New D.C. Nationals ballpark receives LEED certification.
Baseball’s opening weekend marked the opening of the Washington Nationals brand new green ballpark. The ballpark, built in under two years, for the cost of $611 million, received a LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, for its eco-friendly design. Some green highlights include: locating the stadium close to a metro stop, energy efficient light fixtures, drought-resistant plants, and water efficient plumbing.
While it appears a lot of resources will be conserved throughout the lifespan of this new stadium, an even greater achievement may be introducing the millions of ballpark visitors to the concept of green design. As a municipal facility, the new ballpark will be an example for the city of the benefits of green construction.
American West heating up faster than rest of world.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, in analyzing federal government temperature data from the period of 2003 to 2007, recently concluded that the Western United States is heating up almost twice as quickly as the rest of the world.
According to the data, for this five year period, the American West experienced an average temperature that was 1.7 degrees F warmer than the mean for the 20th century. In comparison, the increase in average global temperature for the same period was 0.55 degrees F.
Even before the impacts of global warming, the Western Region had serious water issues, given that it is a natural desert. Add on to this fact the rapidly growing population and apparently radical effects of climate change, and the region is set up for a serious long-term problem.
For anyone interested in this issue, we would highly recommend a great book analyzing this issue by Marc Reisner, called Cadillac Desert. In this book, Reisner takes a look at the history of American water acquisition and management, in the context of the American West. He asserts that our civilization will face, in the not-too-distant future, existential issues relating to the use and management of water (or lack thereof).
What could have been in LA (and still may).
Just reading this post over at metroriderla.com made us realize what could have been in LA, had public rail developed continued to develop here like it did in other cities, such as New York (or even the Bay Area). The post links to an amazing looking map of a proposed LA rail system by the year 2030, by transit planner Steve Boland.
Given our recent post on the proposed California high speed rail system, which Boland also has a map of, as well as our common theme and interest in mass transit, we found this map fascinating. However, as exciting as it is to think of the prospect of living in a city like LA, where easy and clean train rides would replace excruciatingly slow and dirty traffic jams, we are still pessimistic. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but without leadership that can direct the population’s dissatisfaction towards a common goal, there is unlikely to be a comprehensive solution. Things work just well enough here that an alternative is only highly desired, instead of absolutely necessary. Until, and unless, there is no other choice, effective leadership will be our only hope.
A closer look at carbon taxes.
Monica Prasad, Assistant Professor at Northwestern, had an op-ed in the NY Times regarding the effectiveness of carbon taxes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Prasad looked at four countries in Europe that have previously implemented carbon taxes, and notes that only one, Denmark, has been effective in materially reducing emissions. She asserted that the reason for this success in Denmark only can be attributed to the fact that in that country, the revenues derived from the carbon tax are re-invested into clean technology through government grants and subsidies.
If this re-investment process is not required as a part of the carbon tax policy, governments are sure to direct that revenue towards more traditional ways of spending the taxpayers’ money. (Ms. Prasad describes it as a government’s “cash cow.”)
Summing up her point, Ms. Prasad stated: “Indeed, a carbon tax has been promoted almost as a panacea — just pop in the economic incentives and watch them work their magic. But unless steps are taken to lock the tax revenue away from policymakers and invest in substitutes, a carbon tax could lead to more revenue rather than to less pollution.”
This sounds about right to us. Maybe it isn’t as black and white as: without requiring re-investment into clean technology, nothing will change. However, it seems requiring re-investment of those revenues is the logical thing to do, after all, that is the problem a carbon tax is setting out to fix.
Addicted to corn?
Environmental Capital, at WSJ.com, looked at a subject we have discussed regularly here—which is: are biofuels a part of the solution, or an unintended exacerbation of the problem of global warming?
As we’ve noted previously, some recent studies indicate that biofuels, such as ethanol, may actually be worse for the environment than the fossil fuels they replace. In our discussions, we’ve usually limited our analysis to which option releases more aggregate CO2 into the atmosphere. However, the Environmental Capital post notes that some experts believe that biofuel production has resulted in a 15% decrease in oil prices. Therefore, if recent policies by developed nations to increase biofuel usage are reversed, would that result in a subsequent 15% increase in oil prices?
We find this question interesting because it presents two options that are not normally pitted against each other in such a manner. If biofuel is worse for the environment than petroleum, but its production results in more affordable oil, will we find ourselves “addicted to corn?”
In response to our readers…
We’ve received a number of compliments regarding the photographs that accompany many of our posts. Being an environmental blog gives us the opportunity to post some great photographs from some amazing artists. So, in response, we’ve put together a gallery of recent photographs used in our posts. Clicking on any of the pictures below will take you to the corresponding post. Enjoy… and please let us know if you like this feature.
California voters will have opportunity to Force Change in November.
This November, California voters will have the opportunity to pass a ballot measure that will combine public and private money in order to develop a high-speed train that would connect all of the state’s population centers (Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego). If built, a trip between the Bay Area and Los Angeles would take 2.5 hours (and is projected to cost $55 for a one-way ticket).
A newly added component on the measure would specifically encourage private investment in the project, which is estimated to cost $42 billion and targeted to be completed in 2020.
According to Assemblywoman Galgiani (D-Stockton), a proponent of the project, “If we don’t do high-speed rail, we will have to add 3,000 miles of highway and five airport runways in the state.”
It is our opinion that this is exactly the type of project that we, as a society, should be pursuing. Not only is effective mass transit good for the environment, but it is also good for the health and development of the community. Much of California has become paralyzed by gridlock. Flying from city to city is difficult because it can be hard to just drive to the airport (let alone get through security). An integrated, high-speed rail system, could greatly increase intra-state mobility, improving both the economy and civil society. Of course, intra-city transport, like subways and light-rails, are equally important. Otherwise people will have to fight the same old traffic, just to get to the high-speed rail stations.
According to a recent survey, 58 percent of Californians favor the bond and 32 percent oppose it. We will be keeping an eye on this measure and the arguments for and against it as we move towards the election in November.
[Update: Hat tip to reader Merritt for catching the mislabeling of the prior graphic.]
Seventh Generation responds to our post on 1,4-dioxane.
This week we had a post regarding a study that discovered levels of 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen, in consumer products labeled as “natural” and/or “organic.” One of the companies that the study discussed, and which we cited in our post, was Seventh Generation. In response, Chrystie Heimer, Seventh Generation’s “conversationista” (aka, public relations spokeswoman) sent us an interesting letter, which can be found in both the comments section under that post, as well as right here… READ MORE
Obama on the price of oil.
The Environmental Capital blog at WSJ.com had a interesting post discussing Senator Obama’s stated energy policy. Some of the key points of his policy that the WSJ highlights include:
- Address the issue of Big Oil’s market dominance
- Consider opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in an attempt to lower gas prices
- Investigate whether there are antitrust issues regarding the consolidated nature of Big Oil
- Look at taxing “windfall” profits of Big Oil
The Prius vs. the Hummer myth dissected.
You have probably heard the urban legend that Prius hybrids are worse for the environment than Hummers. Slate.com had an interesting piece refuting this canard, which originated from a report written by CNW Marketing Research, an automotive consulting company.
The main counter-points are as follows:
- The report amortizes the upfront costs of R&D in the Prius’ development across the relatively small fleet of existing Prius’. This method doesn’t make sense since every new technology has a big upfront cost that needs to be amortized across the life of the technology, not just the first product.
- The report claims that a Prius will last only 109,000 miles versus 379,000 for the Hummer. Anyone who has owned a GM car in the last decade can attest to the ridiculousness of the latter assumption.
- Additionally, the Slate piece notes that the CNW report shows its real lack of credibility when it misspells the traditional term for a unit of energy as “gigajeulles.” READ MORE
Air Force goes supersonic on synthetic fuel.
March 19, 2008 · Comment
An Air Force B-1 bomber filled with a 50-50 synthetic blend jet fuel flew past Mach 1 today. The synthetic fuel is carbon based, and is derived through a process that takes coal (or natural gas or biomass) and converts it into liquid hydrocarbons (i.e., fuel). This synthetic fuel is then mixed with 50% jet fuel in order to reach the optimal blend. The Air Force intends to certify all of its aircraft on this blend by 2011 and to use it in 100% of its flights by 2016.
While it is nice to see a branch of the government leading the way on alternative fuel use, as the technology currently exists, synthetic fuel production actually emits more greenhouse gasses than traditional petroleum. The impetus for the Air Force’s policy is twofold: economics and energy independence. The Defense Department, which accounts for 90% of all fuel use by the federal government, spends billions of dollars each year on petroleum. Additionally, unlike oil, there are plentiful sources of coal, natural gas and biomass, in the United States, thereby making the military less dependent on the global oil supply.
A 747 flying on coconut oil?
March 18, 2008 · Comment
We had a post recently about whether Virgin Atlantic’s green programs were a true attempt at improving the environment or if they were mere greenwashing. While we didn’t have a strong opinion, we tended to feel that they were probably a mixture of both.
Therefore, we were interested to come across this article describing how Virgin Atlantic recently had a test flight of a 747 from London to Amsterdam, where the plane carried 5% biofuel derived from coconuts. Given the publicity and grandiose nature of this test flight, and the fact that biofuels may cause more environmental damage than the fossil fuels they replace, we question whether the intention here is merely positive marketing, instead of substantive change?
Nonetheless, as our readers have probably noticed, we are hesitant to throw out the “greenwashing” accusation too quickly. No one knows for sure what the best solution will be, and little has been done in the past, so even getting corporations just talking about going green has some value. Of course, policies that materially improve the environment should be the real goal. (Which probably does not include a 747 flying with 5% coconut fuel.)
Non-natural “natural” consumer products.
March 17, 2008 · 1 Comment
By now it shouldn’t be a surprise to hear that a recent study has shown that many “natural” and “organic” cosmetic products contain a chemical that the EPA has classified as a probable carcinogen. That chemical is 1,4-dioxane, and is a common byproduct in cosmetics manufacturing, and was found in products sold by companies including Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature’s Gate, among others.
What may come as a surprise is the fact that this chemical is present in almost all non-organic/natural soap products. Although it has not been proven that this chemical causes cancer in humans at these levels, it has been shown to cause cancer in lab animals.
The uproar regarding this study is based on the fact that consumers who purchase organic or natural cosmetic products expect these brands to take extra care to keep carcinogens out of the products. In the case of 1,4-dioxane, the chemical is not essential to the functionality of the product, but using a manufacturing process that avoids this byproduct is more expensive.
Assuming that 1,4-dioxane shouldn’t be banned by the FDA (or EPA), at the very least, consumers who are spending extra money to buy organic or natural products should know whether there have known carcinogens within them. The solution is probably setting a clearer standard as to what type of product may be termed “organic” or “natural.”
ECO:nomics conference participants debate “peak oil” theory.
March 16, 2008 · 1 Comment
On the final day of the Wall St. Journal’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, one of the programs featured a debate between two experts over the claim that peak oil extraction has been reached. (Wikipedia defines “peak oil theory” as: the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically.)
While we have no clue whether we’ve reached “peak oil” production, or not, the fear of inevitably declining oil supplies should continue to create a huge incentive towards alternative fuel development. Once entrepreneurs and businesses realize that demand for oil is forever going to exceed available supply, this will provide investors and developers of alternative fuel supplies protection from being undercut by lower oil prices. (Since demand for oil will forever outpace supply.)
Without having any expertise regarding the nature of global oil supply and demand, it is our personal hunch that much of the reason for high oil prices right now is related to the fact that two oligopolies control much of the global supply: OPEC and big multinational oil companies. It is a fact that OPEC intentionally limits its oil production in order to artificially maintain a higher price for its product. Whether big oil companies collude, is less clear. However, explicit collusion may not even be necessary given the enormous role each individual company has in providing global oil supplies. They could probably affect global prices through discrete decisions to limit production independently. Like we said, it is our hunch that the consolidated nature of this industry plays a role in current price levels. If that continues to be the case, it may be irrelevant if we’ve reached peak oil, since maximum output won’t be reached anyway. Regardless, high oil prices should continue to provide a positive incentive for entrepreneurs and innovators to come up with alternative solutions.
China to maintain “one child” policy for at least another decade.
March 15, 2008 · Comment
We recently noted that should China’s rapid development proceed without serious consideration of its environmental impacts, the resulting environmental damage could be catastrophic. However, as we also noted, China does appear to be paying more attention to this issue lately.
One of China’s most controversial developmental regulations has been its “one child” policy. Recently there has been speculation that the government might be ready to lift that rule. However, news reports this week indicate that the Chinese government has decided to maintain its current policy for at least another decade.
It is hard to say that this is a good thing, since it is a very controversial policy and there are many obvious ethical issues surrounding it. Nonetheless, as we’ve stated, one of the major keys to the health of the planet going forward, is going to be the decisions that China makes vis-à-vis development and the environment.
-
Private Leaders
