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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
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.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do
After that check out fuel saving tips from browngirlgoesgreen and learn about Hypermiling.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
