Strategy and analysis, organizational profile, report parameters, governance, commitments, and engagement are standard disclosures. GRI, also, recommends a focus on sustainability trends, risks, and opportunities on the long-term prospects and financial performance of the company with qualitative and quantitative financial drivers.

Unlike Financial Accounting, there are no consistent outlines or standards for corporate sustainability reports in general or per industry. For instance, Deloitte notes that “GRI is making progress in developing a common framework of sustainability reporting … however, there is still a long way to go in making such reporting widely accepted and broadly applied.” (Deloitte)

Since 1998, BP has positioned itself as a leading sustainable company and had received numerous accolades for many years prior to the 2010 Gulf oil spill. For instance in 2008, Fortune magazine ranked BP 9th of the 10 most accountable big companies; GRI listed BP as a finalist for two categories in the Readers’ Choice Awards for sustainability reporting; and Dow Jones listed BP on its Sustainability Index. Ironically, just prior to the spill BP topped the list for Tomorrow’s Value Rating of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, distinguishing the company for linking shareholders engagement and being transparent about social and environmental performance. (Tomorrow’s Value Rating).

After the April, 2010 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, the leakage of almost 5 million barrels of oil, and extensive damage to the environment, marine and wildlife, and fishing and tourism industries in the Gulf region, BP’s position as a sustainability leader came into serious question. Several factors were discovered that countered BP’s claimed commitment as a sustainable oil company. Sanford Lewis of the Investor Environmental Health Network points out that, “…just as the paradigm of integrated corporate reporting begins to gain momentum, the BP oil spill highlighted significant shortcomings of current reporting standards and practice. Mere ‘integration’ of current financial and sustainability disclosure standards could yield little more than ‘integrated spin,’ neglecting substantial areas of risk.” Lewis goes on to say “the Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted shortcomings of existing financial and sustainability disclosure standards and practice. Viewed in retrospect, it is apparent that both BP’s financial and sustainability reports veiled core weaknesses in how the company managed pivotal issues of maintenance and safety.” (Lewis) The U.S. government claimed BP as the primary responsible party and is holding them accountable for damages and liabilities due to the spill.
In light of BP’s skillful positioning itself as a sustainable company and the occurrence of one of the worst anthropogenic environmental disasters, is sustainable reporting valuable from an investor perspective? The 2009 BP SR contains 37 pages of information ranging from the CEO’s strategic review to sustainability metrics to BP’s future energy plan (including carbon fuels and renewable sources.) The tone of the report is one of a company that is environmentally and socially conscious with a culture of strong governance and safety. Most of the review is focused on climate change, although there is one page of quantitative sustainability benchmarks and a few pages on safety. The quantitative table contains four sections (Safety, Environmental, People, and Performance). There are 36 total measures within those sections.

There are only a handful of data indicators that directly point towards a potential environmental risk such as the Gulf Spill: fatalities, work-loss days, and injuries; number/volume of spills and unrecovered oil; and environmental and safety fines. Interestingly, BP ranked their safety record very highly, 100% for management commitment, 98% for employee attitudes of line management receptivity, and 80% for operating management system results (with the remainder of the work to be done by 2010). Yet they make little comment about their reported statistics of 18 contractor fatalities and [the steep rise in] large environmental and safety fines (from $1.1M in 2008 to over $66M in 2009). Basically, the report seems to be more of a marketing piece that positions BP as highly EHS conscious with a focus on participating in a shift to a lower carbon world in the future.

BP’s 2009 annual Form 20-F provided no information regarding BP’s operations in the Macondo Project. The nearly 5 million barrels spilt was relatively small in comparison to BP’s total oil production. In 2009, BP produced approximately 4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; it is not surprising that the Deepwater Horizon project was not mentioned in the report as the Macondo prospect well had not been drilled yet. Please see appendix for ‘Basic Well Data’ as provided to the former Minerals Management Service or MMS.

Noted in the 2009 annual report, BP plead guilty to one felony violation to the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion that resulted in 15 deaths and 170 worker injuries. BP paid a $50 million criminal fine and an $87.4 million civil penalty, the largest in OSHA's history. The previous largest penalty of $21 million was also issued against BP in 2005. In addition, EPA also fined BP for air violations and was forced to pay a $12 million civil fine and $156 million in compliance measures. The report omitted the “2009 amendment” settlement to address the company’s noncompliance with a 2001 consent decree and Clean Air Act regulations, and a settlement with the EPA in which BP agreed to pay $785,662 to resolve Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) violations at its Texas City Refinery (EPA).

BP was involved in two oil spills in Alaska, which resulted in illegally discharging than 200,000 gallons of crude oil from its pipelines onto the North Slope. The DOJ alleges that “BP failed to prepare and implement spill prevention, countermeasure and control plans in accordance with good engineering practices, and failed to implement certain required spill prevention measures pursuant to the Clean Water Act.”

According to the 2009 annual report, BP generally does not purchase external insurance unless required for legal or contractual reasons. BP Shipping maintains marine liability pollution insurance to a maximum limit of $1 billion for each occurrence. There is no mention of other insurance requirements. BP generally bear losses as they arise which, in theory, should provide more incentives for the company to take sound precautionary measures than if they had insurance. However, this also means that BP is responsible for the financial cost of clean-ups.
BP recognizes provisions when there is a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event. Where appropriate, the future cash flow estimates are adjusted to reflect risks specific to the liability. Provisions are categorized into four groups: decommissioning, environmental, litigation and other. Provisions for environmental remediation are made when a clean-up is probable and the amount of the obligation can be reliably estimated. BP fully recognizes the future cost of decommissioning oil and natural gas production facilities and related pipelines using a real discount rate of 1.75% (2008 2.0%). BP recognizes environmental operating and capital expenditure based on the definitions and guidelines of the American Petroleum Institute. Because operating and capital expenditure on the prevention, control, abatement or elimination of air, water and solid waste pollution is often incurred as part of a larger transaction, these environmental capital expenditure figures are estimates.

Environmental operating expenditure decreased from $755 million in 2008 to $701 million due to fewer new projects and a greater use of low-sulphur fuel. The company expects similar levels of operating and capital expenditures in the foreseeable future. These figures and commentaries should be included in the sustainability report and broken out to reflect how much of remediation costs are related to their environmental violations. According to the 2009 annual report, BP emitted more carbon dioxide equivalent in 2009 than in 2008 from an increase is the growth of its business units. BP should include carbon intensity metrics to determine if its GHG emissions are on a positive trend. BP does not report any information about the third parties (e.g. contractors) with whom it does business, as the company believes none of its arrangements with them are considered to be essential to its business. BP simply states that expect its partners, suppliers and contractors to comply with legal requirements and operate consistently with the principles of its code of conduct. BP’s code of conduct defines what BP expects of its people in key areas of safety, workplace behavior, bribery and corruption and financial integrity. BP is involved in number of joint ventures throughout the world. It is unclear how the company maintains the environmental integrity of its joint ventures. Investors need to know the environmental risks for these joint ventures.

In order to improve sustainability reporting, the industry must move to more consistent and thorough standards with a greater degree of both qualitative and quantitative reporting to address some of the key financial and operational risks discussed above as well as better identify a firm’s true commitment to sustainability reporting practices. We recommend the following quantitative and qualitative metrics for firms to include in their SRs.

The SR should include more detail on capital expenditures related to increasing a firm’s sustainability and reducing a firm’s impact on the environment. We recommend that firms delineate these amounts in order to enable investors to better identify a company’s trend in environmental investing.

The SR should reflect environmental liabilities and should include both on- and off-balance sheet amounts, including a separate line-item under ‘other liabilities’ on the balance sheet where they typically reside. More detail should be provided, too, in the commitments and contingency section of a firm’s annual 10-K/20-F . The Macondo oil spill illustrates the under-reporting of potential environmental liabilities.

Insurance Coverage and Funding Sources for ‘Self-Insured’ amount details need to be disclosed in the SR. Firms that operate in environmentally-sensitive areas should disclose the amount of insurance coverage related to the type of ‘hard’ assets being deployed to operate. In addition, if a firm self-insures, full disclosure should be provided in both the 10-k/20-f and the SR related to escrow amounts or funding sources for potential environmental accidents.

Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO) for oil/gas well decommissioning, plugging and abandonment along with other traditional retirement activities should be included in the SR. ARO analysis will help investors analyze and assess future cash outflows, which have the potential to significantly impact bond and equity valuations.

The Asset-Intensity Ratio reflecting the percentage of a firm’s Fixed-Assets operating in environmentally-sensitive areas and the location of those areas for the next-twelve month period should be included in the SR. This will offer investors the ability to assess the level of exposure a firm has to the environment. Similar to a ‘capital intensity ratio,’ (total assets/total revenues), an ‘Asset-Intensity Ratio’ could be used to determine what percentage of revenues are dependent on operations in environmentally-sensitive areas that include the ocean, rivers, water-wells, water sheds, flood zones, etc.

The SR should offer some insight as to how centralized or de-centralized a company's management decision making process is as it relates to the deployment and operation of environmentally-sensitive assets.

The SR should also reflect what type of indemnification exists between the company and its subcontractors.

The SR should comment on key regulatory agencies with whom the company interacts and detailed history of regulatory infractions fines with each agency.

How should investors evaluate the long-term environmental risk of an investment in BP or any other company? There may be far too many factors to consider that require significant technical background to fully understand their implications. When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should assess the impact of existing laws and regulations regarding climate change. A company should disclose its risks or effects from international accords and treaties relating to climate change. Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. As such, a company should disclose the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change regulations or business trends. Companies should also disclose the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.

Investors should be aware of risks on a companies operations and long-term financial health by considering other re-occurring and under-reported issues. Firms that have facilities or resources in regions susceptible to damage from natural disasters like, coastal areas which may be impacted by storm events, flood zone and river basin exposure, and/or snow in regions without adequate removal infrastructure are exposed to operational or transportation disruptions. Is there an Emergency Management Plan in place that has been vetted or tested for effectiveness in an actual emergency? What contingencies does it cover and to what degree? Is the chain of command experienced in handling emergencies? Are there provisions for backup locations to continue operations? What equipment does the company own close to risk-exposed faculties to deploy to an emergency site without relying on rental or borrowed equipment? Is the company at risk for substantial financial claims due to on-going lawsuits? Does previous culpability expose them to future liability? Does the company have funds set aside to cover the higher end of the compensation range and possible punitive damages? Previous class-action lawsuits may indicate a pattern of risky behavior for the company. The number of safety and environmental violations may not offer a complete picture of a pattern of risky behavior the company is engaged in, especially is there is the possibility of agency capture or revolving door syndrome. Other regulatory areas may offer insight, like worker safety issues, financial reporting issues, product safety/quality issues (recalls, etc.), and what was the resolution of the violations? Did the company pay them, fight them, were they dismissed by judges elected in the region where the violations were issued?

Often an indicator of risky behavior or mismanagement is high turnover in departments that are responsible for minimizing risk, enforcing internal compliance. Department Directors may be held responsible for negative events. In order to avoid the stigma of being the scapegoat or a whistleblower, there will often be a high turnover rate in compliance departments of companies who engage in risky behavior. If a company makes a sizable investment in an ambitious green project, does this investment match other sustainable goals for the company as a whole? If not, the investment may be designed to draw attention away from other more risky operations. There should be a company-wide holistic approach to their environmental-impact reduction strategy. Does the company walk the walk? Has their sustainability activities been vetted by a third party group not supported by the company? Can their claims of green benefits be independently verified? Are they publishing hard numbers to support their claims? Are they making and disclosing mid-course corrections? Are they providing information for unexpected negative trends or progress? The Macondo Deepwater Horizon accident clearly highlights that small amount of oil release relative to the company’s production could have material financial ramifications. Companies need to disclose the methodology used to assess the environmental risks of new projects in both annual reports and sustainability reports.

Are green companies really green?

2011-07-16T10:18:00.008-04:00

More and more companies are engaging in green projects and initiatives. In many ways it is win-win for everyone: Coke now has a giant billboard with thousands of plants on it, called a Living Wall, and is Walmart planting a few acres of trees of every acre of store, parking lot, warehouses, etc. These companies get some good publicity out of it and often the companies find ways to optimize their business and reduce costs making them more competitive in the marketplace. In addition, society and the planet benefits. What about companies that are using green projects to obfuscate their bad corporate behavior. Take British Petroleum (BP), prior to the gulf oil spill, they were considered the poster child for a green oil company. They were on many lists of most sustainable companies. Après spill, critical review of their business practices by many groups revealed a very different picture. Despite corporate management's desire to spend tens of millions of dollars on green projects and initiatives, their core business was the typical "maximize profits at the expense of any human or environmental safety beyond that which BP could get away". Another problem with many companies is the "revolving door" between the regulatory agencies and the industry. Many people working for the regulatory agencies are looking for the big paying job in industry. So many regulators are motivated to become very cozy with industry. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine scenario exists. This was not just BP who had former employees working at the Mineral Management Service, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. BP is probably working now on ways to get their people into the The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the agency that took over the MMS. However, it is not just BP. Halliburton is a less than ethical company, yet their website suggests that they have a superb sustainability record. However, they fail to mention that the Energy Act of 2005, often nicknamed the "the Halliburton Exemption" for the multitude of environmental laws that hydraulic fracture extraction process for natural gas in shale (fracking) which was developed Halliburton is exempt from like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to name a few. The evil act has allowed more to pollution to drinking water than any industry in the last 20 years. For those who didn't know, VP Dick Chaney was the former CEO of of Halliburton and orchestrated the exemption law's passage through congress. While the list of offending corporations is long and their duplicitous acts are many, their ability to capture agencies, lawmakers and the courts are extant. Monsanto's former lead counsel was Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, who was approved by congress during the Bush/Chaney regime.
Monsanto's corporate attorney's actually wrote the law sponsored by congressmen whose election campaigns were supported by Monsanto that was eventually passed by congress allowing genetically modified foods to be introduced into the US. Not only that, Monsanto has successfully sued organic farmers for patent infringement when bees or the wind accidentally cross pollenates their crops. The average settlement is over $380,000 per farmer in favor of Monsanto. Currently 80-95% of the top six cash crops (corn, soy, cotton & cotton seed oil, sugar beet & canola) are grown with genetically modified seeds. Monsanto and the other companies that sell GM seeds have 50% of the world market share of all seeds sold for crops.

Most every fortune 1000 company has a sustainability report on their website, can the information provided be viewed as that of a socially and environmentally company or are they using a few good acts to deflect attention from deplorable corporate behavior, AKA "Greenwashing".

Kin-Buc Landfill to Solar Energy Project

2011-06-27T16:17:00.003-04:00

By Barry Hersh, August 2009
Clean Land Fund Board Member

The Kin-Buc Landfill was perhaps the most infamous chemical dump site in the State of New Jersey. Located in the Town of Edison, adjacent to the Raritan River in Middlesex County, the entire 220 acre was declared a US EPA superfund site in 1983. An extensive clean-up, including removal of thousands of drums and millions of gallons of toxic waste was essentially completed by EPA in 2000, monitoring still continues. The responsible parties included the owner, a other industrial companies and an affiliate of Waste Management, Inc. In 2005 the property owner, Transtech Industries, Inc and Waste Management affiliate signed a Consent Decree reimbursing $2.6 million in penalties incurred during the lengthy clean-up.

The 220-acre Kin-Buc Landfill site is an inactive landfill that operated from the late 1940s to 1976. From 1971 to 1976, the site was a State-approved landfill for industrial and municipal wastes, both solid and liquid. The site accepted hazardous waste during this period, until the State revoked its permit in 1976 because of violations of several environmental statutes. An estimated 70 million gallons of liquid wastes, including 3 million gallons of oily waste, and over 1 million tons of solid waste, were disposed of between 1973 and 1976. The Kin-Buc site includes two major mounds (Kin-Buc I and Kin-Buc II) and one minor mound (Mound B). Site activities included burying and compacting contained wastes in Kin-Buc II and discharging hazardous liquid wastes into bulldozed pits at the top of Kin-Buc I. Three pits of black, oily leachate, designated Pits A, B, and C were previously located at an edge of Kin-Buc I. Adjacent to the pits was an impoundment referred to as Pool C. Oil, heavily laden with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), accumulated in Pool C and then discharged into Edmonds Creek, a tributary of the Raritan River. The pond also held leachate that contained chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are believed to have come from the landfill. The Edison Township Municipal Landfill lies 600 feet to the south of the site. There is a refuse-filled low-lying area between Kin-Buc Iand the Edison Landfill. The Site is located in a wetlands area adjacent to the Raritan River. Historically, aqueous and oily leachate seeped from the landfill into adjoining wetlands, contaminating the wetlands with PCBs. The Site was listed on EPA’s National Priorities List in 1983, and is a PRP-lead site. There are 3,000 people living within 3 miles of the site.

As part of the Consent Decree, ownership of 33 lots totaling 100 acres was transferred to the non-profit Clean Land Fund for environmental management purposes. Established in 1999, the Clean Land Fund is dedicated to remediating and redeveloping targeted Brownfields in North-eastern urban communities. In 2006, an Open Space Management Plan was prepared by Rutgers University on behalf of the Clean Land Fund. Based upon the Open Space Management Plan and consideration of various renewable energy and other alternative uses in 2008, the CLF proposed using approximately 10 landfill acres (the top of the mound) for solar energy, while the remaining acreage adjoining the Raritan is offered to the Town of Edison to become part of the Raritan River walkway.

In 2009 and after interviewing three solar developer-operators, CLF entered a ground lease agreement with Venice Energy LLC for installation of a solar voltaic panel system that would generate approximately 2MW. The plan is to provide the energy to the Town of Edison, or sell it back to the utility grid.

Additional Information:
•Clean Land Fund http://www.cleanlandfund.org
Contact William Penn, President, Clean Land Fund
BillPenn@CleanLandFund.org
•United State Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/0200346c.pdf
Environmental Background (Source: US EPA)

Open Space Management Plan
http://www.cleanlandfund.org/Kin-buc%20Final%20Stewardship%20Report.pdf
Kin-Buc Landfill Brownfields to Greenfields Ecological Assessment and Restoration Recommendations
Center for Urban Restoration Ecology
1 College Farm Road
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Prepared under collaboration with the Clean Land Fund
Supported by the Victoria Foundation
Dr. Stephen Handel, Principal Investigator
June 15, 2007

Chemical Composition of Coffee

2011-06-27T15:41:00.002-04:00

Sept, 2003
Is organic coffee a lot safer than regular coffee? Organic coffee may be a natural, bean-based, pesticide-free beverage. But did you know that all coffee is filled with chemicals?

Scientists have identified 1,000 different chemicals in a cup of coffee. But how many of the 1,000 chemicals have been tested in animal cancer studies? Only 22--leaving 978 compounds in your morning java about which we know very little. And of those 22 that were tested, were any found to be carcinogens, or cancer-causing compounds? Seventeen of the 22 are, in fact, carcinogens.

Carcinogens are found in many foods--as are offsetting cancer-fighting chemicals--but in small quantities. If we wanted to avoid all carcinogens, we'd have to stop eating altogether. But there are 10 milligrams (mg) of known carcinogens in a single cup of coffee. To put that into perspective, 10 mg is probably more than all the synthetic pesticide residues you could get from eating non-organic food for an entire year. In one cup.

Nevertheless, moderate coffee consumption is not considered a risk factor for cancer. And coffee is linked to the following benefits: It boosts endurance by delaying fatigue; it improves long-term memory; it may help prevent kidney stones; it relaxes lung spasms during an asthma episode; and, as you may have discovered, it stimulates your gastrointestinal tract.

COPYRIGHT 2003 PRIMEDIA Intertec, a PRIMEDIA Company.

Alternative for Plastic Water Bottles

2011-06-27T15:18:00.003-04:00

Bottled water has, until recently, enjoyed a favorable public perception regarding product quality and its health benefits. The result has been strong growth and profitability; now many companies are offering bottled water of questionable quality. It is important to protect our reputation and market position. I believe the adoption of sustainable practices in the form of product stewardship will differentiate our product and add value that may be leveraged for increased market share and/or premium pricing.

The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2011 Bottled Water Scorecard reported that many, if not most, bottled water brands were poor to fair at disclosing information regarding their source, the purification method and the levels of contaminants in the water. Better disclosure will build stronger consumer confidence and it needs to comply with International Bottled Water Association’s (IBWA) Code of Practice (COP) criteria. The IBWA contaminate level criteria is stricter than the EPA and FDA. Water should be tested by an independent laboratory for compliance with COP guidelines and results made available to the public.

Most water is packaged in PET plastic bottles. There has been growing concern about the safety of PET plastic and the environmental impacts of its usage. While not all PET plastics contain BPA, there is a growing perception that all PET bottles contain Bisphenol A (BPA) and other toxins. In September 2010, Canada became the first country to declared BPA a toxic substance. The banning of BPA will likely be a trend in most developed and developing countries which are our primary markets.

In conjunction with corrugated cardboard cases, of which 78% are recycled, water should be packaged oin aluminum bottles. Aluminum is infinitely recyclable into food grade beverage containers with no loss in quality regardless of how many times it is recycled. Although virgin aluminum production is highly energy intensive and emits perfluorocarbon compounds which have a 6500 CO2e (CO2 equivalent), recycled aluminum only consumes 5% the energy, 3% of the water and none of the PFC of virgin aluminum. In addition, recycled aluminum uses half the equivalent fossil fuels, contains little to no toxins and can be processed regionally. 73% of all aluminum manufactured since 1888 is still in use. PET bottles can only be used for food-grade containers once; after that they are down-cycled to other uses. In addition, consumers are more accustomed to recycling aluminum containers than PET bottles.

The relatively new “Coil-to-Can” manufactured aluminum bottles weigh 30 - 40% less than traditional aluminum bottles and usually contain 57% to 65% post-consumer recycled aluminum. New high-speed production capabilities have made them cost competitive with PET bottles. Companies can specify that their bottles contain 100% recycled aluminum. Other water containers under consideration are BPA-free LDPE drink boxes; gable-topped 98% renewable pressed-paper boxes; or corn plastic bottles that use 1/3 the energy of PET and have little to no toxins.

Consumer participation is a key component of recycling. Since water bottle redemptions are usually not covered by state bottle-bill mandates, there is a lower recycling rate. A voluntary redemption program for retailers of our water may be a difficult hurdle. A discount coupon printed on the bottle towards the purchase of more water will promote the redemption of aluminum containers, and increase the recycling rate of the packaging. Typically, retailers must submit the coupon to the manufacturer to be reimbursed.

Extended product stewardship programs are a first step that addresses water purity, product life cycle and waste reduction to make the extended product stewardship more sustainable to reduce the environmental impact of products.

Thoughts on Fracking of Natural Gas

2011-06-27T15:10:00.003-04:00

Common law exists to offer recourse to victims of wrongful conduct by another party. In the environmental context, if local property owners suffer property or health degradation from the hydraulic fracturing activities of natural gas extractors, the local property owners have the right to bring a lawsuit under common law to seek compensation for their loss of equity in either property value or health. Common law allows accountability in cases where environmental regulations inadequately protect victims.

Local property owners harmed by Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) activities may sue based on trespass, negligence or private nuisance. An operator trespasses if their waste is disposed of or trucks drive on another owner’s land, or fracking operations depletes the water of an aquifer or exploits the mineral rights of other landowners. A problem with this legal theory is proving that a drop in water levels was the result of the operator’s activities as opposed to being a natural phenomenon. The monetary value of potentially exploitable mineral rights on a neighboring owner’s land may only be quantified if they were extensively explored or extracted. Visible damage or quantifiable losses of aquifers resulting in measureable loss of property value are the only substantial methods of proving measurable monetary damages. However, it may be possible to seek an injunction for the operator to cease trespassing activities. An operator may be sued based on negligence if the fracking activities have contaminated the aquifer that is used by other landowners through improper wastewater storage, runoff of hazardous chemical spillage or salt water migration that results in personal harm or loss of property value. Monetary damages from negligence may be proven and quantified with valid testing that is compared to a standard by which value or relative health is determined to support the claim. An injunction is less likely than an order to modify procedures for handling waste or chemicals to prevent future damage. An operator may become a private nuisance by using seismic trucks called “thumpers” or performing other activities that detracts from others enjoying the unfettered use of their property.

While it is preferable to look at environmental and human harm from a strict liability approach and compel operators to shoulder the entire cost to restore the environment and compensate victims. Judges must often consider the balance of victim compensation against the goals of the domestic energy policy, economic development, jurisdictional boundaries and societal good.

The Cohen framework of understanding values of stakeholders, political issues, science and technology issues, policy design, economic issues and management issues may be used to understand the complexities of fracking. Taking into account the attitudes of stakeholders and the industry’s desire to maintain the status quo, I believe that the root of the problem is one of values. A value change cannot be forced, but it can be shaped with a strategic application regulatory and market force mechanisms. The enormity of the issues associated with fracking may be overwhelming, forcing oversimplification of the issues. The application of solutions that do not address all dimensions of the fracking issues will likely fail.

When the subject of domestically-sourced energy is debated, there appears to be a fairly wide division in the priorities by many Americans including the federal and state legislators, regulators and the courts. Most support domestically-sourced energy for the economic and national security benefits, but there are many who want to ensure protection of the earth’s natural resources from damaging extraction techniques. However, others believe that rapidly expanding domestic energy production is a higher priority. Fracking addresses the domestic energy needs, but many fracking operators have demonstrated little regard for groundwater pollution caused by improper disposal of waste associated with the process, the track record leaves quite a bit to be desired. Determining whether to promote the industry or more tightly regulate the operators has been based on more political considerations than scientific study.

The political issues of energy policy often come down to money. The energy companies want access to exploit energy reserves and politicians want economic development in their districts. The industry has a dim view of any restrictions or roadblocks to investment and extraction of the energy reserves. The energy industry has its supporters in many levels of government, thus making it difficult to pose more regulations on an already highly regulated industry. Energy needs are often viewed as more pressing than potential or predicted environmental damage. Since some lawmakers question the potential environmental impact of fracking and can more easily quantify the economic benefit from allowing fracking, achieving effective environmental safeguards have proven difficult thus far. Issues of regulatory and/or agency capture are largely ignored to avoid political or public opinion backlash. Industry lobbying that promotes the easing of restrictions for fracking techniques has been more persuasive than the voices of environmental caution.

There is evidence to suggest that fracking operators can do a lot of harm to aquifers and other municipal water supplies. However, the lack of a comprehensive scientific study by the EPA of the long-term effects of injection fluids and the resulting wastewater on the environment has not been completed and its findings will likely be met with resistance by proponents of fracking. The industry does not want to delay the development of additional wells, to halt the existing operations, or most importantly, to identify scientific evidence that past and current fracking operations are contaminating public and private water supplies. Such evidence would damage their position against their detractors and potential victims of the damage caused by fracking activities. A floodgate of litigation against operators would likely result and bog down the exploration and development of domestic gas production. A body of evidence now exists that calls into question the EPA’s initial conclusions that no further environmental impact study of fracking is required shows that this issue may become a top priority of the EPA.

Many states, like New York, are taking a leadership role in questioning industry claims of fracking’s safety for people and environment. While other state’s permitting process, like Montana, is little more than a rubber stamp to the energy industry. The lack of federal guidance, like the fracking exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act, allows states with lax environmental laws to benefit economically from fracking while environmentally strict states may suffer.

It is unclear if the present level of technology is capable of addressing present or future water contamination. Current fracking wastewater can be recycled and reused, but it is usually cheaper to store it underground where leaching is possible or send it to municipal waste treatment plants that are often inadequately equipped to remove the hazardous chemicals. Most remediation technologies transfer hazardous materials from emissions from one media to another (hazards removed from air or water emissions may end up as solid or semi-solid waste destined for a landfill). The most effective method to address the potential for water contamination would be substitution of the hazardous fracking fluid constituents with more benign components that do not need to be treated as hazardous waste.

Rather than ignoring the problem by exempting fracking activities from regulations that should govern groundwater contamination, policy should be promoting the energy industry’s economic interests while protecting the environment. Market force mechanisms, such as public disclosure, where the injection fluid ingredients are made available to local stakeholders prior to their use in fracking activities along with “cradle-to-grave” management plans, would incentivize operators to be more cautious before utilizing hazardous chemicals. In addition, allow companies the opportunity to profit from investment in environmental controls in the form of tradable credits against an emissions cap. While accountability would be difficult without a concerned and informed customer-base, preferential standing for new mineral leases and a more streamlined permitting process would allow compliant companies to maximize opportunities and still protect the environment. Other regulatory mechanism should be employed to encourage less risky corporate behavior. Requiring operators to carry sufficient insurance to cover cleanup costs and compensating injured parties in contamination situations long after operations have ceased would further promote less risky behavior motivated by minimizing insurance costs.

The easiest to attempt and yet the most difficult to implement aspect of corporate environmental stewardship is management. It is easy to propose and even develop a plan for a process change. It is quite another matter to implement the change in an organization that is comprised of people who may be adverse to change. Upper management is concerned about the investment in change or if change puts the return of existing investments in doubt. Middle management is concerned that new performance criteria will threaten their value to the company and impact their advancement.

Ending fracking exemptions in federal regulations would allow existing laws to be applied to fracking operators. Minimum regulatory standards would require states to enforce compliance at least as strict as the federal level. Promoting market forces, such as public disclosure of injection chemicals (without divulging propriety formulas) and implementing a credit trading system with progressive hazard emission reductions to promote investment in pollution control technology. Requiring insurance for environmental cleanup and compensation to injured parties where claims may be filed long past the operations at a location have ended would act as a self-policing mechanism. All states have a permitting system for fracking gas wells, meeting stricter federal guidelines would not require any new permitting, but would make the current system more effective evaluating the environmental impacts of fracking at a particular location. Lastly, new laws should be enacted making it a felony to falsify or distort disclosure information regarding the environmental impact of fracking. The threat of incarceration will result in much higher compliance levels.

Seven Types of Deadly Waste

2011-06-22T17:41:00.003-04:00

These are from Leaninnovations.com
Overproduction
Overproduction occurs when operations continue after they should have stopped. The results of overproduction are;
-Products being produced in excess of what’s required
-Products being made too early
-Excess inventory carrying costs

Waiting
Also known as queuing, waiting refers to the periods of inactivity in a downstream process that occur because an upstream activity does not deliver on time. Idle downstream resources are then often used in activities that either don’t add value or result in overproduction.

Transport
This is unnecessary motion or movement of materials, such as work-in-process (WIP) being transported from one operation to another. Ideally transport should be minimized for two reasons;
-It adds time to the process during which no value-added activity is being performed.
-Handling damage could be incurred

Extra Processing
This term refers to extra operations, such as rework, reprocessing, handling or storage that occurs because of defects, overproduction or excess inventory.

Inventory
This refers to inventory that is not directly required to fulfill current Customer orders. Inventory includes raw materials, work-in-process and finished goods. Inventory all requires additional handling and space.

Motion
This term refers to the extra steps taken by employees and equipment to accommodate inefficient process layout, defects, reprocessing, overproduction or excess inventory. Motion takes time and adds no value to the product or service.
“To move and add value is called work. To move and not add value is called motion. Motion, then, means moving without working, moving and adding cost”.

Defects
These are products or services that do not conform to the specification or Customer’s expectation, thus causing Customer dissatisfaction.
© 2003 LEAN Innovations

Unintentional Sustainist

2011-06-22T00:15:00.004-04:00

In 2009, I wrote in my blog here that my parents and grandparents were much better at being environmentalist than my wife and me, who are self-proclaimed and practicing "environmentalists". When I wrote that, I was not in a graduate student in Sustainability Management at Columbia University. I have come to realize now that they were not environmentalists, but sustainists. In the blog article, I describe people who lived sustainably without even knowing about sustainability. What amazes me is that they were doing 20-80 years ago what we struggle with doing today.

My father owned a business most of his 72 year working career. I grew up watching him mind every dollar that he spent and truly value every dollar he earned. When I graduated college with my bachelors, he started a business and asked me to be his partner. Little did I know what I was getting into. He meant I would be his full partner. I was schooled in using most every bit of waste material from operations, every office supply was utilized to its optimum. His stapler was from the 1940s and mine was from the 1960s. But most importantly, he found marketable uses for things that most people throw away. Our business was sustainable and we had not ever heard the word used in that way.

What sustainable attributes did my father possess from 1930 to 2002 that made him a sustainable business owner? Thriftiness. Being the owner of a small business, it is easier to watch what you spend and throw out. He knew that every dollar he spent was one less dollar for the bottom line of the business. His businesses survived and thrived during the Great Depression, WWII, the 1970s oil crisis and the DOT COM bust. Our little company survived the early 1990s recession.

Larger companies have multiple divisions with budgets and sometimes arcane accounting policies (like, spend your entire budget for the year or you will get less next year). There is little incentive to be thrifty. If there are poor economic conditions and budget cuts, managers cut heads, but not much of the useless small stuff in the budget. The injection of a little entrepreneurial spirit into larger organizations might motivate managers to allocate the budget more thriftily. Incentivize resource conservation and disincentivize waste generation.

Sustainability does not have to be about high-minded environmental conservation ideals, it can be just about saving money. Everyone perks up when they hear the phrase "save money". If we all substitute the word "sustainability" with the phrase "saving money" at work, not only will you not be the eccentric "enviro-guy" (ask me how I know this), you will become the cost-cutting champion of your office.
Be a sustainist, but just tell everyone you are thrifty.

BP's Loss is Sustainability's Gain?

2011-06-21T22:31:00.003-04:00

This article lives here
By Alexandra Tracy
Investment & Pensions Asia
September 29, 2010

Several lessons have come out of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, not least of which has been how unprepared most investors were for the implications of such an event. Despite several warning signs in BP’s recent environmental record, the scale of the crisis and consequent fall-out for the company has been shocking to most observers.

The BP debacle has also drawn attention to the extraordinary degree of influence that one company can extend over large swathes of the global economy. A blue chip stock, sitting solidly in the FTSE 100 index, BP PLC is held by large numbers of institutional investors around the world. Defined benefit pension schemes in the UK, for example, are thought to hold 1.5% of their assets directly in BP, with US institutions also heavily invested. A recent announcement by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global that it has lost €1.1 billion on its 1.75% stake in the company has highlighted the negative financial impact for these funds. According to the UK’s FairPensions, a non-profit that lobbies for responsible investment, the Deepwater disaster has been “a stark illustration of the potential consequences of a neglect of ESG risks”.

Pension funds which employ passive investment strategies cannot simply sell BP while it remains part of a core index. It is not easy, in any case, for large institutions to divest their entire holdings in a single stock without negatively influencing the market and pushing the price down still further. So does this mean that, like the banks before it, BP has become “too big to fail” ... and, even more than that, “too big to sell” ?

If that is the case, what can investors do to protect the value of their assets ? In the view of FairPensions, it is clear that investors should use their position as shareholders to engage with companies to ensure that risks are identified and properly managed, in order to prevent future disasters. Indeed, many analysts believe that this is a turning point for responsible investment. Events in the Gulf of Mexico will cause investors and managers to become more aware of how ESG related risks can be material to a company’s performance. This will drive them to push for changes in corporate disclosure that will help investors better understand these risks.

Where investors are clearly in for the long haul with a company, moreover, it is only logical to migrate from a short term investment horizon that maximizes quarterly profit, towards a long term, “sustainable” approach. Shareholders have an opportunity to influence companies in ways that optimize their long term interests and maximise sustainable value. In the case of BP, however, the reputational damage done to the company by the events of this summer may well have repercussions that long outlast the cost implications of the clean up.

I have long argued that it is foolish to try to disentangle environmental risk from basic business risk, especially in the case of an energy or mining company. It would be a positive outcome if BP’s travails in fact encourage greater integration of environmental and other so-called “extra financial factors” into investment analysis alongside mainstream financial metrics.

It is becoming widely recognized that investors must seek to estimate the value of externalities and to quantify potential risks whose probability is low, but which may incur very high costs. For BP, the US$20 billion escrow fund that it and the Obama government have established to compensate for environmental and livelihood costs in the Gulf may be only a small part of the total losses it faces. Successful incorporation of ESG in an investment process could be a differentiator.

Corporate reporting on environmental, social and corporate governance risks still needs to improve. Before the BP spill, analysts simply did not have enough information about the risks involved in deep water oil rigs to come to a reasonable view about the likely nature and associated externalities of any future accident.

In an attempt to generate more detailed disclosure, Ceres (a network of investors, environmental groups and non-profits in the US) recently organized a letter writing campaign to major energy companies, asking for information about their risk oversight measures, including spill prevention and response plans, for their offshore oil operations around the world. According to Ceres, none of this information is available in companies’ public filings, but it is clearly of material interest to investors.

While it is probably unreasonable to expect any analyst to have predicted the Deepwater Horizon disaster, specifically, analysts who focus on ESG risks were arguably in a far better position to see the warning signs. For several years, BP had been censured for its environment, health and safety record. KLD Indexes removed BP from its Global Sustainability Index in 2007 and from its Global Climate 100 Index the following year. Significant safety failures at some refineries, as well as spillages and pollution issues, revealed major operating problems, summed up by RiskMetrics as “indications of underlying management deficiencies and an inadequate risk mitigation capacity that negatively impact production estimates and the company’s reputation.”

In assessing a company’s full risk profile, investors need to have a proper understanding of the potential likelihood of any incident, but also the potential risks associated with how the company will manage the consequences of a disaster. The ability to respond rapidly and effectively requires very robust management systems, clear transparency and full disclosure.

Research by a US investment bank some years ago demonstrated that the share prices of energy companies which suffered a natural disaster, but clearly disclosed the reasons for the disaster and the steps taken to manage and correct it, rapidly recovered from initial losses. By contrast, it was arguably the perception that BP management was trying to hide the full extent of its problems that really turned public opinion, and consequently the US government, against the company.

ESG managers will take the lead in pressing for full disclosure from companies in these circumstances, and in pushing them to take responsibility for their suppliers and contractors. The BP disaster has also demonstrated the importance of understanding how companies are able to manage the media in the wake of a disaster, and how they respond to local and national politics which influence events.

Future Environmental Liability

2011-06-21T00:00:00.000-04:00

An environmental cost to be incurred in the future and expensed in the present may be undervalued. Factors such as compliance costs, potential legal costs, the cost of remediation labor and technology, as well as inflation uncertainty make forecasting the future cost of Asset Retirement Obligations very arbitrary.

Part of the problem lies with the project proposal. If the attributed future costs of a proposal are too high the project may not get funded. This may be bad for the champion of the project, who might be trying to make his career with the project. Secondly, who will know if the future cost of a potential environmental cost is undervalued, the cost may never be incurred. Besides, the champion of the project will have moved on once the project is completed and operating. Either it was a success and the champion is on to another project or it was a failure and may have moved on to another company where the details of the reasons of the failure don't come to light at the new company.

It is common for decision makers to focus on the immediate rather than the future for the primary reason that the present has pressing needs. Deadlines, budgets, reviews, forecasts, the emergency of the moment, and various and sundry minor issues that are placed on the back burner. It is easier to just make up a blue sky number as a future cost than to crunch a bunch of numbers that could be equally inaccurate.

In my 18 years of experience with environmental regulations, I have never seen regs. get more lax for more than a short period of time. over the longing run, they get more stringent. Fines and other compliance costs may keep pace with inflation, but compensation and punitive damages are usually well above the inflation rate.

Finally, the cost of services related to environmental compliance and remediation only stay stagnant if the service becomes a commodity. If there is sufficient competition, costs of services, like consulting, removal and disposal of asbestos, may drop or stay stagnant over time. Services related to other types of contamination, like soil or ground water contamination, usually rise faster than inflation due to the complexity and advanced technical knowledge required to perform those services.

It may be a tough sale to push for a high upfront cost "clean" project, when the traditional path to success is to backload most of the costs and discount them at an arbitrary rate, but the long term value creation is potential greater.

A Healthy House is Hard to Find

2011-04-20T20:24:00.006-04:00

Everybody claims they want to live healthy, but few actually do. What with the junk being sold as food (most of the packaged food at the supermarket and significant amounts of genetically modified foods that don't have to be labeled as such), it is no wonder we are have more allergies, learning disorders and obesity than our parent and grand parents. If don't believe me, don't worry, you will find out soon enough.

That being said, I'd like to discuss the health of our homes. Although some of us are not as fastidious about about picking up after ourselves as we should, or maybe we can't afford a housekeeper and, well we get a little busy, and our house or apartment could use a good cleaning. I'm not talking about that either. I want discuss the design and operation of our house or apartment. Was your house designed to be healthy to live in? Or is it just like all the other "value engineered" (read: crappily built) residential units built every year. "Well we bought an expensive house, I'm sure the builder made sure it is more healthy to live in than cheaper houses." Why do you think they call them McMansions. It's the same crappy house, only bigger. I have been in hundreds of houses and apartment buildings during construction, and can tell you that they all suck. I have only been in only one house built in the last 80 years that I would be willing to own. The owners bought land, hired a well respected architect, carefully selected a builder and, most importantly, were very involved in the construction process. It was about half the price of most larger homes (5000-10,000 sq. ft.) in our county. This why my wife and I bought a 150 year old Victorian house and restored it.

So what is a healthy house? Well it could be considered "green". Many common building materials are fairly toxic or can become so. Chemicals off-gas and can become airborne in the house. Poor construction or carelessness can result in water leaks either during or after construction. Just about every structure will experience a water issue during construction. If mold develops, in most cases, the builder just paints over it and hopes no one notices until his builders risk or warranty has elapsed.

Most adhesives, paints, carpets, and fire-retardant components emit high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for a few months after application.

A client recently came to our firm wanting to replace the insulation in his attic with something non-toxic. After a bit of research, we recommended Recycled Denim Insulation. It has a high R value, it is treated for mold resistance and does not emit formaldehyde.

Many people have heard about Chinese drywall, but what was wrong with it? The largest component of drywall wallboard is gypsum. Gypsum is a mineral that is mined out of the ground. Nearly all minerals in their raw form are mixed with other minerals, some are fine and other are not. Chinese drywall has a high sulfur content. This sulfur can off-gas and buildup in a home and negatively impact chemically sensitive occupants.

Another problem with drywall is the paper that holds it together, mold loves to grow on it if it gets wet.

Another problem with modern homes is air flow. Most houses do not introduce fresh air into the system, they just recirculate the existing air in the house. In the heating and cooling seasons, windows are kept closed. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can build up and make a house anywhere from stuffy to deadly.

There are too many ways a house can be unhealthy that it is too numerous to list. What can a home buyer do to find a superior house? Look for Energy Star rated or LEED certified house. Do lots of research and don't trust your builder's or realtor's word that it is safe. There is not really a single resource you can go to find out if a house is safe, you have to do the leg work yourself.

7 Deadly Sins of Greenwashing

2011-04-12T23:43:00.009-04:00

If you're like me, you get highly annoyed by companies or products claiming to be green, but actually aren't. Or not as green as they claim to be. So does one know if their favorite green product or company is foisting some slick marketing on you hoping you will buy their product thinking it is eco-friendly when it just Greenwashing. Well, there is a widely distributed list is of marketing or advertising "sins" committed by less than truthful companies.

Terrachoice, an environmental marketing firm, recently published their updated report titled “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing” (which complemented their earlier 2007 report). Their findings were alarming. Researchers went into “big box” retail stores in several countries to find every product making an environmental claim. In the US and Canada, they found over 2200 products making almost 5000 green claims. When tested against best practices and government environmental guidelines, 98% of the surveyed products committed at least one of their seven sins of greenwashing.

Sin of the Hidden Trade-off
A claim suggesting that a product is ‘green’ based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, such as greenhouse gas emissions, or chlorine use in bleaching may be equally important.

The example given is paper that comes from a sustainably harvested forest, where the product claims it is green without accounting for the paper-making process and its energy use, carbon emissions, water and air pollution, and so on–all of which may be at least as significant when determining how green a product really is. This type of greenwashing was by far the most common in the two studies, accounting for 57% of greenwashing claims.

The problem can be found everywhere. Take office equipment that touts energy efficiency, for example–while ignoring that the equipment was made with toxic materials or is incompatible with recycled paper.

Another example, one I pointed out before, is with bamboo products. While quick to tout the truthful claim that bamboo grows very quickly and is therefore a sustainable material, some manufacturers obscure the harsh chemical manufacturing process involved in turning raw bamboo into usable products.

Other products discovered by researchers to commit this greenwashing sin include ink cartridges, dishwasher and laundry detergent, bathroom and multi-purpose cleaners, air fresheners, flooring laminate, wood paneling, and pesticides.

Sin of No Proof
An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial tissues or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing evidence.

Household lamps and bulbs that promote energy efficiency without offering any evidence or certification; personal care products that claim no animal testing but offer no proof or third-party verification; and paper towels and tissues claiming post-consumer recycled content without offering any evidence.

Sin of Vagueness
A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All-natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.

I bet you’ve seen these terms on products: “Chemical-free.” “Non-toxic.” “All natural.” Even “Green,” “Environmentally friendly,” and “Eco-Conscious.” Have you stopped to think about what these actually mean? Nothing is free of chemicals, since water, plants, animals, humans, and everything on the planet is made up of chemicals. Everything is toxic at sufficiently high levels–including water and oxygen. Arsenic and formaldehyde are “all natural.” And what does “green” even mean without a more specific explanation?

Sin of Irrelevance
An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law.

While that sounds interesting and very green, the claim is irrelevant simply because ALL products currently on the market are CFC-free. CFC’s (chlorofluorocarbons) were found to be a main contributor to depleting the Earth’s ozone layer and were banned almost thirty years ago.

Lesser Of Two Evils
A claim that may be true within the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Organic cigarettes could be an example of this Sin, as might the fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicle.

Ever hear of an organic cigarette, which lets you “help the environment” at the same time it’s killing you? How about “green” herbicides and insecticides, which claim to be eco friendly while at the same time disturbing the natural order of anything they touch?

Sin of Fibbing (Lying)
Environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered. No attempt is made to try to relate them to some truthful fact, no matter how tenuous the connection. The claim is simply fabricated out of thin air in hopes of deceiving the consumer into buying something she believes to be green.

Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic” when no evidence existed of such certification; a caulking product listed as “Energy Star” compliant, when a search on Energy Star’s website showed that was not the case; and a dish washing detergent claiming to be packaged in “100% recycled paper” when the product’s container was plastic!

Sin of Worshiping False Labels
A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists; fake labels, in other words. Companies are slapping fake green labels on their products. 23% of green products evaluated by Terrachoice in its latest report committed this sin of worshiping false labels.

A US brand of aluminum foil with certification-like images referring to the name of the company’s in-house environmental program without giving any explanation about what that meant. A Canadian paper towel product that made the bold claim “this product fights global warming.” Various products using certification-like images with green buzz words like “eco safe,” “eco secure” or “eco preferred”–all of which are meaningless without context or proof.

References:
sinsofgreenwashing.org
ecovillagegreen.com

Population Percentage of Undernourished World in 2008

2011-01-18T01:16:00.001-05:00

Undernourished People by Region in 2010

2011-01-18T01:14:00.003-05:00

Genetically Modified Seeds Will Not Solve The World Hunger Crisis

2011-01-18T01:00:00.006-05:00

This was my final group project report for my graduate Economics of Sustainability Management course. We were challenging the idea that genetically modified (GM) food will solve the world hunger crisis. We were opposed by a team that were supporting GM seeds usage. My partners were Serena Sinckler, Sara Stefanski, Andrea Tenorio and
Lily Tran.

Introduction:

In the 1990s, Genetically Modified (GM) seeds were introduced as a technology to improve yields, by incorporating resistance to diseases and pests, and increasing tolerance to environmental conditions such as drought and a high salt level. Genetic modification is the process of removing specific genes from one organism and inserting them into the genetic material of the same or another organism (Wright & Boorse, 2011). Despite their advantages, GM seeds will not alleviate the global hunger crisis because they do not address the root cause of hunger. Fifteen years since genetically modified seeds were introduced to the market, hunger has continued unabated.

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 925 million people are underfed and undernourished in 2010 (FAO, 2010). Hunger is not due to a lack of food availability or the inability to produce enough food. Instead, hunger is due to the inability to acquire food because of poverty (Sen & Dreze, 1991). In fact, based on FAO reports, there is currently enough food to feed the world’s population of nearly seven billion people (FAO, 2010). World agriculture currently produces more than 2700 calories of food per person per day (FAO, 2002). Further, the use of other sustainable agricultural mechanisms is sufficient to feed at least an additional two billion people without the use of GM seeds (Godfray et al., 2010). These include soil conservation practices, such as no-till agriculture; improved irrigation systems; waste minimization; reduction in biofuel production; and a change in diet (Godfray et al., 2010, Wright & Boorse, 2011).

The link between poverty and hunger was outlined by Amartya Sen in his 1983 work, “Poverty and Famines”. Sen explains that a market economy requires purchasing power, or entitlements, to acquire food (Sen, 1983). These entitlements include land on which to produce food; income with which to purchase food; employment to work for food; and assistance to receive food (Sen, 1983). A decline in one or more of these entitlements can lead to poverty and hunger (Sen, 1983). Some key causes to the loss of entitlement highlighted in this paper include subsidies and tariffs on agricultural goods by developed nations, land grabs by sovereign wealth funds and multinational corporations, land conversion to cash crop and feedstock, and indebtedness. Each of these contributes to unfair income distribution, making the rich wealthier and the poor more destitute. In this situation, the latter group experiences a decrease in their food purchasing power because their relative position worsens (Sen & Dreze, 1991).

On a global basis, the relationship between relative entitlement and food purchasing power is evidenced by the strong correlation between income distribution and hunger. In 2010, the FAO reported that nearly 90% of undernourished individuals reside in the following regions: 62% in Asia and the Pacific, and 26% in Sub-Saharan Africa (Charts 1, 3). The percentage of individuals in these regions living on less than $1.25 per day are 40% in South Asia, 17% in East Asia and the Pacific, and 51% in Sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1, Chart 4) (World Bank 2010). Another relationship between income distribution and hunger is illustrated in the Table 2. It displays countries with the ten highest global hunger indices (GHI) as of 2010, along with the percentage of population that is undernourished, and the gross national income per capita. The GHI rates countries based on three equally weighted indicators: the proportion of undernourished people, the proportion of underweight children under the age of five, and the child mortality rate (IFPRI 2010). For comparison, the gross national income per capita for the United States is $47,240, China is $31,420, and Poland is $12,260 (World Bank 2010). The gross national income for Haiti is not listed, but is estimated to be in the lowest bracket (World Bank 2010).

As mentioned earlier, this paper addresses some of the factors in agriculture that affect income distribution: trade structure, land grab trend, and land conversion to cash crop and meat production. The paper also discusses the impact of high indebtedness on poverty. Addressing these issues can help prevent the loss of entitlement, which can ultimately lead to poverty and hunger. Unfortunately, GM seeds fail to do this. In addition, they pose numerous potential human health, environmental, and economic risks.

Agricultural Trade Subsidies and Tariffs:

While agriculture represents only 6% of world GDP in 2009, for the estimated three quarters of the billion poorest people in the world, agriculture is an important source of income (Anderson, 2010). According to a World Bank report in 2003, agriculture in low-income countries accounts for 60% of the labor force and 25% of GDP. The vast majority of agriculture output in the developing countries is consumed domestically, but some products are exported. While export in some products has declined due to lower price and demand elasticities, the decline in others is partly due to protectionist policies of developed nations (World Bank, 2003).

Both the developing and developed nations maintain high trade barriers to protect domestic agricultural producers. However, agricultural trade barriers in developed countries have greater impact on the income of developing countries because the economies of developing countries are less diversified and highly dependent on agriculture production. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2010) database, the OECD members spent approximately $252 billion in 2009 to support its agricultural producers. The percentage of Producer Support Estimate, the ratio of estimated government support to the value of total gross farm receipts, across the OECD members was 22% in 2009 (OECD, 2010).

In 2008, U.S. government payments to farmers totaled $10 billion. These payments include direct payment based on a fixed number of acreage, commodity payment based on current market prices, payment for conservation, payment for emergency and disaster relief, and other miscellaneous program (USDA, 2010). In addition to direct government payment, the U.S. government supports farmers through direct lending and loan guarantees, which totaled $18 billion in 2009 (Office of Management and Budget, 2010). Unlike farmers in developing countries, the majority of U.S. farmers are not poor. In 2007, the median household income for U.S. farmer was $54,000, 8% higher than all U.S. households, but most this income is derived from non-farm activities. Additionally over 62% of total government payments in 2008 were made to commercial farmers with total production value greater than $250,000 (Hoppe, 2010).

The E.U. also provides generous support to its farmers – approximately €58 billion or 41% of the E.U. budget for 2011 has been allocated to support agriculture and rural development (European Commission, 2010). The largest 25% of farms with average farm net worth of €500,000 produce about 73% of farm output and receive about 70% support in the EU,

Given these facts about government support in industrialized countries, why do these subsidies still remain? According to McCulloch, Winters, Cirera, (2002), the three main objectives of developed countries in designing agricultural policies are to enhance food security, promote agricultural productivity through technical progress, and maintain farmers’ standard of living. However, rent-seeking behavior by agricultural interest groups has also played a key role in agricultural policies. Gwande and Hoekman (2006) tested the political economy model of Grossman and Helpman using data set of agricultural protection, subsidies and political contributions in the U.S. in the late 1990s. Their conclusion supported previous studies that campaign contributions from interest groups are linked to agricultural policies in the U.S.

In short, agricultural policies in the developed countries direct wealth from society to a few groups. Tariffs raise prices for domestic consumers and reduce quantity imported from developing countries. Direct payments increase taxes for taxpayers, lead to overproduction and depress world price, thus hurting farmers in developing countries. However, trade liberalization alone cannot alleviate poverty; it must be considered along with measures to help developing countries achieve their potential comparative advantage. These measures include improved infrastructure to allow farmers access to markets, provide safety nets for those who are likely to experience shock from trade liberalization, promote better farming methods, reduce food safety concerns, and improved credit access (World Bank, 2007). The World Bank estimates that the developing countries would benefit from half of the $400-$900 billion global welfare gains if all trade barriers were removed (World Bank, 2003).

Land Grab:

Climate change pushes viable farmland northward due to higher temperatures and creates new farming opportunities on previously marginal land. Higher-latitude countries like Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Kazakhstan and Canada are becoming more productive as the climate heats up. Multinational investors and sovereign wealth funds (Table 3) are purchasing significant amounts of land in these marginal locales because local farmers are generally poor, and see it as a good way to make quick cash.

Phil Heilberg, a former partner at AIG, is now one of the largest private landholders in Africa (Funk, 2010). Mr. Heilberg is part of a growing wave of capitalists who are taking steps to try to exploit the world's food crisis. Investors from various parts of the world, including rising powers such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea and Wall Street banks, such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, are trying to corner the market on the world’s ever decreasing farmland. In the past two years alone, as many as 50 million acres of land around the world have changed hands from locals to foreign investors (Funk, 2010). All of these investors are betting that population growth and climate change, droughts, desertification and flooding will soon make food as valuable as oil.

The drive for food security, biofuels and profits, along with increasing food prices are some factors causing this massive global land-grab. Some of the land is being bought by wealthy businessmen; some by transnational corporations. In collusion with corrupt governments, many of the new landowners enclose the land and displace small farmers and indigenous peoples. The crops are sold at high prices to wealthier countries or converted to cash crops to the exclusion of local communities; or set at prices too high for locals to afford. These countries do not have stringent environmental regulations, allowing foreign owners, who are interested only in profit, to treat the land with less care than locals. The result is that locals are being cleared from the land and forced into poverty due to lost jobs, the environment is suffering from degradation, and the population of urban slums is increasing. (Large & Ravenscroft, 2009).

Cash Crops:

In addition to land being purchased by foreign owners, land is increasingly being converted from food production to cash crop production. Prices for major cash crops are usually set in the commodity markets with some local variation based on transportation costs and local supply and demand. For developing countries this is a big gamble. The farmers that solely rely on cash crops usually receive low prices for their products, which increases their debt and leaves them with less money to support their families. This system has been criticized by traditional farmers.

While at a first look it may seem advantageous to produce cash crops, there are more disadvantages than advantages. First, most farmers find themselves unable to eat or feed their families due to lack of diverse production. Second, the heavy emphasis on exports associated with cash cropping sometimes results in a shortage of locally available food, making the price of food significantly higher for farmers and local families. Third, just farming cash crops contributes to land degradation by robbing the land of nutrients, humus and cohesiveness.

The drawbacks of cash cropping are evident in biofuels. Palm oil production can produce more than twice its weight in harmful waste and by-products, which usually renders the soil useless after just a few years. In 2007-2008, total usage of coarse grains for production of ethanol reached 110 million tons, about 10% of global production (FAO, 2009) (Chart 3).

In theory, growing cash crops can be a viable financial and ecological method to combat poverty. However, sustainable practices are needed to be successful. First, there needs to be better land management practices put in place so countries will not be economically dependent on one or two types of cash crops. Next, developing countries need to learn better methods to cultivate these cash crops thereby preventing land degradation. Third, these countries will have to start growing food on their land perhaps by enlisting the help of the UN or other countries. Lastly, there will need to be an evaluation of trade policies to help stop the cycle of poverty. These plans need to be implemented now to produce more food while preserving our ecosystems and caring for the soil and land that will grow our food.

Increasing Meat Consumption:

Land is also increasingly being used to produce grains to feed livestock. Four pounds of animal feed are needed to produce one pound of meat. Farm animals, directly and indirectly, impact up to 80% of the world’s agricultural land (de Vries & de Boer, 2009). The demand for meat, driven by wealth, affects land available to feed the poor. Americans consume four times the amount of meat per person versus the developing world (Stokstad, 2010) and the worldwide demand for meat is increasing as developing nations become wealthier.

Demand for livestock feed drives up the price of grains. If demand for corn and soy were to drop, farmers would have the option to produce other types of crops like wheat or rice, which would feed more people per weight than meat. The issue here seems not to be a lack of land; it is a lack of priority and effective farming methods due to many factors, namely poverty and inequality (Rosegrant et al., 1999). If meat prices reflected the true ecological costs of raising farm animals, this “would free up grain for those further down the food chain.” (Stokstad, 2010).

Indebtedness:

Poverty is most prevalent in rural areas in developing countries. In rural areas, agriculture is generally the most important source of income and, for many, their method of subsistence. Like many who live in poverty, subsistence farmers are highly susceptible to loss of entitlements due to insurmountable debt. The case of farmers’ suicides in India highlights the extreme measures farmers took to deal with indebtedness.

In the mid 1990s, a journalist reported unusual number of farmers’ suicides that still continues today but at a lower rate. The total number of farmer suicides from 1997-2007 was estimated at over 180,000 (Sainath, 2009). Most studies attributed the cause to number of factors including both social and economic. However, there was a strong correlation between farmers’ suicides and indebtedness. In many cases, debt was used for agricultural investment purposes and was incurred by small and marginal farmers (Sindu & Gill 2006). The percentage of farmers in debt increased from 25.9% in 1991 to 57.2% in 2003 (Sidhu & Gill, 2006) from competition from trade, drought and lower production.

Like many developing countries, access to capital in India in rural areas is limited due to high transaction cost and cumbersome documentation required by institutional lenders. In India, it is quite common for farmers to borrow from moneylenders and pay interest rate of 30-100% (Sengupta, 2006, Fatah, 2010). For many farmers in India expenditures exceed household income (Mishra, 2008), leaving them with little room for unplanned misfortunes.

Disadvantages of GM Crops:

In addition to not addressing the root causes of poverty, GM crops have a number of disadvantages. These include health and environmental risks and concentration of power in the hand of a few suppliers.

There are many potential health risks attributed to GM foods. The results of many studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects which may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters (Artemis & Ioannis, 2009). An increase in some anti-nutrients associated with GM foods were found to cause fertility problems in sheep and cattle, allergenic reactions and binding to phosphorus and zinc which makes those minerals unavailable to the animal for use (Adams, 1995). There is also the potential for the production of new toxins or carcinogens that are unknown. The companies that develop and manufacture the products are responsible for testing for toxins, carcinogens, and allergens, which can result in research that is bias or prone to capture (Boland & Bowden, 2000).

It should be emphasized that since consumption of GM foods does not require prescription or medical supervision, they should be tested more thoroughly than prescription medications and treated with caution. Unforeseen health risks, without thorough investigation, can cause economic problems as well. Health care costs could increase due to issues related to GM foods or lawsuits associated with the production of these foods resulting to loss of entitlement for the people, stakeholders, and countries.

In addition to health risks, GM crops may have negative effect on the environment. The adoption of glyphosate-resistant soybeans has led to an increase in the overall amount of herbicides applied to soybeans (USDA, 2010). Bt corn has had little impact on overall corn insecticide use because farmers typically have not used insecticides to control pests. The overall use of insecticides in cotton shows little change (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). Some crops are engineered to produce viruses; toxins could present risks to pollinating insects and other animals that might eat the crops (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). These may lead to land degradation and the need for remediation and restoration of arable lands.

Lastly, GM crops are controlled by a handful of suppliers. Five chemical companies own or partly own over 200 seeds producers. These companies control either directly or indirectly 50% of the world’s seed production. The largest of these companies is Monsanto with 23% (Chart 5) (Howard, 2009). This oligopoly, reinforced by patents and cross licensing agreements between them (Chart 6), has the power to control supply, thus controlling prices of all seeds. They can dump seeds on the market to lower prices and drive competition out of the market and then raise prices to any level they choose. From 1997-2007, Monsanto has initiated 112 lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and small businesses for patent infringements. Monsanto has won 85% of the judgments with the average award of $385,000. The seeds provided by Monsanto are two to four times higher than conventional varieties and are not guaranteed to grow. Due to the higher cost of GM seeds, crop failure increases the downside risk to farmers (Grover 2010).

Conclusion:

GM seeds will unlikely solve the worldwide poverty problem and have a number of critical disadvantages. Although there are many uncontrollable causes of loss of entitlement, the causes that are discussed in this paper are preventable: subsides and tariffs of agricultural products in developed countries needs to be reduced or eliminated; and cash crops for livestock and non-food products need to have a Pigovian tax built into the pricing to account for their environmental damages and potential health costs. While it may be difficult to stop the land grab trend, international standards should be put in place to stop the exploitation and displacement of local landowners and smallholders. Farmer hardship from indebtedness puts the most stress on food production and hurts developing countries. If the obstacles to food production are removed, hunger and poverty will be greatly reduced; genetically modified seeds cannot help that.

Sustainability Strategy for a Computer Company

2011-01-18T00:44:00.002-05:00

The assignment was to develop a sustainability strategy for a computer company.

Recommended Action:
1. Downsize the packaging and use recycled materials to lower transportation costs; use renewable energy to XYZ’s lower carbon footprint; and offer e-waste recycling program to customer to divert waste and toxins from landfills.
2. Use sustainability policy to build brand loyalty & improve competitive edge.

Issues:
In order to remain competitive in the market, XYZ needs is to develop a sustainability strategy and implementation plan. Other computer companies, such as Apple, Dell and HP, have successfully implemented effective sustainability strategies. We believe that a “bang for the buck” approach will yield early successes to win over skeptical or reluctant members in XYZ’s management team. We are proposing a stepped approach where milestones, benchmarking, and mid-course corrections will allow us to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation and its effects on value creation for the company.

1. Packaging and transportation represent a significant environmental and financial cost. Downsize the packaging and substitute virgin materials with recycled materials.

Pros:
-Smaller packaging reduces costs and lowers shipping weight thus requiring fewer ships, trucks, and planes. Apple reduced MacBook packaging by 53%.
-Recycled packaging reduces use of virgin raw materials & diverts waste from landfills.
-Easily quantifiable changes with a direct product costing impact.

Cons:
-Branding logos and other promotional space on packaging will be reduced.
-Packaging colors will be more limited without use of toxic chemicals.
-Possible increase in product damage during transportation, if poorly designed.

2. Use renewable energy whenever possible in manufacturing, corporate and retail facilities.

Pros:
-Significantly reduces carbon footprint in a short amount of time.
-May not require individual managers to “buy in” to strategy.
-Depending on location, there may be little/no disruption of operations.

Cons:
-Utilities may charge more for renewable sources of energy.
-Renewable energy may not be offered by a local utility company, other sources like solar or wind generation may need to be undertaken by XYZ.
-Implement E-waste recycling program for XYZ’s customer’s obsolete computer equipment.

Pros:
-XYZ will be assisting its customers with their own sustainability strategy.
-Potential revenue stream. Dell’s e-waste recycling program has a positive cash flow.
-Diverts e-waste from landfills and properly disposes of toxic waste.
-Keeps XYZ in customer’s mind at end of product’s life-possible return for purchase.

Cons:
-Significant logistics needs associated with an e-waste recycling program.
-Need to ensure that obsolete reclaimed parts are not contributing to toxic waste or landfills in other countries.

4. Promote XYZ’s sustainability policy to build brand loyalty and improve competitive edge.

Pros:
-Value creation thru reduced inputs like smaller packaging and lower shipping costs.
-As more corporate customers require their suppliers be sustainable, the pool of potential competitors to XYZ is likely to shrink. This may increase market share.
-Highly sustainable items in the product line may allow premium pricing.

Cons:
-Some customers may not change purchasing behavior based on XYZ’s sustainability.
-Sustainability will likely lag behind performance/reliability/cost considerations.

Options:

1. Dedicate the resources towards a marketing campaign rather than a sustainability strategy.

Pros:
-Increasing the marketing budget is likely to realize a quantifiable return with improved sales and market share.
-Better understood performance metrics and simple cost-benefit analysis.
-Easy to implement, resources already in place, no training necessary.

Cons:
-Improved sales and/or market share may yield only short term results.
-Sustainability trends may put XYZ at a market disadvantage against competitors with effective sustainability strategies.

2. Outsource production operations to a country with lower labor and other manufacturing costs to compete more on price.

Pros:
-Lower manufacturing cost will lead to more value creation for products.
-More performance or features offered for same pricing.
-Easy to implement, many vendors have capacity in place.

Cons:
-Possible higher transportations costs for products manufactured further away.
-Longer supply chains and delivery lead times; and slower response to market changes.
-It is more difficult to control product quality.
-XYZ would have little control vendor’s environmental impact.

Implementation:
1. Perform sustainability audits and carbon foot printing for all XYZ facilities.
2. Develop a triple bottom line sustainability strategy with milestones, benchmarking, and mid-course corrections to monitor and adjust implementation of strategy.
3. Easy implementation of first steps of plan to achieve early success to rally support.
4. Focus on short term payback initially; implement strategy elements with long-term ROIs later on. Tackle engineering challenges after widespread “buy in” of the plan.
5. Promote sustainability success stories as soon as possible to engage and energize XYZ’s employees to participate in the program, attract new talent, and build brand loyalty.
6. Require vendors in the value chain to institute a sustainability strategy with independently audited verification. Avoid negative associations with bad vendors.

Has the Marine Stewardship Council Corrupted its Mission?

2011-01-18T00:26:00.007-05:00

The time has come the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to withdraw support for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

Issues:
The credibility issue earlier in the decade was turned around by 2005 with a change in leadership and other organizational reforms, but the MSC may have been a victim of its own success. The MSC suffers from a new crisis of credibility. MSC’s certification is now the standard by which most fisheries are assessed; however, corporate pressure to certify fisheries with questionable practices is being felt by the MSC. Also, large institutional donors with corporate allegiance may taint the reputation of the MSC and diminish the perceived value of the certification program.

After successfully implementing the certification program and creating a supply and market for MSC certified seafood, criticism was leveled towards the MSC for certifying fisheries with questionable sustainability practices. MSC has been accused of measuring their success more by how many fisheries are certified than the quality of the outcomes from the supposed improvement in sustainability practices of the fisheries. The MSC has countered by noting the management decisions of the fisheries to lower quotas or halt fishing all together.

In 2005, the MSC asked stakeholders for five years to implement their certification program before public criticism be aimed at the MSC. We are now at the five year milestone. Greenpeace has already published disapproval of the MSC’s sustainability criteria. While they applaud MSC’s efforts, their implementation has many compromises. This approach may have been necessary to gain acceptance; the long term goals of restoring fisheries may be prolonged or compromised by this strategy. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) enjoys a stellar reputation for integrity and commitment to conserving nature and runs the risk of tarnishing their reputation in the conservation community by continuing to support the MSC.

Stakeholder and industry outreach has improved and is generally regarded positively. The assessment reports of fisheries used to evaluate certification are also well regarded among stakeholders. Reforms at the MSC restored confidence among financial and charitable supporters. Credibility was regained in the mid-2000s and the certification adoption increased.

Pros:
i. Engaging stakeholders and allowing criticism to be voiced directly to a MSC representative resulted in more rapid “buy in” without public criticism in the media.
ii. Objections to certification are handled transparently and are available on MSC’s website, but to date, no applications have been rejected following an objection.

Cons:
i. In order to achieve a broader base of support, the goals of the organization and criteria for certification were amended to appeal to many of the MSC’s industrial and governmental critics.
ii. This may have compromised the criteria by which sustainability practices are measured among the stakeholders.

The MSC has been praised for the detailed and accurate assessments of fisheries. The independent, third party assessment has been allowed MSC to keep arms length distance from the actual assessment of the fishery. This has built credibility for MSC, but it relies on organizations outside MSC’s control to be involved in the certification process. Assessment quality can suffer if oversight MSC is inadequate.

Risks:
Even if all the criteria of MSC certification is correctly implemented by fisheries, ultimately the certification program will be judged on whether fish populations return, species are taken off the endangered list and the “over-fished and depleted” list decreases. Mounting evidence suggests or shows that fish stock and populations are diminishing in many fisheries. Often improvement is measured against the lows of the mid-decade and not against more historical information for fear that it would paint a less desirable yet more realistic picture of the situation. Certification has been awarded in situations where negative gains have been documented. One independent assessment firm has performed about 50% of MSC fishery application assessments. This has the potential to allow corruption of the certification system.

Benefits:
In an effort to develop more industry acceptance, the criteria for certification is more weighted towards current actions and less towards the effected of decades of poor sustainability management of fisheries.

Environmental Performance and Sustainability- initiated research projects to investigate the environmental benefits of Marine Stewardship Council Certification

Effectiveness:
Poor, actually. There have been many cases where fish populations in a fishery declined significantly many years after MSC certification. Yet revocation of certification is rare and is usually re-granted. The MSC website’s more recent environmental impact or quality/consistency paper published on their website is over four years old.

Risks:
The MSC has good momentum and world wide acceptance. Research into the efficacy of certification may reveal that the underlying premise and goals of MSC are flawed or ineffective. The MSC can fall victim to “Head in the sand” syndrome, where it may be preferable to keep Pandora’s box closed.

Benefits:
Validation of procedures and methodologies would allow mid-course adjustments and revisions for more effective outcomes.

The WWF needs to assess its ties to the MSC. I do not believe that the MSC is going in the same direction as the WWF. I have to recommend that the WWF no longer support the MSC.

Eco-efficiency Enhances Profitability for a Long-term Care and Rehabilitation Center Project

2011-01-18T00:02:00.004-05:00

In this assignment for my graduate Sustainability Management course, we were asked to green a real or fictitious business. I chose a real hospital, but not a real business.

Recommended Action:
I recommend that a sustainability strategy of eco-efficiency be incorporated into the Business Plan of the new Long-term Care and Rehabilitation Center (LCRC) at Mount Vernon Hospital (MVH).

Issues:
MVH is currently under utilizing its 196 bed capacity; the conversion of one of the buildings into the LCRC provides an excellent opportunity to implement a sustainability strategy for operational efficiency and realize cost saving as compared to similar conventional facilities. The reimbursement system of insurance companies, Medicaid, and Medicare forces all health care institutions to be fiscally prudent while maintaining a high standard of care for patients. There is downward pressure on billing rates, yet continually rising costs. Only highly competitive institutions will survive in the long run. Unfortunately, it is difficult to realize premium pricing for service differentiation based on environmental benefit. Therefore, eco-efficiency will enhance LCRC’s competitive edge in the market by lowering operating costs.

Based on the Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC), which is the health care industry’s first quantifiable sustainable design and facilities operations best practices. The GGHC includes the sustainable planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of facilities. I am proposing incorporating the following sustainability strategy:

1) EPA’s GreenScapes compliance: green roof to minimize Heat Island effect, patient recreation area, and rainwater run-off control.
2) EPA’s EnergyStar compliance: 10% or more energy reduction goal.
3) EPA’s WaterSense compliance: 10% or more water use reduction goal.
4) EPA’s WasteWise compliance: implement recycling and reduce waste with a goal of 100% waste diversion from landfills.
5) Indoor air quality program: low-VOC emission products, reduction of pesticides, minimize air emissions from vehicles, and microbial control to minimize facility-acquired infections.
6) Supply Chain Management: audit the medical supply, dietary, housekeeping and maintenance vendors for compliance with established industry specific sustainable manufacturing and management practices.
7) Total Responsibility Management (TRM): policies and programs that support social, environmental, and financial goals.

The LCRC is to be housed in an existing medical facility that is already operational, requiring only minor interior renovations. However, many of the recommendations in this proposal will need to be integrated into the existing building infrastructure. Upgrades to the electrical, plumbing, waste storage, roof, and heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) systems will be necessary.

The LCRC will be providing advanced medical care for long-term patients. If an eco-efficiency strategy were integrated with the building design and operations, better patient outcomes would be realized at a lower cost.

The LCRC, which represents the end of the health care value chain, will be situated in downtown Mount Vernon, New York, a city of 70,000 residents. It is flanked by Yonkers, the Bronx and New Rochelle; and will target Lower Westchester county residents. Low cost health services are a priority for this largely economically disadvantaged market segment.

Long-term care facilities have high fixed costs, but little pricing power due to the reimbursement policies of Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies. The industry average operating margin for 95% occupancy is 0.2%. Non-medical operations offer many opportunities for eco-efficiency.

Projected areas for savings (based on industry averages):

1) 10% plus reduction in energy use will likely result in a $25,000-50,000 annual savings.
2) 10% plus reduction in water use will likely result in a $15,000-20,000 annual savings.
3) Recycling expenses will be offset by savings from reduced waste removal costs. On-site composting of food waste provides a saleable product with potential annual revenue of $3000-5000.
4) Many eco-friendly cleaning products are more effective, less expensive, and many do not require hot water to be effective.

The LCRC will have the advantage of leveraging its affiliation with the Sound Shore Health System, the largest health system between New York City and Albany. Patients may be transferred between the acute care hospital and long-term care within the facility without the need for vehicular transportation, thus improving medical outcomes.

The traditionally low operating margins for long-term care facilities is a potential issue, but leveraging an existing building, low capital improvement costs, and strategic eco-efficiency savings will result in a highly competitive market position in order to maximize occupancy and profitability.

This sustainability strategy is comprised of three elements: adoption of EPA’s four conservation programs, reduction of airborne hazard exposure, and TRM for implementation of the sustainability strategy and on-going operations.

The four major advantages of incorporating this eco-efficiency strategy are cost savings realized from non-medical operations, improved patient experience, reduced liability exposure, and minimized negative environmental impact. The TRM business model is an implementation of the Triple Bottom Line, where financial, social and environmental benefits and cost are accounted.

Options:
As an alternative to the eco-efficiency sustainability strategy model, the following strategies may be considered:

Out-sourcing facility maintenance, food service, and housekeeping operations to vendors with sustainable business models and supply chains.
Pros: reduced management and auditing costs; easier to replace a vender than in-house staff.
Cons: loss of control of day-to-day non-medical operations; possibly higher overall operating costs which may impact the profit margin.

Develop an eco-branding strategy by implementing a package of environmentally beneficial actions and market the eco-brand to an environmentally-conscious, private paying target market.
Pro: service differentiation may command a price premium in the market place.
Con: there may not be enough environmentally-conscious, private paying consumers in the local market to achieve occupancy levels high enough to be profitable.

Implementation:
If this eco-efficiency strategy is approved, I will immediately set up a working group to review the GGHC, develop a detailed eco-efficiency program, and create a budget for implementation. In addition, the group will develop an auditing process for vendor’s sustainable business models and supply chains. Within a month, I will research the EnergyStar, GreenScapes, WaterSense, and WasteWise compliance criteria; retain a consultant to designer the upgrade plan for the building’s systems; and start development of the TRM program.

$2 Billion to Make NYC Greener in One Year

2011-01-17T22:59:00.006-05:00

The following was my final exam assignment for my graduate Sustainability Management course. We had $2 billion to make NYC greener in one year. It was submitted as an Action Memo.

Recommended Actions:
1. Build 1400 miles of bicycle lanes and install 10,000 bike racks.
2. Add 3000 Traffic Enforcement Agents to patrol busy intersections.
3. Offer rebates for energy audits and improvements on small and medium sized buildings.

Issues:
The next twelve months will be critical to shape perceptions of city residents, public and private stakeholders. This proposal seeks to address issues that may be neglected by other capital and sustainability projects. PlaNYC2030 provides a framework for a more sustainable city in twenty years. This office will help prioritize these needs, and fund pressing initiatives that are under-funded to deliver improvements to New Yorker’s quality of life. Since not all initiatives can be addressed this year, it is critical that we deliver the most “bang for the buck” early on to overcome resistance against PlaNYC2030. This office will commit $2 billion this year to selected initiatives. Air quality improvement has been identified as a high priority and is being addressed on many fronts. We believe that a direct investment to reduce energy consumption, increased use of sustainable modes of transportation, and combating congestion will yield dividends environmentally, financially, and politically.

One of the PlaNYC2030 goals is to reduce carbon emissions from transportation by 45% and from buildings by 25%. This proposal offers three initiatives to reduce carbon emissions by increasing bicycle use, reduce traffic congestion, and improve building energy efficiency.

1. Bicycles account for only 1% of all trips. From 2003-2009, bike commuting into Manhattan’s central business district (below 86th street) has increased by 126% showing that there is significant demand for this mode of transportation. To complement the recently announced private bicycle sharing program which should commence in 2012 with 10,000 rental bikes, adding 1,400 miles of bicycle lanes and 10,000 more public bike racks to achieve the PlaNYC2030 goals will make bike travel more attractive. The goal is to increase bike trips to 5%. Cost $75 million.

Benefits:
-839 million pounds of CO2 may be saved yearly, or 6.5% of the PlaNYC2030 goal.
-There will be boost in the local economy from spending on bikes and accessories.
-Alleviate overcrowding at rush hour on public transportation and roads.
-Job creation to build the bike lanes for many years.
-11.19 pounds of CO2 saved per year for each $1 invested.

Risks:
-Confusion about right of way and traffic laws may initially cause increased injuries.
-Community resistance to the loss of on-street parking and lanes for motor vehicles.
-Resistance from local businesses who will have even less room for deliveries.

Support:
-The strongest support will come from the Transportation Department, bike advocates, and pedestrians who want the cyclists off the sidewalks.
-Musician and city resident, David Byrne, is a leading advocate of cycling and is well connected in the city cycling programs. His enthusiastic support can be leveraged by the Mayor to promote the benefits of this initiative and quell opposition.
-Opposition by companies who deliver goods in the city and commuters who drive and park on the street may be strong.
-City residents concerned about increased injuries will likely oppose the plan.
-Iris Weinshall, the former transportation commissioner and (current) wife of Senator Schumer, has demonstrated opposition to certain bike lane locations and could delay or stop the construction of some needed bike lanes. She wields enough power to stymie this initiative.

2. The average weekday traffic speed is 9.66 mph.; the average weekend speed is 11.1 mph. If the weekday speeds are increased by as little a ½ mph, we could see a 5% drop in greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies have identified 1500 intersections where there are up to 150 traffic infractions per hour by drivers resulting traffic jams, unsafe conditions, and excess pollution. While traffic enforcement cameras generate ticket fees, they cannot facilitate traffic flow. Adding Traffic Enforcement Agents (TEA) to patrol these intersections will deter poor driver behavior by issuing tickets, and assisting pedestrians and cyclists crossing the intersections. This will improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and traffic flow. Adding 3000 TEAs (two shifts, M-F), support staff, and equipment. The goal is to increase average speed by ½ mph. Cost $400 million.

Benefits:
-310 million pounds of CO2 may be saved yearly, or 2.3% of the PlaNYC2030 goal.
-With a potential of $2 billion in annual revenue, the program will be self-sustaining.
-Improved safety and faster response times for emergency vehicles.
-Economic benefit from more efficient delivery of cargo in the city.
-0.76 pounds of CO2 saved per year for each $1 invested.

Risks:
-Additional costs for training are unknown at this time.
-Possible increase in court costs from additional violations hearings.
-The program may not increase average travel speeds or reduce carbon emissions.
-The increased number of city employees will be difficult to eliminate if program is not effective and ended.

Support:
-Stakeholders that supported congestion pricing should support this initiative.
-With the support of the NYPD, the Mayor will promote this increase in manpower as a safety measure and avoid much of objections to Congestion Pricing.
-Opponents may claim that draconian traffic enforcement will stifle economic growth and increase the cost of goods, which may gain negative media attention.
-State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky and NJ Governor Christie were strong opponents to Congestion pricing and may attempt to paint this in the same light.

3. 75% of carbon emissions are attributed to NYC energy use by buildings. Of the 975,000 buildings in the city, the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan will apply to buildings over 50,000 square feet, impacting only 22,000 of the city’s largest buildings. Rebates will be offered for energy audits and improvements on the largest 275,000 buildings up to 50,000 square feet. Building owners will get $1000 towards an audit and up to $10,000 on verifiable energy saving upgrades. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions of 50% of the target buildings by 12%. Cost $1.5 billion.

Benefits:
-3.3 billion pounds of CO2 may be saved yearly, or 12% of the PlaNYC2030 goal.
-Many upgrades are cost effective, like light bulbs and thermostats.
-About 70% of the building stock will be participating in energy upgrades.
-Increased data for analysis of building performance.
-2.2 pounds of CO2 saved per year for each $1 invested.

Risks:
-Many buildings may be cost prohibitive to upgrade regardless of rebate amount
-Some owners may not want to provide access to their building for fear of exposure to fire department, safety, or building code violations
-The rebates may cause scam artists to pose as auditors, or owners may pay for fraudulent documentation to get the rebate money.
-The savings may be temporary if poor quality improvements are implemented.

Support:
-NYSERTA will be the biggest supporter and may offer to contribute to the rebate program to increase participation. ConEd may also support this.
-Owners of buildings that fall below the program criteria, as well as homeowners, may object to their exclusion from the program.
-Some real estate developers will want rebates for upgrades on “value engineered” buildings for new construction.
-The strongest opposition may come from owners of the 22,000 largest building who are not getting any rebates for the requirements of the Greener, Greater Buildings law.
-The Mayor can build support by enlisting BOMA to support this initiative.

Options:
-Commit funds to plant the remaining 650,000 trees in the MillionTreesNYC program. Cost $650 million.

Benefits:
-338 million pounds of CO2 may be saved yearly, or 0.8% of the PlaNYC2030 goal.
-Reduces Heat Island effect, pollution removal, storm water capture, and reduces energy consumption in the city.
-Will involve the community, and is not a contentious political issue.
-0.52 pounds of CO2 saved per year for each $1 invested.

Risks:
-There will be controversy over location of the proposed tree locations.
-This will need a large increase to the Parks department manpower.
-Poorly placed trees could cause property damage during inclement weather.

2. Offer $2000 rebates to the first 500,000 homeowners who replace their old boilers with new high efficiency units. The average efficiency increase will likely be 10%. Cost $1 billion.

Benefits:
-700 million pounds of CO2 may be saved yearly, or 1.6% of the PlaNYC2030 goal.
-0.7 pounds of CO2 saved per year for each $1 invested.

Risks:
-Possibility of fraudulent claims of replacement.
-Many of the old boilers will be dumped on the street and in empty lots.
-Possible hazardous materials may not be captured and disposed of properly.

From my economics text book

2010-11-20T00:09:00.001-05:00

If a government is less representative, general demand for environmental quality may fail to be translated into environmental quality. - C. D. Kolstad

Find Partners, Investors for Your Green, Cleantech Business

2010-11-13T18:58:00.000-05:00

Find Partners, Investors for Your Green, Cleantech Business

Ignoring Sustainability Will Prolong the Employment Problem.

2010-11-10T00:15:00.003-05:00

It seems that media pundits, elected officials and interest groups are too focused on immediate employment right now. While it is true that millions are out of work and unemployment insurance is due to expire soon, there is one issue that gets little attention: Economic sustainability. The US has an unemployment rate of 9.6% (or more depending on who is included in the figure). That is about 17+ million people out of work. For the rest of the world, go here.

Even when the economy recovers, the US will need to add 0.85-0.9% jobs every year just to cover our population growth (births, immigration, etc.) Based on a current population in the US of 310 million, we need to add about 2.7+ million jobs every year just to stay even with our weak employment situation. Also, as the retirement age increases and retirement benefits lag behind the cost of living, more seniors will remain in the job market longer.

I find it interesting that many interest groups (many/most of them corporately funded) are claiming that the green economy is taking away jobs, and that subsidies for the legacy economy (fossil-based energy, traditional manufacturing, etc.) will make jobs. It is amazing that the time horizon is getting so short that corporate American can barely wait for the end of the next quarter to report some sort of financial victory. The flat-earthers are alive a well in the US. Soon hiding in the closet clutching a teddy bear will be an espoused economic policy.

New high growth industries have better pay and often have exportable products and services with bring in foreign trade currency into the US. Stagnant old industries are, well, stagnant. The green economy is not just solar panels and wind generators; there is new engineering, new technologies, more education opportunities, and secondary industries. The emerging market and developing nations do the older technologies cheaper and sometimes better than the US can.

You rarely hear educated, intelligent people complain much about the employment situation. Usually it is poorly educated or entitlement-seeking people complaining about it. Sometimes, they say that immigrants are taking our jobs. The people emigrating from China, India, Russia, and Europe are well-educated, intelligent and highly skilled. Often, they don’t mind working for less than an American doing the same job. The poorly educated from Central/South America, Asia and Africa usually take menial jobs that most American don’t want anyway.

Well if you want high paying jobs, get your obese, cheese doodle eating, ‘Dancing with the Stars’ watching butt off the sofa and take some classes in the new/green technologies and stop complaining about how unfair your life is. Darwin was right and many of you are wrong.

Policy makers in the US need stop listening to the loudest demagogue in the media or the whispering of special interest groups, and take a longer term view than 15 months (when campaigning starts) to create meaningful policy. Soon we will be a second or third-rate nation.

Apple is Not Necessarily an Evil Empire

2010-10-02T12:08:00.012-04:00

In May of 2010, I purchased an Ipad much to the consternation of some of my friends who believe that Steve Jobs and Apple are attempting to control the minds and behaviors of it's customers the way Microsoft attempted a number of years ago. Well, here's a news flash, every company that ever sold a product or service to the public has attempted this on some level. Some may have had nefarious motives, others may have been benevolent. However, all of them had a common goal: maximize profits and market share. To expect any less would be naive and unrealistic.

Some of my more conservative friends believe that Jobs is out to remake using a mobile computing and internet accessing device into a controlled, restricted & packaged experience. But this has been done before to positive effect by many other businesses and institutions without any ideological backlash. Here are a few examples:

The zoo (any zoo in the world)-Animals are captured, crated, shipped, placed in cages and feed nutritionally optimized diets so we can look at them from the safety and convenience of day trip to a zoo. This is neither a realistic portrayal of the animals in their natural habitat; nor environment to learn about their true behaviors in the wild. But, it is considered a positive experience for the public and beneficial to the animals in captivity.

Cruise ships/all inclusive resorts-I lump these two together because i feel they are very similar. These pay-one-price for food, lodging and activities (and sometimes libations) companies offer a carefully constructed leisure experience designed to produce a positive and fun vacation experience for all who participate. It might take place in a less than optimal locale, like a swamp in Florida, a third-world island country, near the arctic circle or on the open seas. These are traditionally places that were considered dangerous and an undesirable place to vacation. However, now we pay a premium to go there.

Is using a computer/mobile device so different? Jobs has vision of what he believes should be a fun, safe and wholesome experience in a digital world fraught with dangers and insecurity. I wholly agree that this does not fully represent a true picture of the digital world. This also means that many freedoms are restricted in order to maintain a safe and fun digital experience. Is this an arbitrary decision on Jobs part? Yes. It is a bad idea? No. While many people at Apple go along with this plan, it is essentially Steve Jobs' vision of the digital experience he wants Apple's products offer their customers.

So how much is Apple's digital world different, fundamentally, from a cruise ship vacation or a trip to the zoo? If one does not like the restrictions, don't buy Apple's products. Thousands of companies are willing to sell you anything you want for your digital interaction experience or utility. People who go to a Disney resort have made the active choice to be in a controlled, safe (and sanitized?) environment for their vacation. Is this bad? No. Disney fills a niche in the vacation market. Apple fills a niche in the mobile computing market with a controlled, safe and possibly sanitized digital interactive experience with products to manage that interaction.

So leave Jobs alone. Yes, he may be a crazy, control freak, but he makes a damn fine product with a highly polished experience to go along with it.

I believe that there is no mal-intent associated with Apple or Steve Jobs. Are they trying to get their customers to buy more of their controlled digital experience?, Yes. Are their trying to manipulate their customers to buy more of their products or services? No more than any other company. Are they doing this to make more money? You betcha! That's their job in a free market economy. Making money is the American way. Apple has a set of ethics they follow and a lot of customers agree with it; and that is why they make a lot of money.

So why did I buy an Ipad? This is my first Apple product purchase ever (although I was given an Ipod Video by a friend in 2005). I have had a long, geeky affair with electronic devices dating back to 1977 when I bought my first hand-held AM transistor radio at a thrift shop for ten cents (yes, it worked well for many years). I wanted a simple, hassle-free way to manage my digital life. The Ipad gives me that. Also, I knew the limitations of the Ipad before I bought it and I don't ask it to do things it does not do. I have Windows-based PCs at home and work for the tasks they do well. The Ipad was a lifestyle choice for me. Compared to other similar products, it may be considered expensive, but value is a function of utility. I get a lot of utility and functionality from my Ipad. A few years ago, I bought a smaller, cheaper mobile device, but ultimately it did not satisfy my needs. So the nearly $1000 I paid for the 64gb 3G Ipad, taxes, accessories and apps, I got a mobile device that enhances my business and personal lifestyle.

So how does this relate to the environment? I like Apple's sustainability and corporate social responsibility policy. If more companies were more like Apple in this respect, the world would be a less polluted place. Their sustainability reports can be found here. (http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/). Specifically, the environmental report for the Ipad can be found here.

Book Review: "Cradle to Cradle"

2010-09-07T09:48:00.007-04:00

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart addresses some very serious environmental and health issues with our modern industrial society. The book seems to be well researched and the authors have excellent credentials, it came across as a bit of a doomsday scenario book. The books starts with lots of ways people can be exposed to various hazards that are contained in many everyday common products. They also discussed the cumulative effect to repeated and frequent exposure to hazardous substances over the course of a lifetime and it's effect on the immune system. While I agree with what they said, I found it somewhat incomplete. What they did not emphasize was the variables of individual immune response, chemical sensitivity and OSHA exposure limits. While it can be argued that OSHA's exposure limits are occupational only and make the assumption that a certain percentage of the population may still experience illness associated with exposure to certain hazardous materials, a lot of research went into the limit values. I believe that the goal of the book was to scare it's readers into action. Either by petitioning public officials for more enforcement of safety and health regulations or by boycotting the products with hazardous materials or ingredients.

I liked that in the second half of the book was devoted to proposed solutions and business practices that would enable business to minimize or avoid the use of hazardous materials in their products. I like the triple bottom line approach of balancing economic, social and environmental benefits when analyzing a business case or process. Quite a few examples are used to illustrate the methodology.

The end of the book does become more upbeat and ends on a brighter note. Essentially saying that we have the technology and expertise to affect the needed changes, we as a global society need to develop the will and vision to make the change happen.

Thoughts on Green Marketing

2010-09-07T09:44:00.002-04:00

Green marketing is like all marketing. You are fishing. If you use better bait, you have a better chance of a better catch. It does not really matter if you are selling a stereo or green office space, better specifications to a recognized standard improves sales. Greenwashing is a tried and true marketing technique. Salesmen and marketing professionals are compared to politicians and lawyers for a reason.

The problem with real estate development is you need to start selling the space before the building is completed and the certification is awarded. If you are going for LEED Gold, the presumption is that it will be awarded. There are no guarantees on development projects; material substitutions are made during construction, design or operational parameters are modified, budgets fluctuate, and supplier specifications are not realized in operation. Is it ethical to sell a property based on a complex set of variable where they all have to go right to deliver on the promises? Probably not, but honestly assessing the chances of achieving the desired certification or energy efficiency may not be possible. Heck, Toyota thought they had the most reliable car!

NYC is Sustainable

2010-09-07T09:22:00.001-04:00

New York City may have the highest sustainability potential as compared to every other city in the US due to its high population density and excellent transportation system. The new NYC policies like increased tolls for cars and new building codes for high performance buildings will further enhance its sustainability factor. NYC's Department of Design and Construction's “High Performance Building Guidelines”, “High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines” & NYC Local Law 86 have basically made it a requirement for most new construction in the city to be equivalent to a LEED Silver rating. The new building codes will raise the bar for green designed buildings to differentiate themselves with a new higher end building to stand out in the marketplace, and forcing developers to build greener buildings that are benchmarked for satisfactory results to realize the returns on green capital investment. It is unlikely that new green construction in suburbia and rural locations will any chance to compare to NYC due to need for non-urban individuals to drive longer distances and desire to pay lower rents.

Questioning Environmentalism and Conservationism

2010-09-07T08:55:00.001-04:00

These were some thoughts I had when trying to decide on a topic for a paper for my "History of Environmental Architecture, Design and Art" course. Mostly these are questions that try to argue that maybe our currently efforts to preserve nature may be flawed.

In the beginning, man struggled to tame and conquer nature to create a better life with comfort and security. Now nature is struggling to survive in a world of human development. Humanity has completely subjugated all natural parts of the planet and eco-systems top the point that they are unable to compete against the forces of human endeavors.

This raises some questions as to whether nature will continue its slow spiral towards oblivion and what, if anything, should mankind do about it.

• Is the educational value of nature promoted or hindered by the commercialization or regulation of natural areas and parks? If these regulated and/or commercialized areas did not exist or existed in a “raw’ form, would the appreciation of nature be diminished or enhanced?
• In order to defray the cost or recoup the investment in creating parks, nature preserves and museums, concessionaire policy must be included in the design. This leads to excessive consumption associated with food packaging, souvenirs, promotional items, printed material and other forms of waste. While noble causes are touted as the raison d'être, and the consumption is an unfortunate by-product of creating a positive social benefit. However, does it actually promote environmental causes? Would the preservation be hindered if the preserved area were left in an undeveloped state with little gov’t intervention except controlling access to the area?
• Nature does not vote, protest, or disagree in any way to the way mankind treats it. It soldiers on quietly, seemingly oblivious to damage humanity wreaks on it. It marches on recapturing land we have abandoned. It dies slowly (or quickly) against human interference, or continues to survive with human habitation or natural devastation (floods, fires, drought, storms, etc.)
• What is nature? That which is not controlled by mankind. Are we not apart of nature? Are we not apart of the grand design of evolution? If that is so, why has humanity evolved into the most dominant species on the plant? The parts of the planet touched by modern human civilization rarely, if ever, return to their natural state.
• We are about as useful as a swarm of locusts to an eco-system. Humanity suffers from a lack of natural predators, but we are worse than other top of the food chain animals. Most, if not all, animals at the top of the food chain usually have a small population that is dependent on their food source. Humans developed the ability to control their food and increase it with the population growth.
• Nature in its raw form is uninviting, even dangerous. Planned, landscaped and managed “natural” preserves are relatively safe, convenient and fun. Idyllic nature is more likely to be accepted by the populace than “real” nature. The problem is that nature can not really be controlled and still be natural. Uncontrolled is what makes it natural. The species fight for survival and, ultimately, dominance in an eco-system. Balance occurred organically, not by design.
• Natural selection appears to be anathema to modern society. We cannot bear less competitive members of our species to fall behind and suffer because they have a competitive deficiency. “That is what makes us human” is often argued. However, this is “unnatural”.
• Parks are to be neat, manicured and landscaped. Overgrowth, clutter and randomness are considered objectionable by a great many of the visitors of parks. This may explain why cruise ships and resorts are so popular for vacation destinations. The thought of being within 20 feet of a 2000 pound bison that can turn your car over if it got spooked is not acceptable to most vacationers.
• Environmentalists and conservationists are the new frontiersman of the modern day. Forging a trail to conquer the wildness of human civilization. The urban jungle, suburban sprawl, and industrial development are the new wilderness. These are the frontiers to be conquered now.
• Wild and untamed is the opposite of civilized and commercialized. Nature in America and other parts of the world can only be preserved if it is commercialized. There are many attractions dedicated to celebrating nature, complete with visitor’s centers, glossy literature, gift shops, toilet facilities, plaques and monuments, and paved paths.
• What does this mean? Are the masses not interested in nature if it is not tamed and accessible? Hunters often proclaim themselves are naturalist and protectors of the wilderness, only to kill the vary animals for sport they are claiming to protect. They also claim that they are helping to control population, but after the natural predators are eliminated by mankind. Is wildlife to be preserved so more hunters can go into nature and kill the inhabitants for generations to come. Why do hunters feel the need to justify their lust for killing with some noble cause? Who is buying it? Other hunters?
• Photographers go out into nature to capture images of fauna and flora to display for others to view. Presumably, for the purpose of showing the beauty of nature. Photographers are very selective in what is displayed. Only images that are likely to sell well are placed on display. Beautiful and exotic animals, dramatic landscapes, autumn foliage, etc. are very popular images. What about mundane nature scenes? If photography cannot be commercialized it is ignored. Are photographers truly interested in wilderness? Perhaps.
• Is it right to question the motivations of anyone or group that helps the environment (either directly or indirectly)? Should we be satisfied that they are furthering an environmental cause rather than hindering it or standing by in apathy or inaction. Do we need to learn their underlying motivation before we accept them with open arms if they express a desire to participate in environmental or natural causes? The world is filled with charlatans masquerading as responsible citizens. Should we police the do-gooders instead of dedicating more time to the cause?
• Does eco-tourism promote or hinder eco-causes? Clearly, making nature profitable is an excellent way to preserve its existence in our modern society. Should we turn our nose up at profitable enterprises that seek to maintain the natural state of a preserved area? Further is it wrong to “make a buck” on nature if it is nature that may ultimately benefit the enterprise? In the long run, the enterprise must preserve the area for continued profitability. This is under the assumption that management is far sighted enough to continue to protect the natural state of the area.
• Is it a requirement that nature be pretty or beautiful to qualify for preservation? Like physical beauty in a human that is “only skin deep”, usually scientists and the well informed public understand that the balance of nature is ultimately more important than a few pretty or cute animal species, like panda bears and tropical tree frogs. However, without the drama of cute animals being endangered, will the public at large really care about the threat to the balance of nature?

Light Pollution Reduction

2010-09-07T08:29:00.003-04:00

Light pollution is a rarely acknowledged problem. As a matter of fact, I never gave it a thought, until I did the research for my Green Building and Sustainable Development course. The impact to the environment is much greater than we realize and now I am very thankful that it is included in the LEED standard. There is a tremendous waste of electricity to power all the lights shining into the night sky; and a negative impact on nocturnal wildlife that relies on darkness to hunt and thrive.

This LEED requirement seeks to achieve the following:
• Minimize light trespass from building and site
• Reduce sky glow
• Improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction
• Reduce development impact on nocturnal environments

1) Is this requirement and criteria important:
Yes, there is a tremendous amount of energy being consumed by lighting offices at night when nobody is in them. When light from outdoor fixtures (security, architectural & landscaping) is not controlled, there is a great deal of loss of light into the sky, illumination of beyond the property, and compromised security. Lights used to illuminate buildings and landscaping features are attractive, but who is awake after 11pm to appreciate it. It just wastes energy. There is a grassroots movement to reduce the sky-glow in urban areas because so few stars are visible at night. I believe this will continue to gain mainstream support in the future. Improved visibility at night for security purposes may be enhanced by reducing luminosity levels to minimize contrast and glare. Nocturnal animal habitats are compromised when developed sites are in close proximity.

2) How it would be applied to a particular building type:
Many corporate centers are in suburban or semi-rural areas. For example, the New York Life building in Sleepy Hollow, NY is mostly empty from 6pm on. Yet the many of the interior office lights remain on and are visible from RT9 hundreds of yards away and the parking lot lights remain on. This site is surrounded by dozens of acres of woods. It is a beautiful setting, yet little respect is paid to the dozens or hundreds of animal species that forage for food at night; all for the few individuals who work after dark. It is an unnecessary waste of energy lighting a 50,000sf building and parking lot from 11pm-5am.

For outdoor lights, the horizontal light area should not be within 2.5x the height of the fixture from the site boundary (lights mounted on poles and buildings). The lighting densities should not exceed ASHRAE 90.1 2007. Sky facing façade & landscape light fixtures should not exceed 50 watts. The site boundary should not have light levels more than 20% above background levels, but zero is preferable.

(Non-emergency) interior lights in direct line of sight of envelop openings should be occupancy/program controlled to shut off after hours. Windows may be shaded to prevent light trespass at night; although, this still uses energy unnecessarily.

How much energy does it take to light up the planet at night?

3) How subjective/objective rating would be:
Actually, the rating is reasonably well defined. However, the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 standard changes every year or two. This moving target may cause a property to fall out of compliance in the future. The LEED SS8 requirement is updated less frequently.

4) How difficult and expensive is meeting this requirement, include some financial analysis:
A photo-metric site plan by a professional lighting designer takes into account concepts that are complicated, not well understood by construction professionals, and can be easily misinterpreted or poorly executed by installers. It is difficult to speculate on the cost of a light analysis and design implementation for any given project. The vertical and horizontal levels must be determined for all outdoor lighting fixtures. Fixtures may not fit the architectural design of the project and still satisfy the requirements. Placement of interior lighting must be designed in conjunction with the shell and its openings (windows & doors). The lighting design firm must be involved early and continue to be consulted throughout the duration of the project.

It is recommended that non-emergency interior light levels be reduced by 50% from closing to 11pm, and shut off from 11pm-5am. In addition, by limiting the vertical and horizontal light field for fixtures aimed at the ground and limiting the skyward light to 50 watts; there will likely be a significant operational energy savings and minimal light loss. Basically, the owner/operator is getting the light they are paying for.

Other considerations: what are the legal liabilities if an injury occurs on the property by a trespasser? Is it just cheaper to keep outdoor lights on all night in the event that the property owner may get sued for negligence?

Unfortunately, all this effort is worth only one LEED point.

Book Review: "Green to Gold" by Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston

2010-09-07T08:19:00.003-04:00

Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston’s book, Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, (first published in 2006, and updated in 2009) is a treasure trove of principles and methods backed up with numerous examples on how a business can look at most environmental issues through “the environmental lens” to find solutions to problems that might otherwise be deemed impossible or unfeasible to be solved.

First off, I loved this book! This is exactly the kind of information I am seeking for my graduate work. No fluff, no rhetoric, just an explanation of the many environmental issues facing business decision makers, solutions to many of them, why they work, and why some do not work.

The overriding theme of the book is to show companies how to take “Eco-Advantage” of their environmental problems; essentially turn challenges into opportunities. This buzzword is used throughout the book in much the way a marketing slogan is promoted. Since that is how most managers and executive think, I agree it is a smart move.

Nearly all of the examples and case studies focus on the manufacturing, raw material extraction and retailing industries. There were no examples of commercial office space or multi-unit residential buildings. Most likely, they were not perceived as toxic emissions or carbon footprint sources. However, many of the concepts and principles can be cross pollinated to the real estate and construction world.

One of the concepts discussed a strategy to build Eco-Advantage. There are four parts to it; they are broken down in to two sections:
• Managing the Downside
o Cost – improved process efficiency, resource productivity
o Risk - poor risk management, fallout from poor media & public response
• Building the Upside
o Revenues – superior design, eco-marketing, position in an market space
o Intangibles – build corporate reputation and positive brand recognition
This graphic from the book shows the relationship of these elements in strategic planning. Developers and building owners can evaluate their projects in a similar manner, using different language, as a product launch. However, the environmental lens is applied to determine if value can be added-thus the Eco-Advantage.

• What is the cost of LEEDs certification?
• What are potential added revenue sources for the project?
• Can I gain the benefits from an alternate path than traditional methods?

The authors emphasized that a commitment from the top management of the organization is key to successful implementation of the any green initiatives. Without visionary direction and management support, most green initiatives die on the vine.

The Empire State Building was highly visible symbol for 20th century environmental apathy. The project’s management team, its partners, and the owners wanted to change New York’s and the world’s perceptions of this Grande Dame. They set goals, developed a strategic plan and executed the plan. The decision process can easily be adapted to this retrofit project.

• Downside:
o Costs – the retrofit of core mechanical systems, lighting and shell
o Risks – Would the retrofit achieve design goals? Would energy savings meet hurdle rates? Would the stakeholders criticize the changes? Would the building fail to attract new corporate tenants?
• Upside:
o Revenue – Higher occupancy rates, higher eco rent premiums, higher margins on existing leases
o Intangibles – Compete for top tier tenants with corporate eco-policies, Scalability to other properties in company portfolio, repositioned brand as an eco-innovator, ease hurdles for future projects

The Bank of America building another example of a strong management commitment to sticking to “Stretch Goals” as described in the book. As arguably the first LEED Platinum skyscraper in the world, the BOA building’s design team most likely look at each component and sub assembly of the construction to find ways to cost effect ways to achieve the lofty goal of LEED Platinum certification. The same decision matrix may be utilized.

Another eco-advantage concept described in the book is transparency and participation of stakeholders in the sustainable strategy planning. Just like a business seeking approvals for building a new industrial facility, real estate developers have to deal with many community groups, NGOs and government agencies.

By bringing the stakeholders into the process, concerns and issues can be resolved with costly long delays and/or redesigns. Quicker approvals and improved project phasing can be a real cost savings.
While this graphic is geared towards a more industrial application, these few changes make this directly applicable to Real estate development:

• Consumers = Tenants/buyers
• Rulemakers = Regulatory agencies
• Watchdogs = Non-profit groups
• Opinion Leaders = Media groups,
• Idea Generators = Business development councils
• All the other stakeholders are the same

While this looks like a large group that may have difficulty finding consensus among the varied interests and priorities. Each one can exert a varying amount of influent on a project, either positive or negative. What are the chances that excluding any of these groups in the development process will benefit the project in the long run? More than likely, these stakeholders will cause delays further down the line in the process cycle that may be more costly to deal with after the design is approved.

Much ink was used to describe the importance of applying the environmental lens to the value chain. The value chain is every step from raw material to end user disposal of a product. This can be applied to a real estate development project in a similar fashion.

• Raw building materials – where are they sourced? What is the carbon footprint and environmental impact of their extraction and transportation to the processing factory?
• Manufacturing of building materials – what emissions are associated with the industrial process? Are there alterative materials or suppliers using a greener process? Can the carbon footprint and environmental impact be minimized?
• Transportation to the jobsite – will long distances offset the benefit of greener building material?
• Project phasing –damage to stored or installed building materials (floods, storms, vandalism, theft, etc.), minimize duplication of labor
• Construction methods - techniques that minimize jobsite emissions (respirable dust, silica, VOCs, etc.), avoiding VOC containing compounds, pre-build assemblies, control run-off, minimize waste materials, etc.
• Property operation – run off, maintenance operations, tenant space use, energy use and unforeseen circumstances (extended hours of operation, unintended property use, like retail or data center)
• Waste disposal – Solid, liquid, gas; building and tenant waste
• Deconstruction – reuse building components in the next structure on the site, sort demolished building for recycling (steel, aluminum, masonry)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – this should be the mantra for any green building project. In addition the authors advocate “Redesign and Reimagine” By looking at each element to a building and/or site project, every traditional methodology should be examined for ways to find cost and environmental benefits. The book sited many examples of manufacturing processes that were redesigned for environmental benefit that resulted in realized cost savings or new profit centers for the company.

Another major decision making tool is AUDIO Analysis. It is matrix of ten environmental issues that may be impacted by a companies operation. Relevant key steps in a business process is examined with environmental lens to determine of the process adversely affects on of the environmental issues on the left side of the matrix.

Environmental Issues:
• Climate Change
• Energy
• Water
• Biodiversity
• Chemicals & Toxics
• Air Pollution
• Waste Management
• Ozone Layer
• Oceans
• Deforestation

Business Processes:
• Aspects – potential environmental impact
• Upstream – impact from sourcing of materials: extraction, transportation, manufacturing, delivery to site, installation
• Downstream – usage impact by property and tenant/owner
• Issues – immediate and future, including possible scenarios
• Opportunities – alternatives and process changes that can mitigate impact or solution that benefits

There was a chapter on hurdle rates and payback, but none of the examples were relevant to construction, but that does not mean the basic cost analysis is much different.

This graphic shows who cares about the environmental efforts a company makes and their influence indicating their power to hinder or assist in project development. In addition, they are in a position to damage or buildup a company’s brand or reputation, which may impact the success of the next project the developer is involved in.

This book is almost a “how-to” on shifting a company’s culture to looking at every business issue through the environmental lens to seek Eco-Advantage. It was clear that while not every eco-proposal or idea worked in reality or was financially feasible, but it was clear that a whole company commitment and a determined refusal to accept defeat is every bit as necessary in finding an environmentally beneficial business or engineering solution as any other area of business endeavor. Often this determination results in startlingly good benefits to the bottom line that would never have occurred without using the environmental lens to look at most if not all operational challenges.

I cannot recommend this book enough to any business decision maker, even if they have little interest in environmental issues (common in the construction and real estate fields). Nobody wants to be the guinea pig and have an idea not pan out. The fallout from delayed schedules or cost overruns is profound, even career killing for a construction professional. That is why developers and architects need to be the visionaries. This vision must be communicated to a skilled and experienced design team to bring goals to fruition.

Is a $1200 hand dryer more economical than hand towels?

2010-09-07T08:11:00.009-04:00

Dyson AirBlade Hand Dryer vs. Paper Towels & Conventional Hand Dryers

The Dyson Corporation is well known for their unusual bag-less vacuum cleaners. However, a few years ago they came out with an unusual public restroom hand dryer. It has since become the vanguard of commercial hand dryers. There are some emulators, but Dyson is like the Apple of the market segments it sell product in. The Airblade™ is three times more expensive as the competing, American Dryer hand dryer, but the Airblade™ offers a number technology features and refinements that its rivals do not offer; thus allowing it to be priced at a premium. In addition, it is more identifiable and can be used as a marketable feature of one’s green building status.

The Airblade™ costs $1200 versus about $200 for a basic warm air dryer. The cost of a towel dispenser with integrated trash bin is about $120. However, due to the added cost of electrical connection for the hand dryers, I eliminated the cost of the dispenser from the calculations.

Dyson provides a calculator on their website for prospective buyers to compare paper towel usage and conventional warm air hand dryers to their product. I have taken their numbers and worked them more to drill down to more accurate costing information.

There are a few costs that are probably factored into the purchase price of paper towels, but I feel they need to be mentioned due to their CO2 cost and other factors.

• Shipping to facility
• warehousing of product at all stages
• labor to re-stock towel dispenser
• labor to clean restrooms
• labor to remove trash
• trash pickup costs
• Landfill labor and costs
• All the chemicals and processes used to the paper towels
Based on the comparison of the three types of hand drying options, the operational cost calculation was run with three daily usage levels. Obviously, with a much higher upfront cost associated with the Airblade™, high daily usage will more easily justify the unit.

The first table shows usage costs based on the number of duty cycles per day:

This table below shows how many months (or days) are required to recoup the initial cost of the dryer over paper towels:

The conventional hand dryer pays back the investment in a shorter amount of time over the Airblade™. Factors such as down time and repairs are not calculated.
This table below shows how many pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are saved over paper towels when using a hand dryer in a restroom:

The above table shows why the Airblade™ and similar dryer are LEEDs certified products and conventional dryers & paper towels are not.

Just as a point of interest, I did a little research on the use of recycled paper over virgin paper. I found that the manufacture (& transportation?) of one ton of paper consumes the following resources:

Recycled paper is better, but not that much. It saves about 20% on CO2. The real benefit to using recycled paper is it saves trees and landfill space.

The use of the Airblade™ (or other similar high speed cold air dryer) over the conventional warm air dryer is a difficult financial justification in low usage situations, such as small restaurant or small office. However, in a large busy office or other public restroom, the payback or ROI can be quite short.

The annual CO2 reduction for the Airblade™ over the use of paper towels and warm air drying is dramatic. 500 to 4000 pounds of CO2 per unit annually can really add up when a new commercial building is designed. A new twenty story building is likely to have 4 units per floor. Eighty units at 400 uses per day is a savings of 156,800 pounds of CO2 annually. This figure does not even include the uncalculated CO2 amounts noted above.

Another benefit is user satisfaction: how many times have we gone into a bathroom only to be annoyed to find a hand dryer instead of paper towels? Nobody likes to use them, but everyone loves to use the Airblade™. It is fun and works well. If Apple had designed a hand dryer, it would be like the Airblade™.

More Stuff

2010-06-20T23:44:00.005-04:00

In America, we have lots of stuff and, according to George Carlin, We "need a place for our stuff." The marketing and advertising departments of large corporations usually refer to us as consumers not customers. A swarm of locust consume; fires consume; we, as Americans, consume resources. However, it is not just Americans, now it is most of the world. It used to be that the world could point to America and say how wasteful we were, but now the rest of the world wants to be more like America. According to the Matrix film character Mr. Smith, humans are a virus, a plague. We consume all the usable resources of an area and then move to another area. Our existence is not sustainable within our environment. We do not live in harmony with our environment or synergistically with other living species except maybe dogs. We extract minerals, fossil fuels, organics, etc. With no plan or thought about replacing what we take. We just take. Even most parasites live in harmony with their hosts. For many millions of years plants and animals lived together to make a world of balance, sustainable growth and beauty. Opportunistic bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites grow and increase their populations until they damage or kill their host. All living organisms are parasites on the planet; and all have found some sort of balance with the Earth, except modern humans.

From about 1700 AD on, humans developed the power to dramatically change the environment. Humans are addicted to power, the more we get, the more we want, both individually and societally. This addiction takes many cultural forms; some more malignant than others. Tibetan Monks live a more benign existence with little or no negative impact on the environment. Western free market economic consumerism is one of the more malignant cancers of the planet and will negatively impact most other organisms with which we coexist on the planet. There are three possible outcomes from this. First, we will kill our host, thus destroying the very planet humans need to survive. Second, the host will find a way to rid itself of the offending parasite. That would be very bad for humankind and most of the other life forms on the planet that would suffer the same fate. Lastly, the offending parasite learns to harmoniously coexist with the host and it's neighbors to form a more symbiotic relationship.

Some may argue that a higher spiritual power will either save us or prevent us from destroying the planet. Without getting into a debate over the existence of such a spiritual power, let's assume it exists and is rational and intelligent. Why should it help humankind? We are arrogant, selfish, self-centered, impetuous, immature and self-destructive. Are we special, chosen, deserving? Just because we believe in the higher power does not endow humans with any kind of "get out of jail free" card. Do we get a free ride on the bus because we believe in the driver, the bus, or the bus company? No, we get a ride because we made a fair exchange for the ride. All the planet asks of the riders that they live together in symbiosis and harmony.

So why do so many of us humans need things. The objects we possess represent an aggrandizement that we view of ourselves. Our hopes, dreams, and especially our fears and vanity are controlling influences in our quest to aggrandize our lives. Why do we keep score in games and sports? Why do we tell ourselves and other about our accomplishments and deeds? Why to we espouse schools of thought and beliefs and then try to convince others that it is better than theirs thoughts and beliefs? We are trying to justify to ourselves that we have worth. Even (or usually) if the worth is illusionary. Things or objects are merely a mechanism for our psyche to assign a scorecard of measuring self-worth. How's that for pop psychology!!!

Getting back to consumerism. In our free market economic society, it has been demonstrated that the happiness and well being of humans is improved when economic conditions improve. However, there is no ride on the bus without a fair exchange of some sort. What are we offering for the bounty of the Earth? We are only recently doing a few token gestures. Walmart now plants a few trees; we installed a few winds farms that kill thousands of birds each year; we have installed tidal power generators that injure or kill marine wildlife; we install solar panels on many square miles of desert that disrupt the ecosystems; we build hydro-power dams and destroy ecosystems and displace whole species of wildlife that disrupt other ecosystems. Of course I could go on, but it is safe to say that these are token efforts designed to lessen the harm and relieve some of the guilt we may feel about the damage we have done. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of these efforts. I just hope that it is not too little, too late.

Among providers of goods and services, there is a bit of contemptuous disdain for consumers. Don't believe me? Try contacting the customer service departments of most companies. They make it very easy to find them when you are ready to offer money for their product, not so much if you are not happy with it. They say the customer is king, but their actions usually say otherwise. Just to be clear, there are many relationship-based businesses that do not operate like that. However, they represent a very small proportion of the products sold that negatively impact the environment.

How many consumers trace the environmental or social impact provenance of the products they purchase? Nearly none. Why? Deep down, we really don't care, we want what we want, and that is that. We want to be told that it is OK, either by the manufacturer's marketing machine, an advocacy group (many of which are fronts setup by corporations to refute legitimate groups that do not support their position) or a government agency. I know that is a controversial statement. Some may argue that they are trying to make a difference by recycling, driving a hybrid car, etc., etc. I'm not better than anybody else. No one wants to think of themselves as a bad person, but we are who we are. There is no point in making self-affirming statements or sugar coating it. If we could change we would have. We don't have the collective will to sacrifice our standard of living or our need for more stuff.

It's been a while...

2010-06-03T23:42:00.002-04:00

...Since I last posted here. The good news is I enrolled in graduate school for sustainability studies at New York University. The bad news is it took up all my free time. Well the semester is over, I got good grades on my courses and I'm feeling pretty good about the whole ordeal. While it is like crazy expensive, I learned a lot and it opened my eyes to many areas of interest for me. I plan on posting many of the relevant articles and other documents here in the near future.

The academic atmosphere was great, the perspective was very different from the everyday perspective I was living in before the semester. Academic research and presentation is more rigorous with very little can be taken for granted. The two classes were "Green building and sustainable development" and "History of environmental architecture, design and art".

2009-12-20T22:40:00.001-05:00

I have published my first e-book. Please check it out.

Unintentional Environmentalist

2009-12-17T00:13:00.004-05:00

My grandmother had her first child (my mother) in 1931. Her second in 1933; her third in 1936; and her fourth in 1943. She raised her family during the worst economic times in the history of the US. My grandfather was in the army for his entire 50-year career as an enlisted soldier (regular army and active reserves). They never suffered the way some did, but they never prospered either. They managed by being very thrifty. I mean VERY thrifty. That meant they never bought anything they didn’t really need and reused everything they could to avoid throwing it out. That is exactly what many environmental advocates are saying now. Reuse, Renew, Recycle.

The first member of my family to claim to be an “environmentalist” was me; next was my sister. We have nothing on my parents and grandparents. Here are a few examples things I saw at my grandmother’s house and/or grew up with at my parent’s house:

• The lids of baby food jars were nailed to a board and the board was mounted under a shelf. The jars were filled with nuts, bolts, screws and other small widgets. They rarely purchased organizers.
• All metal tins used for packaging (like Danish cookies) were used for storage.
• Most glass jars were used for storage of some sort, or for canning. I family never bought a mason jar.
• Any piece of scrap wood found a purpose: shelving, brackets, fixing something, etc.
• The twistys from plastic bags always got reused.
• We never bought trash bags, string, rope, rubber bands, pens, pencils, paper pads, packing peanuts, bubble wrap, lunch bags, and many other items.
• We rarely bought new clothing; we always had hand-me-downs from the family and the neighbors.
• Shoes were replaced when there were holes that could not be fixed.
• Appliances were repaired when they broke. I remember going to the TV repair shop many times as a kid.

I’m sure I could go on if I kept thinking about it. But I think I made my point. We live in a disposable society now. My parents and grandparents were much better for the environment than my wife and I, and we are both committed environmentalists.

UPDATE: 12/18/2009

I though of a few more things my mother recycled:
~Old stockings with runs were used as stuffing in various sewn items
~Department or specialty store shopping bags with handles were used as gift bags long before you could buy gift bags in the store
~The comics from the newpaper were used as wrapping paper
~Brown paper from grocery store shopping bags and an old piece of string were used to wrap parcels to be shipped by the post office.
~The small plastic trays from frozen dinners were used was plates (if they were nice)

Sustainability=Profits

2009-12-16T23:56:00.005-05:00

There is one aspect of sustainability management that is often ignored: going green can be good for the financial bottom line. An investment in technology that helps the environment usually pays dividends for many years. Lets look at a few examples:

• Solar & wind power generation equipment lasts decades with little maintenance.
• Energy star appliances, programmable HVAC equipment and electronics that power down with no activity saves energy for the life of the unit.
• Low-VOC building materials as specified in LEEDS certification allows new building occupancy sooner after completion. Thus becoming revenue generating more quickly.
• Well designed and executed indoor environments mean few “sick building” related illnesses and more productivity from workers.
• Hey! Being "green" is marketing gold these days. An enhanced corporate image from being a good corporate citizen is probably cheaper than fancy ad campaigns to convince the client base that the company is good, or the cost of attorneys if the company got caught doing something bad.

Any investment needs to have a forecast-able rate of return before a company is willing to spend the money. No one is willing to risk their job if they think they have a slam-dunk investment somewhere else. That is the mentality of big business.

Another problem is length of time on return of investment. the ROI of many green investments can take 5-20 years. Most corporate managers do not have that kind of time horizon for payback. 3-5 years is more likely.

Also, there is the matter of passing on costs. Will office or resident building tenants pay the rent premium for a "green” building (a debate in Manhattan going on right now)? Probably not, even if it saves them money in the long run.

Until the return on green investment is more quantifiable, only the more ambition and committed companies are going to make the investment.

Climate Change may not be bad for the planet

2009-12-16T23:22:00.005-05:00

The planet has survived many events worse than civilization-induced global warming. Many species of plants and animals have not fared as well during past events. There have been at least five mass extinctions in the last 500 million years, in which it is estimated that 90% of life was wiped out. Mankind will not fare too well if we have another one.

for those keeping scope at home:

• Cretaceous (About 65 million years ago.)
• Triassic (About 208 million years ago.)
• Permian (About 245 million years ago)
• Devonian (About 360 million years ago.)
• Ordovician (About 438 million years ago.)

So what does this mean? Should we continue to treat the Earth like the bus station bathroom for the sake of convenience, arrogance and profit? Or should we try to curtail some of our environmentally abusive behavior so our children and grand-children have less mess to clean up.

There has been a lot of chatter on the interweb about the “leaked” emails about manipulated data about climate change. Many “doubters” of human-induced global warming like to point to this incident to justify their position. Well, if that makes them feel good about their way of thinking, so be it. I think that most people can agree that our modern industrial civilization is having an impact on the meteorological balance of the planet. The question is: how much? And can we do anything about it in a reasonable amount of time to change the direction that it is going?

It is has been suggested that we are in a global warming trend. The last ice age ended about ten thousand years ago. So if the planet has cycles of heating and cooling, we are likely in a warming phase. And if that is true, does it matter what we do? I think it does. If you add fuel to a fire it burns more; if you push a go-cart down a hill it moves faster. If you poke a bear with a stick, it will not end well. Maybe we are in a warming cycle, but let’s not make it worse. Maybe we can minimize the damage we are doing.

There is a lot of politicking going on in Copenhagen this week. The summit has tuned into a “what can I get out of it” fest. Wonderful! The planet will just dispatch humanity like the way a dog scratches a flea. Then we, humans, will just start blaming each other for why it happened. Not one of the delegates at the Climate Control conference sees this as anything other than a way to look good to whom they answer to: voters, heads of state, etc.

16,000 whining officials whose major function in life is to keep their position, well they are doing a great job. The planet will do its thing and we will suffer along with many other resident species.

America Recycles Day - November 15

2009-11-16T12:03:00.003-05:00

Today is America Recycles Day. Learn more about it here.

Twenty years ago, only one curbside recycling program existed in the U.S. Today, there are more than 10,000 curbside programs across the country

According to AmericaRecyclesDay.org, last year, the amount of energy saved from recycling aluminum and steel cans, plastic PET and glass containers, newsprint and corrugated packaging was equivalent to:

-The amount of electricity consumed by 17.8 million Americans in one year
-The amount of gasoline used in almost 11 million passenger automobiles in one year
-7.9 percent of electricity generation from fossil fuels in the U.S. in one year

Atlantic City Convention Center "Green" Initiative

2009-11-02T00:30:00.003-05:00

I was recently that the AC convention center and learned that it is on the forefront of eco-friendly design. Check out this link.

The solar power system, the largest single roof-mounted solar array in the United States, is comprised of approximately 13,321 modules/panels, covers two-thirds of the main roof of the convention center or about 290,000 square feet. This will produce approximately 26% of annual electrical consumption and save nearly $4.4 million in electricity costs and 2,349 tons of carbon dioxide over the 20-year contract. In addition, The wind turbines produce approximately 16% of annual electrical consumption, for a total of 42%. Nice!

The recycling efforts for 2009 include:

* Paper, cardboard: 26,220 lbs.
* Glass, Plastic, Aluminum, Bottles & Cans, Shrink Wrap: 6.25 tons
* Lamps: 1,650
* Ballasts: 2,350
* Carpet: 4,500 lbs.
* Miscellaneous Iron and Steel: 69,598 lbs.
* Solar Project: 11.17 tons of corrugated board and 9.5 tons of pallets.
* Show Materials Landscaping: Installed as part of Landscaping improvements.
* Recyclable replacement cartridges on soap dispensers
* Office printer cartridges
* Cooking oil

EVs of NY

2009-11-01T23:59:00.005-05:00

For anyone interested buying an electric car or converting an existing vehicle and live in the NY tri-state area, there is a local dealer in Westchester County. Electric Cars of New York is located in Ossining, NY.

I recently met the owner, Eric Illowsky, who was very easy going and very open about his business with me. I drove one of his cars, which was a converted Saab 900. It was fast with lots of acceleration. Gone are the days of wimpy, underpowered EVs. This is a normal sized car with an electric motor under the hood and Lithium batteries in the trunk. The batteries take up some of the trunk room, but leaves enough for groceries or a couple golf club bags. All the electric accessories worked, including powered seats. So not much compromising on comfort.

This car is the company's test mule and not everything was completely sorted out, but I have to say that it was a lot of fun to drive. When it is finished it should be like a regular car, except cleaner and quieter. Eric tells me that it cruises at 75 miles per hour and will go about 75 miles per charge.

They also sell new electric vehicles. Most of their business is with fleets. They can be reached at 914-944-4034

This is not a paid endorsement and there is no consideration from the company to me. I just love the fact that we have a resource like in our back yard.

Fun Factoid about the US government

2009-11-01T23:43:00.001-05:00

On Public Transportation

2009-11-01T23:34:00.003-05:00

This is a rant written by a friend of mine to me by email and it is published with her permission. She expresses a level of frustration we all have experienced with public transit at one time or another.

If America had any interest in becoming Green we would stop yelling about healthcare and invest in our public transportation. Why the comparison? In 2007 24% of our national budget was dedicated to Medicare and Medicaid while a whopping 2.8% went to transportation.

Here was my commute last night. Please note that the total trip is approximately 80 miles.

I left my office at 5:30 and tried to catch the cross-town (NYC) bus. It is billed as a 30 minute bus ride, but, since I waited during peak hours for 20 minutes for a bus to arrive-we can safely say that time is actually more like a 50 minute ride. I then waited 15 minutes for a bus to take me to New Jersey. Again, the Jersey bus ride is billed as a 40 minute ride, but due to traffic this trip was more like an hour. I then DROVE 20 miles, because no bus runs in the morning from the local Park and Ride that arrives before 7:00 am despite the fact that everyone from nurses and teachers to construction workers, transit workers, warehouse workers and janitors work shifts that START at 7:00 am. So I was 2:15 into the commute before I started driving. For the record, the 20 mile drive took 30 minutes. Had I driven, the commuting time would have been approximately 1.5 hours. In order to be “green” I spent an hour more on the road then I needed to. Multiply this by 4 days a week (I’ll assume 1 day a week is a breakeven) and I’m losing 200 hours a year. Yay me!

Today I looked into a train ride to Baltimore for next weekend. A train trip from Manhattan is a nice, speedy 2.45 hours in each direction (let’s not consider getting back to NJ) and at first I was reasonably excited by the idea. I could go to Baltimore, spend the night and return, rested and refreshed the next day. Then I looked at the price—it’s going to cost me $94.00 in each direction. As a comparison if I drive the entire trip is going to cost approximately $50 in gas and tolls.

It is unrealistic to urge people to use public transportation without being able to provide safe, affordable, on-time service. As long as cars get priority on our roads, are less expensive to use and provide an all around better experience people will not use public transportation. Period.

Photo Exhibition

2009-11-01T23:26:00.002-05:00

I am planning on doing a solo photo exhibition in December if everything goes according to plan. I have to sit with the curator to select the images and then prepare them for display. I'll update y'all with more info soon.

Facebook

2009-11-01T22:38:00.004-05:00

I joined Facebook this week. Great resource! Huge time sucker!

Ontario high school student develops way to decompose plastic bags in months

2009-11-01T22:30:00.003-05:00

This is a re-publishing of an article in the Waterloo Record that can be found here.

July 01, 2008
Kristine Owram, THE CANADIAN PRESS
The Canadian Press, 2008

TORONTO - As jurisdictions across Canada take action to ban the use of landfill-clogging plastic bags, which can take up to 1,000 years to decompose, an Ontario high school student has discovered a way to break down the pesky plastic in a matter of months.

Daniel Burd, a 17-year-old student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, took home the top prize at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa for his project.

The prize earned him $10,000, as well as several other awards and entrance scholarships to various universities equalling tens of thousands of dollars.

But Burd, who will start Grade 12 in the fall, is modest about his idea, saying it literally hit him on the head one day.

"At home I have to do chores if I follow my mom's instructions,"Burd said in a telephone interview from his home in Waterloo, Ont. "Each time I open the closet where we keep our cleaning supplies and things like that, the plastic bags are on the top shelf and they always fall down like an avalanche onto my head.

"One day I just got so tired of it and I began to research it to find out what other people are doing with these plastic bags, and through my research I found out that we're not doing too much."

Burd discovered that approximately 500 billion plastic bags are used worldwide each year. Billions of these end up in the oceans, where they are ingested by animals that often die as a result.

He also learned that plastic bags can take anywhere between 20 and 1,000 years to decompose - numbers in which Burd found unlikely inspiration.

Burd's hypothesis was that if plastic bags do eventually break down, it should be possible to isolate and concentrate the micro-organism responsible for the decomposition, thus speeding up the process.

To test his hypothesis, Burd took a few soil samples from a local landfill and mixed them with polyethylene, the substance used to make plastic bags, as well as a solution to encourage bacterial growth. After concentrating the solution several times and incubating it for 12 weeks, Burd took the resulting bacterial culture and tested it on strips of polyethylene.

After six weeks, the strips had lost more than 17 per cent of their weight compared to a set of control strips.

Burd concluded that a combination of two types of bacteria - Sphingomonas and Pseudomonas - was most effective at breaking down the polyethylene. After isolating these two bacteria, combining them with some sodium acetate and incubating the solution at 37 C, Burd was able to degrade the plastic by 43 per cent in six weeks. He figures the solution would entirely break down plastic bags in a matter of three months.

Burd said his findings could have a real impact on the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills - or as litter in our oceans and on our streets.

He envisions what he calls "recycling stations" for plastic bags, which would essentially act as large composters.

"It's like a container with constant temperatures and conditions in which you would have your liquid solution, your microbes and your plastic bags," he said.

Burd said he plans to keep working on his project to further reduce the time it takes to decompose the plastic bags, and he's thinking big when it comes to the future.

"To do that, it would be necessary to do more work in the laboratory with sequencing and things like that, and then after that, you can take it to the patent level," he said.

He acknowledges his discovery is a "very big step," but says there's a lot more work to do before it's marketable.

In the meantime, the ever-modest Burd says he will continue to work towards getting into a good university to study science.

"I hope I will go to university. I plan to apply."

Dick Armey: It is pretentious to believe in global warming

2009-11-01T21:53:00.007-05:00

Apparently, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) thinks that because God made the planet, he (God) would not permit global warming to occur. Brilliant!

Here is a quote from Armey from an article at thinkprogress.org:

"What I’m suggesting is we have a sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria going on and it leads me to almost wonder if we are becoming a nation of environmental hypochondriacs that are willing to use the power of the state to impose enormous restrictions on the rights and the comforts of, and incomes of individuals who serve essentially a paranoia, a phobia, that has very little fact evidence in fact. Now these are observations that are popular to make because right now its almost taken as an article of faith that this crisis is real. Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that, that we are going to destroy God’s creation."

Here is the link to the article:
thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/armey-pollution-gospel/

I'm speechless. I don't understand these kinds of statements. I don't remember that lesson in Sunday School. However, a little research on Wikipedia.org revealed that Dick is a "glass house living, rock throwing" kind of guy.

Dick Armey has a PhD in Economics and was a professor before becoming a congressman.

Recycling Old Wood Pallets

2009-10-04T03:07:00.004-04:00

This is re-published from LifeHackery.com.

Have you ever seen wooden pallets sitting outside of a commercial building? Have you ever wondered what happens to them?

In some cases, the pallets are recycled or sold to someone who can use them. A lot of the time, though, they end up in the garbage - approximately 150 million of them per year. Wooden pallets are a massive drain on resources and a huge burden on the waste disposal system.

So why not give them a new life? Some businesses are happy to get rid of their wooden pallets. If they normally pay to have them hauled to the landfill, they will be happy for you to take the pallets for no charge.

What can you do with pallets? Realistically, they aren’t the highest quality wood you’ll ever find. However, they are good enough for inexpensive furniture and decorations when you can’t afford to buy pre-made…or if you’re a believer in the dorm-room school of design.

Below, we’ve gathered our favorite links that will give you new and interesting ways to use those wooden pallets. Some of these projects may not be appropriate for certain climates. If you are thinking of using wood obtained from pallets for an outside project, be sure to treat the wood first to protect it from the elements.

1. Keep the good critters in and the bad critters out: build a pallet fence.

2. Make an inexpensive shed for storage.

3. Earn some money while you’re recycling! Make these rustic bird houses.

4. Need a temporary emergency shelter? Here’s now to make one from discarded pallets.

5. Get control of your compost heap with this excellent compost bin using pallets and a few inexpensive pieces of hardware.

6. Make some almost-free planters for your gardening endeavors.

7. Build a chicken coop to house those unruly little cluckers.

8. If the pallets are made of untreated wood, use them as a free fuel your indoor or outdoor fire.

9. Not into gardening, animal keeping, or burning stuff? Make some unique and beautiful art with your pallets.

10. Make an attractive table for your home! Or try this one or this one.

11. Don’t spend big money on an expensive computer desk. Just build your own from discarded pallets!

12. Put them on the ground outside to keep plants or firewood elevated.

13. I plan on making picture frames out of them. -ed.

These are just a few of the many creative uses for old wooden pallets. Do you know of any other bright ideas to keep pallets out of landfills and make something useful and/or beautiful? Let us know below in the comments!

Fine Art Photo Paper

2009-10-04T02:18:00.003-04:00

Ever Since purchasing a giclee printer, I have been trying different papers out to determine what I prefer for my images. Most artists who print their work are very particular about the paper media used. The paper can have a profound impact on the presentation of the image, as well as the longevity and quality. Recently, Hahnemuhle released their Sugar Cane paper. It is made from 75% sugar cane (bagasse) fiber, which is a by-product of sugar cane processing and 25% recycled cotton fibers. Bagasse fiber is an eco-friendly resource endorsed by many environmental organizations worldwide. Sugar Cane 300 gsm is a natural white, textured, fine art paper that is OBA-free (OBA=Optical Brightenener Additives) and extremely resistant to aging.

I have used it and have been very impressed with the results. It is not bright white and has a warm tone. I find it well suited to monochome images. Find out more here.

Other eco-friendly options are Hahnemuehle Bamboo paper and Red River Greenpix.

I have used the Bamboo, but not the Greenpix. The bamboo is smooth and allows excellent detail, but it is very warm. Actually, too warm for me. It has a wonderful feel to it in your hand. It is a shame that it will most likely be in a frame under glass.

I recently spoke the owner of Red River about their line of papers. I love the concept of an 100% post-consumer recycled photo paper with a nice hefty 62lb/254gsm and 11mil thickness. Unfortunately, it is not archival paper. It would be great for alot of projects where lasting 100 years is not a requirement. It is available in postcard and greeting card sizes.

Ossining Arts Council

2009-10-04T01:54:00.004-04:00

Recently, I became the Treasurer of the Ossining Arts Council. We also elected a new President and VP. We are looking to bring a lot of vitality and enthusiasm to the Upper Westchester art community. Check us out at ossiningartscouncil.org.

The Council is hosting a photography show in december. We will be accepting submissions very soon.

Ossining on the Hudson is a river town in the Hudson Valley area of New York state. We are about 30 miles north of NYC and 120 miles south of Albany. It is next to Sleepy Hollow and across of the river fom Nyack, NY. It is also where Sing Sing prison is located.

I live in Ossining in an 1860 Victorian house that I am in the process of restoring. It is a fun town with lots of great residents and many beautiful Victorian homes and buildings. Many of which are Historic Landmarks.

PAPER FACTS

2009-10-04T01:44:00.003-04:00

It takes 60 percent less energy to manufacture paper from recycled stock than from virgin materials.

Producing a ton of virgin paper requires 20 trees and 7,000 more gallons of water than a ton of 100% recycled paper. Furthermore, chlorine is generally used in the bleaching process, releasing the carcinogenic chemical dioxin and other toxins.

Although only 5% of the world’s population lives in the U.S., Americans use 27% of the wood harvested worldwide

When buying computer or typing paper next, look for paper that’s Processed Chlorine Free (PCF) and contains at least 30% recycled content. This paper is an affordable environmentally friendly alternative to virgin, chlorine-bleached paper.

Did you know that, on average, an American uses more than 730 pounds of paper each year? That means we each use the equivalent of nine trees as big as telephone poles and four stories high!

About half of the wood we use goes into paper products, including boxes, computer printouts, napkins, toilet paper, magazines and more. Some of these will contain recycled fiber, but most are still made from newly cut trees. Even if something is made with 20% recycled content, it’s still 80% virgin tree. Despite our recycling efforts, paper makesup nearly 40% of our garbage. Fortunately we don’t need to use trees to meet all our paper needs, we can make excellent paper by recycling and using other waste material such as weed grasses or leftover straw from food crops. Farmers can also grow fiber crops, such as kenaf, for paper. By making paper from a variety of materials and recycling what we make, we can preserve our forests.

The bleaching process used to make pure white and colored papers creates a toxic substance called dioxin that is polluting our air, soil and water. Dioxins are highly fat-soluble, they accumulate in foods that contain fat? foods such as meat, dairy products, and mother’s milk. Dioxins have just been designated as a known human carcinogens by the government’s National Toxicology Program.

By using as many unbleached paper products as we can find in our stores and asking store owners to carry more of these products, we can take a step toward reducing this serious health risk to us all. Why buy white coffee filters when you can buy unbleached brown ones? They are going to turn brown anyway. Americans are the only people in the world who use white and brightly colored toilet paper. Buying unbleached, recycled content toilet paper takes us a big step toward conserving our natural resources. Ask your local stores to carry unbleached recycled content paper products and use them in your homes, churches, offices and shops.

Statement of Purpose

2009-10-04T00:45:00.007-04:00

I have been writing a statement of purpose for possible admission into graduate school. Here it is:

I believe that developing an individualized curriculum for a Master’s in Environmental Communication is the best path to help realize my goal of promoting Positive Environmentalism, which according to Alex Singleton, Director-General of the Globalisation Institute, recognizes the importance of technology, innovation and economic development, and practical measures by individuals. I will tie together three area of study: environmental, social communication and artistic presentation.

So what is an environmentalist like me to do? Al Gore has been working the alarmist message angle with some success. Greenpeace and other non-profits are raising awareness with their campaigns. In the “think globally and act locally” theme, I believe that change in people’s attitudes can be effected though positive experiences or sound business reasoning. This can take many paths, I have chosen two.

There are two distinct messages that need to be conveyed to these two groups: businesses and people. Business professionals are receptive to a cost/benefit analysis style of message. People are more complicated and more emotional. However, they respond well to positive emotion inducers, such as art, music, animal, and family themes.

As a professional Environmental Consultant, I am often in contact with business decision makers and in a position to influence how they can guide their firms towards a more environmentally conscious or “greener” path. My business background puts me in a position to talk the language they understand best. Unfortunately, companies often hire an environmental consultant to avoid lawsuits, regulatory fines or unfavorable publicity; not “green” up their companies. However, this beginning to change.

As fine art photographer and board member of the Ossining Arts Counsel, I am in a position to create meaningful positive experiences through the exhibition of works of art. The counsel organizes many exhibitions and has the ability to bring together people of diverse cultural backgrounds to share the experience of the art event.

I am lacking in delivering a compelling positive message for these two distinct groups. I am skilled at using sound business reasons to justify the need for my firm’s environmental services as it relates to an immediate problem or to satisfy regulatory compliance. However, guiding the company’s corporate culture or attitudes towards a “greener” direction is another story.

Personally, I am becoming more confident in my ability to convey the beauty of nature and mankind in my photography, but I have not yet developed a method to create a positive experience that induces the viewer to take a closer look their own lives and evaluate their direct impact on the environment that they will pass on to their children.

Lots of people want to care about the environment. However, they expend a lot of energy caring about their jobs, their family, the economy, and the everyday issues in their lives. Sometimes they just can’t take in another cause. Unless an environmental problem directly affects them in their daily lives, they often have too many other problems to deal with on a daily basis.

An advanced degree in Environmental Communication should entail developing a greater understanding of modern environmental issues, policy, and the ethics of promoting this philosophy. My marketing background teaches me that there are a lot of ways of delivering a message. Not all of them are positive or ethical. I intend to build on my over twenty years of experience in business, half of which is in the environmental industry, with my independent and self-motivated approach to problem solving to undertake the challenge of completing this advanced degree. After which, I will continue to focus myself towards promoting the benefits of pursuing an environmentally conscious path in both my professional and personal endeavors.

Apathy

2009-10-04T00:13:00.002-04:00

Why is it that so many people in the US do not follow current domestic or international events, politics, or for that matter even have an opinion about such topics? Many of these people are generally articulate, intelligent and sometimes well regarded in their professional endeavors. One cannot draw well-founded assumptions about their financial geographical or idealological demographics. If it were not for weather, sports and celebrity news; how many people would actually watch, listen to or read the news-reporting media?

Anecdotally, I have noted that many people actively (either subconsciously or knowingly) avoid the negativity of current events. Instead there is a very large segment of the commercial media (broadcast, internet, printed, etc.) dedicated to escapism (mind-numbing) shows, sensational news reporting and commentary programming.

The so-called “reality TV”, celebrity-littered programs and game shows, along with the age-old sitcom and police/fantasy/sci-fi dramas exist to satisfy the public’s thirst for uplifting distraction from the daily grind.

While there is not a lack of news in this country, many (if not most) of the for-profit corporate news reporting programs are largely sensational, attempting to produce the maximum emotional impact and is frequently subject to advertiser influence. This “train-wreck” style of news reporting may be contributing to the desensitization and apathy of a significant portion of the population towards current events.

Then there is “demagogue-based” commentary and propaganda style programs using the faintest whiff of actual news content that have gained wide acceptance with US audiences in the last ten years with no signs of abatement.

A Demagogue will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. – paraphrase from H. L. Mencken

These fixtures in the commercial media complete the trifecta of information distraction that is herding the public toward misinformed beliefs, misplaced allegiances or lack of interest in activism. This true for environmentalism also.

I listen coworkers at lunch praddle on about "Dancing with the Stars" or "American Idol" or various sitcoms. I never heard them once discuss any topic of current events or a program on the History, Discovery channels or PBS. There are some self-proclaimed environmentally conscious minded people at work, but I have to see any actions that lead me to believe that is anthing more than lip service. I hope that I am wrong about the majority of Americans.

Fortunately, activism and interest in current events are alive and well in most college campuses. Even alot of highschools are promoting awareness campaigns. I hope this keeps up.

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

2009-06-26T21:57:00.005-04:00

The new climate bill passed the House of Representative in Congress. The Senate is next. Being the cynical, conspiracy theorist that I am, I wanted to know what is wrong with this bill. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama and what he is doing, but I have little faith that our government as whole really has our best interests at heart. That being said, I found this article here.
I think we can all breath easier now knowing that "clean" powered corporations can sell their good intentions for a profit to "dirty" powered corporations so they have no incentive to actually get clean.

This is it below:

Overhaul or Scrap Waxman-Markey, Say Climate and Progressive Groups
WASHINGTON, June 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Climate Crisis Coalition, a non-profit organization founded in 2004 to build awareness and broaden the constituency of the climate action movement, today released the following statement regarding the pending American Clean Energy Security Act, which would create a cap-and-trade system to manage carbon emissions. This statement has so far been endorsed by the Citizen's Climate Lobby, the CLEAN Coalition, the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the Progressive Democrats of America, with other sign-ons pending. For a current list of signatories, see www.climatecrisiscoalition.org.

Overhaul or Scrap ACESA

The House is scheduled to vote Friday on the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." The numerous provisions in ACESA's 1,000-plus pages do not add up to the steps needed to avert catastrophic climate disruption. Moreover, the bill's emissions trading provisions create vested interests that would make future reforms very difficult.

ACESA's Major Flaws:

1) Weak cap. ACESA's "cap" on greenhouse gas emissions represents reductions of only 1-4% below 1990 levels by 2020, far less than climate scientists deem necessary.

2) Offsets further weaken the cap. ACESA overwhelms its own cap by allowing up to two billion tons of dubious carbon "offsets" annually, with up to three-quarters from international sources. If all offsets are used and allowances banked, U.S. emissions from fossil fuels could keep increasing until 2029. ACESA's offsets provisions have been further weakened by the latest compromise: transferring offset from EPA to the Department of Agriculture. (The compromise also sabotages EPA efforts to account for indirect impacts of biofuels production.)

3) Fails to put a meaningful price on carbon. The weak cap combined with offsets, would result in a price on carbon far too low to produce the changes in energy use necessary to avert catastrophe. Free allowances to utilities and energy intensive industries further mute the price signal needed to shift to a low-carbon economy.

4) Trading combined with "subprime" offsets will lead to speculative bubbles. ACESA's trading provisions would create a volatile $2 trillion carbon market with unregulated derivatives that could crash financial markets again. Linking trading systems internationally would lead to even larger opportunities for speculation, gaming and fraud.

5) Weak renewable energy standard. ACESA's Renewable Energy Standard (RES) is watered down to just 15% by 2020, barely greater than "business-as-usual." Furthermore, ACESA defines "renewable energy" to include dirty sources such as waste incineration.

6) Handouts for the coal and oil industries. Through free allowances and a hidden utility tax, the coal industry would receive approximately $150 billion over the bill's lifetime for "deployment" of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology that presently doesn't exist and may never materialize. If feasible, CCS would require far more mining, transportation and burning of coal to produce electricity. ACESA would also give approximately $24 billion to oil refiners under the pretext that the world's most profitable industry needs still more financial assistance.

7) Pre-emption of EPA authority. ACESA would preempt EPA's authority to regulate sources of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, while also overriding stronger laws at the state and regional levels. By disabling this regulatory backstop, ACESA ensures that - if the bill is not drastically reformed or replaced - its failure as climate policy will be catastrophic.

Overhaul or scrap ACESA

The climate crisis is urgent, but that is all the more reason not to pass seriously flawed legislation. We urge Congress to overhaul or scrap ACESA for a stronger and less complex bill with serious RES standards and a carbon tax with revenue-recycling, managed price or cap-and-dividend approach.

SOURCE Climate Crisis Coalition

E-zines

2009-06-16T23:32:00.008-04:00

I found a few websites that offer online publishing in the form of electronic magazines. They are free to join and seem to be fairly mature websites. Issuu.com takes .pdf or .doc files and converts them into an e-zines (with pages that virtually turn) and makes them available to anyone for free (peppering the page with ads for revenue). Magcloud.com is makes a similiar e-zine from your work, but offers them for sale as a real paper magazine with a markup for the creator. Like a magazine rack in a newsstand or bookstore, but it is mailed to you as a hardcopy. I'm not so thrilled about the dead trees involved in magcloud.com, but is a cool concept. And who doesn't love spending a little quality time in the WC with a magazine.

I will likely go for issuu.com, because its e-zine viewer is better. I may setup a magcloud account to print a portfolio or two to give to an interested art gallery. Another use I like is the ability to create web content without a website. I could have a series of e-zines and just have a small webpage as the home page.

I've been a bit busy...

2009-06-16T22:27:00.004-04:00

It has been a while since I added to this blog. There has been nothing extraordinarily annoying to blog about lately. I have lots of minor gripes, tho. I have been looking into signing up for Facebook. I have too damn many friends inviting me to join. I have not decided yet.

A couple of updates:

I put some of my photography in an online gallery: http://dirthouse.carbonmade.com/
I have taken my photographic vision in a new direction. I am changing to black and white with a slightly darker tone. I call it šera photograhy, which is czech and/or slovak for "twilight vision". It is a bit of a play on words. I prefer to give my images a slightly darker mood-like look; and I happen to have very good night vision. I chose the czeck translation due to its simplicity and beautiful sound as you say it. While I still like color images, I am now finding that I prefer my own work to be in black and white. I have received positive feedback from some artist friends. My online gallery (above link) is my old style, but I really like the gallery layout and have not changed the images yet. I have been spending alot of my free time working on this transition.
I purchased a giclee printer and I have been learning to do fine art printing (gallery quality). It ain't like connecting a consumer level printer to your PC and cranking out photos. There is a ton of stuff to learn and it is not easy to do it right (as I learned recently when showing my prints to some very knowledgeable people).
My job working for an environmental consulting company has not been bad. Not too crazy and a decent amount of work.
I had a double inguinal hernia operation about 7 weeks ago and I'm fine now. That was adventures in pain for a few days - too bad pain meds don't really work well on me :(
I have had restoration work being done to my 1860 house. It still needs to be painted, but most of the carpentry and the roof is done.

On the environmental front, I have not been looking for stories to research and complain about. The electric car industry is struggling due to the economy, but things are looking brighter. Many states and countries are paving the way for easier adoption of EVs. I have put some thought into converting one of my old cars into electric. It's a bit expensive and I have a long commute to work (no work from home yet). My wife and I have pretty efficient gas/petrol cars: mine gets 28-30 mpg on the highway and hers gets 38 mpg. I practice hypermiling whenever it is practical; hers does not really beenfit from it.

I want to get my eco-fund raising going soon. My website sucks, but I'll be upgrading it soon. My goal is to donate funds from the proceeds of the sale of artwork towards protecting the world's rainforests through the adoption of acreage at risk of logging and wreckless development.

That is it for now. I'll try to be better in the future about contributing to this blog.

The Hunt

2009-04-03T01:29:00.003-04:00

There are artists, amateur photographers and working photographers. Artists use the camera as tool to create their art. Maybe it is combined with some other medium, or the image is manipulated or changed to create something entirely different. In many ways, the camera is no different than a canvas or a block of clay. It’s just a tool.

Amateur photographers are a strange and varied bunch. Some love the technical aspect of creating images; some love the artistic expression, some love collecting photographic equipment and some love the hunt. They are hunting for a great shot. Traveling to interesting places or exotic locations to get that special shot can be exhilarating. I met a sports photographer who worked for a newspaper. The interesting thing about him was that he was not really interested in sports. Yet he loved to shot sports. He didn’t remember any team or player names after the assignment was finished.

I love capturing the shot. I love to travel and bring back images that most people don’t normally see. I also take postcard type photos and snapshots. On a trip to Puerto Rico, my favorite shot was taken in Old San Juan of a boat tied to a dock. It was simple scene that no one was looking at. Another favorite of that trip was a man standing in the door of a bar.

Many artists see beauty in simplicity; myself included. Sometimes what others may find mundane, I frequently find interesting.

I can’t afford to go on photography trips, either with a group or by myself. I do try to make my vacations into opportunities for collecting images that I like. However, humping around twenty or more pounds of camera equipment can be a drag. Not to mention the very real possibility of damaging or losing it. My wife and I try to choose vacation destinations that will be fun and/or relaxing and yet visually interesting for the purposes of getting good shots. My wife is not a photographer, but she does like to take pictures, also.

Everyday Actions to Help the Environment

2009-04-03T00:47:00.003-04:00

All the news about the economic downturn and dire ecological predictions can get many environmentalists to despair and question whether it is worth it to do anything at all. I try not to concern myself about what others are doing or not doing (but, it is real difficult). If someone would rather do nothing, or if they don't believe that they are making a difference, or it seems hopeless, or it is too inconvenient/time consuming, or they want the government to "do something", or it is too expensive, or they have more important things to worry about (job, family, etc.), how does it help the world if I am pissed off all the time? Well, as the saying goes: “If you don’t like how things are, do something about it!”

I believe that many small actions can make a big difference. So I have some suggestions on how to do the "right thing" and work it into everyone's everyday lifestyle with little to no extra effort or expense. You don't have to do all these things, and I'm sure you already do some of them. But try to do a few more. Of course, this is not a complete list. there are probably hundreds of more I did not think of to help the environment. Try to do as many as you can. Some is better than none.

Save Electricity: 71% of US electrical power comes from fossil fuels, and coal burning is 48.5%.

1) Turn out the lights in a room when you leave. If you want to get ambitious, install timer switches and compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). This saves more energy than you think-as much as 7-12% off you electric bill. Plus the savings from not having to replace regular bulbs. The first CFL I bought more than 10 years ago just burnt out, about 2 months ago; they usually last 6k-15k hours of normal use. I paid $10 for it, now they are about the same as an incandescent light bulb, which will last 2k hours if you are lucky. If you have to use incandescent bulbs for decorative light fixtures, install a dimmer. It will save energy if you set it at 75% and you will hardly notice the difference most of the time, and it make the bulbs last 3X as long.

The new Solid-state lighting (SSL) or LED replacement lights may be even better, and should last 50k+ hours. They are not yet widely commercially available and are somewhat expensive. Learn more at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_specs.ssl_luminaires

2) Turn off your PC/Mac at night or when you go away from the house. It also has the benefit of making the information on your PC more secure. You can't hack into a PC that isn’t on. If you have to leave the computer on all the time, make sure the power management settings minimize power usage.

3) In the winter, try turning down the heat a few degrees and putting on a sweater/jumper. I know some people who crank up the heat and walk around their house in shorts and a t-shirt. Shame on them.

4) Turn out the front/back porch light when you go to sleep. Or put a timer on it. If you have a flood light for security, install a motion detector so it only goes on when someone or something triggers it.

5) Avoid using your air conditioning unit, either in your car or home. In the car driving around town, just open a window. If you don't like the wind, open the opposite window. One the highway, you usually use less gas if you keep your windows closed and the vents open. In the summer, my old house (circa 1860) does not heat up too much, so I rarely put on the A/C unit during the day. At night, if possible try to use a ceiling fan. Also, keep the weight off, the heavier you are, the cooler you are likely to prefer it.

6) At work, turn off lights in conference rooms and bathrooms when you leave. We installed motion detector switches all over our office, thay have an override for longer meetings.

In your car/truck: Driving smarter is better than driving faster. My sister used to drive 100 miles to visit my mother and measured how long it took to get there and at different speeds. It turns out that 60 miles per hour took only 5 minutes longer then when she tried to hurry and drive at 75 miles per hour. This may sound wrong, but with all the slowing down for slow cars and speeding up, and the traffic along I-95 in CT & NY, she just burned more gas. Now she sets the cruise control for 60-65 and just goes along with traffice in the right or middle lane.

7) “Hypermiling” is a technique of driving to increase the fuel efficiency of the car you already own. There are a number of websites and forums dedicated to this practice. Some people can double their fuel economy without hybrids or radical changes to their cars. Some really take it to the extreme where they radically modify their cars (like the hot-rodders of yore) to achieve 80-90 MPG from a gas/diesel engine. Learn more at http://www.hypermiling.com/.

8) If you purchase online, you avoid trips in the car to the mall. Also, consider using a grocery shopping service like Peapod or Fresh Direct; that will save you the hassle of doing grocery shopping when you can be out having fun or relaxing.

9) When running into a store, shut off your car if you are going to be more than 30 seconds. That is how much gas you will use to restart your warm engine-30 seconds worth of idling.

Conserve Resources:

10) Minimize your waste. The more you throw out, the quicker the land fills reach capacity, the farther the garbage trucks have to drive to dump your garbage. Avoid products with too much packaging. The packaging adds to the cost of the product anyway. Also, breakdown the cardboard packaging flat and recycle it with your newspapers (remove the plastic parts first). This especially goes if you purchase a lot online. I save all the packing peanuts and some of the boxes and take them to work so they do not have to buy as much. If that option is not available, trying donating them to the local shipping center (Kinkos, etc.)

11) Avoid printing out what can be read on the monitor. If you have to print something out, only print out the pages you need. Not the whole document. If you need to proof-read a document on paper, use the backside of waste paper to avoid killing trees needlessly.

12) Purchase 100% post-consumer content recycled paper whenever possible. Make sure it was made without chlorine.

13) Recycle at work. It can be a drag if your company makes no effort to recycle and you are the only one doing it. I take my recycleable items home to recycle or I offer them other like minded co-workers. I save and fold my brown paper lunch bags for a woman with a cat for the litter box. All the aluminum goes home with me (cans and lunch containers). Some of the extra paper from printing mistakes is reused as notepads. You can use shredded paper as packing material for small boxes. About half of our cardboard boxes get reused for shipping and most of the packing peanuts. Get creative! We had some old cubicle desk tops that were being thrown away when we moved, and I built a table for the coffee maker in the lunch room in the new office with them. It is stable and looks ok for what it is.

14) Avoid clear plastic beverage bottles whenever possible. Clear plastic can be recycled only once, and the transportation costs to the recycling facility can cause more carbon emissions than the actual recycling benefit. Aluminum cans can be recycled many times. Even better, use a washable container for water and home-mixed flavored drinks (like Crystal-lite or Kool-aid). If you have to purchase bottled water, try home delivery from water cooler supplier like Poland Spring. Also, washing and reusing any bottle is recycling.

Carbon for Power

2009-04-03T00:37:00.004-04:00

I came a cross an interesting website for the Energy Information Adminstration for the US Department of Energy. There are tons of statistics on electrical usage in the US. This passage should be of interest to environmentalist who like these things. The good news is that wind generation is up 51% in 2008.

"The estimated carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions for electricity are based on the fossil fuels consumed by electric power plants for electric power generation, and fossil fuels consumed by combined heat and power plants for the generation of electric power and useful thermal output. The emissions factors used in the estimation methodology are described in the discussion of Air Emissions in the Technical Notes."

Estimated carbon dioxide emissions by U.S. electric generators and combined heat and power facilities increased by 2.3 percent from 2006 to 2007 (from 2,460 million metric tons to 2,517 million metric tons). This reverses the decline in carbon dioxide emissions reported for 2006. Total net generation of electricity from fossil fuels increased to meet the increase in demand in 2007. Coal-fired generation increased 1.3 percent and coal consumed for electric generation and by combined heat and power facilities increased by 1.5 percent."

Petroleum-fired generation increased 2.5 percent and the petroleum consumed for electric generation and useful thermal output increased 1.1 percent from 131 million barrels in 2006 to 132 million barrels in 2007. Consumption of natural gas for electricity generation and useful thermal output, which contributes the least amount of carbon dioxide per Btu consumed, rose by 7.5 percent in 2007 as natural gas generation increased by 10.1 percent."

Estimated emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide declined for the second year in a row. Nitrogen oxides emissions dropped by 3.9 percent (from 3.799 to 3.650 million metric tons). Sulfur dioxide emissions decreased by 5.1 percent (from 9.524 to 9.042 million metric tons). Emissions of both of these gases are capped by the Clean Air Act and other legislation."

*source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

One Person’s Art is Another Person’s Crap

2009-03-27T01:00:00.002-04:00

Art is a strange concept. We have all heard and experienced the phrase “one person’s art is another’s crap”. Most people will agree that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo is a great work of art even if you don’t like it, the “Dogs playing poker” painting on velvet, not so much. After you have been to Italy and looked at the art that is everywhere in that country, your perception of what art is may change dramatically. Paintings, architecture, landscaping, sculpture, pottery, furnishings, clothes, food; almost everything is presented in a visually or tactually appealing manner. Even when something is unadorned, the Italians somehow make that beautiful, too.

That is a good segue to one of my philosophies on art. Understanding how the art is created may lead a person to appreciating the art form more. Many people have heard about the “musician’s musician”. There is some music that few casual listeners like. Free-form jazz is a good example. It takes decades of experience, masterful skill and superb musicianship to do it right. For some musicians, it is the top of the mountain. For others, it's just noise.

Just as rant, I am very irritated by those people that when you ask them “what kind of music do you like” and they answer “I like everything”. Then I press them and ask “Do you like jazz?” “No.” “Do you like opera?” “No.” “Do you like classical music?” “No.” “Do you like Country or Western?” “No. No.” It turns out that “everything” is only Pop music.

Most visual art evokes an emotion in the viewer of a particular piece of art. The same piece of art may evoke a hundred different emotions in a hundred people. That is one of the great things about art. I don’t like interpretive dance, but it does not matter, the next person may be moved to the point of tears by its beauty. We, as humans, need to experience emotions. Without the emotions, we die on the inside.

From cave paintings to the Italian Renaissance to the Victorian Age to modern day, art is engrained in our human evolution. Most of us have a need to express emotions; art is a powerful primordial expression of emotions that can transcend languages and cultures.

Another great thing about art is the interpretation by the viewer. They create their own special meaning to the art. A former co-worker had a black and white photograph hanging above his desk of a pair of man’s hands held out in front of his body. They were dirty and had calluses. I would stop and linger for many minutes staring at the photo every time I passed it. I was captivated by that photo. I would think about the man. Who was he? What did he do? Why did the photographer take the picture? My co-worker probably thought I was stalking him.

I can call my dreck art and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. I don’t even have to explain it or justify it. I can just call it art. That being said, there is good art and not so good art. Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter how tacky or ugly that beauty is. If you can relate to the subject matter, you will probably find it appealing. A dog-owning gambler may like the “Dogs playing poker” painting more than a flower-loving gardener. Does that mean that the gardener’s Georgia O’Keefe paintings are more beautiful than the gambler’s “Dogs playing poker” painting? Probably, but that is not the point, the point is who are we to make that judgment.

I have always had an appreciation for Victorian architecture. Some find it too busy or fussy. That may be true, but that was in vogue during that period. The Victorian artisans loved to adore most any available surface. I am sure that there is no shortage of theories on the evolution of the Victorian aesthetic; here is mine. When the industrial revolution and the Age of Reason dominated western culture in the late 17th century and 18th century, utilitarianism was a predominant aspect of everyday life. The working classes had little time or money for adornment. They were trying to rise above peasantry, poverty or the austerity of some religions.

Art was mostly the domain of the wealthy. The wealthy surrounded themselves with beauty. They built beautiful estates with gardens and mansions filled with works of art. The monarchies of Europe jockeyed for prestige and built beautiful public works to demonstrate their wealth and power. Around the time Victoria become Queen of England, the middle class was coming to prominence. They wanted to be wealthy, or at least appear that way. They were throwing off the shackles of austerity and embracing the values of those they were trying to emulate: the wealthy. The middle class wanted to surround themselves with beauty, also. The Industrial Age had an interesting side effect, it could mass-produce beauty. That may sound like a contradiction, but if you can mass produce a wagon wheel, why can’t you mass produce a sculpture? And they did. There was backlash against austerity. Suddenly, every middle class home was filled with beautiful objects. The cost to produce a beautiful vase was just a little bit more than to produce a plain one, so they made it beautiful. The transportation system had also improved with the steamship and railroads, so shipping mass-produced goods were cheaper than ever.

This is my theory, and for now I’m sticking with it. So, how does this relate to photography? In a few ways; the photographic process was invented during the Victorian era; the Victorian era was the end of the age of the craftsman; and I think the end of this era began to see the artists become marginalized in western society. The wealthy art patrons were becoming scarce and technology was becoming a more important part of life. Our appreciation for art did not wane, it changed. Maybe it was put on a pedestal. Museums popped up everywhere and there was renewed interest in fine art.

In the early to mid-twentieth century there was a reversion to utilitarian efficiency and productivity. Everyday art suffered in my opinion. That beautiful vase could be made cheaper if you made it plainer. Fewer raw materials and less labor created greater efficiency.

In the later half of the twentieth century, political correctness and positive affirmation to improve one’s self-esteem became apart of the cultural landscape, now you can call anything art. Some artist nailed a 6-inch piece of rope to a wall and called it art. And someone else actually bought it!

Editing-Smediting!!! Photo Editing

2009-03-27T00:56:00.001-04:00

It seems there are endless ways of editing or tweaking the image to get the artist’s desired effect. The most common purpose of editing photos is to correct color, exposure, contrast, cropping, removing red-eye, etc. for printing or publishing. In the digital domain, photo editing software performs all of these functions and so much more. For the novice just learning to tweak their own images, don’t jump into Photoshop right away. While it is the premier software package for graphics professionals, there are a lot of excellent consumer-level software products that are cheaper and easier to use. There are even freeware programs out there. I suggest trying some of them out first, many of them are easier to use and more focused on tweaking or fixing photos. I used Photoshop for many years and continue to use it. It is great, but it is complicated with a dizzying amount of features. I eventually got annoyed with the expensive upgrades and having to upgrade my computer to keep up with this resource hog. Now I frequently use a few freeware image editing programs that do 90% of what I asked Photoshop to do. Also, your digital camera may have software bundled with it, try one of those first before you go out and buy expensive software.

The novice may ask: “How do I know if my images need editing?” Sometimes the problems are obvious, like red-eye or an under exposed image. Other times, it is not so easy to evaluate the image. Critical cropping, color correction, white balance, shadow or highlight exposure, sharpness, digital noise, etc. may need to be fixed. These and other problems may be quite subtle to detect for the novice. One of the biggest mistakes I made was to not showing my photos to other photographers. Had I done this earlier in my journey, I may have matured as a photographer faster. This is one of the benefits of classes and seminars.

So the next step is “How do I edit my images?” There are too many software packages on the market to explain the steps. There are however, many books and tutorials on many websites to learn it. Also there are lots of forums on the subject.
“I don’t want to learn all that; I just want to take pictures.” Well that is ok, but editing photos is probably the best way to increase the number of “keepers”. What’s more, you can turn a good image into a great image. I have a photo of seagulls on a railing that I took in Manhattan on a snowy winter day. I always loved it, but it needed help and I was not sure how to edit it to bring out the best in it. I consulted a curator of an art show and a fine art printer. After a little careful cropping here, some exposure adjustment there and some other subtle changes, it bowled me over and many people who saw it later at an art show commented on it. It became the great image I always knew it could be. The interesting part is that it was a two megapixel image from an early generation digital camera taken as a JPEG. You can just take pictures and try to be happy with how they turn out, but if you want to be serious about this hobby, learn how to edit your photos.

Editing a photo is sometimes a more difficult skill to learn than actually shooting the photo. Before digital scanners, the steps to achieve a properly exposed print of an image had to be repeated each time the print was made. Photographers had to keep a reference print and a written procedure to ensure print to print consistency. Other considerations from the chemical era that would affect editing choices were type of film to use; the presentation of the photo (print, publication, documentation, etc.) and artistic preferences. In the digital domain, once you edit the image in the software, you save the file and most of the steps are not needed to reproduce the same print. What a tremendous time saver. This assumes the same computer setup, color space, monitor profile, printer, drivers, etc. is used to make the print.

“If you take the picture correctly in the first place, you should not need to fix it afterwards.” That is true, but in reality many factors can affect ultimate image quality. With film, most photographers are disciplined about exposure, focus and film type for the subject matter. Many photo opportunities do not allow proper setup time and only large format cameras allow taking Polaroids to judge focus and exposure. I would not know if I blew the shot until I developed the slides. Re-shoots are usually not an option. Bracketing was a great way to hedge your bets and improve your chances of success.
Many photos require editing even if the picture is taken correctly. Some factors have nothing to do with the image capturing process. If the image is going to a publisher, the digital file must be compatible with the pre-press and printing equipment.

Cropping is an important editing function. Now earlier, I mentioned most hobbyist photographers have learned to compose their shots reasonably well. Once you open the files in your favorite software, you may find distracting elements in your photos, such as shadows, body parts or something in the background. These elements may draw the viewer’s eye away from the central element in your image. You may want your image to be a particular size ratio, like 8X10, but your camera takes 2:3 ratio images. Part of the image needs to be cropped. This also applies to wide-format landscape and square shots.

“If I had shot this in RAW, I could have rescued the image!” I have uttered this lament more than a few times. I have learned the hard way that you can screw up a shot no matter how careful you were in taking it. There are other times that you had no time to setup a shot and just took the picture hoping it turns out. Shortly after getting into this hobby, most novices will hear or read about the RAW file format. Most serious digital cameras offer this in addition to JPEG and maybe TIFF. The RAW file is the actual data captured by the imaging chip before the camera processes it into an image. It’s kind of like a film negative. When you download the RAW file to your computer, you have to process the file into an image using software on your computer. This can be a tedious process, but the biggest advantage to doing this is you can make many changes to the file to improve the quality of the image with the least amount of image degradation. “How can this be? Editing is supposed to improve the image, not degrade it.” The more heavy-handed one is with the sliders in the software, the more noise and digital artifacts are visible in the final image.

You get image editing flexibility that may be required with extensive editing. If you screwed up the capture of your image, some really extreme editing may rescue your once-in-a-lifetime photo. In the digital domain, mastering the basic techniques of image correction is a required skill. If you are considering photography as a career, mastering advanced editing techniques may be required.

Hemp is not pot!

2009-03-27T00:20:00.005-04:00

I want to make it clear that I do not consume marijuana for any recreational or medical reason. I have nothing against it, per se. I choose not to use it.

Hemp is a plant in the same family as marijuana, except that the Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC), is extremely low. So low that it has no effect on the human brain (you can't get "high" from it). The plant has many benefits, including nutritional, medicinal, fuel source and, of course, a fiber that has been used for hundred or even thoudsands of years. Rope and cloth are the most common end-use products made from hemp. This cheap and beneficial crop is not being utilised enough because of its association with marijuana.

I encourage everyone to research the benefits of hemp crops. With all our economic and environmental problems, I believe that the return of hemp cultivation in the US will benefit us all. More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp.

I know that there has been a campaign to encourage President Obama to legalize marijuana for recreational use. This article is not intended to further that cause. I am only interested in generating interest in hemp as a cash crop.

New Jersey Transit System

2009-03-27T00:09:00.003-04:00

A friend of mine was ranting about the bus system that brings commuters from New Jersey into New York City. She endures this inconvenience everyday. I wish I could say that she does it to save the environment (which she does, in fact, care about), but the real reason is that shes does not like to drive and the traffic to Manhattan is worse. Here are her thoughts on this daily routine.

"It’s the crisis that no one ever talks about. Indeed I’m under the impression that no city, state or federal official or member of the 4th estate is even aware of—NJ Transit Buses. The Port Authority (of NY/NJ) is, in the evening, so congested that I’m convinced many would die in a fire. It is routine for buses to be delayed from 5:30-6:30 upwards of 30 minutes and commuters to stand in lines that are 200 or 300 deep. That’s 15 or 20 lines with upwards of 200 people standing on each line. Rooms are crowed, staircases hold people two abreast for hours and it feels that we have exceeded capacity on a daily basis. ADA compliance is nonexistent and I have no idea how a stampede hasn’t happened in the four years I’ve been riding the bus. It’s a cattle holding pen-and we, the commuters, are the cattle.

In a time when people are concerned about their jobs, they are, for financial reasons, turning more and more to an inefficient and overburdened transit system. Last year alone ridership was up 6.2%. For the sake of a healthy earth we must convince mass transit commuters to continue using buses long after the economic crisis is over. According to NJ Future (http://www.njfuture.org/) the state’s “Board of Public Utilities has determined that transportation is responsible for more than 50 percent of New Jersey’s energy consumption.” And yet the evening rush becomes more and more uncomfortable and unmanageable and no one—not the city, state or federal government intervenes. I fear they won’t until a large fire breaks out and commuters are killed unable to egress safely from the Port Authority. Certainly, when commuters feel more secure in the pocketbook they are going to abandon a dangerous, uncomfortable and inconvenient form of transportation for one that is more costly to the planet but more enjoyable for them. I’ve thought of it myself.

Solutions exist. Mayor Bloomberg backed congestion pricing, but I suspect that adding an additional 5% in ridership without controls would cause a fire or stampede. Two simple solutions exist that would help the situation immensely. Neither would even cost much. In the morning, city bound, a bus lane exists. Mass transit has a direct lane into the city—people driving individual cars are made to wait or use either the Holland Tunnel or the George Washington Bridge. In the evening the busses coming back into the city from drop offs in Wayne, Patterson, Morristown, Bergen county, etc ride empty and use the same lanes that everyone trying to enter the city use. How about closing a lane and encouraging reverse commuters to use the bus too? Which leads to the second solution—don’t send the buses back empty. According to the NJ Transit schedule my bus-the 193-has a bus that is supposed to stop at Willowbrook approximately once every 8 minutes from 5:00-7:00 pm. The reverse commute during the same time shows two buses an hour returning to the city with fares. Also-the buses stop running around midnight, leaving the reverse commuters and people attending concerts, sporting events, shows and clubs stranded in the city-unless, of course, they drive. Conversely the Long Island Rail Road runs all night and the Metro North provides service until 2:30 in the morning.

Overcrowded cities face many problems. Simple solutions such as the ones I’ve detailed shouldn’t get in the way of a safe, and green, NYC."

PLASTIC BOTTLE RECYCLING

2009-03-26T23:36:00.004-04:00

A friend of mine sent me this letter to the Town of Branford, CT written by one of its 13 year old resident (at the time of teh writing) and responded to by the town. I like the thoughtful answer and the enthusiasm of the 13 year old.

Full disclosure: I lived in Branford for 14 years. I have not been back to visit since my parents past away.

My friend liked it, because it adddresses a issue that frequently gets ignored.

"I am writing to you about an important environmental problem facing the Branford community: the town will not collect plastic water bottles (except for #2) at the weekly curbside collection. This is hard for me to understand because bottled water has become extremely popular; the consumption of bottles water has grown over 500% over the last five years. Branford’s lack of recycling water bottles concerns me because it poses a major threat to our environment. Discarded bottles use up vital space in landfills. When trash is burned, the toxic fumes from the bottles pollute the air we breathe and destroy the ozone layer. When I first learned that Branford did not recycle water bottles, I assumed it was because the bottles were made of a type of plastic that could not be recycled or reused in some way. I later discovered recycled water bottles can be turned into sweaters, carpets, t-shirts and many other useful things. I am not sure of Branford’s reason for not recycling water bottles, but I have heard that it may have something to do with transportation expenses. I hope you reconsider this issue, because the bottles get transported to the dump anyway, just not in a recycling truck. I would like you to help the citizens of Branford to recycle any kind of product during the weekly curbside garbage and recycling pick-up. If you need any help letting people know about the change, I could make posters and spread the word. I hope we can solve this issue in a way that will help the Branford Community. Thank you for your time and consideration." -Kiley

"Thank you for your letter and your concern about the environment. Yes, it is possible to recycle plastic water bottles – the technology exists. While a part of the reason why we don’t recycle them is because of economic reasons (money), there is also a much larger reason that needs to be explained. Whatever the town collects, whether it is garbage or recyclables, we need to have a place to take those materials. When your garbage and recycling is picked up by the trucks, it is then brought to a facility called the Branford Recycling Center & Transfer Station. The garbage is put into large tractor trailers, and is taken to a facility in the town of Bristol, CT, where the garbage that you made in your house is burned to make electricity. Garbage is no longer sent to landfills, as the landfills in the state have filled up. So the garbage is given another use by creating the electricity that we use in our homes, and only the ash is left to be buried in landfills. While burning the garbage does make some pollution, the plants have lots and lots of pollution controls on them, so it is much better for the environment than the old, leaky landfills were. As long as people keep making garbage, we don’t have a choice not to dispose of it at all, but must choose what methods are best, while trying to cut down on the amount of garbage. Recycling is a little different. When you put a bottle or can or newspaper in your recycling box at home, we collect it to take to the Branford Recycling Center. There the newspapers go in one container, the cardboard in another, and the mixed bottles and cans go in a third. The bottles and cans then are brought to a facility to be sorted and separated from each other and sent off to processors. The processors make new items from this recycled material, and then the recycled item is sold again. If it doesn’t go through all those stages, including having someone buy it, then we’ve just made very expensive garbage, because it’s not really recycling.

Why do we recycle? Think about that. Why do we recycle? Don’t stop with an answer like “recycling is good”, or “it’s good for the environment”. Think about why it is good for the environment. The purpose of recycling is to try and conserve all natural resources. We talk a lot about “sustainability”. That means that when we leave this planet, it shouldn’t be any worse off then when we arrived on it. How many planets would be needed to support your lifestyle? We’ve only got one planet. What’s already here, plus the sunlight coming into it, is all we have to work with. Scientists talk about something called a “life-cycle analysis” which reduces everything to its value in terms of energy and then looks at how much energy it takes from mining the raw material, to making the product, to transporting the product around, to using it, to transporting it back to a landfill or waste-to-energy facility or recycling center, and then to re-manufacturing it, if possible. We’ve looked at this for plastic water bottles in Branford. The sorting facility we use to separate our bottles and cans, called a Materials Recovery Facility or MRF, is in Groton Connecticut, about an hour away by truck. There isn’t a MRF anywhere in New Haven County. At this time, with no facilities locally, if we were to recycle plastic water bottles, than we would be utilizing more natural resources than we would be saving by recycling the bottles. Most plastic is made from petroleum (oil). I think of oil as being made from dinosaurs – we don’t have any more dinosaurs, which is why oil is called a “non-renewable resource”. By recycling plastic bottles, you are conserving petroleum. However, the trucks that carry the water bottles to be recycled are using diesel fuel (also a petroleum product), and with the distance that the truck would have to go in order for the plastic water bottles to be recycled, we would be using more oil (diesel fuel) than we would be saving by recycling the plastic water bottles. It’s what I call burning 5 dinosaurs to save 4 dinosaurs. It doesn’t really save the environment. It’s actually worse for it. And even with what gas cost in 2006, it would then cost us more to recycle the bottles and cans per ton than it does to burn the garbage. The plastic bottles fill up the truck with a little bit of plastic and a whole lot of air. It’s a waste of the diesel fuel oil to haul air an hour away, while cluttering up our highways with more and more trucks. When the plastic bottles are in the garbage, we can pack the air out of them. When they are in the recycling, we can’t or it would crush the glass so it couldn’t be sorted by color and recycled.

Sometimes we ask the wrong questions. The best answer to the grocery store question “paper bag or plastic bag?” is “no, thank you”. So if you are concerned about water bottles in the garbage and them being burned, let’s back up and ask a different question: why do we have all these water bottles to dispose of, and is there a better answer? My recommendation is to consider investing in a re-usable water bottle, that you can fill up from the faucet or from a water cooler, and encourage your friends to do so as well. There are water bottles that are made from different kinds of plastics and also of metal that are available for purchase. They come in a variety of sizes, shapes, colors and styles too! And if you do have a regular, plastic bottle like Poland Springs, then wash it and fill it again. Think about that: if every bottle was re-used just once, then there would be only half as many bottles to debate about. Use them more than once, and the problem keeps getting smaller. That’s under your control! Children can be very powerful influences. And children, like yourself, are consumers and educators. We have to learn not to rely on others, like government, to do the right things for us, but to take the steps we each have control over to make the changes we want to see in the world. Will you help with that?

I am glad that you took the time to write me about your concern for the environment. If you have any other questions, please look at my web site at www.Branford-CT.gov under Town Hall Departments and then Solid Waste & Recycling, or email me at SolidWaste@Branford-CT.gov. Remember, there are three R’s: Reduce, Re-Use, and then Recycle!

A New Religion-Sort of...

2009-01-29T00:09:00.008-05:00

I received an email from a dear friend of mine with whom I have had many a vigorous discussion about everything from politics to sports to the environment to religion. Well since I can't help but let my feelings about the environment go unnoticed to most people I talk to, she hears it the most. After listening to her go on about how hypocritical most people are and in many cases self-proclaimed "environmentalists", I told her that if she wrote her opinions down I would publish them on my blog. I have to say that although a discussion can go off on many tangents and sometimes one's meaning can get lost, she wrote a well thought out rant about environmentalists. While I'm sure she is not including all environmentalist, but if I know her (and I do for 24 years), she is including most of them in her rant. It is likely that many people will take her views the wrong way, it is unlikely that she cares if she hurts the feelings of those guilty of being environmentally hypocritical. Please remember that these are her opinions.

"I’m tired of the environment being the “new religion.” We’ve got Al Gore (the prophet) the end of the world (global warming) and salvation (“going green”) I’m tired of trendy environmentalists coming up to me and lecturing me on my lack of environmental enthusiasm while wearing leather and drinking bottled water. I’m tired of so called “green” housecleaning products that are 20+% more expensive then regular cleaning products and work half as well. I’m tired of feeling like a bad person because I print some of my work emails despite the earnest request from sender to “think before printing this email” put into the signature line. I’m tired of my movies and TV like Ice Age, Wall-e and The Day The Earth Stood Still (the remake) imploring me to care about the environment and save it for my children. And I’m tired of people who wear fur and talk about their Carbon Footprint. Because this is what they don’t know:

--29 billion bottles of water are mass produced every year. (That doesn’t include soda or juice) It costs approximately 17 million barrels of crude oil to produce these bottles. FYI only 23% of all plastic bottles are recycled. In 1995, before the Green Religion came into its own we recycled 40% of all plastic bottles. Why are only 23% of bottles recycled now? Because we simply don’t have the money and more importantly the facilities to recycle since Hydration Crusade started. Your local town collects the bottles and then….? Some recycle. Some can’t get into recycling facilities and some have discovered that it costs too much darn money to sort the bottles by resin type, remove the caps (not recyclable) and truck them half way across the country to the appropriate recycling facility. And by the by, plastics are generally only recycled once. The recycled plastic flakes are turned into waste containers, plastic bags, linings for coats and jackets and urban products—none of which is recyclable.

So environmentalists—if you want to talk to me about the environment do it while drinking your water out of a sports bottle, okay? Or buy products in aluminum cans. Aluminum is 100% recyclable, has a 60 day waiting period (instead of years like some plastic recycling plants do) and costs a fraction of the cost of recycling a plastic bottle.

--Leather. Most articles I read said, “Putting aside the ethical aspects of using animal skins…” but I’d rather not. Leather is made largely, but not exclusively, from cows-living, breathing, feeling creatures that we callously breed, raise, feed and kill for food and the pleasure of wearing, carrying and sitting on their skin. Any questions on whether cows feel? Go pet one on the head and see the response. It’ll make you reconsider eating meat and wearing leather. I promise. Have I taken the fun out of that new Coach handbag yet? No? Okay here is a list of chemicals it takes to tan and dye leather: Sodium sulfite, sodium hydroxide, sodium hydrosulfide, calcium hydrosulfide, arsenic sulfide, chromium and depending on the country of production lead and/or mercury. And the major producers of leather include China, Mexico and Pakistan as well as the USA and Italy. Since water is used in every stage of the tanning process without very stringent environmental controls you can pretty much count on that fact that at least some of the chemicals get into the local rivers. And by the by-the all leather interior in your car? That’s 14 dead cows. Save the planet. Buy wear old clothing, carry fabric handbags and drive cars with fabric interiors. But warning, you won’t look nearly as trendy doing so.

--Green products. Here’s what my research showed. Everyone agrees that traditional cleaning products contain potentially harmful chemicals to the environment and to the person using the chemicals. But-here’s the fun part. There is no agreed upon standard for what a green product is. There are guidelines, but no standards. Which means that P&G, Lever Borthers or SCJohnson can take the dye out of a dishwashing liquid and legitimately call it a green product while leaving in every other chemical-no matter how harmful. Say what? But here is my real beef. I’ve bought “green” glass cleaner, laundry detergent and dishwashing liquid and none of them worked well. Call me selfish. I want my laundry clean, my glass streak-free and my dishes grease-free. Or at least I want my mom’s standards of cleanliness greatly reduced when she comes to visit me when I use these "green" products.

--Movies, celebs and the environmental “message.” I’m sorry to pick on Ice Age which is a really cute movie with an environmental message as subtle as a sledgehammer—Ice is melting, flooding the earth, and the poor hapless animals have no place to cavort—But Ice Age 3 is coming out this summer. My only comment is-as you watch Queen Latifah, Ray Romano and Dennis Leary promote Ice Age 3 in New York, Miami, LA, Tokyo, Germany, France, England, Brazil and Australia is How Are They Getting There? Are they Swimming? Floating down the river in a raft? American Airlines? Charter? Private Plane? Inquiring minds want to know. And inquiring minds want to know how much jet fuel that private plane uses. Save the planet. Do all your red carpets in LA and send the photos to Germany. Okay?"

Tennessee Coal Ash Spill

2009-01-06T22:42:00.002-05:00

For those that don't know, a coal ash slurry pond in Tennessee lost integrity and flooded over 1 billion (billlllionnnn!! like Carl Sagan used to day it) of sludge into part of the Tennessee river system and over 300 acres of land. I maybe a little slow in learning about the spill, but this was not exactly big news in NY. The Madoff scandal was big news here.

What I find hard to believe is that the coal industry spends tens of millions of dollars on P.R. trying to convince everyone that "clean coal" is a great thing. Yet, they don't spend a fraction of that amount ensuring that coal as a energy source is actually clean. Granted, the industry has invested alot in making the air emissions cleaner, but if you take the hazards out of the air, where does it go? Have they made any real investment in removing it from the environment in its solid for liquified form? I doubt it. Any where was the EPA when there were small leaks to the retaining walls in 2003 & 2006? What about the state environmental agency?

What do government agencies actually do before something is an emergency or a PR nightmare? The SEC audited Madoff's company eight times (8X) and info from a few whistle blowers and missed that he scammed $50billion (billlllionnnn!!) from unsuspecting investors. Now it is not exactly a secret that the EPA will not fight hard when opposed by an industry, but this is ridiculous.

The spill released thousnad of tons of heavy metals into the environment, yet coal ash is not a hazardous substance. HELLO!!!!!!!! Last I checked, heavy metals that cause cancer are hazardous! THEY ARE BAD!!!

The current EPA is a paper tiger (maybe a kitten). I hope that the new administration has the time in their busy schedule to fix the EPA. The SEC is being investigated for the Madoff debacle less than one month after the news broke. The EPA will likely not even get a phone call from the Bush administration. Want to know why? No major campaign contributors lost money in the Tennessee coal ash spill (except for maybe the coal industry); unlike the Madoff scandal.

Here is some info about the spill:

According to the New York Times: "...in just one year, the plant’s byproducts included 45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese. Those metals can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications, among other health problems."

And the holding pond, at the Kingston Fossil Plant, a T.V.A. plant 40 miles west of Knoxville, contained many decades’ worth of these deposits."

The spill has reignited a debate over whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous waste. In 2000, the E.P.A. backed away from its recommendation to do so in the face of industry opposition, promising instead to issue national guidelines for proper ash disposal, though it never did."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/us/30sludge.html

What is Organic Farming

2008-12-28T14:40:00.002-05:00

I always wanted to know exactly what does organic mean. You hear that word used for so many things, its true definition can get lost through common usage and marketing hype. So here it is:

According to the USDA National Organic Program (NOP):

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.

There are three levels of organic foods or products:

100% Organic: Made with 100% organic ingredients

Organic: Made with at least 95% organic ingredients

Made With Organic Ingredients: Made with a minimum of 70% organic ingredients with restrictions on the remaining 30% including no genetically modified organisms.

For more info, go to www.organic.org or here, the USDA NOP.

The American Public Health Association (APHA) defines a "sustainable food system" as "one that provides healthy food to meet current food needs while maintaining healthy ecosystems that can also provide food for generations to come with minimal negative impact to the environment. A sustainable food system also encourages local production and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food available, accessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers, consumers, and communities."

Searching for Perfection

2008-12-28T00:49:00.002-05:00

A small comment about perfect photos:

They Don't Exist!

I was broken down on the "too much photo equipment" highway. "Wait!" Some of you may say: "Two cameras and two lenses is nothing." That may be true, but I was getting more stressed than ever about my photos. I was accumulating quality equipment, but I was not any happier with my art. I was Sisyphus pushing a six pound camera/lens combination up a hill and not getting as many good shot as I had hoped.

Guess what? Perfect photos do not exist. "What about some of the great photographers like Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Mapplethorpe, Annie Leibowitz, etc?" Some of you may retort. Good point, except that I read somewhere that 90% of the work of an image is done in the darkroom (or on a computer). They created much of the beauty of their work while processing the images, rather then taking them. Adams took some of his first photos with what is now an over one hundred year old camera that he bought used for a dollar. Now we have Photoshop and other photo editing software instead of darkrooms. In my film days, I never developed anything in a darkroom. I always used a lab. Now I do everything digitally, including scanned film. That does not mean that photo editing software will make perfect photos. Nor did Ansel Adams or any of the others make perfect photos. What Ansel Adams and other great photographers did was to establish a high water mark for others to strive for. Some have surpassed it, but not many.

But what does that mean to you and me? Well, stop stressing about the deep inner meaning of your photos and go out and take some more. What is fine art? Probably just some highfalutin guy telling you about the meaning of a blob of paint on a canvas. Here's your deep inner meaning: the more photos you take, the better you will be at photography. Yeh, you can take classes and seminars, but doing is the best teacher.

Things you should not screw up

2008-12-28T00:47:00.002-05:00

Want to improve your photography? Exposure and focus are probably the two most important skills for a novice photographer to learn. It may sound like a no-brainer, but you would be surprised how many times you can screw those up. Some might say composure is more important, because you don't want to see a bunch of headless people in your pictures. I can't argue with headless people.

However, composition is more intuitive and usually anyone serious about this hobby has usually conquered headless people in their shots. A level horizon and the rule of thirds are important also.

Exposure is the relationship between the amount of light that hits the imager (film or digital) and for how long. Now-a-days, the cameras are pretty damn good at this part of the image-making process. Back in the manual camera days, you had to decide the aperture and shutter speed. Getting the hang of it is a lot different than mastering it. There was a time when photography classes would not even let you bring a camera that was not all manual. Most classes now probably don't care.

Sharp photos are more than just well-focused images. The auto-focus feature on most cameras is ok, some are even good. However, the camera does not know what your subject is. It may focus on the tree in the foreground and not on the sunset in the background. Most of the point and shoot cameras are not so good at focusing on the things I want to shoot. The DSLRs have a different problem; they are almost too smart and will focus on the things it thinks are your subjects. Manually tweaking the focus can become an important part of your image taking process. However, out-of-focus or blurry images may be your intention-especially motion images.

Short depth of field requires proper focus and proper exposure. It is very difficult for an automatic camera to do it well. Frequently, the camera screws up one or the other. Long depth of field is very easy to do-think landscapes.

One thing I need to mention is ISO. ISO refers to the sensitivity of the imager, whether it be digital or film. The higher the number, the more sensitive the imager is. But, there is a snag. The higher you go, the more "noisy or grainy" the image is. This can result in degradation of image quality, especially with digital. Although, many photographers prefer black and white films with a grainy look; digital noise is rarely considered a good thing. This reminds me of a time when I was in one of those big-box electronic retail stores in the mall. I asked the young salesman if a particular camera could shoot in the dark. He pointed to the ISO feature on the camera. Realizing he knew next to nothing about photography, I decided to taunt him. "How does it focus in the dark?" Again, he referred to the ISO feature. When I informed him that ISO was imager sensitivity, his eyes glossed over and said that ISO made the camera work in the dark. I could not take it anymore. I proceeded to explain exposure to him. He said that they never explained that in the training class. That was the amazing thing; he took a class to be that ignorant about how a camera works.

Cameras come and go, but lenses are forever.

2008-12-28T00:46:00.001-05:00

What can I say about lenses that has not been debated over and over and over again? Some are good; some are great and some blow chunks. Maybe some day I'll build a miniature Trebuchet and launch all my crappy third-party zoom lenses into a lake. Please don't take this as a knock on third-party lenses as a group. There are many that are quite excellent and occasionally better than their NikkorCanonMinoltaOlympusPentax counterparts. I happen to have had some crappy third-party lenses from my 35mm film days. Yes, I intentionally did not bunch Leica and Zeiss with those others. Would you rather have Sigma's best lens over any comparable offering from Leica or Zeiss? Yeah, neither would I.

Among hobbyists, I have found two main camps of lens-istas: those that only buy the lenses made by their camera manufacturer; and those that hunt through the offering of the third-party lenses looking for the hidden gems. Of course, there are some that buy both, but including them would muck up my comparison. Those that only buy lenses from the same company as their camera usually want to feel assured that they have the finest or most compatible lenses made for their camera and don't want to know about some second-rate, also-ran lens made by some company he/she has little interest in learning about. The other type wants a quality lens, but does not want to spend the big bucks on the big name lenses. This applies to both the new and used lens buyers. After extensive research and much trial and error, he/she will have put together a complement of lenses that gives them good value. Good image quality for a good price. Then there are those consumers who buy what the salesman suggests.

What overly polarized group of lens owners do I fall into? I would say the first group, but that could change in the future. I have tried quite a few lenses from third party lens manufacturers, but they never quite fit my needs. There are as many reasons to choose a lens as there are photographers out there. I have been tempted by some of the offerings from Sigma and Tokina. But so far, I have only purchased Nikkor lenses.

Don't even get me started on most of the cheap "kit" lenses available today, even if they are from the camera maker. (Even if they have the camera makers name on it, they usually are not made by them). There are some notable exceptions (like the Nikkor 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S), but nearly all of the $100 wonder-zooms suck. Back in the day, a 35mm SLR came with a 50mm prime lens, also called a "normal" lens. By and large, most are excellent and some are exceptional. The worst are only good to very good. The 50mm f1.8 is the most basic lens and easiest to make. It is nearly impossible for a lens manufacturer to screw them up. Every lens manufacturer makes one. The year I bought my Pentax, Consumer Reports rated the Pentax 50mm/f1.7 number one. I don't know how much CR knew about rating lenses back then, but it was more than me, so that is what I bought. (They also rated the Pentax camera I selected number two behind another Pentax camera.) Later, I bought the Pentax 28mm/f2.8, also an excellent piece of optic. I have had some cheapo zooms, but I'd rather not talk about them. They sucked!

I did not choose Nikon as my digital camera system because of the lenses. This confuses most people from both Nikon and Canon camps. The Nikon faithful think Nikkors are the best by far. The Canon camp think Canon lenses are equal to or better than Nikkors. I liked the Canon lenses and the Nikon cameras. Yes, I know, I'm going to Heck for that. But I could not buy them that way, so I went with Nikon. I like the handling of their cameras and I am more comfortable with Nikon bodies. Well, now that I have pissed off everybody; let's move on.

Bokeh is very "in" these days. In the 70's and 80's, very few people talked about it. Now, it shows up regularly on most photo forums about lenses. For those that don't know, bokeh is a Japanese word for the out of focus part of the image beyond the depth of field, usually the background in a close-up with a short depth of field. I think that bokeh has always been an important part of many artists work; however, the Japanese were particularly keen on it, and it took a while for the rest of the photographic world to really get excited about it. I really like the look of good bokeh and I am glad when lens makers don't overlook it when they design a lens.

Like I said before, one could spend a lot of time comparing the two lens systems; and many do. I will not do that. If one compares two equivalent lenses from Nikon and Canon, the imager and the photographer's skill will probably play a more prominent role in the outcome of the image than the lens. My final thought on lenses is this: Cameras come and go; quality lenses are forever. Buy the best lenses you can afford; they are an investment.

Do you need a DSLR with some expensive lenses to capture good images? Definitely not! There are many point and shoot digital cameras that do a great job at making good images. You don't even need to spend a lot of money. I have submitted prints from a point and shoot camera to photography shows and they were well received. Many of the photos shown here were made with a point and shoot digital camera.

Cameras can make people dumb.

2008-12-28T00:45:00.001-05:00

Cameras are a funny thing. Most consumers want convenience in their technology. They may purchase a product because of all the technology in it, but they don't want to have to figure it out. It just needs to work as simply as possible. We, as consumers, will spend considerable amounts of money on these technological wonders even if we rarely use them.

A friend of mine used to work at Polaroid. I had mentioned that I was interested in buying one of the less expensive self-developing instant film models for some business purpose I can't remember now. He said don't bother buying a cheap model; spend the money on a better model, because the cheap ones are not designed to last more than one hundred photos. I was floored. My dad had a few Polaroid Land cameras and they always lasted for many years and hundreds of packs of film. My friend said that the average consumer of cheap instant cameras took an average of 35 pictures with the camera. It turns out that the more expensive cameras like the SX-70 Land camera were very good. I borrowed my dad's camera. Don't ya just love planned obsolescence?

When I was a kid, I hated having to wait the few minutes before my dad would let me peel apart the photo from the developer paper. I remember the chemical odor was very strong. I would peel the papers apart to reveal the image, almost like magic. Then he would apply some stuff to the front of the photo. Some sort of fixer, I think. I doubt that those chemicals were good for a young kid to be breathing.

I started taking photos from the time I was eight years old when my dad gave me his old Kodak Brownie. He had bought a Nikon F a few years before. He sold it shortly after this time. Sigh. Even back then, I rarely took normal snapshots of my family. My mother used to complain that I had very few pictures of our family. I still have that camera, but it takes film no longer available.

The question I asked myself even back then: "why don't my pictures look like what I see?" and "Why don't my pictures look like postcards when I take a picture of the same thing?" Unfortunately those questions would not get answered for a while. My interest in photography did not get serious until I was in college and I bought a Pentax 35mm SLR with a 50mm lens. A few photo books and a bunch of film later, my photos were beginning to shape up some.

After college, I started taking products shots for my own business. They were not as good as the $250/hour (1988 dollars) photographer wielding a large format view camera I hired for a while, but they were good enough for the catalogs we were printing.

I had a dramatic career change (read: my business failed and I had to move on.) I moved to New York City looking for work. After a good friend helped me out, my new career was consuming a chunk of time sufficiently large that I put my Pentax in a drawer.

In May of 2000, I bought my first digital camera. It was a three megapixel affair from Sony for $1000, not including accessories. And we know how important is it to accessorize? Is that an unfair characterization of men's buying habit? Perhaps, but I digress. It actually took decent shots. So there I was with adaptor lenses, extra batteries and very expensive memory cards (64Mb for $189-ouch!) The bug had bit again-hard.

I was having a ball. I never had so much fun with a camera as I did with that Sony. Auto-focus, auto exposure, built-in flash, push button zoom; this thing was idiot-proof. And the best part of all: no film costs. I could take all the shots I wanted for free. It got better, it had an LCD screen on the back to preview my shots and delete the crappy ones before anyone else could see them. I know film cameras had some of the automatic features for quite a few years, but I didn't one of own them.

So this was some pretty gee-whiz technology to me at the time. Of course, now you can buy a much better camera for fifty bucks. Oh well.

But like all flings, the fun would not last. I kept wanting more; more camera features, more lens options, better camera performance and most importantly; better quality images. I started researching digital SLRs. The Nikon D1 had been on the market for a bit over a year, but at $5400 without a lens, it was way too much money. I went plowing through my drawers looking for my film camera. And there it was: my trusty old Pentax 35mm. It was back to manual focus, manual shutter/aperture settings and loading film. "Program Mode" exposure was the big technological advance on that Pentax. I had stopped using it more than a decade before because it blew chunks. It did not get the exposure right for what I wanted. It was fine for snapshots and other non-artistic pictures. Somewhere off in the distance I hear someone's teeth grinding about what is considered art.

I briefly dabbled with a 6x6 medium format film camera. Fun to play with, but ultimately it was not for my style of shooting: the lazy style. I still use it on occasion for fun. However, buying good film, development by a professional lab, printing proofs and then scanning the film is expensive and time consuming. I like digital much better.

I went on quite a few trips with both the Pentax and the Sony. I guess I don't need to tell you which took the better photos. That was when I started looking at DSLRs again. The prices had dropped a lot and the cameras were great.

I had a life altering decision to make. Do I stay with the Pentax K-mount or change to another mount like Nikon or Canon. Anyone that has had to make that decision knows how agonizing it can be. My Pentax primes made spectacular images; my third-party zooms were paper weights.

Canon had since become the vanguard of DSLRs over Nikon, but Nikon was still holding its own in the marketplace. At the time, the digital offerings from Minolta, Olympus and Pentax were definitely second tier compared to Canon and Nikon. This narrowed the choice down to two. After extensive research, I decided that they both had a mostly equivalent stable of lenses, flashes and accessories. And, of course, all third-party manufacture's lens worked on both. I played with both camera lines and liked the Nikon cameras better. The comfort, handling and ergonomics suited me.

Now, photographers have spent the last 25+ years debating whether the Nikon/Nikkor or Canon camera/lens system is better and will continue doing so long after the IT industry has found a way to obsolete the photography industry. I could spend the next hundred pages examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Suffice to say, they are damn close to each other in most areas.

I am firmly in the Nikon camp now. My trusty Pentax is back in the drawer slumbering until I have the urge to shoot 35 mm film again. The Sony has been passed down to my wife, who was just as happy with a disposable film camera. My camera bag got so heavy that it made me pine after the salad days of when I started using the Sony for the first time.

I had two D-SLR bodies with two lenses. Being that I am inherently lazy, I have zoom lenses. The first Nikkor lens came with the camera. It was the "kit" lens. The Nikkor 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is actually a decent lens. Not a great one, but one that made good images. That is until I snapped it in half. Now, it was not so good. That was not a happy moment in my life, but not an all together tragic one either. I had my eye on the then new Nikkor 18-200mm with the vibration reduction (VR).

Unfortunately, a week after I bought the lens, I fell off a boat with my camera and that lens around my neck. That sucked hard, but luckily I saved the 400 images from the memory card. However, I liked the lens so much, I bought another one. The camera is dead, though. I had to go out and buy a new camera. Darn. (Tongue firmly placed in cheek.)

I also bought the Nikkor 80-400mm/f3.5-5.6 VR. This was the lens that made me buy a D1H for sports and nature photography. The lens does not have the built-in auto-focus motor, so I needed a camera with a more powerful auto-focus motor. When the revolution comes, I'll be able to defend myself using the D1H as a club. What a solid, massive hunk of technology it was in its heyday. It is a bit long in the tooth now, but 8X12 prints are great and 11X17 can be decent depending on the image and the processing. I also have the usual accessories to make the kit reasonably portable, like a carbon fiber tripod and a CF monopod, ball heads, flashes, filters and the like.

Maybe my work does suck and no one will tell me.

2008-12-28T00:44:00.001-05:00

It is entirely possible that all my worst fears and anxieties about my photography are true. Maybe my work does suck and no one will tell me. Maybe I should have invested all that money in a mutual fund so I can retire a little earlier. At parties, maybe my guests are whispering; "Can you believe he actually framed this crap and hung it on the wall?" I'd like to think none of that is true. Am I vain? Maybe. Do I like it when people compliment me on my work? Yes. Do I have room for improvement? Definitely!

If I did retire early with the money I saved, what would I do? Buy the early bird special at the local diner and watch reruns on cable when I got home? Probably not the path to a long self-actualized retirement. I would love to spend my retirement as a full-time photographer just to prove that I'm not a fraud; at least to myself.

Photos can make people irrational. When the news interviews a person who just lost their house to a fire or flood, the interviewer usually asks; what is the most important thing to them? Frequently, it was their photos. Why are photos so important to people? They remind us of memories of loved ones or happy times. Like an old photographs, our memories fade with age. The memory of those happy times or loved ones mellow over time and even some not so fond memories seem better. Photos, even faded ones, can bring a flood of fond memories.

My mother had something like a dozen photo albums. Big ones, full of pictures of people I mostly didn't know. She knew all the people and the years the pictures were taken. She passed a few years ago and now I have these albums. What do I do with all these photos? They don't mean anything to me. Almost everyone in the pictures is gone. There is no one left to give them to. That is a tragedy; thousands of memories frozen in time, waiting to unlock a flood of emotions. It would make a great time capsule for some archaeologist to find a thousand years from now.

Perhaps this is why I don't take many snapshots of my family or friends. In fifty years, no one may care about those photos. I'd like to think that a photo I have taken of something beautiful or thought-provoking will live on long after me. I still take snapshots at the family outings, but I give away most of the prints. My wife does not understand me in this respect. Neither does any one else I know.

I used to hate most of my photos.

2008-12-28T00:32:00.000-05:00

It is the intention of most photographers new to the hobby to take good photographs. Long ago, I wanted my photos to be as good as the postcards I'd see on vacation. It took me many years to achieve that. Eventually, I turned away from that goal and started developing my own style. My family used to wonder why I rarely took pictures of them. Well I don't really like photos where the word "cheese" may be involved. I usually find landscape, candid, texture and nature photos more interesting to take and enjoyable to look at. I find them more artistic than the people photos that I take. That is not to say that photos of people are not artistic, I just don't like mine.

I was afraid to show anything that was not "print worthy". By print worthy, I mean large prints suitable for framing or publishing. When someone would say: "Oh, you're a photographer, can I see some pictures?" Unless I was ready with a portfolio of my finest shots, usually I would find some excuse for not dragging them out. If they were insistent enough with something like: "Don't be silly, I'm sure you take great pictures." That usually didn't help and only made me think about all the bad shots I've taken.

I want to say right now that I am not referring to snapshots. The pictures taken at the family reunion or of kids playing in the backyard and certainly any shots taken at a party are snapshots. And of course, pretty much any picture where the word "cheese" is uttered. "What do you mean snapshots are not art?" You might be thinking, and rightly so, who am I to decide that snapshots are not art? Well, me. As far as I'm concerned, those photos are to preserve memories and moments for the people involved. Are they photography as art? Probably not.

Perhaps, I'm a snob, but with rare exception, snapshots are not art. Photography is an art form. "Well artsy-fartsy, smarty-pants what is art then?" You might be asking. To me, art is the creation of something of beauty or the interpretation of life or nature with the intention of making it beautiful or evoking an emotion. Now I know that I just hit a hornet nest with a stick, but I don't care. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. At least, for now.

A wedding guest gave me prints of the shots she took at my wedding. I liked them much more than the wedding photographer's shots. And I mean that in an artistic way. Are they art? I don't know, and I don't care.

What about other forms of photography like photo-journalism? They are not trying to make something beautiful; they are trying to capture a moment in time sometimes with the intention of evoking an emotion in the viewer. Sometimes it is just to save a thousand words. Some of the finest and most beautiful photos were taken by journalists without any regard as to whether it was art or not. Steve McCurry probably had no idea that Sharbat Gula's portrait ("Afghan Girl" cover of National Geographic Magazine, June 1985) would become so iconic. I guess it depends. The journalistic image can become art even if the journalist never intended it that way.

I was obsessing about my photos; scrutinizing too many little details and not seeing the beauty that may have been obvious for others to see. For a long time, I was rarely happy with my images. Did I go to classes or seminars? No, I suffer from "I'll figure it out on my own" syndrome. I may have been a couple steps removed from neurotic. I'm better now; sort of.

I thought about using a large format view (or field) camera, but aside from being a little expensive, they are heavy and time consuming to use. I played with a medium format camera for a while, but even that was a pain in the butt to use. It took decent shots, though.

The great thing about digital cameras is the instant feedback and ability to retake your shot while you still may have the moment. Part of the problem is with all this technology, we are still no closer to creating art than Ansel Adams was. The process is faster for sure, but not necessarily better. In some ways, I almost felt obligated to take great images every time I picked up the camera to shoot. That may sound irrational and I may need therapy, but it can be compared to performance anxiety. When I didn't get the images I had hoped for, it bummed me out a little.

Here is an analogy. I own a modern European sports car and an old VW Bug. When I'm in the sports car, I feel the need for speed. If I'm at a light and some

guy in another sports car gives me the nod, the gauntlet has been cast upon the ground. I grip the wheel tightly and prepare myself for the launch. When I'm in the Bug, I have no such feelings. I can tool around at 40 miles per hour all day long and not care if I hold up traffic. The Bug has two speeds: slow and slower. I almost feel I'm wasting the performance of the sports car if I don't use it. In the Bug, I know everyone will go past me. I'm ok with that. No problem.

I had to force myself think that it is ok to go 40 miles per hour in the sports car. I had to use the same mental trick when it came to my photography equipment. Does that mean I went back to my Pentax film camera? No. Instead of trying to force a good shot, I let the shot come to me. Maybe the analogy is not perfect, but I think it illustrates a point.

Interestingly, the more I showed my work to other people, the more I relaxed about the quality of my work. That may sound a little cheesy: "Maybe you just feel better about your photos because some ignorant fool or sympathetic friend told you they liked it?" I think the realization was they saw the beauty of the photos very differently than I did. I would focus (no pun intended) so much on the minor flaws, that I would frequently miss the beauty of the shot.

Is it possible to enjoy shooting and not have anxiety about it

2008-12-28T00:31:00.000-05:00

It has been my experience that many serious amateur photographers don't like many of their own images. Yes, there are some images that we are extremely proud of and may go to great lengths to display them for others to view. However, we are our own harshest critic. We forget that what we see in an image may be entirely different from what another person sees in them. We may see flaws in an image that might actually improve it or the flaws are not nearly as important as we think they are. We spend thousands of (insert your currency here) in cameras, lenses, lighting and other equipment. Frequently trying to convince ourselves that the money spent is justified because we won't miss that next great shot or it will increase our "keepers". And this does not include the money spent on classes, seminars and trips to exotic locations in an effort to capture the perfect shot. We are addicts, addicted to photographic perfection. But like any "pie in the sky" goal, we are chasing the unattainable. That does not discourage us from trying. Sisyphus could have been an amateur photographer instead of pushing a rock up a hill.

Originally I wanted to publish this as a book. But, instead I chose to put it on the web for all to (hopefully) enjoy; and maybe even relate to it. Partly, this is an account of my personal journey to accepting my artistic limitations and technical flaws and just having a good time being a photographer. It is also meant help others get past their own personal hang-ups regarding their work and enjoy the hobby more by letting them know it is ok to shot, print and display photos that may not good enough for National Geographic magazine. An additional goal is give some advice to hobbyists so they may shoot better photos and enjoy doing it. This is not an instruction guide, nor are there any deep insights on making the reader the next Ansel Adams. There are plenty of books and websites devoted to that. Also, it is an emotionally cathartic way to get past some of my own anxieties about showing my work to others. Perhaps, it is just the semi-humorous ramblings of a guy who likes to take photos and learned to stop being neurotic about it. If you find the text boring, just look at the pictures. That's what most people do anyway.

What is HumanityScape?

2008-12-27T23:38:00.000-05:00

I have always had a respect for nature and the planet. I was brought up to not be wasteful and I called myself an "Environmentalist". But I have to admit that my commitment was not always so, well, committed. Way back when the Earth was green, I may have, at times, talked the talk more than I walked the walk. Now I'm not talking about being an Eco-warrior or anything of the sort. Looking back, maybe I could have been better at taking more effort at recycling and pitching in more. Lately, I feel better about how I conduct myself than in days or yore.

Back 20 years ago, very few people cared too much about environmental issues beyond nuclear waste being transported through their town or toxic chemicals in their neighborhood. The only people collecting the deposit on bottles and cans are people that actually needed the money.

I realized that we as a nation are very wasteful in our everyday lives. Even now in our more environmentally enlightened culture, most people I talk to can't be bothered to separate their recyclables from their trash or try to conserve energy. It was not until gasoline got above $4/gallon that people thought about not driving an SUV.

I want to help promote harmony between mankind and the planet by showing people how the live a little more environmentally responsible. In addition, I want to help fellow artists get their work noticed. HumanityScape was created as an socially-conscious organization to accomplish these goals by sharing the vision of global harmony thru public awareness of people and organizations that are helping to make a difference.

We are doing this by raising money thru the sale of artwork, in which the profits are donated to the HumanityScape Charitable Fund. Donations will be made to charities that futher our vision: that mankind will thrive if the planet is cared for properly.

HumanityScape.com (coming very soon) features the works of artists who share the vision and the passion. Galleries of their work will be available for viewing and purchase at our website. The proceeds will be shared between the artist and the charitable fund. In the mean time, check out my gallery at http://land-aid.imagekind.com. I welcome your comments (and criticism).

The journey of an amateur photographer

2008-12-27T23:25:00.000-05:00

Dirt House Photography is the nature, landscape & humanity-scape images of me, Victor Vivaudou. I am one of the founding contributors to HumanityScape.com, I am an advocate of reusing, re-purposing & recycling existing products to avoid unnecessary consumption of energy & raw materials and minimizing waste. In addition, I am an photographer, environmentalist & a professional environmental consultant.

Originally, I wanted to publish my photography in book form, but I was concerned about the environmental costs of publishing (and the possibility that no one would buy it). So, this is my book with images and text. It is not all my photography, just a sampling. It has some of my early digital photos as well as scanned film and later digital photos

I have grant unlimited usage rights to the HumanityScape.com and the profits will be donated to certain charities. The proceeds will be managed by the HumanityScape Charitible Fund. HumanityScape.com website will be up very soon. I am selling fine art prints of my work and of other photographers. My portfolio can be viewed at land-aid.imagekind.com

I look forward to readers feedback to both this blog and my gallery. Thanks for looking.