Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: rick

Last week, city planners met with the San Francisco Transit Authority to consider congestion pricing, and now initial plans are out. “Drivers could pay $3 to enter, leave or pass through parts of San Francisco during morning and evening commutes under a proposal designed to push motorists out of their cars,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday.

For a map of the areas that would be affected by congestion pricing, go to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNS614C8S1.DTL&hw=congestion+pricing&sn=003&sc=570

photo credit: kke227

This Tuesday, San Francisco officials will consider the feasibility of congestion pricing as part of an ongoing effort to ease traffic and reduce pollution in some of the city’s busiest areas.

Congestion Pricing a Tough Sell

Congestion pricing, which requires motorists to pay a toll to drive in heavily trafficked areas, is already at work in London and Stockholm. But starting congestion pricing in the United States is a tough sell: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had suggested charging drivers $8 to enter certain parts of Manhattan, but his ambitious plan was killed the the New York state Assembly in April.

The idea of congestion pricing has the support of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, as well as some of the 11 elected county supervisors who make up the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s board.

But when city planners present various pricing and zone scenarios to the board this Tuesday, a wide-ranging group that includes business owners and motorists will be ready to voice their dissent. Even San Franciscans who might otherwise support the idea of congestion pricing may be leery of imposing an obstacle to business in these challenging economic times.

Voice Your Opinion on Congestion Pricing

The public is invited to attend meetings in San Francisco to learn more about the city’s congestion pricing plans, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, and Monday, December 8, 2008. City planners are also hosting an online meeting Friday, December 5, 2008, for those unable to attend the other sessions in person. For details and to register for the online event, visit: http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/302/148/

Local thoughts on San Francisco’s congestion pricing study that kicked off last year:

“Congestion Pricing in the News,” Transbay Blog, September 17, 2007:
http://transbayblog.com/2007/09/19/congestion-pricing-in-the-news/

“Baby, You Can Charge My Car,” SFist, September 19, 2007:
http://sfist.com/2007/09/19/baby_you_can_ch.php

photo credit: stevelyon

CEOs of some of the world’s most prominent companies are floating the idea that the U.S. “consider raising taxes on gasoline,” according to Real Time Economics on The Wall Street Journal Online.

Idea “Tucked Away”

The idea, which according to Journal editors was “tucked away” in a proposal on long-term tax policy, came about during a two-day session this week in which nearly 100 CEOs of global companies gathered to define the priorities they believe President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress need to tackle when they take office in January. (Finance and the U.S. economy; energy and the environment; health care; and America’s role in the global economy were the four key issues the CEO Council discussed, underscoring that there will be no dearth of work Obama’s administration will face.)

Proponents of raising the gas tax say that it will lower gasoline consumption, encourage both the production and market for fuel efficient vehicles, lower imports, and decrease polluting emissions.

Critics argue that increased taxes unfairly burden consumers, especially the poor, and that reduced consumption hurts industry. (I haven’t found anyone yet that says pollution is good, but I’m sure there’s someone out there!)

Support Gaining Steam?

Raising the gas tax, of course, is nothing new. But until now its support has been limited. Because most Americans are dependent on cars to get to work, school, and every else, opponents have been able to build a broad coalition that makes politicians think that championing the cause would be certain political death.

But now something different is happening. There is an increasing awareness of the interconnectedness of energy use, economy, the environment, and public health. And when CEOs of companies that collectively employ 5.9 million people and $2.2 trillion in annual revenues say officials should consider raising the gasoline tax, my bet is that this idea won’t go away quietly this time.

The Wall Street Journal will report results of the CEO Council Monday, November 24, 2008.

More resources:

The Wall Street Journal CEO Council:
https://ceocouncil.wsj.com/index.html

photo credit: :: Suwaif ::

MPG, or miles per gallon, is a major selling point for cars, but as the website RealClimate pointed out recently, there’s a lot of confusion as to what MPG really means for consumers and for public policy.

Take RealClimate’s example:

Which driver will reduce fuel usage and emissions more?

A. The driver swapping an old 12 MPG SUV for a hybrid 18 MPG SUV

B. The driver swapping a 25 MPG compact for a new 46 MPG Prius

I subtracted 12 from 18 and got 6; then subtracted 25 from 46 and got 21 and compared the two. I assumed the correct answer is A. WRONG! The correct answer is B, the driver swapping the old SUV for a hybrid. (Of course, a driver who swaps a gas-guzzling SUV for a compact hybrid would reduce his/her own fuel usage and emissions the most.)

The mistake, which the writers assure me is common, arises because most people think of numbers linearly and assume that a reduction in MPG has a similar impact on fuel usage. It doesn’t. Assuming a driving distance of 100 miles, example B saves just 1.8 gallons (100/25 - 100/46 = 1.8), while example A saves 2.8 gallons (100/12 - 100/18 = 2.8).

This is an important point, because it demonstrates that efficiencies gained at the low end of the scale can have a much bigger impact than efficiencies gained at the higher end.

Read RealClimate’s column at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/the-mpg-confusion/

Painting is more fun with non-toxic paint.

I was a big fan of Home Depot’s Behr brand paints, until I learned that mainstream paints emit dangerous toxins called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). When it came time to repaint the rooms our house, I decided to use “green” paints that reduce indoor air pollution and are more environmentally friendly.

A friend who is a building contractor recommended we try “natural” paint. Seems easy enough, but the more I read, the more I realized I was green on the topic of green paint. (Eartheasy.com offers a great round-up of the types of non-toxic paints and who offers them.) I decided the best way to learn was to experiment, so I chose two types of non-toxic paints (natural and synthetic) in three brands: AFM Safecoat, Yolo Colorhouse, and BioShield. Here’s what I found:

AFM Safecoat Pros:

• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days–much faster than my old Behr paints
• Wide color selection (”Blue Wish” is the color shown in the photo above.)
• Good coverage
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Paint chips not easily available
  (I know they are wasteful, but they are handy. Instead, I had to wait until the paint chip book was returned by another customer and then check it out for three days. Eco-friendly, yes. Convenient, no.)
• Not an entirely natural paint

AFM Safecoat is my overall favorite of the three non-toxic paint brands I tried, the main two reasons being availability and color selection. I also liked that while it did give off an odor, it wasn’t the strong chemical-smelling odor found in standard high-VOC paints.

Yolo Colorhouse Pros:

• Paint chips and poster-size swatches made with real paint available for purchase
• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days
• Good color selection (though not as wide as AFM Safecoat)
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Fair coverage, it didn’t stretch quite as far as the AFM Safecoat paint for the same size room
• Not an entirely natural paint

I love the Yolo Colorhouse color choices, and the big swatch gave me a good sense of what the color would like in the room we painted (much better than a standard 1-inch paint chip). But the coverage wasn’t good enough to make it my top pick.

BioShield Clay Paint Pros:

• Water and clay based, so I consider it a “natural” paint
• Odor dissipated within four days (a little longer than the others, but faster than standard paint)
• Odor was earthy smelling, not like that chemical, solvent smell present in nail salons
• Excellent coverage, the same amount of paint stretched further than the others
• Free chips available to order online; a kit with real paint swatches of all their colors is also available for $12.50

Cons:

• Costs more than AFM Safecoat or Yolo Colorhouse paints: $44/gallon versus $38
• Not available at as many retail outlets (You can order online, though.)
• Color selection, while attractive, is limited compared to the other brands
  (Eco Home Improvement in Berkeley taught me how to blend two colors to achieve the shade I wanted, but I prefer to buy off the shelf.)
• Not available eggshell or gloss finishes (They do offer a trim enamel, but according to instructions, it requires sanding between coats–too fussy for me!)

I love the BioShield clay paint we tried. If I hadn’t been in a hurry to finish my work, I would have used it for all my walls, if not the doors and trim. But the hassle of ordering and waiting for color swatches, and then ordering and waiting for my chosen colors was not worth it for me. If you are a good plan-ahead type though, this brand of paints comes highly recommended.

If you can’t find these brands at your local retailer, you might consider trying Home Depot’s new zero-VOC paint called Freshaire Choice. You can order free color chips online and purchase the paint at your local Home Depot.

photo credit: photohome_uk

The choking exhaust you smell when a tour bus is idling is small when compared to the massive toxic emissions that come from idling tankers and container ships at our nation’s ports. So it’s with welcome relief that Newsweek reports that America’s biggest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, have kicked off new plans aimed at reducing pollution. About 44 percent of the country’s international cargo–cars, clothes, cosmetics, you name it–comes through these two ports alone, so the effects could be significant.

Newsweek says:

“The constant stream of diesel ships and trucks emits a noxious mix of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that permeate nearby neighborhoods. In the L.A. area, studies attributed 120 premature deaths each year to the docks, mostly from heart and lung ailments; the cancer risk nearest the ports is almost twice the already-elevated risk in the region. Worse, while the chances of contracting cancer are dropping overall in L.A., they grew in port areas by 15 percent between 1998 and 2005. ‘It sticks out like a sore thumb,’ says Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which oversees pollution-control planning in the L.A. area.”

The plans include shifting idling container ships from “bunker fuel” to cleaner burning marine diesel or even electricity while docked. The alternative fuels are more expensive, but plan supporters say lower fuel prices don’t take into account the high health care costs associated with pollution-related illnesses. The Coalition for Clean Air, for example, says that measures that allow shipping growth to continue while capping emissions at 2001 levels can save $1.4 billion in health care costs and productivity over 20 years.

More resources:

For the full Newsweek article, “The Greening of America’s Two Biggest Ports,” September 9, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158126

The California Progress Report on legislation that would help pay for port pollution reduction:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/08/major_legislati_1.html

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

Cow manure is the latest, and perhaps most unlikely, weapon in our arsenal to fight global warming.

photo credit: law_keven

Emitting methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas with 20 times the ability of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, cow manure can be pretty noxious stuff. However, through a process known as biogas recovery, or anaerobic digestion, the biogas (manure-generated methane) can be “captured” and used to produce heat, hot water, or electricity.

This is hardly a new technology—it has been used on a smaller scale in countries such as India and China for ages—but more recently, it has been used to greater commercial success in European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Italy, Austria, and Sweden. In Sweden, where 7,000 cars and buses run on biogas, the process has even gone so far as one company, Svenska Biogas, boiling cow intestines to extract the maximum amount of biogas.

The United States, too, has jumped on the “cow power” bandwagon or the “manure pit” brigade. Thirty-one states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs mandating that a certain percentage of a public utility’s electricity come from a renewable energy source. Biogas, along with solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and small hydroelectric power, has been identified as an eligible renewable resource.

As a result of these statewide mandates, many U.S. companies are working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to implement this technology and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which rose 14.7% from 1990-2006 according to a recent EPA study.

While the agricultural sector accounts for only 6% of that total, the annual greenhouse gas emissions from a 3,500-cow dairy are equivalent to the yearly emissions of 5,000 cars on the road. Put in other terms, there are about 8.5 millions cows in the United States, and according to the environmental non-profit organization Sustainable Conservation, biogas has the potential to power a million cars.

Not only cars but also homes can be powered by biogas. In California, the largest dairy state with almost two million dairy cows and also one of the world’s leading carbon emitters, the 5,000-cow Vintage Dairy in western Fresno County could power about 50,000 homes in its vicinity. In 2007, Vintage Dairy owner David Albers, who founded the environmental company BioEnergy Solutions, landed a long-term contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for a biogas pipeline project which, says Albers, will go a long way to achieving the state’s RPS goal of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

In addition to the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing an extra source of revenue for dairy farmers, advocates of “cow power” cite improved water quality and odor control. Biogas recovery helps protect streams and groundwater from untreated sewage runoff and is less odoriferous than traditional manure management systems.

This technology can be expensive though. California cheese company owner John Fiscalini spent $3 million on a biogas recovery, or an anaerobic digester, system for his 3,000-cow business. Many dairy businesses are, however, eligible for grants to help defray the costs. Fiscalini, for example, received a total of $720,000 as part of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Grant.

And, conversely, the anaerobic digester systems can be polluters themselves. Such has been the cause for concern at Fiscalini’s operation located in California’s Central Valley, a so-called “non-attainment area for ozone.” When methane gas is extracted from manure, it releases nitrogen oxide (NO_x), which contributes to the smog in any given area but particularly in “non-attainment” areas like the Central Valley. Because of this danger, the allowable emissions for anaerobic digester systems have been set to 9 parts per million. Despite Fiscalini’s “advanced emission control engines,” the system could eventually fail the strict standard for air quality control during the 60-day testing period.

Studies are being conducted to determine why even the newer anaerobic digesters often have problems meeting the current air quality control standard. In the meantime, the dairy industry argues that this harsh regulation unnecessarily prevents the widespread implementation of a promising renewable energy source.

Only the future will tell if this technology will be able to move forward and if that sweet smell of cow manure that assails your nostrils as you walk through the countryside will be powering your car or your home.

To find out more about biogas technology, see

The AgSTAR Program

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/

The California Energy Commission

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/anaerobic_digestion/

BioEnergy Solutions

http://www.allbioenergy.com/

Sustainable Conservation

http://www.suscon.org/biofuels/biomethane.asp

Other resources:

Holland, John. “Fiscalini plan to turn methane into energy runs into air problems.” The Modesto Bee 12 July 2008 < http://www.modbee.com/ag/v-print/story/357872.html>.

“Cow methane: A trump card in the fight against global warming?” CNN.com. 5 Oct. 2007<http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05/cow.methane/>.

photo credit: ..· ✈Katherina ➳·..

As host of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, China missed key opportunities to leave a meaningful, lasting environmental legacy.

In a recently released report, Greenpeace commends China for living up to many of its environmental promises. But, the watchdogs note, a lack of transparency and independently verified data made evaluation difficult. And many solutions, especially those relating to Beijing’s air quality, are temporary fixes that will not continue after the games, and therefore not be of real benefit to the people of Beijing.

Here’s a quick look at Beijing’s missed opportunities:

• Waste management
  Instead of moving toward a zero-waste policy, polluting incineration was encouraged and more landfill was created.
• Car ownership
  While four new rail lines were added to boost public transportation infrastructure, little was done to curb private car ownership. About half a million cars were added to Beijing’s roads last year, a pace that is expected to continue.
• Air quality
  Dramatic quick fixes like temporarily halting industrial production and banning most private cars from the road may improve air quality for the games, but they are not lasting, cost-effective solutions. A better approach would be to enforce stricter emission standards for manufacturing, make public transportation viable for more riders, and move away from reliance on coal-burning energy plants.
• Water conservation
  Water-saving technologies used at the Shunyi Olympic Rowing and Canoe Park could have been more widely adopting to prevent and further strain on Beijing’s dwindling water supply.
• Air-conditioning and refrigeration
  Most of the cooling technologies used eschew ozone-depleting CFCs, but many use climate-boosting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because most of these systems are new and will likely not be replaced for some time, it represents a failure to leapfrog to more-efficient, greener technologies.
• Building construction
  Green building techniques were encouraged but non-binding, limiting their implementation.
• Sponsors
  Electronic companies Lenovo and Panasonic provided equipment containing known toxic substances like PVC and BFR.

More resources:
Greenpeace’s full report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/news/green

“IOC Could Have Done More,” TreeHugger
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/beijing_ioc_get_mixed_report_greenpeace.php

photo credit: Nicholas_T

After looking into China’s Weather Modification program, and its Olympic Weather plans, I began to wonder what kind of effect such practices could have long term.

Putting aside the image of regional farmers equipped to work rocket launchers and anti-aircraft artillery—which leads to a whole different set of concerns—I wondered about the dangers of shooting silver iodide into the sky. Wasn’t anyone concerned about what kind of rain was coming back down?

Turns out, they are.

While researchers from organizations like North American Weather Consultants Inc (NAWC) claim that the silver iodide crystals are so dispersed only trace amounts can be found in test samples that fall to Earth, others are crying foul.

(more…)