Greening our lifestyle and activities can be a daunting enterprise, especially when we start with a strong will to go green, little time and a vague idea about what is the problem, what’s causing it and how to fix it. So the idea of providing consumers and businesses some indicators in the form of third-party ratings, labels and certifications about one product and/or organization environmental performance seemed at first a good one. That was until the stakes became to high. Continue Reading »

“Climate Colonialism”: a new term that is here to stay. During the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last December, some developing nations claim that the draft agreement would allow people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions. Angelika Navarro, Bolivian Ambassador to the UN “  “We think that 20 per cent of the population have created a crisis for humanity. They have a historic responsibility for more than two thirds of emissions and more than 90 per cent of the increase in temperature. We think there is a climate debt they owe to all humanity and to Mother Earth.”

Is the term here to stay? Most certainly, at least in history.

Have developing nations any chance of succeeding in their demands? No one is stopping them as long as they self-finance their development, which for the poorest nations is almost impossible as they depend too much on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which channel funds for investments.

The Clean Development Mechanism fails short of offering a country like Bolivia who emits 1.2 tons of CO2 per capita (compared to US’ 19.1) and has seen its glaciers receding dramatically, a source of investment for developing clean infrastructure (to our knowledge, only 2 projects have been funded through CDM: hydropower and reforestation projects).

Finally, if a country like Bolivia can eventually survive and even adapt to global temperature rising by 2 degrees, it is not the case of many African nations that will face rising temperature of 3.5 degrees causing droughts, famines, flash floods and millions of climate refugees. Island nations will simply disappear, and coral reefs will become extinct by 2025 causing a cataclysm in the food chain.

Sustainable Business Services are booming re: the very lucrative services designed to support – adding some value along the way – our entering into a sustainable society. Is it good or is it bad? Continue Reading »

Not surprisingly Green Age’s 2009 top 3 personalities have made the headlines for the right reasons. The months preceding Copenhagen have brought the spotlights on many individuals and organizations, but no one had been more expected than President Barack Obama. Some have been disappointed by his position, more by the lack of concrete results, and to sum up this year’s climate talk “We do not have the fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement that millions around the world hoped the world leaders gathered in Copenhagen would deliver. They are not done yet, and neither are we.” posts 350.org on their web site. As important this event was, let’s not forget there is a life outside climate change negotiations; organizations and individuals that have made a real difference in advancing the cause of a cleaner and a safer world, conservationists, scientists and activists alike have helped push environmental and health issues one (at least) step further. So without any delays, here is our top 3:

#3: The Climate Change Activists. Copenhagen and environmental talks could not have been the same without them, they are at the heart and soul of the contestation movement, and although they some times have made the headlines for the wrong reasons, it would be silly to ignore their roles in telling the world what was really happening in Copenhagen: tcktcktck, 350.org, avaaz.org, Union of Concerned Scientists and so many more that have rallied millions of people under the banner “A Fair, ambitious and bidding agreement now”. Keep the beat up, people! and so many more that have rallied millions of people under the banner “A Fair, ambitious and bidding agreement now”. Keep the beat up, people!

#2: Ken Cook, without a moment of hesitation is the environmentalist who, in our humble opinion, can contribute the most to environmental and health protective reforms. His non-profit, Environmental Working Group that he started with Richard Wiles in 1993, has raised to become one of the most respected voice in the green community through acute analyses. This year alone, EWG’s work in toxic chemicals in umbilical cord and many children products, school clening supplies, farm subsidies and water pollutions have helped change the conversation and speed the ban of some of the most harmful chemicals. He was also named ultimate green game changer by Huffington Post.

#1: And the winner is … President Barack Obama. We can’t think of anyone who has had more impact on the green and sustainable scene since Al Gore and the release of the Inconvenient Truth in 2006. President Obama did not wait long before pushing green initiatives. Even before taking office, he and his staff met with hundreds of NGOs, green and cleantech professionals. Immediately after moving to the White House, (and we’re going to cite our friends from Grist.com) “he appointed the greenest Cabinet ever, chock-full of top-notch scientists and long-time climate advocates. His administration has made massive green stimulus investments, set EPA moving forward to regulate CO2 and chemical policy reform, pushed green jobs, promoted eco-friendly retrofits, established new fuel-economy rules and efficiency standards, launched national retrofit programs, delayed mining and drilling permits, set new energy standards and goals for all federal departments, created a White House garden and farmers market, and oh so much more”. Unfortunately he has deliver more mountaintop-removal permits than his predecessor – although he plans to make it more constraining; we’re still waiting for him to take a position in regards to GMOs and conventional biofuels; and – but that is not very fair to charge him for this – he has not been able to impose (or convince) the Houses and the world of the necessity to adopt and implement drastic measures to curb the world’s CO2 emissions. But hey, in less than a year, he has done more than the last 3 presidents combined.

Dear Marc

I just read your post on Copenhagen – where I actually am at the moment – at COP15. I thought I’d inform you about an environmental social media campaign called ‘I do 30’. The campaign encourages people across the world to turn down the temperature on their laundry to 30 degrees in order to save CO2. These days during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) we are letting all of our ‘I do 30’ fans who can’t make it to the conference have a voice of their own. We move around the streets of Copenhagen with a speech bubble, hoping the ‘I do 30’ statements will reach the leaders of the world.

Put aside the latest diversions – ya know the climate deniers’ rants, the emails leak, the dummy rhetoric that we can’t take action in time of a major recession – and let ask bluntly the hardball question: Can these world leaders agree on the necessity to reduce CO2 emissions and by how much?

I am skeptical about their ability to agree. And given the ongoing burst of protests going on, I am not the only one. It’s a complicated Noire story that David Corn calls adequately “Double Jeopardy at Copenhagen”. I feel it is a triple one.

China, Russia, India and the US on one side … or the countries that are not required by the Kyoto Protocol’s obligations but are big CO2 polluters and are to resist any obligation that can slow down their development.

The signatories that have engaged into reducing their CO2 emissions, most notably the EU, that now would like other nations to accept some obligations – especially the ones above.

The small nations that are already suffering from the effects of climate change, most African and Pacific nations, Latin America’s socialist governments, … who have been asking for compensations from the countries that are the largest CO2 emitters.

So it is left to the people to force them to agree …

Other websites to visit:

Climate L (you can access the IISD web site from there)

Seal the Deal

Environment Defense Fund’s Copenhagen web site

Here is a post to let family and business friends know that no, I did not know about that 350 day of action event. On October 24^th I was in Miami with my 4 year old son, we took the bus to go to the beach (a one hour trip), we walked quite a bit (I’d say 4 miles total), had fun swimming, and oh … did not see anyone with a 350 sign. Well, Miami is not particularly known for having environmental genes. Two characteristics about Miami that have left a long lasting impression: it has been developed on a lie and it has the largest population of holocaust survivors. But I was a bit curious about that 350 event and if anything in Miami had been done to promote this event. So … I went to yourversion.com (great stuff, for all of you out there who have ever dreamed of dumping Google, this is it!) and looked for green events in Miami … unsurprisingly, the internet can give us a good overview of what’s going on in a geographical area before you even get there … keywords: green +Miami … I see GreenerMiami, a site listing ecoevents … there was an event on the 24^th that I missed (I would not have gone anyway, a bit too far), the “Edible Garden Festival at Fairchild”, the previous posting dated October 13^th and then another one dated October 2^nd … then I went on the Miami New Times web site and did not find anything but one event on November 4^th and another on November 14^th, no mention of 350 Day of Action or any significant international event … time to wake up Miami, if the ocean sea level keeps on rising, you might wonder what you should have done and it will be too late!

It is not “that” difficult to create a useful and accessible online tool when the will is there. Trust me, I have experienced it first hand. Imagine getting 10 of the largest cities in California to collaborate on making available to other cities across the world their best green practices and actually to make it happen in a record 9 months time … Of course, some of the cities started to feel the increasingly heavy burden of answering requests from other cities and consultants interested in learning from them the how’s, the what’s and the why’s of say waste reduction policy and practices in Oakland or San Francisco, San Jose or Santa Monica. But that was not the only hurdle. In time of financial crisis, allocating a budget of roughly $100,000 to eventually save money and promote sustainability practices is a hard sell, even though everyone understands it has to happen: By switching to 100% recycled paper, GCC members annually have saved since 2008: 8,600,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, 19,600,000 gallons of water, 11,500,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, and 67,000 trees. The list of achievements goes on covering energy, waste reduction, urban design, transportation, environmental health and water. Continue Reading »

Really, who would have imagined the Obama administration would have used the presidential communications privilege to hide the identity of the people Obama’s team is meeting behind close doors to shape the country’s energy policy? I am baffled, I must admit. Call me naive, but I do recall then candidate Obama openly and vehemently criticizing the Bush administration for keeping everyone in the dark and pushing his agenda without any dialogue and promising an unprecedented level of openness.
I can’t help but feeling awkward that such strategy is used to hide whom the energy team is meeting and at which frequency these meetings are taking place.
The release of 42 mountain top removal permits and the administration’s plans to continue mountaintop coal mining (even though it gives the EPA greater oversight), along with the recent decision by the supreme court to allow dumping debris in lakes send a chilling signal to environmentalists and the communities affected by these destructive practices.
“The real questions for the administration are these: will they stop the destruction caused by mountaintop removal or not? Will they follow the Bush administration’s policies of allowing enormous piles of waste to be dumped into streams, forever burying them, or not?” Joan Mulhern, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice, said in a release.
With a near 100% score amongst environmental and social activists during the last election, I believe we deserve the right to know.

42 permits for mountaintop removal were signed off by the EPA last Friday prompting incredulity and indignation among the environmental community (that has been a strong supporter of Obama’s 2008 bid). 42, that is more than has been approved during the Bush era. It is hard, even for the strongest green supporters  to understand the rational behind this decision.

Sure the permits have been pending before Obama got to office, but he made clear his administration will make it tougher to grant coal extraction permits.

We are all expecting anguishingly the Obama’s administration to remove this very controversial decision. If it were to proceed, no doubts environmentalists will hear in their sleeps the old saying “Never trust the governement” … Jeff Biggers could not help but noticing “Since President Barack Obama has taken office, an estimated 300 million pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosives have been detonated across our American mountains.”

Bloggers from all horizons and interests are offering their perspective(s) on President Obama’s first 100 days in office. He has been … himself … challenging and challenged. I went from hopeful to worried, from reassured to disappointed, but ultimately, in 100 days, Obama has positioned the environment the place and role it deserves. Take it from what it’s worth, there is a long road ahead of us, but those first 100 days have been critical in giving this country a new direction that put the environment at the center of the decisions the administration is making in terms of policies and directions. What I have been most impressed with, is his wit at bringing around the same table people with opposite interests or divergent opinions.

Continue Reading »

We seem to all agree achieving sustainability whether at home or at work entails three types of practices: reuse, reduce and recycle. They all make perfect sense. Think of plastic bags and bottles, office paper and cartons, energy and water. In the three months following a rethinking of our energy and water consumption as well as our waste management practices, although we made significant milestones, we felt we could have achieved better results if we’d also replaced some items and if we could reinvent the way we live. Continue Reading »

With 17 million inhabitants, Beijing is China’s second largest urban area. In less than a month, the Imperial City will host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games, and both the People’s Republic of China and the City’s government are making sure the most viewed planetary event will be a success. Even the air pollution that has been plaguing the city will be taken care of ($17 billion has been spent to this effect), even if it means forbidding car access for a full month. Athletes with asthma will be able to compete. China’s efforts to organize a green event have become incompatible with the resources required for a smooth event of this magnitude. Actually, Beijing Summer Olympic Games may enter history as the most environmentally unfriendly event in Olympic history. But this is only a “historical detail” in comparison to what the future may hold for this megalopolis. Continue Reading »

Starting February 17, 2009, U.S. TV stations will switch from using analog signals to using digital signals. So the question is what will happen to your old TV when you take on this opportunity to buy a new one (of course, this does not apply to you if you consider purchasing a converter box)? The problem paused by disposing old TVs is not new. Americans have on average 2.6 TVs per household and replace one every 2 years.

If most TVs are donated or join the flourishing used electronic market (2,500 TVs listed on SF Bay Area’s craigs list today), many more end up in the exponentially growing electronics waste. And the amount ending up in landfills is likely to surge as an estimated 70 million TVs will become obsolete past that date. No doubt that some cleaver trade businesses will take on this opportunity to ship a large portion of them to Latin America, Asia and Africa where they will be sold or “recycled”. The recycling of ewastes in developing countries offers a gloomy illustration of an industry that lacks regulation and enforcement when products reach the end of their life cycle and the millions of TVs that will not find a second life will contribute to an environmental nightmare. Here and abroad. Continue Reading »

The long wait is over. Companies that would start their projects to use renewable energy through the end of 2009 will receive a tax credit of 2 cents per kilowatt hour generated. The cost is estimated to $6 billion over the next decade. “Extensions would also be given to other tax credits for making energy-efficient appliances, building energy-efficient facilities and residential purchases of renewable energy systems. Through the credits, homeowners and businesses could avoid paying 30 percent of the cost of installing solar of fuel cell systems.” Reports ClimateBiz.com