Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: wili_hybrid

Hiram Warren Johnson, California’s governor between 1911 and 1917, championed for the State’s initiative, referendum and recall laws.  Johnson served as the leader of the nation’s Progressive movement until August 6, 1945, the same day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

In the past 20 years, Johnson’s legacy extended to the rise and fall of California’s 25th Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, the State’s love/hate relationship with the death penalty, the decision to make English the official language of California, and the recall of Governor Joseph Graham “Gray” Davis, Jr. in 2003.  Most recently, Johnson and the Progressive movement established the framework for Proposition 8.

Whether or not you liked Governor Davis, in many ways the decision to recall him from office revealed an unfortunate flaw in California’s political system.  At its core and without getting into the substantive issues, Proposition 8 showed the nation just how antiquated and dangerous California’s proposition system can be.  In an earlier posting on this Website, I questioned whether California had outgrown its operating instructions.  Now, I wonder if California can sustain itself and still hold tight to the 100-year old system that still houses its progressive ideals.

The principles of progressivism — the desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government, the desire to include more people in politics, and the idea that government plays a critical role in solving social inequities — are just as important today as they were during Hiram Johnson’s leadership.  The rising population of California, however (3,426,861 in 1920 and an estimated 38,000,000 in 2010), may render these noble causes obsolete.

At Compete to Conserve, we’ve been working hard since last year’s launch continually to improve our website while staying the course, eco-wise.  Well into the first month of the new year, we have been challenging our community to think hard about doing more, getting involved, and being more green.  We want our members to understand that everyone can make small changes every day that add up to create real impact, and we like to remind everyone that you don’t have to be an environmentalist to save energy and natural resources.

In today’s political climate, it is important to know that individual actions really do make a difference, especially when some of the traditional notions of progressivism seem to falter as our population grows.  That’s why we like to remind ourselves that people, not politics, will inherit the earth.  These same people — our community — can work together toward the goal of a sustainable 2009.

photo credit: waving at you

Compete to Conserve finished some improvements and opened its doors a little wider this week, as the prospect of greening the nation’s economy seemed to grow somewhat bleaker because of the current crisis.

Many religions and cultures throughout antiquity had a slightly different spin on the idea of self-renewal and self-regeneration, especially in desperate times.  We like to keep things simple, so let’s just say we’re looking  for some lemons to make lemonade.

The nation’s economy has seen better days.  Stuck in the middle of a mortgage crisis, an insurance crisis, a credit crisis, a stock market free fall, and an estimated 500,000 individuals joining the ranks of unemployed last month, most of us would embrace some good financial news.

Now is the ideal time for a greener economy to rise out of the ashes of the financial crisis, paving the road toward sustainability on all fronts.  Some argue that “biomimicry” — nature inspiring design — can offer an economic model to save our economy. Academia across the nation is calling for an entirely new economic model, and some argue “[t]he wreckage of an unsustainable financial system could turn out to be the best catalyst for a more sustainable alternative.”

Without arguing the cause or solution, it seems like financial recovery may take some time.  Well we have good news at Compete to Conserve, because we have some time.  We believe that you don’t have to be an environmentalist or an expert to conserve resources, and our website is designed to help you make small everyday changes that add up to create real impact.

Since our July 22 launch, we’ve been working hard to improve our website while staying the course, eco-wise. If you haven’t been around lately, please take a look.  Sign up if you like and we can, collectively, work on making a daily difference.  We can let that mythological bird make the statement.

photo credit: AlbySpace

California’s Proposition 8 is wrong.

While I am a big proponent that this Website remains nonpartisan, I feel strongly about that first sentence, and more strongly that it has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever.

At the end of the day, Proposition 8 added Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, which states:  “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The Bill of Rights refers to our nation’s first ten Constitutional amendments.  Seventeen more came into existence thereafter.  If there is a common theme among all, it is the protection and granting of individual rights in defense of possible tyranny by a federal sovereignty.  After passing a series of articles establishing a nation, the Bill of Rights provided some sort of guarantee that this new nation would not usurp individual rights.

So it naturally follows that the 27 Constitutional Amendments — with the one obvious exception (prohibition, which was later repealed) — give rather than take.  The First Amendment grants the individual right to speak freely.  The Second lets you own a gun.  The Third provides some protection in the home.  The Fourth protects against unlawful searches and seizures.  Five ensures protection from an unlawful “taking” by the federal government.  Six, Seven and Eight were crafted to ensure that our justice system afforded the necessary safeguards for those accused, and convicted, of a crime.

The actual right established by an amendment is more obvious in some instances than others, such as 13, 14, 15, 19 and 26 (abolishing slavery and granting citizenship rights, and also establishing voting rights for most men and women over the age of 18).  While some amendments may be construed as taking rights away (e.g., 16 (income taxes) and 27 (limiting Congressional pay increases)), a deeper analysis reveals that this was not the intent.  Only 18 (prohibition) “took away”, but that was later repealed by 21.

When working properly, these amendments should provide inspiration for all that our nation exists with unlimited potential. But sometimes this is not the case.  Proposition 8 establishes no rights upon anyone whatsoever.  While proponents may have argued that Proposition 8 provided both moral and practical protections to certain parts of society, a simple reading of its text does nothing more than eliminate one specific option for one specific group in society.

So I voted against Proposition 8 for these reasons. I didn’t even get to the other more substantive and contemplative issues.  Does this cross the line of separating the church from the state?  Does it take away from the notion of traditional “family values”?  Should we make a fundamental distinction between same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages?

What Prop 8 reveals is how antiquated and dangerous the system of propositions in California is.  Under Article 16 of the California Constitution, decisions of public finance require agreement by two-thirds of the California legislature.  Since that rarely happens, propositions are the only other mechanism for deciding decisions of public finance.

If the legislature is not able to make these important decisions, then I question whether California has simply outgrown its operating instructions.

That’s probably a larger discussion for another website, perhaps the same website that can figure out how a state as large as California can elect a governor, then un-elect him a couple of years later, and then elect another governor who is virtually powerless to do anything given California’s political infrastructure.

So what does this have to do with energy conservation?  Not much.  But it has everything to do with sustainability, and if California — our nation’s most populous state — is ever going to be able to sustain itself on all fronts, it needs to rethink the instruction manual under which it operates.  The definition of sustainability is very broad and covers everything from the environment to healthcare to individual rights.  It is going to take a lot of work for California to get where it needs to be.  But much like the discussions contained within this website, it starts with creating an environment that fosters change.

As founder and CEO of Compete to Conserve, I’d like to welcome you to our new and improved beta site. We’re not quite done—like conservation efforts, there’s always room for improvement—but we hope you find our latest updates useful and fun.

We’ve made it easier to see when other Compete to Conserve members have posted and made it easier to connect with people in the community. We encourage you to try our improved features: follow interesting members to see what they’re up to, add a goal and post your thoughts or progress, and challenge others to do the same.

Make a Difference, Not a Statement

We believe that you don’t have to be an environmentalist or an expert to conserve resources. Compete to Conserve is designed so you can make small everyday changes that add up to create real impact.

In the fall of 2007, cofounder Tim Barkow and I hatched the idea for a nonpartisan online community that inspires changes in the way we consume natural resources. After countless hours of work and the addition of six more team members, we launched July 22, 2008.

Since then, all of us have made significant adjustments in our lives as a result of what we have learned from our community. We take a practical, realistic approach as leaders in our online community. We do not publicly endorse candidates, and if possible, we present “both sides” to an argument. We want to learn how much energy CFLs will save and how to clean them up if they accidentally break on the carpet at home. We struggle to understand the balance between the growth of the GDP in our nation and worldwide while still promoting conservation.

Jump Right In

We are very proud of what we have accomplished. Our community has grown, and we continue to emphasize our focus on people helping other people learn more and discover solutions to their consumer- and energy-related lives. We may argue about the impact, but few disagree that we create a lot of waste. So jump in and tell us what’s working for you and what’s not. To make things easy for you, here’s a link where you can provide some feedback. http://getsatisfaction.com/competetoconserve.  We’re ready to make a difference, not a statement.

–Craig Garner

photo credit: otisarchives3

Hospitals use a lot of energy, and not surprisingly the healthcare sector ranks second in energy intensity.  Hospitals use 836 trillion BTUs of energy annually (over 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings), produce 28.575 million tons of CO2 and over 30 lbs of CO2 emissions per square foot on an annual basis.  It would logically follow that Hospitals have at their disposal myriad resources to make a change toward sustainability.  Regrettably, this is not the case.

While my approach in trying to make a difference and improve our environment has been deliberately non-partisan, at some point it is necessary to take a definitive stand on something, even if that “something” is mired in controversy.  Working in hospital administration these past six years, I fear that the healthcare system in California today is so dysfunctional that it borders on the edge of cataclysmic failure.  Surprisingly, this systemic problem has not received the necessary attention a crisis of such magnitude should mandate. (more…)

photo credit: pedroelnegro [ in love with dark side ]

Apple’s iPhone is the greatest invention ever.  Apple’s iPhone is destroying modern civilization as we know it. After reading an October 10, 2008, LA Times article about tech publisher Tim O’Reilly (he challenged web entrepreneurs and engineers to “get serious”), I started to think about my iPhone.

I’ve been waiting for its arrival since I started my first real job in 1995. I remember my first few years playing lawyer, going to court, scheduling future hearings, motions and trials – all with a paper calendar.  And then I would return to my office and input that very same information into some computer-based calendaring system. Even after I no longer had to calendar court hearings, my addiction to a paper-based system remained.

But this story really starts in 1988. (more…)

photo credit: insyros

Any day now, there’s going to be a really big earthquake in California.  There will also be floods in Mississippi, tornadoes in Kansas, tsunamis in Alaska and volcanoes in Hawaii.  Any day now there may also be (at least since 2001) explosions in public places, biological and/or chemical threats, and maybe even a nuclear blast.

Are you ready?:  “Are You Ready” is the title of a 206 page guide prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Although it is generally published in book form, www.ready.gov contains PDF versions of this particular survival guide and more.  The site offers information for just about everyone, including pets.  Indeed, the “likelihood that you and your animals will survive an emergency such as a fire or flood, tornado or terrorist attach depends largely on emergency planning done today.” (more…)

photo credit: Peter.Lorre

I really hate leaf blowers.  But since Compete to Conserve is non-partisan, I would be remiss not to provide some objective background information.  “A leaf blower is an engine-powered, hand-held maintenance tool used in lieu of a rake or broom to remove leaves and debris from a lawn or garden by blowing them away.”  A leaf blower is basically a high-speed fan which creates an air current up to 200 miles per hour.  The air then pushes the objects in its path (i.e., leaves) in the intended direction.

Leaf blowers generally come in one of two forms:  (1) the blower (used simply to blow materials); and (2) the blower/vacuum (as its name suggests, it combines the blower function with a vacuum feature, and sometimes even a mulching feature).  Both forms of leaf blowers are designed as hand held units, backpacks or the “walk behind” version (mounted on wheels).  The power behind the leaf blower can be electric (corded or rechargeable/battery operated) or gas.

I am not alone in my crusade, and it really is not hard to find information against leaf blowers.  In my opinion, the three main arguments are:

Leaf Blowers Are Loud

Some critics of leaf blowers argue that the decibel level of a leaf blower can damage hearing.  To others, it is really a matter of what time in the morning the leaf blower is first activated.  Have you ever tried to get the attention of a person bearing a leaf blower if he or she was not facing you?  Of the 40 million United States citizens suffering from hearing loss, 25% of the cases can be attributed to Noise Induced Hearing Loss (”NIHL”).  Even one bad sound experience can lead to NIHL.  Typical conversations occur at 60 decibels.  Leaf blowers operate at about 115 decibels (the same as a chainsaw or rock concert).  The recommended standard for permissible exposure time at that level is less than 30 seconds.

Leaf Blowers Are Toxic to the Air

Leaf blowers generate as much emissions in just one short hour as a brand-new automobile on a 350-mile road trip.  Additionally, in urban settings, leaf blowers fail to single out the solitary, fallen leaf, but instead send debris, soil, dust, pollen and/or mold into a newly created swirling vortex of toxic air.

Leaf Blowers Violate Newton’s Third Law of Motion (aka Leaf Blowers Are Stupid)

In trying to promote the idea of global sustainability through conservation on an individual and accessible level, somehow I keep coming back (far too often perhaps) to Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion:  “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  Leaf blowers do little more in an urban setting than transfer dirt and debris from private property onto public or other private property.  Newton believed that whenever two objects interact, the force directed on one must equal (but in opposite direction) the force directed at the other.  When matched against the monstrous force of a leaf blower, the helpless leaf has no choice but to react, and metaphorically speaking, run to the nearest lawn or street.

Living in an urban setting, I am baffled whenever I see a leaf blower being used to move dirt from one person’s lawn to another lawn, or worse, into the street.  This solitary act is the origin, and perhaps only reason, why I really hate leaf blowers.  Without disregarding the importance of noise pollution and air quality, I  think this most common use of a leaf blower in an urban setting is just plain stupid.

Thankfully, many cities are banning leaf blowers or limiting the hours of use.  In Los Angeles, if a neighbor refuses to control a leaf blower on his or her property, residents can report a “blower in progress” by caling 877-275-5273 (make sure to select “1″, however, for non-emergent crimes).  More information can be found at www.zapla.org (zero air pollution Los Angeles).  ZAPLA’s mission statement is “to encourage compliance with leaf blower bans and restrictions by providing facts, opinions, and access to sources and to resources.”  Happy to know these resources exist, clearly I am not alone on this position.  And while I am somewhat passionate about my disliking of leaf blowers, I think treehugger.com hates them even more, calling leaf blowers a few years back the “scourge of humanity“.

For more information visit:

www.wisegeek.com/what-are-leaf-blowers.html

www.spokanecleanair.org

www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

www.zapla.org

www.lowes.com

www.treehugger.com/files/005/09/leaf_blowers_sc.php

Earlier this year Alex Rodriguez signed a $275 Million, ten-year contract with the New York Yankees, cutting short his $252 Million ten-year contract with the Texas Rangers signed in 2001.  On the other side of the country, the Los Angeles Dodgers recently acquired Manny Ramirez in the final year of his $160 Million contract signed with the Boston Red Sox in 2001.

Major League Baseball may not be synonymous with environmental sustainability, but the 2008 season has treated fans to a shade of green separate and apart from the playing field.

Last April, the Seattle Mariners and Baltimore Orioles played the first carbon-neutral baseball game in MLB history.  To celebrate Earth Day, the teams partnered with Cedar Grove Composting to offset the game’s energy consumption by funding certain energy-conservation projects.  An estimated 230 tons of carbon dioxide produced by flight travel, electricity and natural gas during the game, disposal or recycling of waste, hotel-related emissions, and team staff and fan transportation was offset by an investment in new methane and wind projects.

To start the 2008 season, the Philadelphia Phillies announced the team would offset the carbon footprint created by the utility power usage at the team’s stadium by purchasing 20 million kilowatt-hours of Green-e Energy Certified Renewable Energy Certificates.  This contribution is the functional equivalent of planting 100,000 trees.

Also this season, MLB partnered with the National Resources Defense Council to provide teams with eco-friendly advice in all areas of operations.  “Using corn starch cups, increasing recycling and installing solar panels and possibly wind turbines at ballparks are among the measures teams will consider as part of a major league-wide effort to reduce baseball’s carbon footprint.”  (USAtoday.com, March 12, 2008.)  Named the “Team Greening Program”, each team received software to provide assistance in energy and water conservation, the purchase of eco-friendly products, how to improve sales from concession areas, recyling and transporatation.

Now, the Los Angeles Angels and Compete to Conserve are working together to promote global sustainability, starting with the fans.  In an effort to promote conservation on an individual and accessible level, Compete to Conserve hopes to increase recycling at Anaheim Stadium while inspiring fans to make positive and practical changes in the way they consume natural resources.

As the season enters its final month, it appears that the Angels are familiar with the principles of long-term energy conservation.  Holding firm to a first place lead of 17 games and only 23 left for the season, the Angels are well positioned to sustain their division lead heading into the playoffs.

For more information please visit:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/359994_greenball22.html

http://greentechnolog.com/2008/05/philadelphia_phillies_go_green.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-03-10-MLB-goes-green_N.htm

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52577

photo credit: Mikey G Ottawa

Words can be quite powerful, but images are pretty cool, too.  Here’s a few favorites from the week:

1.  Ode Magazine posted the winning image from the BID Challenge in April. “BID is a Netherlands-based organization that runs a business plan competition for entrepreneurs in developing countries.”  The full article (which tells the story of this year’s winner — Juan Carlos Cabellos from Huanchaco, Peru — can be found at http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/56/a-pretty-picture/.

2.  Treehugger showed us what to expect with CFL bulbs, version 2.0.  http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/cfl-bulb-looks-incandescent.php.

3.  Inhabitat brought us a hotel in England constructed entirely from prefabricated shipping containers.  http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/22/travelodge-shipping-container-hotel/.

4.  For a new style in couch(ish), Sierra Club’s The Green Life posted some “funereal furniture ideal for zombie-esque zone-outs during Halloween movie marathons.”

5.  Plenty Magazine provided some eco-friendly cufflink ideas: “one set is made from antique Native American nickels . . . and the other is made from fallen rack antler horns.”