Fort Lewis Sustainability and Green Building

Colonel Cynthia Murphy explains Fort Lewis Master Plan

Fort Lewis is a leading force for sustainability within the U.S. Army and in 2002 became one of the first Army installations to implement a sustainability program. One of the program's early goals was to construct sustainable buildings.

In one of its first attempts to realize this goal, Fort Lewis designed and built its 2003 Whole Barracks Renewal project using the Sustainable Project Rating Toom, or SPiRiT. The project used alternative materials such as stained and polished concrete flooring. It achieved energy savings through a heat recovery system that pulls heat from dryer vents and circulates it throughout the building. Water savings were achieved through a rainwater harvesting system. Subsequently, the Fort Lewis installation sustainability program adopted the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED standard.

Since then, Fort Lewis has continued to make green construction progress. The 2004 project was the first on Fort Lewis to be awarded the Silver Certification for LEED - 90% of construction waste was recycled. The project in 2005 exceeded LEED baseline energy conservation requirements by 36% and produced an annual energy cost savings of $30,000. Moreover, 50% of the wood that was used for formwork, cabinetry, and doors is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified.

True to the principles of sustainability, in 2007 Fort Lewis adopted a more holistic desing approach that moved beyond facility construction. A new master plan was developed that made creating sustainable neighborhoods a prime objective - places where Soldiers and Families can live, work, and have opportunities for recreation. These sustainable neighborhoods are key to tying green buildings together for a truly sustainable installation.

As Fort Lewis continues to work toward sustainability, tools such as LEED will remain critical. New tools, such as the sustainable master planning will help build on the foundations of green buildings to reach even higher levels of sustainability in the years to come.

Greening Your Christmas

I thought I'd take a break from the government and write a bit on how you can green your holiday season. Luckily, some of the things you can do to make your Christmahanukwanzaakah more sustainable are also more affordable. I am actually really looking forward to this holiday season more than I normally am because this year we're all forced to slow it down a bit, not buy so many things, and *gasp* enjoy our friends and family. I hope that this will show people that they don't need to buy tons of stuff to have a great holiday.

First of all, the tree.

• This year, I'm going to buy an evergreen in a pot and reuse it every year. Sure my upfront cost might be a bit more but this will have a 2-3 year payback period. Not bad if you ask me and that doesn't even include the improved air quality from my live tree.
• Second, I'm using LED lights; they use 80-90% less energy and they last so much longer. To give my house the extra holiday cheer, I can just go for a walk in the woods and collect fallen evergreen branches. Winter often brings wind so fallen branches are easy to find.
  

Next, gifts.

• You know, regifting really isn't that bad as long as the gift is something the other person would like. Did you get a gift at the office party that isn't quite you? Is it perfect for Cousin Johnny? Go ahead and give it to him. It's better than sitting in your closet for years to come.
• Make something. That's right, get out the glue stick and craft something. We all have a creative bone in our body. Use it.
• Cook something. Banana bread, lasagna for them to put in the freezer, cookies, granola...you get the drift. For extra points cook something delicious and healthy to combat that holiday poundage.
• Coupons. Who wouldn't want to have one free massage, kitchen cleaning, taxes done, sitter service, photo session? You have a talent to offer, so offer it.
  
• Instead of buying each other gifts, spend the money on an experience together. A possibility that I highly recommend is going to see the Nutcracker. Seattle has the best one I've ever seen.
• Wrap your presents in fabric so it can be reused every year. Check out this blog for a great How-To. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
• Buy cool board games that can be played with the family rather than watching energy sucking (you and the grid) TV.
  

Most importantly, be conscious of your spending and instead, take the time to enjoy your family. You may be delighted to find you actually have fun with them!

The EPA Admits Climate Change

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to address climate change and its causes. On 7 December, the EPA released its findings stating that climate change does, in fact, exist and yes, its causes are anthropogenic. No way. Really? They also state that a major cause is motor vehicles. Again, no way. You've gotta be kidding.



So the EPA has finally caught up. Good work. And in the wake of Climategate this is good timing. It will help to alleviate the media hype that is being caused by this. Climate change is real and we need to take action against it, now. This is my blog's main goal, to express that the government has a responsibility in this and they need to own that.

There are some regulations to address this: the Clean Air Act and Executive Orders. And now government officials are in Copenhagen deciding the fate of the world. So what's taking everyone so long to get on board? I can only hope that with these "new" findings by the EPA, the government will start taking some real action against climate change.

We've screamed, we've shouted, we've voted. What do we really need to do for our government to listen up? Just like I believe it's our governments responsibility to take action, it is also our responsibility to take action to get our government to act. Apathy and inaction can no longer exist. We must find the time in our busy lives to do this. Act now.

Copenhagen Comic

Eat, Drink, and Save the World!

SLOW FOODS THANKSGIVING 2009

Slow Foods and Buy Nothing Day have intersected and culminated in Mauri Parks and Miriam Easley's Social Media project for Using the Social Web for Social Change. We are two 2010 BGI graduate C7 hopefuls that are great friends, Islandwood roommates, and budding change agents who want to influence our sphere of influence and encourage you to practice your sustainability leadership skills within your own sphere of influence this holiday season. Pay it forward sustainability style. Thanksgiving is a harvest of food and blessings. Let's celebrate that together!

Instructions:

Eat, drink, and Save the world! No action is too big or small, Yes we can!

EAT & DRINK locally; engage in meaningful conversation among friends on Buy Nothing Day November 27th otherwise known as "Black Friday"

No matter how you get involved let us know your plans

Leave a comment on Mauri Parks or Miriam Easley's blogspot hip hop namaste or greengov

Action Ideas:

Engage in a national twitter online live feed on Friday BND hosted by Adbusters #BND09

Engage a perfect stranger with the a provocative question around consumerism, sustainability, and climate change and post the question in your social media network

Send us your photos

Send us a video log

Post your own blog and link to our blog or eat, drink, and save the world website

Pledge to do your own event

Stay tuned. Tomorrow the website will be unveiled. Keep checking in on our blogs for more information.

Ride the swell of a collective consumer consciousness social media project. Love and gratitude.

Mauri and Miriam

Please respond off the channel here:

hip hop namaste

greengov

mauriparksbgi@gmail.com

easleyme@gmail.com

The Copenhagen Climate Summit is bringing to light the comparisons of China's GHG emissions vs. the U.S.'s GHG emissions. There is now a website dedicated solely to China, their emissions, and their impact on climate change. This brings the question: Does the U.S. have such a website?
Regardless (not the topic of this post, just something it brought to mind), there is a fountain of information there. Legal Planet brought this up in one of their blog posts. One of the things they brought up was looking at both U.S. and China's transportation and manufacturing contributors.
China looks like they've surpassed the U.S. in GHG emissions but who's to blame? Is it China for following our lead in development strategy? Or is it the U.S.'s obsession with cheap, plastic, lead filled toys? Whatever the case, it's clear that China and the U.S. need to work together to set an example for GHG reduction to the rest of the world.

Copenhagen Climate Summit Breakdown

The Climate Summit is coming up soon. It starts on December 7 and will go until December 18. As a full time sustainable MBA student as well as being employed full time, I have a difficult time keeping up with all of the things going on the world right now: health care reform, the economic slump (is it really on an upturn?), climate change; this is just to name a few things. I would personally like to have cheat sheets to all of these things that I could trust. The breakdown of who, what, why, where, and how is incredibly useful to me. So, I broke down the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference for myself and for my readers.

When: December 7 - December 18
Where: Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark
Who: Over 5,000 delegates from the UNFCCC participating countries plus over 10,000 officials, members of the media, advisers, and activists.
Why: I mean, come on...I think we all know at this point that something drastic in climate change policy needs to occur here. Also, some of the provisions in the Kyoto Protocol will begin expiring in 2012 and on top of that, they don't really go to the extremes needed for the required results.
How: 11 days of talks, they've gotta be able to figure out something! You can get involved by staying informed; signing petitions like the one at Seal The Deal, Greenpeace, or Friends of the Earth; or add a personal message through Friends of the Earth Climate Capsule.
What:
Topics of discussion

• The importance of developed countries taking the lead on climate change policy and GHG reductions. The European Union are proposing to reduce their GHG by 30% of 1990 levels by 2020.
• Developing countries should, together reduce their emissions 15-30%.
  
• The Kyoto Protocol doesn't cover international flight and shipping; the new agreement needs to.
• How will countries adapt to the inevitable pressures of climate change?
• Research and development is necessary for forward momentum. The potential for change with green technologies are tremendous.
• A reformation of Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism.
• Building a carbon market.
• Developed countries' role in supporting developing countries.

What might happen from these talks:

• The U.S. and China step up and push for a comprehensive and aggressive agreement.
• The current targets are agreed upon and no stepping up occurs.
• A limited deal of mixed targets occurs.
• The Kyoto Protocol is extended.
• The talks are prolonged into 2010.
• They all puff up their chests, talk about this amazing agreement that just happened, and then do nothing.

So, this is my own personal breakdown of what I understand to be happening. It's a huge deal, a fate-of-the-world big deal. It's important that the United States show up in full support of creating and meeting ambitious goals with this agreement.

There was a lot of information out there about COP-15 so, please, if something has been misrepresented or if there's a gap that needs to be filled, comment on this post and I will incorporate it into the main post (with credit to you and a link to your blog).

In Response to Psychological Sustainability

Last week I commented on the Army's lack of psychological support for their Soldiers and Families. The Army is aware of the lack and are taking steps to fill it. Listen to this report from NPR about the Army Comprehensive Fitness Program.

Green Office Guide

Check out Sustainable Industries Green Office Guide for tips on how to make your office a more sustainable place!

Japan, U.S. Forge Consensus on Climate, Cleantech

"The United States and Japan will work with each other to develop renewable energy technologies and other cleantech, as well as set an example for emissions cutting, after a mutual pledge from President Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama." Full article.

The U.S. and Japan are working together to help each other cut their GHG emissions 80% by 2050. They hope to set an example to reach a global emission reduction of 50% by 2025. They will do this with the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Unfortunately, they also plan to develop nuclear technologies as well. Two steps forward, one step back.

Psychological Sustainability

Last week 13 people were killed and 30 wounded by a military psychiatrist at Fort Hood.













I was unsure on whether or not I would address this in my blog. It's a sensitive and tragic topic and I wish to do it tastefully. To begin with, my sincere and deep sympathy goes out to the families that have lost loved ones. I can only imagine the pain that is being felt. Many Soldiers and Families consider their military installation Home; a connection needed for those who are always moving. The Soldiers and Families deal with constant stress and worry while the Soldiers are deployed and it seems so unfair that they now will have the same stress at Home. Home is supposed to be a safe haven.

While my blog title, GreenGov, implies that I will speak about environmental issues, I'm really inquiring about sustainability issues. This is such an issue.

I would primarily like to address in this post the responsibility of the government to take care of their Soldiers mental and emotional well being. After all, sustainability cannot be addressed when basic needs are not being met.

More and more evidence is accumulating that suggests that the Fort Hood gunman was linked to Al-Quaida. This is not a case of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) gone too far. For me though, it brings to light the need for a psychological screening process for all Soldiers. The current screening process that Soldiers go through concerns me. It's very easy to play the system and get through the screening with a "pass". Just tell them what they want to hear. This screening does not happen to all Soldiers and when it does, it only happens upon redeployment. They are encouraged to seek help if needed and to keep an eye out for psychological warning signs in their buddies. But going for help is seen as a sign of weakness and is often avoided. Also, they are often encouraged to seek help from their chaplain, not a trained psychiatrist. I believe that this is a huge gap in the military system and it's the government's responsibility to ensure that this gap is closed. Suicide and violence rates have accelerated in the last few years and while surface level actions are being taken (i.e. PowerPoint presentations and video on not being suicidal and helping your friends not be suicidal) there is no real system set in place to offer the psychological support that these Soldiers need.

There is a need for a system to be put in place that helps our Soldiers reintegrate into their lives at home. This system should be comprehensive, including regular therapy sessions, stress management classes, and family therapy sessions to help them reconnect with their home lives. In addition, group sessions should occur; we can't even imagine the horrors that they have seen during their deployments and it's important for some, to seek solace among others who have shared experiences. Perhaps if these communication lines are open, warning signs can be spotted earlier to either help those that can still be helped and to take the necessary actions needed to defuse others.

My husband recently became a civilian after being in the Army. During the six years of his enlistment as a medic and after two deployments to Iraq, he never had psychological screening. I'm thankful that he has a strong mind and hasn't had issues but not everyone deals with emotional stress as well.

There does not seem to be an end in sight for deployments and our Soldiers and their families are getting tired. There needs to be a support structure to ensure the psychological sustainability of our Soldiers.

Bottled Water Vs. Tap Water = EPA Vs. FDA

A plastic water bottle with a picture of a serene glacier landscape is a commonly observed phenomena now. No one drinks tap water now and we're scared away from it by by bottled water companies. So what is really the difference? One of the big interests for me were the different regulations imposed on them. The EPA and the FDA are very different organizations with different priorities.

I did a bit of research, finding articles about the taste tests (people couldn't really tell the difference, especially when it came to high end brands vs. low end brands) but that wasn't really the information I was digging for. I wanted to know what regulations were in place, what levels of contaminant were acceptable, what tests are done and how often.

I came across a study done by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). It compared bottled water, carbonated water, city water (using surface water) and small town water (using well water). To keep it simple I'll focus on bottled water and city water.

In the spirit of transparancy, I had a bias against the FDA going into this. Their support of giant agribusiness, their choice to ignore CFO's as a place to start in the fight against H1N1 (and other potential diseases or bacteria), and their loose regulations on pharmaceuticals (to name a few items) has not made me a fan. I'm not suggesting that the EPA is without their flaws, however.

My findings were a bit more disturbing than previously thought.



It seems to me that tap water is regulated more than bottled water. I looked for studies testing both tap and bottled water for contaminants but did not find the research. I'm sure it's out there and will be sure to follow up if I find it.

My conclusion: get yourself a stainless steel water bottle, a filter for your tap and leave the BPA infested bottled water alone. Why spend the extra money?

Get Involved!

While the government has a responsibility in sustainability, we as American citizens have a responsibility to voice our concerns and opinions to our representatives. For easy-to-access contact information for your area go to Congress.org.

Climate Change Makes Sense, Red or Blue

In a recent Washington Post article, A senator in a hostile climate, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), stated,

"Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming. If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."

A voice of reason! At this point it's ridiculous to even argue that climate change exists or that it's causes are anthropogenic, but people still do. I recently got into a debate about this with a coworker. He sent me an e-mail quoting an article he'd read that repeated the same arguments against climate change that we always hear and that are easily refuted. I replied to his e-mail, taking each of his points, putting them in quotes, and embarrassingly blowing them apart with facts, figures, and reputable scientific research. I closed my e-mail with a snide comment offering my gratitude for him allowing me to sharpen my claws with this friendly debate...and there was something about bringing a pea-shooter to a gun fight. Perhaps not the most tactful comments ever but he got the gist of it all and actually thanked me for the great information.

One of the points I offered up was the difference in ramifications if climate skeptics are wrong versus if climate scientists are wrong. If skeptics are wrong then we still live in a more sustainable world...I don't see much wrong with that. If scientists are wrong then we live in a world of pollution, of famine, of climate change refugees, and of continuous wars over resources. That's a big difference.

Is your vehicle green?

Check out this website offered by the EPA and find out how your vehicle rates with emissions and fuel economy.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do

After that check out fuel saving tips from browngirlgoesgreen and learn about Hypermiling.

Transparency in GHG emissions

A post by Legal Planet: The Environmental Law and Policy Blog discussed the policy reversal on the transparency of GHG emissions by companies to their shareholders. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have ruled that companies now have to disclose climate risk information, a requirement that was non-existent with the previous administration. Shareholders have been demanding this information for years, since it directly pertains to the future success of that business and can now get information regarding the financial risks that are created by environmental externalities of the company.

In my opinion: it's about time. There are many environmental factors that play into a business that are just as important as a cash flow statement or a balance sheet...if not more. Businesses will realize more and more that they need to incorporate triple bottom line accounting practices into their financial statements...or lose investors.

This is just another forward step towards making businesses be more accountable and more transparent. In light of this, I think that everyone should demand this information from the companies they are invested in. This will not only help mitigate loss with your own portfolio, it will send the message to these companies that times have changed and they need to pay attention to their impacts on the environment and their global community.

Executive Order 13514

On 5 October, 2009 Obama signed a new executive order for Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. The executive order defines sustainability as: "the creation and maintenance of conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations."

It begins:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for Federal agencies, it is hereby ordered as follows..."

This executive order has a stronger focus on greenhouse gas emissions than its predecessors. It states that DoD (Department of Defense) will set a percentage reduction target using 2008 as a baseline and having the target year of 2020. The good thing about this: it does not distinguish between emissions from the installation and from the field. Previously, emissions from battle were not regulated. The bad thing about this: it does not specify the reduction percentage. For some installations this doesn't matter; their goals as a military installation are more ambitious than the "big" Army's. Additionally, all federal agencies are required to reduce petroleum product consumption by 2% each year until 2020. The order also requires that strategies be put in place to reduce the travel of agency staff but does not give specific direction on this.

Potable water consumption will be reduced by 2% annually until the end of 2020 or an aggregate of 26% reduction, related to 2007. All other water consumption will also be reduced similarly but with the target of 20% by the end of 2020. The Green Procurement requirements already require purchases of WaterSense label items including faucets, toilets, and shower heads.

In regards to waste diversion, the policy states that agencies will reduce waste, recycle, and prevent pollution. They have set a 50% waste diversion goal by 2015. Many individual installations have a more ambitious goal of zero net waste by 2025.

The previous executive order required all new buildings to be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum certifiable. Currently the requirements state that by 2020 all buildings will be designed to achieve zero net energy by 2030. The issue I have with these requirements is that they focus on building design, not on actual building performance. There is currently no system in place to ensure that the buildings are actually performing as designed. Additionally, notice the language regarding LEED: certifiable. There currently is no way to spend government dollars on getting the buildings certified so, essentially, there is no certainty that the buildings are actually meeting the standards.

The most reassuring improvement with this executive order is the addition of the Senior Sustainability Officer. This position is held accountable for annually reporting progress of implementing the agency or installation's Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. Until now there has been no reporting system or accountability, except for EMS (Environmental Management System) reporting. I think this may be key to the executive order's success.

My opinion on all of this (some opinion is peppered through the post): it's not enough. As I've stated before, the government should be leaders, and these goals are not ambitious enough. They should be setting higher standards and using their massive buying power to influence the businesses that they purchase from. The glimmer of hope with this is the grassroots moving that is happening with governmental agencies. There are many champions of sustainability throughout that are the government who are pushing their agency to take on larger goals than the government suggests. In fact, the DoD sets many of its goals based on more progressive installations such as Fort Lewis. This is where the change the government needs will come from.

The Government's Role in Sustainability

It's imperative that the government be a role model of sustainability. Perhaps this is currently not the position they hold now but there is significant progress towards this.

I seek to discover discuss the various ways that government agencies are involved with sustainability; whether it be policy, practice, activism, research & development, or hindrance. I will explore actions of the EPA, Department of Defense, the White House, and the United Nations.

The government is the largest buying power in the nation and by changing their purchasing habits towards sustainability they will sway businesses to move that way as well. Perhaps through discovering what is actually done by the government, with regards to sustainability, we can get involved to push them towards further action.

So I start the conversation: what should the government's role in sustainability be?