Today
Sections
More
Features
Displaying 1 - 10 of 14 |
Next »LEED/green building
The new health care reform: going green
Medical waste is the new hot green topic, and rightly so. Hospitals produce about 34 pounds of waste per bed per day, totaling just under 6 million pounds per year.
One local doctor active in trying to green hospitals explained to me that he wasn't even talking about reducing one-time use of plastics or paper gowns. He was talking about hospitals simply dumping huge, sometimes still functional, electronic machines at the curb when they got new ones.
After syringes stopped washing ashore on the East Coast in the 1990s, hospitals have escaped scrutiny of their environmental practices. That means there's a lot of ground to be gained by bringing them up to date.
The institutions account for nearly 10 percent of all commercial energy use in the U.S. and 3 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The health care sector as a whole belches out 8 percent of national emissions.
Some of this waste is the carbon counterpart of the vast administrative waste that stems from insurance company shenanigans, and even with the modest health care reform bill Democrats squeezed through, that won't be changing anytime soon. But waste can be drastically reduced with updated best-practices.
And the movement to green hospitals is catching on. Practice Greenhealth, a domestic nonprofit, launched in 2008. The World Health Organization now includes the Health Care Without Harm project, which covers everything from waste reduction to greener purchasing and green building. The WHO has also committed to combating climate change, which will bring a host of new patients — with everything from asthma to formerly rare diseases — into resource-hogging hospital beds.
Share your stories of hospital resource use and efforts to reduce it in the comments.
| October 19 2010 at 01:03 PM
Commercial buildings are a huge energy suck
A new apolitical analysis finds a major shortcoming in California's green credentials: commercial buildings. The state has no energy efficiency standards for existing buildings, and, according to the study, requirements for new buildings fall far below what's possible.
Commercial buildings in the Golden State account for more than a third of energy usage. But energy-efficiency improvements could cut their usage by 80 percent. Indeed, an average building's energy use can be cut by half just with low-cost, low-tech improvements to lighting and insulation.
Remember, too, that many of these buildings are owned by the State of California, which is in a nasty financial situation.
As for new buildings, if requirements were made that tacked on a 2-percent increase in construction costs, they could use one-third to one-half less energy than they use today.
Not only do efficiency savings save money, they also bring in higher rents. LEED- and Energy Star-certified buildings bring in rents 6 percent higher.
One major hurdle to making the improvements: split incentives between tenants and property owners (owners pay for upgrades; tenants reap rewards in energy bills).
The analysis was conducted by Next 10 and Collaborative Economics.
| July 15 2010 at 06:37 AM
World Cup not so light on its feet carbon-wise
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa — one month of hard-fought matches of the beautiful game — will contribute as much carbon to the atmosphere as a million cars do in a year, according to EU Infrastructure (H/T Inhabitat). The estimated footprint is six times larger than that of the 2006 World Cup in Germany.
South Africa gets most of its energy from coal, whereas Germany uses more renewable sources.
Also unlike Germany, South Africa had to construct most of the stadia that will be used for the event — yet developers largely built green. The gorgeous Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban, which will host one of the semifinal matches, employed materials recycled from an old stadium. It maximizes natural ventilation and daylight and even collects rainwater. The Johannesburg Soccer City Complex that will host the finals is actually a major remodel of an existing stadium.
The bulk of the hulking carbon footprint comes from the travel arrangements of the Cup's largely European fans, as this infographic shows.
| June 11 2010 at 10:28 AM
Last-minute about-face on green building
California is poised to pass the first mandatory green building code in the nation today, and green building groups that have long supported such a move have come out against it.
They object to the governor's rejection of a simple one-size-fits-all mandatory code in favor of a two-tier ranking system that green builders and other environmental groups say will create opportunities for developers to wrap themselves in the green flag without actually meeting industry standards.
The Berkeley group Build It Green, which is a signatory of a letter of protest written to the governor, describes the problem this way:
These tiers lack clarity and an adequate verification mechanism. California does not need another rating system, particularly one that lacks rigorous verification. If adopted, this quasi rating system will likely create significant market confusion and could potentially undermine the rigorous green building ordinances adopted by cities across the state.
The Green Building Council, which oversees the LEED program, also joined the mutiny. The governor's office has responded by saying the council just doesn't want competition for its LEED certification system; although the GBC is a not-for-profit venture, certification is costly for developers.
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said the building commission had tightened its proposals in response to criticism. But she acknowledged that the state's code may not be as rigorous as third-party systems. But, she added, "it is a heck of a lot better than anything we have now."
| January 11 2010 at 06:11 AM
Climate aid becomes a major sticking point
Trouble in canal city: Representatives from developing nations at the Copenhagen climate conference are demanding financial help—in the hundreds of billions—from industrialized countries in order to reduce emissions and adapt to the changes in climate which are already coming.
Claus Bjoern Larsen / AP
Most green groups support their demand. (Greenpeace, for one.)
But no sooner did U.S. representatives arrive in Copenhagen than one said, effectively, "Talk to the hand."
"I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like," said Todd Stern. "For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It's a relatively recent phenomenon."
Stern went on to single out China: "China has $2 trillion in reserves. We don't think China would be the first candidate for public funding."
But liberal notable George Soros, who is attending the Copenhagen talks, called the $10 billion a year currently allocated for aid insufficient.
"I think it is already becoming apparent in the negotiations that there's a gap between the developed and developing world on this issue which could actually wreck the conference," he said.
"It is possible to substantially increase the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world," he said. "All that is lacking is the political will."
Soros is proposing redirecting some IMF funds to focus on emissions reduction (partly through forest protection) and adaptation.
This standoff seems to beg the question of a compromise. China probably doesn't need aid, but Tuvalu and the Maldives clearly do. It may not be fun to pay other countries to protect their forests, but if we don't make it more financially beneficial for them to save the forests than to raze them and sell them to the highest bidder, we're never going to get ahead of the climate change curve.
As for paying for adaptation efforts, they amount to domestic infrastructure issues of the sort that are already funded by international banks.
The missing piece is technology transfer: Getting clean energy and green building technologies into developing countries. It's classic carrot-and-stick negotiations: You have to do X, but we'll help you do it. So what's holding it up? Intellectual property laws, for one—but surely they could be loosened without screwing inventors taking a cue from the AIDS medication crisis.
One proposal involves creating a global network of innovation centers throughout the developing world to support the activities needed to advance the deployment of climate technologies.
I'm no expert in international economics, but technology transfer seems like a good way to get something back financially, as well as environmentally, for the industrial world's aid to developing countries.
What do you think?
| December 10 2009 at 12:50 PM
Watch a green building work
In May, TGL mentioned that the David Brower Center had just opened in Berkeley. The Center is one of the area's greenest buildings, and it houses green nonprofits and businesses.
One surprisingly simple technology is emerging as a key green building feature: feedback. Thermostats and meters give occupants more information about when they are using water and electricity and for what. Information is power, and users of these devices are often able to reduce consumption significantly.
The smart technology at work in the Brower Center feeds to a website that allows you to see how the cutting-edge green building reduces water and electricity consumption. You can see how much rainwater, versus tap water, the building is using; how much solar power it's producing and how much electricity it's drawing from the grid. You can also learn more about the building's green features.
If you know of other local buildings posting their information online, share the websites in the comments.
| October 30 2009 at 11:00 AM
The kids are alright
I take it back: I wrote last week that the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment was mostly talk. But the Sierra Club has released a story about the greenest colleges and universities in the nation, and fifteen of the top 20 are signatories of the Commitment.
University of Colorado, Boulder
Oddly, the top two, green bastions University of Colorado at Boulder and U.W. Seattle, are not signatories.
The University of California, a Commitment participant, has three branches in the top 10. With two-thirds of high schoolers saying that a colleges' green report cards would influence their decisions, the state will be better positioned to draw the best students from around the nation.
It's ironic that the survey I just cited was conducted by the Princeton Review, when its neighbor Princeton University, this blogger's alma mater, didn't even make the complete 135-school listing. Other Ivy League schools—namely Harvard and Yale—made the top 20, proving that a campus full of old buildings doesn't mean you can't save energy.
A few universities that didn't do well overall got "extra credit" for innovative greening projects, such as a 100-acre arboretum filled with native species at Carleton College; a cafeteria-to-tank biofuel system at the University of Pennsylvania; and an Ecovillage residence with hyper-sustainable living at Berea College in Kentucky.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that young people care deeply about the environment and consider it depressing and negative not to. In Mother Jones' annual review of campus activism, green causes—climate, energy, bottled water—also feature prominently. If we can hold the line against environmental apocalypse for another decade or so, the younger generation will likely bail us out.
Know of any interesting youth or college green projects? Tell me about them in the comments and I'll investigate.
| August 21 2009 at 12:06 PM
New feature: Polling Day
In a sometimes-but-always-on-Tuesday new feature, I'll be bringing you a quick numbers fix of polls related to the environment. I'm starting close to home: Californians' support for AB 32, the state's sweeping climate legislation.
Has support fallen since the economy tanked? Yes, but just a little, from 73 percent of residents last July to 66 percent today.
The strength of the support also ebbed slightly. 47 percent of residents now consider global warming to be a "very serious" threat to the economy and quality of life in the state, down from 52 percent last year. An additional 28 percent consider climate change to be a "somewhat serious" threat.
Oddly, Californians expressed more interest in reducing individual emissions than in having industries reduce theirs: 85 percent of residents support renewable energy mandates, and 76 percent support energy-efficiency requirements for buildings.
Have your feelings about cutting emissions in the state changed over the last year? What do you think is the most important first step?
| August 18 2009 at 07:41 AM
Clinton urges universities to go green
Critics of Bill Clinton got a bitter pill when the silver fox heroically rescued two Bay Area journalists from politically motivated 12-year sentences in North Korea.
Clinton triumphant
The Southern charm was back! And it was in full force in a recent speech the former president gave to another group of presidents: the American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment.
"For all the good we're doing, we're just piddlin' compared to what we could be doing," he said of the university presidents' efforts to green their campuses. "All this work is out there laying on the ground, begging to be done with absolutely certain rate of return."
Established in 2006, the Presidents' Climate Commitment has, up to now, been largely talk.
Supporters of the former president's call to arms, which comes as part of his work with the Clinton Climate Initiative, argue that retrofitting old college buildings for efficiency would bring huge savings, though new green buildings meet with more fanfare. They also make the case that taking action on campuses that generate important research on climate change and energy efficiency would add "credibility to [those] scientific findings."
Another credibility problem is that the nation's leading universities are conspicuously absent from the project's list of signatories. The University of California system is among the most prestigious participants.
| August 14 2009 at 01:02 PM
DiCaprio's green town
Remember when a massive tornado leveled the Kansas town of Greensburg? The calamitous weather event gave green celeb extraordinaire Leonardo DiCaprio an opportunity to act on an idea he'd been floating: rebuilding an entire town according to environmental ideals. The name Greensburg was just gravy.
The town residents themselves are spearheading the project, and DiCaprio is documenting the reconstruction on Planet Green TV (owned by Discovery Channel, which also owns Treehugger). The series, now in its second season, is also called Greensburg...who could resist?
As the show gains popularity, Greensburg, Kansas, is finding itself a tourist destination, with people coming from as far away as Australia to see what could be the wave of the future.
Interested in seeing for yourself? Find tourist information on the town's website. If you don't have cable, you can also find the show on Netflix.
| July 28 2009 at 01:30 PM
more