The Green Lantern

You Disappoint Me, Mr. President

2011-09-07T11:57:00.001-04:00

This morning I received an email from Obama for America, the organizing group for President Obama's 2012 campaign, with the headline "This Email Will Offend You."

Here's how the email began:

Adam --

Here's something you and I weren't supposed to find out:

At a private function at a Colorado resort, oil billionaire Charles Koch stood in front of hundreds of conservative millionaires and said the 2012 election will be, in the words of Saddam Hussein -- yes, he decided to quote Saddam Hussein -- "the mother of all wars."

He then read through a list of 32 contributors who gave more than a million dollars each to bankroll the network of corporate special-interest groups that aim to tear down President Obama.

If that offends you, it absolutely should. But it should also motivate you, because you are the only thing that can stop them.

Sure, it offends me that one of the biggest oil barons of our time, responsible for more environmental destruction and climate change than maybe any other American (I admit I'm not sure if this is true, but just think of all of that oil...) would quote a vile dictator in reference to the 2012 presidential race. But this email seemed out of touch with something I've been thinking for a little while now -- that Obama himself is alienating his base by disregarding the values that got him elected. Obama the president could not be more different than Obama the candidate. Plus I could think of something that offends me more -- his recent cave on improved ozone standards. As Adrianna Quintero writes on NRDC's Switchboard:

Passing a stronger standard would save (yes, SAVE!) as much as $37 billion per year in health benefits at a cost of roughly $20 billion by:
saving up to 4,300 lives;
preventing up to 23,000 cases of aggravated asthma;
avoiding almost 7,000 hospital visits; and
2.6 million days of work or school that people otherwise would miss due to air pollution.

She continues, sharing my frustration with Obama's compromise or inaction on these important issues:

It seems that none of these very obvious questions matter to them [politicians] anymore. Knee-jerk reactions to overblown claims by political rivals are what rule the day and motivate action in Congress and in the Administration. Reason and facts are looked down upon. Thoughtfulness is viewed as pretentious. And protecting our country, our children, MY children, equals political poison.

With this sentiment and that of being arrested at the White House taking nonviolent direct action for climate fresh in my mind, I responded to the initial email with this message:

"You know what really offends me? That the man I voted into office in 2008 (my first ever presidential election vote, by the way) on the platform of hope and change has done little on the subject of climate change. His cave on ozone regulation makes me sick, literally and figuratively. I was arrested in front of the White House two weeks ago when I engaged in civil disobedience against the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring tar sands, the dirtiest fuel on the planet, from Canada to US refineries along the Gulf Coast. If President Obama approves this pipeline, and continues his track record of caving on and not actively pursuing stricter climate policy, I will not vote for him in 2012. I know many of my friends, family members, and fellow concerned Americans feel the same way, and I hope you can somehow relay this message to him."

A group of Keystone XL pipeline opponents recently gathered at an Obama campaign office in Seattle to share this same message with the staff there. They bring up the point that not only are their votes at stake, but also their willingness to donate and volunteer for the campaign and defend Obama to their friends and colleagues.

Obama clearly has some explaining to do or I fear he'll have a tough time of it next November. I never thought Obama would ever be the lesser-of-two-evils candidate, but if he doesn't start proving his commitment to climate and the other core values that so endeared him to us in 2008 he will face that fate and risk being a one-term president.

We Shall Overcome

2011-08-23T23:25:00.006-04:00

"Sir, step forward please."

A buff mustachioed officer of the DC Park Police motioned me to come closer. I'll never forget his next four words, "You are under arrest." He then told me to turn around and snapped thick plastic bands around my wrists.

I was the third-to-last of 59 participants in civil disobedience earlier today to be arrested at the White House. We were taking nonviolent direct action in opposition to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the US Gulf Coast. Aside from the danger this pipeline would pose to sources of drinking water, rural and indigenous peoples, and wildlife, if this carbon were to enter the atmosphere it would be game over for climate. Estimates place the tar sands contribution to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 600 parts per million (ppm), so this pipeline is kind of a big deal. For reference, 350 ppm is the concentration at which human life on Earth developed. We're currently somewhere between 385 and 395 ppm CO2, and steadily climbing.

After each of us was pulled from the rest of group lined up along the sidewalk, we were led into a small tent and then loaded into a paddy wagon to be transported to the Anacostia branch of the Park Police for further processing. I was loaded into the last truck along with Jerome from New Jersey and Bishop from Virginia. To say we were cramped would be an understatement. Imagine bouncing around in the back of a mobile toaster. Then imagine having your hands behind your back, and you'll get a sense of our experience. I was first on the transport so I had a view out of the front of the vehicle through the metal mesh between myself and the driver. As we wove through the streets of DC behind our motorcycle escort past the White House, through the Mall beside the Washington Monument, and across the Anacostia River, I wondered what the tourists were thinking. What's all this ruckus? Who are these criminals being transported across town? I could see them turning their heads along the sidewalks as they heard the whine of the sirens coming down the street. I chuckled to myself. If only they knew that behind the windowless walls of the truck sat a recent college graduate, an environmental engineer, and a lawyer who'd all been demonstrating at the White House only moments before. We're doing this for you, I thought, and we're doing this for each other.

Processing once we arrived at the jailhouse was relatively painless. One by one they snapped off our plastic cuffs and led us to a long table staffed with officers who had us fill out paperwork for our release. Because of the low severity of our crime - we were charged with failure to obey a lawful order (aka get off the sidewalk) - and the benevolence of the Park Police, we were granted a "post and forfeit" release. Under these terms we could pay a $100 fine instead of staying overnight in jail and arranging a date in court. Thankfully we were instructed to have cash on us beforehand, and we were all out of police custody by 2:00 or so. Not so bad considering arrests had started around 11:30. I also want to make a point of saying that the DC Park Police were courteous and professional throughout the process, and I hope they spend my $100 wisely.

One of the most remarkable things for me about this action was the ability of a group of complete strangers to come together and rally around a common vision. It was even more astonishing to me that part of that goal was arrest. Action organizers affectionately used the phrase "risking arrest" when describing the action we were to take but after three previous days of arrested participants we had a good idea of what we were in for. The vast majority of us, like myself, were first-time participants in a demonstration of this kind and had never been arrested before. This could have made for a nervous bunch, but after spending several hours at a civil disobedience training session last night we were comfortable enough to put our trust in one another and take this leap of faith together. Leading up to the action I was anxious about entering into a scenario where I wasn't in control of my personal well-being (wait, you mean we're actually going to be arrested, like arrested arrested?), but as soon as I showed up at the White House this morning I knew that I would be in good hands - those of the wonderful, courageous, and passionate people who had come from all over the country to stand beside me. I realized too that sometimes you must relinquish that control in order to take control of something you care about.

One of the most memorable moments from today was when my buddy (we each had action buddies who were our go-to's for support throughout the day) Lawrence MacDonald and others led us in a variation of We Shall Overcome, an anthem of the Civil Rights movement. The lyrics drew nicely on the essence of what we were trying to accomplish.

We shall overcome, we shall overcome,
We shall overcome someday;
Deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday.

We'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand,
We'll walk hand in hand someday;
Deep in my heart, I do believe,
We'll walk hand in hand someday.

We shall live in peace, we shall live in peace,
We shall live in peace someday;
Deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall live in peace someday.

We shall heal the earth, we shall heal the earth,
We shall heal the earth someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall heal the earth someday.

If today showed me anything, it's that this day is coming and we can get there even quicker if we work together to oppose injustice and bring positive change to the world.

Final note: Infinite thanks to the Tar Sands Action organizing team. Your help in preparing us for what we could expect throughout the day and your presence before, during, and after the action were invaluable to this experience. It honestly wouldn't have been possible, and won't continue to be possible this next week and a half, without your tireless work. I'm exhausted after participating in a single day, I can't imagine the resolve it must take to be out there day after day training a new group and seeing them safely through the arrest process. I think I speak for all of those who participated with me today when I say you are the real heroes of this action. Thank you!

Stop the Tar Sands: Stand Tall Generation Y

2011-08-20T13:30:00.001-04:00

This post originally appeared last week in a Daily Kos blogathon featuring responses to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. If this were to be approved, the pipeline would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the US Gulf Coast and serve as the fuse to one of the largest carbon bombs on the planet. If we are to have any hope of mitigating the catastrophic consequences of climate change, this carbon must stay in the ground. Here's why I'm participating in civil disobedience against the Keystone XL this week.

I've always balked a little at the notion that we should take action on climate change for the sake of our children, and for our children's children. This idea rubs me the wrong way because it creates a temporal disconnect with the immediacy of these issues, reinforcing the misconception that climate change is something that isn't happening while giving those suspicious of doing good for the environment another reason not to care. That, and of course it's not true. We need to take action on climate to save ourselves too.

Whenever I hear someone reference future generations in relation to climate change I can't help but think, "They're talking about me. These adults are talking about me." See, I was born in the late nineteen eighties which means that if US life expectancy is anywhere near accurate I will still be alive well after 2050. To put it simply, if I don't take action on climate then I'm not only jeopardizing my branch of the family tree but my own existence entirely. I don't have the luxury of playing wait and see. None of us do. Of course I'm an adult too now and as we charge further into the 21st Century an idea that may be a vestige of environmental messages of old becomes less and less relevant as more climate-passionate young people join the cause and conversation.

Climate must be a priority now. Our current greenhouse gas trajectory exceeds even the worst-case fossil fuel intensive projections made in 2007 for emissions over the next 100 years. The following video depicts a message Bill McKibben articulated beautifully in a Washington Post op-ed in May: Connect the dots. The destructive consequences of a changing climate are happening all around us.

When I first heard about the two weeks of civil disobedience in Washington I thought this is an incredible and unique opportunity. Through our participation we can show the one man responsible for approving or rejecting the pipeline, President Barack Obama, that we mean business. The groundswell of support for this action and the satellite protests that have cropped up across the country for those who cannot make it to DC prove that we've grown tired of our leaders' inability to make significant progress on climate change. Oftentimes when I think about direct actions I can take to have a positive impact on the environment my mind wanders to behavior changes in my personal life. But participating in civil disobedience is a whole different animal, and for me a no-brainer. Let's get this country's attention and convince the Commander in Chief to stop one of the most destructive projects in discussion today.

I recently came across a passage of a speech Obama gave back in 2006. He said:

"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."

Without a doubt President Obama has diverged from this message. Sure, he may not think he has enough remaining political capital to craft meaningful climate legislation, especially when current members of Congress advocate abolishing the EPA and recently rejected a measure that would have admitted the climate is changing and human activities are the cause. In the midst of such an obstructionist political setting it's up to us to show him he's not alone. Further action simply cannot wait. He needs to understand that approving the Keystone XL pipeline would be a direct affront to those who elected him.

Therefore this post is a call to all members of Generation Y to come out in strength and stand tall outside the White House starting this weekend. The votes of the 18- to 25-year-old demographic were essential to Obama's victory in 2008 and we need to hold him accountable. We’ve inherited quite the complex global problem and it’s up to us to solve it, or perish. We ARE the future generation we’ve heard so much about. The clock is ticking.

I remember in the very first announcement on Grist about the plans for the civil disobedience there was a portion which read: "We don’t want college-age kids to be the only cannon fodder in this fight.... Now it’s time for people who’ve spent their lives pouring carbon into the atmosphere (and whose careers won’t be as damaged by an arrest record) to step up too." Fellow Gen-Yers, will we get arrested? It's entirely possible. We're not supposed to stand still in the location where we'll be gathering outside the White House. But this space offers President Obama such a prime view of us we simply can't pass it up. Should we let the threat of tainting our personal records deter us from showing our support for this cause? Never. Would we want to work somewhere that couldn't understand and accept the type of thoughtful and principled action we'll be engaging in? I don't think so. I will be outside the White House a week from today, on Tuesday August 23rd, and I hope you will join me.

Test Driving the 100% Electric Nissan Leaf

2011-07-25T23:23:00.001-04:00

On Saturday I had the opportunity to test drive the Leaf, the 100% electric car manufactured by Nissan. It's no secret I've had a mini-love affair with the Leaf marketing team ever since I first saw their commercials a while ago (see posts here, here and most recently here). When I noticed on Twitter a few weeks ago that they were launching a Drive Electric Tour and that they were stopping in nearby Hartford, I knew I had to take advantage of the chance to get in the driver's seat myself and see what all the hype was about.

The event itself was awesome. It was a brutally hot day and they had cornered off a large section of the parking lot at the West Farms Mall for the driving course. There were also tents with information about the Leaf and refreshments. I was a part of the 1:30 tour group -- There were about 20 of us in all. Most of them were families with kids and I was probably the youngest person who drove himself to the event. Go figure. It didn't matter that I'm not planning on actually buying a Leaf, or any car for that matter anytime soon (I'm hoping to live in a place where it's not necessary to drive everywhere). That said, if and when I come to a point in my life where I want to buy a car, this is definitely towards the top of my wish list.

I was just along for the ride and to get a glimpse of the technology of the future. And that's really what it felt like. It made me think of what it must have been like to visit a world's fair and see the technologies of the coming era. Okay, maybe that's a stretch -- it's only a new car. Then again, the Leaf has no mufflers. I digress...

One of the Nissan Tour staff members ushered us through the first tent and told us about the car. Because it has roughly a 100-mile charge, he was honest that the Leaf is not a road trip vehicle. He was quick to point out that over 90 percent of us never travel 100 miles in a day, so the Leaf is perfect for the commute to school or work, or for running errands around town. He also explained that since the Leaf can recharge its battery while braking or coasting, some drivers can achieve distances of up to 130 miles. The navigation system built into the Leaf can locate nearby charging stations as well as show the driver all possible destinations, one-way and round-trip, within the current battery life. He pointed out the many other features of the Leaf, including the solar panel on the roof that powers the radio, headlights, AC, etc. The model underneath the tent had been running all day, yet all the components under the hood were cool to the touch. The seats themselves are made out of recycled plastic water bottles. The headlights were designed to direct airflow around the sideview mirrors to reduce drag. The list went on and on. Needless to say I was very impressed by the care Nissan had taken to create the Leaf.

Before long it was time to head out on the course. I was accompanied by Nissan staff to a car waiting in the lot. I climbed into the drivers seat and pushed the power button. The only sound was that of the air conditioning turning on. Soon it was my turn to take off, and I slid out of the starting area. One of the coolest things about driving the Leaf was the way it calculated the remaining range in the vehicle on the dashboard. It even told you by how many miles you could increase the range by turning of the AC or radio, or by putting the car into eco-mode (effectively the equivalent of a lower gear in any normal car, i.e. slower pickup).

Unfortunately we weren't allowed to push more than 15-20 mph through the course, so it was a little difficult for me to tell how it would fare on the open road. It did handle really well weaving through the cones they had set up and from what I could tell it was very similar to driving other small to midsized cars. When I asked one of the tent staffers what his favorite thing was about the Leaf he said it was the torque. He agreed that the course was limiting and didn't do the car justice, but that it had to be that way for liability reasons. Next time I'd really like to get one of these out on the open road and just cruise around for a little while. Due to hit the open market this fall, I may get that chance soon.

Overall the event was so much fun and I feel like I now have a better understanding of the Leaf and a greater appreciation for Nissan in doing what it has to promote electric vehicles. If you are interested in test driving one yourself, check out the Drive Electric Tour and see if the Leaf will be coming to a city near you soon. The national tour just started, so chances are you'll have an opportunity to participate. I highly recommend it!

TGL, Two Years Later

2011-07-11T21:22:00.009-04:00

It was two years ago last Friday that I sat down in my Washington D.C. apartment and wrote and published the very first post on this here blog. I had spent the day at the 2009 Campus Progress National Conference where I was inspired by speeches from such luminaries as former President Bill Clinton, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, oh, and of course, Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. Having deliberated for the better part of the preceding months over whether or not to start my voyage into the unknown depths of the internets, I finally could not resist the temptation to stake a claim on my own personal corner of the virtual frontier.

When I go back and read that post now I hear a self-conscious writer (can I even call my nascent blogger self a writer?) dipping his toes into the blogging pool. I didn't even really know at the time what I wanted to write about -- baseball? comic books? (HA.) -- I simply knew that I had ideas that I wanted to share. Soon The Green Lantern became my outlet for my observations on the world of sustainability, urbanism, or the two together. It helped me apply concepts and theories I'd learn in the classroom to the current web of events we now find ourselves caught up in.

Several times I remarked that blogging took a certain bravado to think that people would want to read what I had to say. As I honed my message and my method, I began to attract more and more visitors. Some were friends, family members, and colleagues, and some were people I had never met before who were interested in hearing what I had to say. I feel incredibly fortunate to have seen my readership grow to the point it is at now. I had just under 500 pageviews last month:

Inherent in this endeavor was finding my "voice," something I knew would be paramount to this process way back in that very first post. In some ways I think my writing style has remained remarkably constant, though the strength of argument has improved. I've also learned to loosen up in some of my posts, because who likes to read something that's stuffy and boring (the answer is no one...). Over the past two years I've written on time-lapse videos of NYC, about 100 different electric car commercials, my love of biking, and cities from the sky. My most popular posts to date are Lock It Up and a recent rallying cry against hydraulic fracturing, Exxon, For Shame (both worth a read if you missed them the first time around).

I'm a firm believer in the idea that you can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. Luckily for me I've kept a careful record of where I've been, and I can say that I want to keep heading in the direction I've set out for myself. Like a planetary body set in motion I won't stop now. I can't, even if I foolishly wanted to or even tried. My life is in a period of transition -- I just graduated from college and am (finally) and "adult." Hopefully building upon these writings will help me to further determine the solutions to the crises of the 21st Century.

From those of you who have been there when the beginning began, to those of you for whom this is your first post, the only words I can say are thank you, thank you, thank you.

Watch this Video. Just Watch It.

2011-06-13T22:35:00.004-04:00

Last year one of my professors warned my class not to associate extreme weather events with climate change, a point I explored in several posts that spring (See here, here, and here). In this video Stephen Thomson narrates Bill McKibben's Washington Post op-ed over images of these disasters and relevant political tidbits, creating an incredibly haunting and convincing portrait of recent events. At this point I'm not really sure what to think, but I'm now asking myself this question: If no one extreme weather event can be linked to climate change then at what point (if any) can a series of such catastrophes be attributed to a changing climate? And if this connection is made, can they even be called "natural" disasters anymore?

Nissan Asks, What if Everything Ran on Gas?

2011-06-10T15:52:00.017-04:00

The marketing team at Nissan is at it again, and this time they've struck gold.

I saw this commercial for the first time last night, and I have seen it everywhere since (including the preview advertisement for another Youtube video of the ad itself. So meta, right?). The concept is incredible, so much so that I actually uttered the word "brilliant" when the commercial ended. After watching it several times through, I realize its message is different from the one I initially took away from it but that doesn't detract from the creativity of the clip nor the intended message itself.

When I first watched it, I thought what the heck could this be for? A bunch of appliances running on two-stroke engines and spewing (noticeable) exhaust into the surrounding air? I was captivated by it because it visually represented an important connection -- that each of these technological amenities uses energy. It would be more obvious if we lived in a world where everything ran on gas, but when the plants spewing the same pollutants into the atmosphere are located in someone else's backyard this connection is more difficult to draw. I like this commercial for the same reason I like the wall decal below, from Hu2 Design. Both are innovative ways to remind people of their environmental impacts.

The subtle aspects of the commercial really make it shine. It is meant to make you feel bored and uncomfortable. Watching someone go through their daily routine really gets you going, doesn't it? Waking up at 6:20? Yuck. And no one likes the dentist, especially if they try to put a sawzall in your mouth. After all, thinking about gasoline should unnerve you and to them I say job well done.

My "Aha" moment came when we finally arrive at our tragic hero filling his Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid electric car (which means it can run on gas or electricity, or both), at the pump. Clever, I thought, to use gas-powered electric appliances to make the case for electrifying a typically gas-powered vehicle. But, of course, the magicians at Nissan weren't done yet. They took the commercial as an opportunity to make a light jab at their chief competitor, clearly taking pride in the fact that their car doesn't rely on the Volt's gas-dependent safety net. The only problem I have with their message is that the electricity they purport to be vastly better than gasoline isn't emissions-free either. Roughly two-thirds of the electricity produced in this country is done so using dirty sources such as coal or natural gas. Nissan Leafs (Leaves?) nor Chevy Volts will be true zero-emissions vehicles until we grow the percentage of renewables in our national energy portfolio. To the Volt's defense, there clearly aren't charging stations yet on the average street like the one shown beside the Leaf in this commercial. Because of this the Chevy hybrid model could be a more than acceptable stepping stone to a complete EV future, as long as its electric refueling capacity isn't ignored in practice in favor of the more familiar gasoline routine.

Flickering Lights: Another NYC Timelapse

2011-06-06T22:29:00.006-04:00

Earlier this year I posted this time-lapse video of New York City made by photographer Josh Owens. In that post, I commented on how cities are visually striking places and images like these have the power to illicit emotional responses in those viewing them. In case you found yourself wanting, don't worry -- Owens is at it again. Last week he released a second video of New York, once which incorporates many of the same elements of the first while focusing on different themes:

One of the aspects that stands out to me is the way Owens captures light. From the first few seconds of the video when the sun rises and bathes the rooftops in its glow, to the city streets flanked by tall buildings that only receive complete sun for moments each day, to the blurring red tail lights streaking through the streets, and then the office lights that blink on and off along the various facades, light is central to our impressions and understanding of cities.

And like his first video, you can't ignore the sheer beauty of the images he captures.

Exxon, For Shame

2011-05-11T13:51:00.001-04:00

In the past week I've seen the following Exxon commercial probably a dozen times. You may have seen it too, or one like it. They usually include a charismatic narrator describing how some aspect of Exxon's operation is valuable to our country. You can almost hear them pleading, "We're doing the right thing, don't you see?" But this most recent commercial, part of their 2011 corporate ad program, really rubbed me the wrong way. Why? Because it's a blatant lie. Brilliant marketing, and a blatant lie.

Watch:

Geologist Erik Oswald touts the benefits of natural gas exploration. "Technology has made it possible to safely unlock this cleaner burning natural gas," he boasts, "These deposits can provide us with fuel for 100 years, providing energy security and economic growth all across this country." All the while, the background video displays expanses of wilderness, sleepy households, and mom-and-pop shops on Main Street opening for business (complete with American flags, of course. Hurrah for exploiting patriotism).

If Mr. Oswald were telling the truth, this commercial would go a little something like this: "Extremely toxic and unregulated technology has made it possible for us to extract natural gas right in your backyard. Natural gas produces about 30 percent less carbon dioxide than petroleum, so sure it's more efficient but it's still a dirty fuel." Smiling sheepishly, he'd continue, "These deposits can provide us with fuel for 100 years which is really no time at all, perpetuating our addiction to fossil fuels. It would lead to economic growth for those that have rigged the system to reap the benefits. Heck, Exxon enjoyed record profits during Q1 in 2011! For others, those we exploit, natural gas exploration will lead to extreme human health risks and contaminated drinking water. But who cares about them?"

Sorry Mr. Oswald, but in the words of Michael Scott, "Boom, roasted."

It is precisely what is not mentioned in this commercial that is so troubling. The unspoken phrase here is hydraulic fracturing, even though that is exactly the type of natural gas exploration and extraction that it describes. For those of you who aren't familiar with the technique, hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) involves injecting a toxic cocktail of chemicals thousands of feet beneath the earth's surface to break up porous rock and release the natural gas trapped within. But of course the term "fracking" isn't used, because it's a dirty word (pun intended).

One of the reasons I'm so worked up about this commercial is two weeks ago I saw Gasland. After receiving a $100,000 offer for a gas lease on his land in Pennsylvania, filmmaker Jeff Fox decided to investigate fracking sites across the country and made this award-winning documentary. What he found could not be more contradictory to the natural gas utopia depicted by Oswald and Exxon.

Watch the Gasland trailer to get a sense of what I'm talking about:

I'm unsure if any film has ever affected me the way Gasland did. I came out of the screening irate and upset. How could something so clearly dangerous and untested be allowed? I wanted to throw these images and these stories in the faces of those who continually deny a link between fracking and environmental and human health crises. I think that's why it moved me so much - because this just wasn't a story about environmental degradation on a national scale. It was also a narrative about the destruction the social fabric of the families and the communities that now can't fish in their waterways, let their kids play outside, or trust the air they breathe in their own homes.

I think watching this movie had the same effect on me that reading Cormac McCarthy's The Road did last year, even though the cause of the dying earth he vividly depicted was never explicitly stated to be environmentally rooted. The anger I feel towards this Exxon commercial reminds me of the fear I felt after reading that book. But what role do these emotions play in the climate movement? I think we shy away from the realities of climate change because what's happening to the planet is so immense in scale and complexity, and we need to remain hopeful and happy to pull us through. But these emotions are valuable in their own right, not to mention entirely justified. And this brings us to the central problem with this commercial - Exxon expects us to accept it hook, line, and sinker. I say, "How dare they?" They don't fool me and they shouldn't fool you either. The next time you see this commercial or one like it, understand it for what it is.

In the last 24 hours I've signed this Change.org petition asking Mr. Oswald to halt fracking activities and one from 350.org asking Congress to end subsidies to oil companies. I urge you to do the same.

Image credit: "What the Frack?" by Option-G.

Barcelona, 1908

2011-04-29T16:45:00.001-04:00

Sometimes it's hard to imagine a time when automobiles didn't rule the road. The following video gives us a glimpse into the streets of Barcelona one hundred years ago when there were no cars, only streetcars:

It's almost impossible to envision a major modern city without cars (okay I'll come clean, there are a few of the first automobiles in this clip). One of the coolest things about this video though, is that without cars everyone uses the street. There are more pedestrians in the street than on the sidewalk. Bicycles weave back and forth across the streetcar-mounted camera. There are few carriages and even fewer automobiles. The video commentary from Pattern Cities echoes the importance of this idea:

This incredible film... demonstrates the degree to which modern society has engineered complexity out of our streets. It also provides a glimpse into how our city streets operated before the automobile went mainstream, a seminal 20th century moment that has damaged cities the world over.

But surely the streets of the 1900s were not entirely crash-free, or as romantic as this film and its whimsical music make them out to be. Yet, the inherent complexity– the organized chaos of streetcars, pedestrians, horse-drawn carriages, and yes, motorists all mixing together–is instructive and should make any urbanist long for a time when the tyranny of the automobile didn’t dominate the project of city building.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever return to the ideal displayed here. We've traveled too far along our current path. Effectively merging cars and cities is not an easy task, but it is something that is an important problem in the 21st Century. Throughout the discussion around the impacts of automobile use on the planet I am amused by those who wish to do away with them entirely. Aside from being unfeasible - we've developed a modern transportation network predicated on automobility - it's also unfavorable. There's a reason cars are so popular. Car owners love the autonomy inherent in being able to go where you want to, when you want to. I'm not foolish enough to suppose that nothing will ever replace the automobile (where is my jetpack, anyhow?) but I am certain they are here to stay for the foreseeable future. And yes, maybe even through the 100 year timeline often cited as the window of opportunity to improve the odds on climate change. Since altering the infrastructure that mandates automobile use will take longer than we realistically have time for, the answer could depend on the speed at which we improve efficiency of hybrid vehicles and develop better electric vehicle technology. That said, we could sure do ourselves a favor and make fewer decisions like this one.

Power Shift 2011: Bill McKibben and Tim DeChristopher

2011-04-18T12:04:00.007-04:00

Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend Power Shift this year, though the friends I've talked to about it have all said it was an incredible experience. Thankfully in the technology age I've been able to follow along with a lot of the action on Twitter (which has officially displaced Facebook as my social media outlet of choice; follow @agmaynard). During my internet explorations I came across two videos of speeches that I think are worth sharing. The first is Bill McKibben, author and the founder of 350.org. The second is Tim DeChristopher, a climate activist who was in the news recently for crashing a federal auction and bidding nearly $1.8 million for oil and gas leases he had no intention of paying for.

Let's listen to McKibben first:

McKibben speaks about corrupt politics in Washington, and how we can't let dirty money (largely from the Chamber of Commerce and the industrious Koch bothers, pun intended) win out in the end. He says building a movement that is louder and more impassioned than the opposition will be the key to achieving the significant policy victories necessary to prevent catastrophic changes to the climate system. We've already caused 1 degree of warming (that's Celsius, by the way) and if we get to 5 or more we're cooked. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen in the next hundred years or so.

Some highlights:

They [politicians] believe that because they can amend the tax laws they can amend the laws of nature too, but they can't. (on Congress voting to deny anthropogenic climate change).
The first thing we need to do is build a movement. We will never have as much money as the oil companies so we need a different currency to work in. We need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit. 350.org has been like a beta test for that movement.
We need to fight with art and with music too, not just with the side of our brain that likes bar graphs and pie charts but all our heart and all our soul.
We need to speak with one loud voice.

Now let's listen to DeChristopher. Pay attention to how his tone is different than McKibben's:

DeChristopher's portrait of the future is far more dark than McKibben's. He speaks of the challenges we'll face and the sacrifices that must be made. Because the carbon we've already emitted into the atmosphere is there to stay, we are on track for the collapse of modern civilization. The greatest challenge moving forward will not be reducing emissions, but maintaining our humanity through the troubles to come. He also describes why events like Power Shift do little to prevent this from happening. "There's a lot of stuff about this movement that feels really good and that's really convenient but it's not preparing us for the challenge that we will face ahead of us," says DeChristopher. Of the problems we'll inherit he says, "We're not going to meet it in a convenient way. We're not going to meet it in a way that fits into our school schedules. We're not going to meet it in a way that we can avoid sacrifices." Without using these exact words he says this is war.

Through their speeches I think McKibben and DeChristopher describe different means to the same end. Both use the term civil disobedience, but I don't know if McKibben would support the types of interference his counterpart does (after all, DeChristopher is likely facing 5-10 years in prison for the gas lease auction bids). McKibben advocates for the "movement," for using the political capital built through organizations like 350 to influence policymakers in Washington. DeChristopher on the other hand advocates direct action, picketing at mountaintop removal sites for example. What's interesting about this suggestion is it would probably work and wouldn't end in a prison sentence (at least I'd hope not). But how many of you would actually travel to West Virginia and engage in this type of protest?

There is a palpable tension between what we need to do and what we are willing to do to solve the crisis of our generation. After listening to these perspectives one after another I find myself asking, "How far would I go to bring about the positive change we need?"

Ghost Cities

2011-04-04T12:37:00.032-04:00

This really freaks me out (and it should freak you out too). Reporters from Australian TV show Dateline explore the empty streets of Dongguan to document the dark reality of China's real estate boom. Six years after its opening, the "New" South China Mall remains 99 percent vacant. Government development agencies raze single-story tenements to make way for high-rise apartments that few Chinese can afford. But construction continues.

Admittedly one of the reasons I find this tour of Dongguan so spooky is because of the visual parallels I draw to one of my favorite movies, Serenity. In the scene below, the crew of the Firefly discovers a secret the centralized Alliance government was determined to keep hidden. They stumble upon the planet Miranda and find it completely deserted, with no evidence of war, famine, or other catastrophe.

My favorite quote from this clip (besides "She is starting to damage my calm") is when Jayne says, "She's right. Everybody's dead. This whole world is dead for no reason." Now let me ask you something: Decomposing bodies and government population-calming experiments aside, is Dongguan any less "dead" than Miranda? Can a city exist without the people who inhabit it?

Not only are the views of an empty Dongguan (and the pop-culture references they suggest) unnerving in and of themselves, but the implications of all of that real estate sitting vacant for years is equally alarming. I'm not familiar enough with Chinese property development trends to say what this means for China's economy, but real estate analyst Gillem Tulloch asserts that it is experiencing a property bubble like we've never seen before, one "that will make the United States pale in comparison." We all know how that turned out, don't we?

Despite the warnings and the precedents, this type of development continues. In this Grist.org piece about the video, Sarah Goodyear writes: "And yet around the globe, governments and business interests continue to build projects like these.... They should look more closely at the Chinese example -- beyond the GDP numbers to the bricks-and-mortar reality. Because when economic growth is pursued for its own sake, without regard to the needs and capabilities of the humans inside that economy, it is only a matter of time before the bubble will burst."

BMW: Activate the Future

2011-03-21T11:54:00.008-04:00

Each Tuesday throughout the month of February, BMW released one segment of a four-part documentary entitled Wherever You Want to Go. The film covers topics including how the changing shape of our cities will determine how we move through them, what we can learn from airplanes and astronauts, and how keeping mobility fun is essential to transforming our transportation system. Commentators include Lawrence Burns, author of "Reinventing the Automobile," Robin Chase, Founder of Zipcar, and astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Watch the documentary below (all four parts together are about 25 minutes long).

Part 1: The New City

Part 2: The Future Just Isn't What it Used to Be

Part 3: Reinventing Mobility

Part 4: How We'll Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Future

For more information about the film, visit the BWM Documentaries website.

Cities from the Sky, Part Four

2011-03-14T14:28:00.001-04:00

This is the fourth part in a series about aerial photography and the built environment. If you missed part one, click here, part two, click here, or part three, click here.

So I know I said last week's post would be the final one in this series, but the events over the weekend in Japan have mandated an emergency post of sorts. If you are reading this than you are probably someone predisposed to seeking out and consuming relevant news, so (I'm hoping) you've heard that last Friday a massive earthquake triggered a tsunami that decimated much of Japan's eastern coastline. If you don't know what I'm talking about, climb out from under that rock you've been living under and grab a copy of a major newspaper. Or just keep reading.

At 8.9 on the Richter scale, the quake was one of the largest in recorded history. It could be felt in Tokyo, hundreds of miles from the epicenter, where large buildings swayed like flowers in a gentle breeze.

The wave itself reached heights of up to 33 feet and wreaked havoc on the low-lying coastland, sending houses, cars, people, and whatever else lay in its path miles inland. If you've been following the coverage, chances are you've seen videos of the surging water already, but in case you haven't behold its terrifying power.

This destruction has also been well documented using satellite imagery, snapshots which give a comprehensive look at the massive scale of this disaster. Entire neighborhoods and towns disappear. Fields become lakes. Civilization is reminded of its fragility.

The New York Times has put together a remarkable interactive piece which lets you scan over the same aerial shot before and after the wave passed through. I strongly encourage you to take a look at it here.

Cities from the Sky, Part Three

2011-03-07T23:48:00.027-05:00

This is the third part in a series about aerial photography and the built environment. If you missed part one, click here, or part two, click here.

So far in this series I've written about Christoph Gielen, a photographer who uses aerial imagery of suburban development to make commentary on current urban design paradigms. I've also brought you into orbit and introduced you to astronaut Don Pettit who took you on a global tour of cities at night. But in this third (and likely final) post in this series, I'm going to take you closer to home. My home, that is.

Guilford, Connecticut is a small town 14 miles east of New Haven on the shore of Long Island Sound. Founded in 1639, the town is host to hundreds of historic homes, a variety of natural amenities including beaches and wetlands, rolling hills and bluffs, and is also characterized by a community ethic of preservation and conservation that protects these assets.

If you've taken an urban studies class with me, you should be familiar with Guilford. It is a usual topic of mine for projects, papers, and presentations. For example, I've written on the history of the Town Green, one of the largest in New England, I've profiled Guilford's Plan of Conservation and Development, a model document for land use planning, and I've written about Guilford's effort to block a proposed Costco development at exit 57 off of Interstate 95.

But how does Guilford fit into the theme of this series? In the late 1990s, renowned urbanist, author, and Yale professor Dolores Hayden took to the air with photographer Alex MacLean to document what they refer to as Guilford's cultural landscape. They define this idea as a "broader way of analyzing architectural, economic, and environmental forces together, to look at how a society shapes its space over time." Where preservationists, planners, and conservationists examine at each of these elements individually, this approach produces a more comprehensive look at how they interact.

In a companion essay to their aerial portfolio (also a great history of development in Guilford), they describe the role aerial photographs play in capturing cultural landscape in a detailed and accessible way:

Aerial images can capture the preserved parts of a town's cultural landscape, and can also help identify the threatened parts and the shape of land use conflicts, present and potential. Low-level, oblique-angle pictures of many parts of the town can establish a more complete visual inventory than ground-level shots. They can show inaccessible places, such as wetlands or steep terrain. They can reveal usually hidden sites, such as dumps or gated communities.... They convey the vast scale typical of twenty-first century development, and can bring up-to-the-minute data on the progress of sprawl. And, best of all, they are understood by people without technical training, in a way that zoning maps, zoning codes, satellite surveys, and traditional site plans are not.

Let's take a look at some of their photographs.

We'll start off with the most important landmark in Guilford, the Town Green. The green serves as the central gathering space for town events including high school graduation, an annual handcrafts fair and other cultural events, town parades, and dozens of other community functions. The retail, municipal, and religious institutions lining the green also make it the nexus of activity in Guilford.

Do you notice anything interesting or odd about the image above? Route 1, the road running horizontally through the center of the picture, is also the dividing line of one of Guilford's historic districts. Just look at the difference in the (somewhat) dense neighborhood of old homes and the asphalt of the shopping center across the street. Bonus question: Can you find the octagon-shaped house?

Finally, the completion of Interstate 95 through Guilford in 1958 brought about a population explosion that would change the town forever. More people meant an increased demand for housing, and developments like the one above sprung up throughout town, mostly in the wooded areas north of the highway.

To see the rest of the aerial portfolio, click here.

Hayden and MacLean conclude their commentary with the following: "In 1935, the architect Le Corbusier wrote, 'The airplane indicts.' He claimed that anyone flying over old French towns would see the need to tear down and rebuild to his modernist designs. We suggest the opposite. Aerial photography with a hand-held camera heightens awareness of unique cultural landscapes by documenting land use in an accessible way.... They can help architecture buffs and environmentalists, citizens and specialists, visualize common ground."

This vision of the common ground is what I find so striking about these images, and what I hoped to share with you. Guilford is a place I very much admire - in many ways my experiences growing up there set me on my current path of study and it seems only fitting that I return to it now as an example community for questions regarding urban development.

Cities from the Sky, Part Two

2011-02-28T11:26:00.003-05:00

This post is the second in a series on cities as seen from above. If you missed part one, click here.

Cities at night are as wondrous as they are mysterious. With the setting of the sun, cities transform into entirely different entities. Just think about the varied experiences of walking down a street while the sun is shining and then again after dark. But how does this experience change if these cities are seen from above? And I'm not talking about just aerial photography this time.

In the following video, astronaut Don Pettit takes us on an orbital tour around the world of cities at night. He explains the challenges of capturing such clear images from space, as the International Space Station travels around the globe at over 17,000 miles per hour. Try going that fast and capturing a high-resolution, blur-free image from your point and shoot. It's not going to happen. But Pettit and his colleagues on the ISS assembled a sophisticated mechanism that cancels out orbital motion and produces the clear, striking images you see here:

Pettit's admiration of human settlement patters comes through in his commentary. His most insightful observation is that "Cities at night are caught in a triangle between culture, geography, and technology." These elements influence everything from a city's color and brightness to its geometry. Just as cities shape our actions, experiences, and quality of life, so too do we influence the forms our cities take. In part one of this series, I made the point that cities from the sky are works of art, and Pettit shares this sentiment: "We do not construct our cities by how they might look from space. Cities at night may very well be one of the most beautiful, unintentional consequences of humanity."

This next video will bring us down to earth, quite literally. Shot from the nose of a commercial airplane, we are escorted to the tarmac during its final descent into LAX. As the sun sets and the plane travels closer and closer to its destination, we get a unique look at the City of Angels. Enjoy:

One Party, Two Very Different Views

2011-02-21T10:21:00.001-05:00

Can someone please tell me how someone like Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) becomes Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee? In a recent conversation with Ronald Brownstein, Group Editorial Director at National Journal, Upton confirmed, after some beating around the bush and prodding by Brownstein, that while he accepts that Earth's climate is changing he doesn't believe that humans are the cause.

Upton has also been in the news recently for introducing a bill in the House that would block the EPA from regulating carbon pollution, even though 62 percent of people from his own district want him to leave the EPA alone. With these efforts Upton joins former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee Joe "Government Shakedown" Barton (R-TX) as environmental skeptic extraordinaire. You remember Rep. Barton, don't you? He was the outspoken BP sympathizer during the gulf oil spill last summer:

Thankfully one of Upton and Barton's colleagues on the committee thinks differently about the climate crisis. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) just plain gets it. He understands what's at stake. Listen carefully to what he has to say:

Inglis touches on several important points in this address to a House subcommittee meeting on climate change. First and foremost, he makes a thinly veiled threat to climate deniers about saying their comments "on the record." The save-the-environment-for-our-children's-sake argument has long been used to inspire action on these issues, but never quite like this. Inglis says that future generations will not look kindly on those who sat idly by and failed to act on climate change. In doing so he reinforces the sense that his argument is the accurate one. Why else would he be so resolute? He also includes a startling, common-sense statistic to make his point. 98 percent of scientists say that the climate is changing and that we are the cause. Wouldn't you think that means we should heed their advice? And finally, Inglis makes an argument that his "free enterprise colleagues" can relate to more directly: economic opportunity.

"[The Chinese] plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that'll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button."

It is perhaps important to point out that at the time of this speech Inglis knew he wouldn't be serving another term in Congress. A Tea Party primary challenger made sure of that. Regardless of his impending exit from national politics, it took courage to say what he said and defy his party. This is something that other Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have toyed with but rarely committed to on the topic of climate change. Oftentimes when I think of Washington these days I'm frustrated that our political system has collapsed into the stubbornness and pettiness that we observe today. It's refreshing though, when someone like Bob Inglis surprises you and says something that actually makes quite a bit of sense.

Bridges Under Bridges

2011-02-14T09:20:00.000-05:00

Last October a brand-new expansion of New York City's Willis Avenue Bridge opened to traffic, replacing it's crumbling ancestor built in 1901. The coolest part of the story, however, is how the bridge got there. The 2,400 ton span was transported 136 miles down the Hudson river on a double-wide barge, certainly a modern infrastructural feat. Photographer Stephen Mallon and his team were aboard to document the entire journey from Coeymans, NY to 125th Street. In total they took over 30,000 stills and used them to assemble the video below:

To see more of Mallon's work, explore his website.

Cities from the Sky, Part One

2011-02-07T17:54:00.002-05:00

We all know what cities look like from the ground. They are the spaces in which we live, work, and play. But there is another view of cities that we rarely experience, and one that can help form impressions of the places we inhabit: from the air. Photographer Christoph Gielen has taken it upon himself to critique the predominant American urban form, the surburb, from this very vantage point.

Take a look at some of his photographs (click on them for a closer look):

Let me ask you a question, are these neighborhoods or works of art? The last two images especially, with the integration of the water bodies and the curving features, suggest the latter. Sure, I've been harping on the aesthetics of cities quite a bit in my most recent posts, but I can't help it. I know you see or feel some aspect of what I do. Learning to "read" cities, from the ground and the air, is exciting. A deeper understanding of your surroundings deepens your connection (or aversion) to that place.

But let's move in another direction for a moment. The argument can be made that cities from above tell us very little about what it actually means and feels like to live in these locations on the ground. I would agree with this point. But the fact remains that when these aerial views are paired with knowledge of what life is like in these places, undeniable truths about patterns of urban settlement are revealed.

I think the following picture illustrates this point particularly well:

A few things should jump out at you immediately. The desert, for one. The mountains would also be a good guess. But if you look at it more closely you will see that there are only two points of access, and both of them feed into the collector road to the right. You'll also notice a pretty bizarre street layout. The network of loops and cul-de-sacs makes a better labyrinth than it does a connected, walkable neighborhood. Not that there's anywhere to walk to, of course. So yes, I have never been to this development, but its aerial signature nevertheless tells me something about it.

Gielen himself hopes that this method of reading of the urban landscape will help guide development decisions in the future. In this New York Times article, he says "As with all my work, I was interested in finding a formal perspective uncommon enough to startle viewers into a reconsideration of our built environment."

To see Gielen's full portfolio, check out his website.

Time-lapse Photography Captures City Life, Beauty

2011-01-31T22:29:00.002-05:00

I have just a quick post for you today. Watch this time-lapse photography of New York City:

Like I mentioned in this post about LA last summer, these images are so powerful because they elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Cities are stunning places, a fact we may take for granted as we whiz about them.

I think my favorite moment in this video occurs at the 1:20 mark when the walk/don't walk signal flashes back and forth in rapid succession. It almost makes me want to buy a camera and just leave it somewhere for a while. Who knows what splendor it would capture?

UNDERCITY Takes Us Beneath the Streets, To the Highest of Heights

2011-01-09T15:50:00.003-05:00

In his new film UNDERCITY, director and cinematographer Andrew Wonder profiles urban historian (read adventurer) Steve Duncan as he explores the underbelly of the Big Apple. From abandoned subway stations to the city's oldest sewer system to the very top of the Williamsburg Bridge, Wonder catches it all in remarkable form and stunning clarity.

Note: Watch it full-screen and in HD.

For more coverage on the topic, check out these pieces at npr.org and The New York Times.

Nissan's "New Way," Leading the Way

2011-01-05T20:52:00.005-05:00

Last September I posted a series of Nissan commercials which all riffed on the topic of innovation. A central theme, of course, was sustainability and the measures Nissan is taking, particularly with the 100 percent electric Leaf, to transform automobiles from gas guzzlers to zero-net carbon emitters (if the electricity used to power the car is produced with renewables, that is).

A few days ago I saw the following commercial on TV. I thought it was new at the time, but after I found it on the web I realized it was posted last June. Regardless of its production date, I think Nissan may be upping the ante as the Leaf rolls off of the assembly line in select markets. It will become available nationwide by the fall of 2011. The video below describes how the Leaf contributes to the paradigm shift of electric vehicles by assigning old meanings to new components.

See what I mean below:

William McDonough on Cradle to Cradle, the Importance of Delight and Celebration in Design

2010-12-28T15:55:00.000-05:00

Andrew Michler of Inhabitat recently caught up with green architect and materials life-cycle guru William McDonough at Greenbuild 2010. My first exposure to McDonough came in the spring of 2009 when I read his acclaimed book, Cradle to Cradle, in one of my environmental studies courses. In the book, McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart advocate for a "transformation of human industry through ecologically intelligent design," or reimagining our current system of cradle-to-grave production into one where "waste equals food" and materials are upcycled to maintain their chemical integrity.

Michler and McDonough touch on many topics covered in Cradle to Cradle in the interview, and I've included some of the highlights below.

When asked about the difference between recycling (read downcycling) and upcycling, McDonough said that traditional recycling techniques not only take a tremendous amount of energy to operate but also degrade the material inputs into inferior accessory products. There can be tremendous value in keeping materials in their current form:

It’s like a Herman Miller chair that ends up in Mexico City fifteen years from now, if somebody throws it out the back and into the dumpster. Well, the scavengers will just come and grab it. It’s worth something. The reason it’s worth something is that’s steel, and that’s aluminum, and that’s polycarbonates, and that polyethylenes. It’s no longer a chair, it’s part of the materials intelligent pool. So the design is that aluminum can come off and go back to aluminum, the steel goes back to steel. They’re not monstrous hybrids that can’t be separated.

He also explained how these principles and the Cradle to Cradle product certification system he's developed are about more than solving environmental problems:

To me this is also a stewardship issue, but the great part is that it reaches beyond the construction site – it touches on health care, education and wanting to make buildings better.

Howard Williams, VP of Construction Specialties, agreed with McDonough and offered the following insight: "Ten years from now, this may still be GreenBuild because it’s going to be the original name, but no one is going to be talking about green. The reality is that it’s going to be either good design or bad design."

There are a lot of other interesting tidbits covered in the interview - including how McDonough has incorporated a butterfly sanctuary into a recent building design in Barcelona - that I don't cover in my synopsis above. McDonough is one of the most captivating environment thinkers of our time and recommends some pretty straightforward but radical changes to our current way of doing things, so click here if you're interested in learning more.

What I've Been Reading and Watching This Week, 12/10

2010-12-10T17:52:00.001-05:00

1. In this Grist article entitled "Confessions of a recovering engineer," Charles Marohn explains why the priorities of the general public when it comes to street design are fundamentally at odds with the factors first considered by the professionals who design them, and the consequences this disconnect has for road safety.

2. In this Brown Daily Herald Op-Ed, my good friend and fellow environmental leader at Brown, Spencer Lawrence, spells out why fighting climate change is the greatest challenge of the 21st Century and why you should pitch in even if you could care less about tree-hugging.

3. The CNN clip above highlights a small house in Tokyo the size of a parking space. In a city where density is already high and space is limited, seemingly extreme measures like these are necessary for further growth. (Seriously, it doesn't take long cruising around Google Earth to figure out that Tokyo may have just used about every square foot available.)

4. The above video is also about reducing something's typical scale, but instead of a house the size of a car, it's a car the size of a, well, small refrigerator. From the geniuses at TopGear (the BBC version, the US one is pretty awful), 6-foot-4 Jeremy Clarkson drives this Peel P50 microcar to, and through, BBC headquarters. You have to see it to believe it.

5. According to this TreeHugger article, Rhode Island may become home to the first offshore wind farm in the United States, boasting 200 turbines and a 1,000 Megawatt capacity with transmission lines stretching from Massachusetts to New York. This project is one of the largest in development anywhere in the world.

Lock it Up... In the Air?

2010-11-29T22:23:00.008-05:00

A few months ago I put together this post entitled Lock it Up, in which I explained my excitement over my then-new (well, then-new-used) red Schwinn 10-speed. I also made some comments about how and how not to lock up your bicycle properly to prevent theft.

If you remember (or just read/reread) my previous post, longtime NYC bike mechanic Hal Ruzal graded the locking jobs of bicycles he found on the streets of the Big Apple. You remember Hal, don't you? The guy who looked like a perfect cross between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Bob Marley?

Don't believe me? See for yourself:

Celebrity lookalikes aside, one of Hal's main points was that in reality, any bicycle thief can steal any bicycle secured with any amount of hardware, it's just a matter of how much time they want or feel comfortable taking to jack it. More locks = more time = less likely to be stolen. Pretty simple right?

I think I may have found something that might just buy you all the time you could ever need, and that Hal would give an A++ for its security and creativity.

Designed by the German company Conrad, this lock puts your precious two-wheeler in a place only ninja thieves and roving bands of monkeys can access. Lucky for you, the last time I checked there weren't very many ninjas or monkeys in the market for bicycles.

Reclaiming the Streets: NYC

2010-10-13T15:02:00.001-04:00

One of the very first posts I wrote on this blog was one about the future of transportation planning, in which I documented several large-scale changes being made in cities around the globe to rescue streets from the grip of the automobile.

The following video from EMBARQ (the Center for Sustainable Transport at the World Resources Institute) profiles the tremendous progress that has been made in New York City since the release of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC initiative in 2007. From reinforcing cycling infrastructure, to bus rapid transit, to closing off a section of Broadway to vehicular traffic and instead reserving it as public space, NYC is well on its way to becoming the "greatest, greenest big city in the world."

Enjoy:

Creating a Better World by Design

2010-10-11T23:48:00.005-04:00

Last weekend (Oct 1-3) I attended A Better World by Design, a three-day student run conference co-hosted by Brown and RISD. Most loosely organized under the banner of the inspirational, influential, and regenerative power of design, the conference featured an array of speakers, panels, and workshops as well as special events on Friday and Saturday nights.

This was the third annual conference, but only my first experience at BWxD (What was I thinking these past two years?!). Unfortunately there would be far too much to talk about if I gave you a play-by-play of the entire weekend, so I'll just touch on the highlights (and if you're hungry for more, maybe you'll just have to come next year).

My favorite event on Friday morning was a panel called "The Future of Urban Transport," moderated by Anne Tate, a professor of architecture at RISD who I took a great urbanism seminar with last fall. Panelists included Ryan Chin from the MIT Media Lab, Marc Alt of the Green Parking Council, Al Dahlberg of Project Get Ready, Sonia Hamel of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and Amy Pettine of RIPTA. Something Sonia said really resonated with me. She spoke about how transportation makes up roughly 27 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions and how 5 to 20 percent of our emissions reductions moving forward can come solely from better planning. "Whenever you build something new emissions will go up," she said, "But if you place it properly net emissions across its life-cycle can be reduced dramatically." Marc Alt had this to add about the fate of the automobile, "One of the things we export as a country is our culture and for better of for worse we've exported our car culture." This reality has particular relevance as China rapidly industrializes and car ownership is expected to increase dramatically.

But the most eye-opening presentation was that of Ryan Chin from the MIT Media Lab. He spoke about the fate of personal urban mobility for the 21st Century, and introduced us to the CityCar, a two-passenger electric vehicle concept. Watch this video to see how it works:

Friday night included a social mixer at the grand opening of The Box Office, an office building constructed entirely of repurposed shipping containers. I had seen this cool time-lapse video of its assembly before, but it was so much more exciting to see it in person with all of the finishing touches in place and the energy of the evening keeping things lively.

Can you believe it only took them five days to put this together?

And here's the finished product:

The standout event for me on Saturday was undoubtedly a presentation during the first speaker session by Ben Hamilton-Baillie of Hamilton-Baillie Associates, a traffic engineering and consulting firm based in Bristol, England. In his presentation, Hamilton-Baillie challenged conventional traffic design principles and offered solutions to many of these problems with a concept he called shared space. We clutter up our spaces with signs, signals, and barriers that we assume create a safer and more orderly world, he said, but instead result in spaces that isolate those who populate them. Taking down these barriers is paramount if we are ever to reclaim these areas and foster better spaces and stronger communities. Here he's speaking about the absurdity of a pedestrian safety ad campaign in England:

He gave an example of people flowing around a crowded ice rink, itself an incredibly complex and chaotic system, and pointed out how efficiently humans can read these cues and avoid collision and injury. He argued that we need to relay more on these instincts in the way we design our roads, and by blurring the traditional boundaries between pedestrian and automobile street layers, we can dramatically lower speeds and reduce pedestrian injuries. Here's a recent StreetFilms video that captures much of what Hamilton-Baillie was talking about:

Saturday night included a Better World Gala at the Steel Yard, an incredible art studio and expo space. I caught up with Hamilton-Baillie there and spoke with him for about an hour and a half, trying to pick his brain about the research he's done and the ways he has incorporated his findings into real-world design. Perhaps the most incredible anecdote he told me was his occasional tendency to step off a sidewalk into the street and walk across to the other side. Walking completely backwards.

Sunday's highlight was a conversation between Brown President Ruth Simmons and RISD President John Maeda. The most notable quote from this session I thought was when Simmons said, "Success is empty if we don't contribute something lasting."

This sentiment represented for me what the conference was all about, and it's the thought I will leave you to contemplate now.

For more pictures from the weekend check out the Better World by Design 2010 Flickr page!

Bike Lane Graffiti Makes Cycling (Even MORE) Fun

2010-09-28T22:13:00.003-04:00

I've found a few examples of bike lane modifications that I think will have you saying "Wow, there's really nothing like a little guerrilla bike lane creativity."

The first is an image that breaks down the fundamental differences between bicycles and automobiles:

The message is clear and simple: Not only are bikes cheaper to operate, but they are also better for your health, and this dichotomy is especially stark when the two options are juxtaposed and worded as they are. Environmental and quality of life benefits aside, these are two very compelling reasons to switch your usual vehicle choice.

Next up is Toronto's Urban Repair Squad. I'll give you a little hint about what they do:

No, no, no they're not Batman and Robin fighting evildoers on a submarine. Terrible acting, fight choreography and 1960s videorecording technology aside, the important thing to focus in on are the Pows and the Swooshes. Still confused? Take a look at what the Urban Repair Squad is doing to potholes in Toronto:

Tagging the urban obstacles in this way is not only a creative means for alerting other cyclists of the perils that lie along the path ahead, but also of expressing discontent with the current road conditions and hopefully generating enough of a following to influence legislators to do something about it. In many ways I think Providence needs its own pothole-tagging squad, but perhaps that would make the streets too colorful...

(For a full portfolio of the Urban Repair Squad pics, a collection dubbed Pothole Onomatopoeia, click here.)

And finally, for all of you Mario Kart lovers out there check out this modified bike lane in Portland, Oregon:

How great would you feel on your ride home from work if you hit a speed boost or were invincible for a few blocks? Sure trying to avoid a banana might make that Monday morning commute that much more difficult, but I think the pros definitely outweigh the cons here. Just don't go thinking that mushroom means you can play chicken with the car in the opposite lane...

I don't have much else to say other than I think each of these examples shows how a little creativity can go a long way to promoting good behaviors and healthy lifestyles.

(To the powers that be, 1. Thank you for reading this, I'm flattered, and 2. This post is not meant to encourage vandalism of personal property.)

Lock it Up

2010-09-20T13:46:00.001-04:00

In June, after getting by without a bike at school for almost two years, I purchased the above beauty from a local mechanic up in Woonsocket, RI. Affectionately dubbed Big Red, this bike has revolutionized my life off-campus (I can't walk to campus from my house and back anymore because it feels like I'm wading through molasses in comparison).

Living in a quasi-urban area, though, I have been very aware of the risk of theft in my neighborhood. One of my buddy's bike's was swiped from his backyard just around the corner from my house. One of the subletters living in my house this summer had his bike lifted from the side of our house one night in July. A bike is not only an investment, it's also an expression of personal pride, so it hurts more than just your wallet when it disappears.

Though I've never had my own bike (or pieces of it) stolen, I can sympathize with those who have. The fall semester of my sophomore year I emerged from my residence hall and hooked around the corner of the building to where I had locked my bike to the first-floor window grate (a product of not having enough bike racks on campus, at least near my dorm). To my dismay I found my bike in ruins - the rear wheel was completely bent and the frame was distorted and buckled. What I had initially thought was the product of drunken vandalism, I soon learned was caused by something far more unusual. The next morning I noticed a pink note from Facilities Management attached to the handlebars which read something along the lines of: "Hit your bike while mowing the Main Green. Contact so-and-so for more information." Yes my bike had been run over by a lawn mower and was damaged beyond repair.

So quirky accidents aside, how can you protect your bicycle? A lock is surely a start, but how you lock your bike can be just as important as locking it in the first place. Streetfilms and longtime NYC bike mechanic Hal Ruzal produced a series of tutorial videos in which he grades the locking jobs of bicycles left on the street. I've included the last of three below.

Hal is quite the character:

Bicycle thievery, like any form of crime, somewhat depends on where you live. I don't think you'd need the same level of bike security in Providence as Hal prescribes for NYC, but proper bike-locking etiquette can't hurt, right? On the other side of the locking spectrum, when I visited my brother Asa at the Aspen Music Festival this summer in Colorado, there were bikes left downtown completely unlocked and unattended. Asa would also routinely "borrow" other students' bikes from the music school campus if he had left his in town. The key may be knowing your local bike thievery patterns and planning accordingly, or even using a little more security than you think you need to thwart that extra ambitious bike-jacker that comes along every now and then.

One of the most interesting points I think Hal makes is in his first tutorial (if you're interested, watch it here). He says, "Locking your bicycle, a lot of times you are just buying time, and that's important. If you put enough locks on your bike, where even if their not the most secure locks, it just takes a thief too long and he'll give up and go on to the next bike." Anyone can cut through a lock with the proper equipment. It's just a matter of how long they feel comfortable sitting out in the open with a pair of bolt cutters or a small handheld saw. More (better quality) locks = more time = less likely to be stolen. Because of this, it's always a good idea to keep your bike inside overnight if possible, and avoid leaving your bike always locked in the same location where someone can scope out their grand theft velo.

So if you're concerned for the safety of your favorite bicycle, and if you take nothing else away from this post, remember these three important words...

Happy riding!

Innovation for Today, Innovation for Tomorrow

2010-09-13T20:19:00.001-04:00

Nissan has recently come out with a series of TV commercials to promote their new line of automobiles. They are varied in their approach, but all of them rally around a common theme of innovation. Let's take this one for example:

Sure, it's chock full of technological improvements that really have no bearing on the environment (this is a car commercial after all), but there are a few nuggets of value to focus in on. The first is the seats being made from recycled water bottles. Though we don't know what percent of the material is post-consumer plastic, the idea of extending the life-cycle of the water bottles is certainly unusual for a car company. The second portion of interest is obviously the line, "[Wouldn't it be cool] if you never bought another gallon of gas?" coupled with the amazing time-lapse of the pump disappearing. This is the true innovation, a groundbreaking change to something we often take for granted (more so than the addition of a step on your Xterra that you can use to hoist your mountain bike on the roof). Can you imagine a world without gasoline?

On the topic of groundbreaking, let's move on to this next 30 second spot:

Narrated by Lance Armstrong, this commercial stresses the significance of a certain technological improvement in the Leaf - it has no tailpipe (and thus, no GHG emissions). Finally after it's 100+ year existence, the automobile (or at least this one) has given up a former staple of it's design, allowing not only Lance to breathe easier but the planet to as well. Again, this is innovation at its finest - Nissan has done away with this technological convention and improved the environmental health outcomes in the process.

Finally let's take a look at this commercial (I've saved what I think is the best one for last):

Simple. Moving. Poetic even. I'll be honest, though I'm not usually one to buy into the whole "environmentalism for polar bears' sake" argument, this clip was powerful in a way I don't know that I can adequately articulate. For me the embrace at the end of the long and laborious journey from arctic to suburbia signifies a solution to one of the most symbolic crises of a changing climate, and in doing so a solution to climate change itself. The embrace is also charged with a mixture of gratitude, relief, and forgiveness that I think most of us are searching for in our own personal pursuits for a cleaner, healthier, and happier planet.

One final point: Yes, Nissan still sells cars that consume gasoline and pollute the earth (and will likely do so for the foreseeable future), but progress is progress and any little step in the right direction counts for something.

Bill McKibben on Letterman

2010-09-05T13:52:00.001-04:00

Last week environmental activist Bill McKibben appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman to discuss everything from the science of climate change and the obstructive power of the oil, coal, and gas lobbies, to China's rapid economic expansion and our political logjams in the United States, to the genesis of 350.org and the upcoming 10/10/10 Global Work Party.

Enjoy:

After the clip cuts out, there are another 30 seconds or so of dialogue, continued below.

Letterman: "But is what you're talking about adaptability really rather than correcting any of this?

McKibben: "You can adapt, maybe, to one or two degrees. You can't adapt to four or five degrees, so we've got to do both."

Letterman: "Special hats. Have you thought about special hats?"

McKibben: "There you go. Those'll help."

Letterman: "That's where my money is, ladies and gentlemen, special hats. Well Bill, thank you for just scaring the crap out of me."

Celebrating One Year+ of the Green Lantern

2010-08-31T12:55:00.003-04:00

On July 8th, 2009, I sat down and wrote my very first post on this here blog. I didn't know what form it would end up taking, what I would be writing about, or who in their right mind would want to read what I had to say - a veritable leap of faith to stake a claim in my little corner of the Internet. In the intervening months I'd say I've discovered my voice (or at least taken a big step in the right direction) and continued to develop my passion for sustainable design and development, among other related topics and issues. I've read a LOT, written considerably less - for every post that appears here there are at least three or four more that lay unfinished, either in my head or logged somewhere in cyberspace - and produced an end product that I hope has been informative and provocative for you, the reader.

Speaking of readers, I must extend a thank you to everyone who has given me feedback in the last year, either through comments here or in person. Your spot-on advice and probing questions have been instrumental in this process of academic exploration and personal growth (because there is something inherently transformative about broadcasting your opinions and observations for the rest of the world to see). If this blog has been half of the learning experience for you as it has been for me, then I think I've accomplished part of what I set out to do.

So after an extended period of radio silence these past few weeks, I'm back in action. Tomorrow I officially start my senior year at Brown, and I'm excited for what will surely be another year of deepening my understanding of and appreciation for all things sustainable urbanism. Rest assured: there are many many posts waiting in my cerebral pipeline, so stay tuned in the coming days, weeks and months for more commentary.

I hope you'll come along for the ride.

2010 Summer Reading List: One Down, Ten to Go

2010-07-02T14:02:00.006-04:00

Behold.

Here are the books I hope to get through before school starts up again in September. Sure, it's a little ambitious, at least by my recent standards of not really reading for pleasure at all anymore, but I'm going to shoot for the top anyways and see where I end up.

The complete list of eleven includes (in no particular order):

Building Suburbia, by Dolores Hayden
Food Rules, by Michael Pollan
The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs
What's the Worst that Could Happen?, by Greg Craven
Deep Economy, by Bill McKibben
The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman
Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville, by Witold Rybczynski
Water, by Steven Solomon
Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape, by Michael Hough
The Power Broker, by Robert Caro
Our Choice, by Al Gore

(more books may be added/substituted in the coming weeks, so stay tuned)

As you can see there's a pretty wide array of titles and topics, though all of them fall beneath the general umbrella of either sustainability or urbanism (or both). I'll keep you posted periodically on my progress and will try to comment on at least some of them. I've already finished Hayden's Building Suburbia and am almost 100 pages into Last Harvest.

Wish me luck...

We Need Our Oil... (Part 2)

2010-06-30T23:06:00.003-04:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I said I wouldn't say much about the Gulf oil spill last time, but I found some interesting posts which complement the point I was making last week about how deeply embedded fossil fuels are in American culture, and how design can dictate our mobility choices.

The first is an article by Jonathan Hiskes of Grist entitled, "Can we just drive less after the Gulf spill? If only it were so easy..." Hiskes comments on interviews of gas-station customers conducted by NPR reporter Brian Mann. Mann concludes that despite the fact that many customers have been very concerned about the spill, "they also don't see a real connection between the spill in the Gulf and the decisions they're making about the cars and trucks they drive, and the number of times they fill up the tank in the week." Hiskes is quick to point out what I was getting at last week, which is sometimes (oftentimes?) Americans lack viable alternatives to automobile transportation, especially in a place like semi-rural upstate New York where these customers were interviewed. None of what they're saying suggests they don't understand the connection between their consumption of oil and the disaster in the Gulf, he says, "They're saying they lack good alternatives to driving. That's the real problem: Our cities and towns (and lives) are built around the assumption that we'll be driving our own cars and trucks to get where we need to go."

Don't believe that urban design and car use go hand-in-hand? Check out the following graphic:

Also linked from Hiskes' piece, this graph from Left for LeDroit depicts the relationship between pre-autocentric design in the Washington DC area and the ability of residents in these places to forgo car ownership. As you can clearly see, in the neighborhoods established before the rise of car culture it is possible to get around without an automobile. Hiskes concludes:

Conversely, people aren't going to walk or bike when amenities are too far away. They're not going to ride mass transit where it doesn't exist. They're not going to buy electric cars when they're not affordable, and when we don't have a network of charging stations. The way to help people drive less is to give them alternatives.

So if it is impossible to avoid car travel in some areas of the country, what else can people do in these places to stick it to BP? Boycotting BP is unfortunately not as straightforward as simply not fueling at their stations. Quite seriously, they have their hands in everything. As Ronald White of the LA Times reports, "Few foreign companies have ever become as deeply rooted in the U.S. economy as BP." Chris MacDonald of The Business Ethics Blog has even called a BP boycott "futile and unethical."

So even though tempers are hot right now and we want some sense of immediate retribution, we must shift our attention to longer-term strategies like investment in renewable energy technologies and related infrastructure, as well as legislation to promote this shift and hold the oil companies responsible for their actions. A little good urban design never hurt anyone either, but again this is obviously a long-term strategy. It took a decades for the oil companies to obtain the power they now have, and it will take a sustained, concentrated effort if we are ever to defeat the monster that we helped create.

We Need Our Oil...

2010-06-23T16:22:00.003-04:00

I'm not here to say much about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I've kept quiet since the Deepwater Horizon sank almost two months ago today, and to be perfectly honest, there has been so much written and broadcast about it in the interim that any more would be beating a dead horse, or a dead pelican/sea turtle/sperm whale as the case my be. (Too soon? Yeah, I think so).

Also I spent the first week or so of the disaster glued to my TV and laptop, hoping for some shred of good news, but when that good news never came I did what any other sane person would do when trying to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized: I disassociated myself from it emotionally. There have been too many conflicting feelings bouncing around in my head to tease out a coherent narrative or opinion even if I wanted to. So let's keep it simple, shall we?

I came across the following video a few weeks ago and I think it sums up the situation in the Gulf pretty nicely:

Aside from being adorable and pretty darn funny there's an important take-away at the end after the CEO's faux change of heart. As justification for doing nothing to help those who are suffering, he tells Cooper, "It's f**king oil man, they'll need us again." As sad as this is, I can't help but agree. Over the last hundred years or so, we've built our society on a foundation whose success and stability depends on oil, and lots of it. This is also one of the reasons I actually don't believe this oil spill will have any measurable impact on investment in renewable energy technologies and the like. Oil (and the oil industry for that matter) is too entrenched in our way of life to disappear overnight, even in the face of the current catastrophe wreaking havoc on the ecosystems and local economies of the Gulf.

There's one more noteworthy nugget in the video above, and that's the message that comes up on the screen at the very end of the clip. In case you missed it, it read: "You're not mad enough to not drive your car." (Which also relates well to a political cartoon I came across in Newsweek a few days ago)

Though this perceived consumer hypocrisy is a closely related matter, and my support for consumer-based activism is well documented throughout this blog, to me this falls under a slightly different category precisely because of the role that oil plays in our lives today. In many cases there is only so much we can do to limit our consumption of it. What if there are no alternatives to driving our cars from Point A to Point B? (And in many places across the country, there are no alternatives, believe me). We can be as angry as we want at BP and still be justified in filling up the tank and driving to work because we live in a broken system that needs much more attention before these types of behaviors can be changed, and these types of judgments levied appropriately. (If you think this is a cop-out let me know and we can talk about it.)

For now we need our oil, we need our oil, and there is no escaping that reality. Yes, a transition away from fossil fuels is currently underway, but it has been painstakingly slow and it will take much more than an oil spill, even a really really REALLY bad one to accelerate that process.

I said I wasn't going to say a lot about the oil spill and here I've rambled on for far too long. Alright, that's all for today - I'm off to try and find myself some of that marmalade...

We're Stickin' with LA, and Cars Still Don't Rule the Road

2010-06-11T14:33:00.001-04:00

Two weeks ago I posted a video by Ross Ching depicting the streets of Los Angeles devoid of automobile traffic, which created an equally eerie and visionary display of what life would be like without our primary form of transportation.

This time, I've found something a little different. As you'll see in the following creative transformations of our beloved built environment, the cars remain but much of the infamous LA asphalt does not.

La Cienega Blvd and 3rd Street (Before)

(And after)

Who is the wizard behind this disappearing act? His name is David Yoon, a self proclaimed "urban planning geek" curious enough to investigate the question: Could the entire mood of a neighborhood depend on something as simple as street width?

Look at the following images and answer that yourself.

Rodeo Drive and Dayton Way (Before)

(And after)

Third Street Promenade (Before)

(And after)

One of the reasons these images are so powerful is because of the emotional response one has when looking at them. Wide streets are alienating physically and socially, not only limiting pedestrian mobility but also making it more difficult to meet with friends and even have basic interactions with other city goers. These images play with our impulses, as our reactions to the dichotomy displayed by them can be reasonably attributed to personal experiences we've had in similar spaces.

On his blog, Yoon describes how his work exposes the asphalt elephant in the room, so to speak, and how we got into this mess in the first place:

As a writer, street-narrowing to me represents an act of fictionalization, with fiction itself being an attempt to make sense of the randomness life flings our way. The grander absurdities of Los Angeles have already been well documented — its optimistically-named enclaves, phantom star maps — but its smaller, more micro-level oddities go mostly unnoticed: sunning at an outdoor cafe just steps from the edge of a six-lane, 50mph road; eyeing the 30-second countdown when crossing an intersection; bidding farewell to friends after dinner in dreary parking lots.

There's a yearning for a more human scale out there, and a growing realization that hey, this world wasn't created by some petulant, eight-armed Deus Urbanus but by people — ordinary people, struggling to make the best design decisions they could. Los Angeles, located at Manifest Destiny's terminus and born from a mad Levittown landgrab amid giddy postwar prosperity, was not designed badly per se; it was never really designed to begin with, at least not in a coherent fashion.

Yoon also hopes that his work will spark a debate about how we can further reimagine our cities and reinvent these broken and isolating design practices, hearkening back to a question I have asked myself many times before. If design dictates how we interact with the built environment, and the extensive infrastructure now in place has contributed to so many of the problems we face today (environmental degradation, social inequality, etc.) then what can we possibly do with all of that asphalt and concrete to improve the situation? Unfortunately we can't just slice out the middle of every major boulevard and reassemble the remaining pieces as Yoon has done. There may be some ways to adapt what exists to achieve different outcomes, but that discussion must be reserved for another day. For now, let's consider Yoon's work as a vivid look into what's possible through responsible urban design, and the reactions we have to it as the proof that design matters to each and every one of us.

For a full map of all of his LA transformations (as well as images and the significance of each one), click here.

New Video, No Cars

2010-05-28T16:33:00.002-04:00

So it seems like I've been on a little bit of a video tear lately, and what's one more to add to the list? After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words than a moving picture must be worth a heck of a lot more than that, right?

I'll tell you what's NOT moving, though, and that's anything on the (in)famous highways and byways of Los Angeles in the following clip made by Ross Ching and posted on Good (which happens to be my new favorite blog, fyi. you should check it out).

Watch:

Eerie, right? It's hard to imagine streets without their primary occupants - cars - yet here is that vision realized. The following is Ching's motivation and inspiration for the video (from his website):

I live in Los Angeles. I drive in Los Angeles. I think about traffic a lot in Los Angeles. A few months ago, I discovered Matt Logue’s Empty LA photographs. I didn’t think much about it at the time, but every time I was stuck in ~~rush hour~~ all-hour traffic, I found myself thinking, “What if tomorrow everyone’s car disappeared.”

What would that scene look like? How would people react? How quickly would the atmosphere rebound from centuries of fossil fuel emissions?

So I took Matt Logue’s still photography concept and applied it to something that I do best — time lapse. I built a story around the idea of us being shackled to this ball and chain; this love-hate relationship with whom we spend so much time with here in LA.

This is a very cool concept, to be sure, and speaks volumes about how much we take our current primary mode of transportation (and the infrastructure needed to support it) for granted. An eight-plus lane highway looks a lot more bleak, and not to mention imposing, when there aren't cars whizzing along it, filling the empty space and distracting our wandering eyes.

Collaborative Consumption

2010-05-24T23:15:00.003-04:00

I just came across a link to the following video on Colin Beavan's (aka No Impact Man's) Twitter. Made by the folks at Collaborative Consumption, it depicts the growing support for sharing programs like Zipcar and CouchSurfing, founded on the principle that use of a product does not have to be dependent on ownership of it. I think the essence of the movement can be summed up by this quote from the clip: "To reinvent not just what we consume, but how we consume."

Enjoy:

This video reminds me pretty distinctly of the book Cradle to Cradle in which designer William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart advocate for a "transformation of human industry through ecologically intelligent design," or a shift away from our current cycle of cradle-to-grave disposable culture. They devote an entire section to examples of manufacturers who lease the use of their products to their customers instead of selling it to them, thereby assuming full responsibility for the product and it's eventual disposal or recommissioning. We don't need a chair or a car, they argue, we simply need the services they provide: a place to sit and a way to travel from point A to point B. If the movement documented and promoted by Collaborative Consumption is any indication, the seeds planted in McDonough and Braungart's 2002 book may finally be taking root.

An Interview with Tom Vanderbilt

2010-05-20T14:03:00.002-04:00

One of the first posts I ever wrote on The Green Lantern included commentary on Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do and What it Says About Us. Late last month Vanderbilt was interviewed by Mark Gorton, founder of OpenPlans, on Streetfilms, the visual media arm of the Livable Streets Initiative. Watch the full segment below:

Gorton does a good job of capturing some of the major points of Vanderbilt's work, and the author's comments shed additional light on what is already a groundbreaking book (Traffic was a National Bestseller, after all). One of the main points of the book, and something he outlines heavily in the interview, is the psychological complexities of automobile use on everything from lack of feedback while driving (we drive more and more recklessly because we've gotten away with it before) to the lack of eye contact between drivers and pedestrians above 20 or 25 miles per hour. As Vanderbilt argues, it is not until we understand these complexities that we will be able to fix our transportation system.

At the end of the clip, Gorton says, "And once again, an excellent book for anyone who is interested or having to deal with the topic of traffic." I'm going to take this a step further, well maybe a couple of steps further, and more directly state what I think Gorton was getting at. If you have driven or ridden in a car, ever, this book is relevant to you. Go read it!

UPDATED: Breaking News: Cape Wind Project Approved

2010-04-28T18:56:00.005-04:00

In what is being hailed as a landmark victory for the prospects for future wind power development in the United States, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today approved the Cape Wind project, a 130 turbine farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Read the full report from the New York Times here.

UPDATED 4/30/10 7:49 PM

Here's a video that describes just some of the controversy surrounding this decision, and why it's taken almost a decade to approve Cape Wind:

UPDATED 4/9/10 11:19 AM

As this NYTimes Green Blog article details, the second in a series of major steps necessary to make the Cape Wind project a reality was completed on Friday, when Cape Wind reached a power purchasing agreement with National Grid, a local New England utility company. National Grid agreed to buy the electricity produced by the wind farm for 20.7 cents a kilowatt-hour, an arrangement Tom King, President of National Grid, estimated would raise the average monthly utility bill by $1.59. The next challenge for the future of Cape Wind will surely be to get Massachusetts regulators to approve the contract.

Happy Earth Day From The Green Lantern!

2010-04-22T13:10:00.001-04:00

"We are as gods, and might as well get good at it."

- Stewart Brand, 1968

Humanity has the power to change the world, for better or for worse. It's our job now to work together and make sure there's some Earth to speak of long after we're gone.

He's Baaaaaaaack...

2010-04-08T23:58:00.001-04:00

I am, of course, talking about AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi, previously featured in this debate against Bill Nye the Science Guy on the O'Reilly Factor. This time Bastardi appears on the Colbert Report opposite Brenda Ekwurzel, a climatologist from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

For his part, Colbert prefaces the weather versus climate debate with some classic satire and hilarious (though equally disconcerting) soundbites. He also does a solid job of mediating the exchange while poking fun at both sides. My favorite moment is when Bastardi makes a claim and Colbert says, "Now I don't know if that's true, and I don't care."

Watch the full segment, entitled "Science Catfight," below:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Science Catfight - Joe Bastardi vs. Brenda Ekwurzel

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Fox News

The only further comment I want to make is that I find it interesting that Bastardi makes the case that we'll all know the truth about the "climate hoax" in 15-20 years, suggesting that the natural oscillations of the earth's climate will return to roughly 1970 levels. This notion is of particular significance to me because I brought up this very logic in a conversation with my close friend and super-star environmentalist Ben Howard last night, but for the complete opposite argument. Ben was expressing his frustration that our society hasn't done more to mitigate the causes of climate change, and I explained that we will all likely be forced to change our behaviors in the coming decades as the predictions about global warming become realities. We won't be able to ignore the signals when they're staring us in the face. So yes, Mr. Bastardi, in 15-20 years, we will find our answer, but I'm afraid it won't be the one you're looking for...

How Can We Improve the Connectivity (and Vibrancy) of Our Neighborhoods?

2010-04-07T12:56:00.006-04:00

In a recent article on Grist.org, one of my favorite staff writers, David Roberts, conducts a step-by-step critique of his home turf, the Bitter Lake neighborhood in Seattle (Walk Score 71). By exposing the limitations of the current orientation of city streets and lack of adequate access to public spaces, Roberts identifies the reasons why he and his wife don't feel comfortable letting their children walk to the local park and why they have never met their neighbors who live less than a stone's throw away.

Roberts then embarks on a multi-stage redesign of his neighborhood (complete with maps and colored lines denoting areas of interest, see his initial one on the left) and offers some well-though-out and reasonable changes to the current urban fabric.

By engaging in this exercise, Roberts offers an answer to a question that has largely dominated my pursuit of sustainable urbanism in the last year: What can we possibly do to the miles and miles of unproductive infrastructure already in place?

Roberts concludes his post by addressing this very issue. He writes: "One of the biggest challenges in years ahead, as we attempt to densify and green our communities, will be retrofitting existing neighborhoods to increase walkability, sociability, sustainability, and safety. It's worth a minute of anyone's time to ponder how they could make their own surroundings more amenable to spontaneous, non-commercial, human-scale social interaction."

To see the rest of his neighborhood diagrams and a more detailed analysis of the proposed design elements, read his full post here.

World Water Day: The Story of Bottled Water

2010-03-22T11:42:00.000-04:00

Today marks the 18th annual World Water Day. In honor of this initiative which tries to raise awareness about the injustices and inequality, not to mention the outright absurdity, of our current water system, I want to share this great video from The Story of Stuff Project:

SSP Director Annie Leonard narrates this simply-animated but fascinating history of our system of bottled water in this country, and profiles the lengths to which corporations will go to "manufacture demand" for a products that we don't inherently need (tap water is free, after all). By playing on our fears and spreading misinformation, companies have turned bottled water into a $5 billion-a-year industry in the US alone. Unfortunately, it's also one that creates unnecessary waste (the burden of which is heaped onto faraway populations), pollutes our planet (including, ironically, our waterways), and contributes to the paradox of a world in which some can afford to spend millions on portable water, while one billion others lack sufficient access to clean water every day.

So the next time you have the opportunity to choose tap over bottled water, make the informed choice. Your body, your wallet, your neighbors (near and far), and your planet will thank you.

Quote of the Day: 3/14/10

2010-03-14T11:39:00.006-04:00

"When our own ability to analyze and understand the details of a situation fail, we are left to fall back on our value judgments."

From Treehugger's Christine Lepisto

Image: Flickr beautifulcataya

Follow Up: Times Square and the Cheonggyecheon River

2010-03-13T12:55:00.005-05:00

Last July I profiled efforts by city officials to deconstruct automobile-centric urban design and reclaim these spaces for pedestrian use. Two of these projects, the conversion of Times Square to the world's most famous patio (complete with lawn furniture) and the daylighting of the Cheonggyecheon River in Seoul, South Korea, are supreme representations of the power of place.

The first video below describes pedestrian reactions to the transformation of Times Square, as well as the motivations on the part of NYC transportation officials and Mayor Bloomberg to make the drastic change. It also includes striking before and after shots of the automobile-dominated streets in 2005 and the pedestrian-only block it became last summer:

In this second video, urban designers comment on what the daylighting of Cheonggyecheon means for the people of Seoul, and how the creation of public space reshuffles the urban transportation hierarchy and forms the "glue that keeps the city together":

Watch Charlotte, NC Unfold Before Your Eyes

2010-03-10T15:56:00.000-05:00

Artist Rob Carter made the above video back in 2008. Using stop-motion animation, a stack of paper, and a heck of a lot of patience, he managed to profile the development of Charlotte, North Carolina from it's origins as a Native American trading path to the bustling metropolitan center it is today.

From Carter's website:

Charlotte is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, primarily due to the continuing influx of the banking community, resulting in an unusually fast architectural and population expansion that shows no sign of faltering despite the current economic climate. However, this new downtown Metropolis is therefore subject to the whim of the market and the interest of the giant corporations that choose to do business there. Made entirely from images printed on paper, the animation literally represents this sped up urban planners dream, but suggests the frailty of that dream, however concrete it may feel on the ground today. Ultimately the video continues the city development into an imagined hubristic future, of more and more skyscrapers and sports arenas and into a bleak environmental future. It is an extreme representation of the already serious water shortages that face many expanding American cities today; but this is less a warning, as much as a statement of our paper thin significance no matter how many monuments of steel, glass and concrete we build.

The video I've included is only the final three minutes of Carter's work. To view the full ten minute video, click here.

Is Too Much Evidence Delaying Action on Climate Change? Climate Skeptics and the OJ Simpson Trial

2010-03-06T11:44:00.003-05:00

Have you been frustrated or perplexed lately by how effective global warming skeptics have been at casting doubt on the mountain of evidence that suggests the climate is changing? How about the fact that they are getting away with it? If so, I have an article for you.

In a recent op-ed on Mother Jones, 350.org co-founder and Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben compares increased confusion about climate change to the OJ Simpson trial, i.e. where a preponderance of evidence wasn't enough to let justice be served.

McKibben says, "Without hard evidence to support their claims, climate denialists are attacking the process of climate-change science." The skeptics' search for the error in the integrity or validity of climate research is like looking for a needle in a haystack. But a bigger haystack means the potential for more needles.

McKibben also stresses how we can't rely on straight science to solve this issue for us, and we need to become more politically savvy in order to convince the American public that this is something they should be concerned about. "Science may be what we know about the world, but politics is how we feel about the world," he says, "And feelings count at least as much as knowledge."

Since McKibben is far more eloquent and well-versed on this issue than I am, I am going to let him do the rest of the talking. Read his full article here. Seriously, click on the link. It's one of the best pieces I've read in recent weeks. I promise you won't be disappointed.

Bill Nye Falls Victim to "He Said, She Said" Climate Banter

2010-02-26T23:47:00.004-05:00

Do any of you remember Bill Nye? You know, the Science Guy? If you're like me and you were a geek growing up you probably skipped around the halls of your elementary school singing the catchy "Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill" theme song from his show on PBS. For all you true fans out there (or for those of you who have no idea who or what I'm talking about) watch below:

On every show, Bill and his team of the coolest teenage cast members on cable television would investigate a scientific question and design an experiment to test their hypothesis (and in doing so educate their young audience).

But it seems as though Mr. Nye has upped the ante in the last 10 years since I was a regular fan of his show, and graduated from the signature baking soda and vinegar volcanoes to something a little more complicated: Climate change.

Nye recently entered the "No Spin Zone" on the O'Reilly Factor to take on Joe Bastardi, AccuWeather meteorologist (aka NOT a climatologist, and yes there is a difference). Watch the segment below:

I think this is actually the most "fair and balanced" exchange between two people expressing differing viewpoints I have ever seen on Fox News. But I might go so far as to say that it's too fair and balanced, to the point where what they're saying doesn't really mean anything. I'll explain.

Both Nye and Bastardi present the data that supports their view on the changes to the climate system. Bastardi has his high-tech TV screen and Nye has his little placards, god bless his heart. But in the age old game of human competition, it is impossible to answer the question, "Who wins?" Even though Nye presented the most scientifically sound data from the IPCC (aka the most well-renowned climate scientists in the world), his efforts are equally weighted with Bastardi's on the air for no other reason than they are given equal time to talk and at least Bastardi seems like he knows what he's talking about.

It's for this reason that I strongly disagree with the headline of a recent article I saw about the Nye-Bastardi segment which declared: "Bill Nye Schools Bill O'Reilly on Climate Change." Bill Nye didn't "school" anyone, O'Reilly or Bastardi, in this discussion on Fox News. Sure he presented scientifically sound facts, but it's up to O'Reilly's viewers to believe them - a tall order to be sure.

I listened to a fascinating piece on NPR this week about how what individuals consider to be the facts about climate change (and what they consider to be the lies) depends heavily on their personal value systems. The main point I got out of the story was that people believe what they want to believe. When talking about a subject as complicated as climate change, and one with such high stakes, it is imperative that scientists and activists alike find a way to communicate the scientific facts in such a way that it is impossible to deny the negative human impacts on our climate system. Until then we'll just be mired in the "He said, she said" climate banter through which no one wins, which in the scope of our impending climate crisis, means we all lose.

What I'm Reading: 2/21/2010

2010-02-21T16:37:00.004-05:00

1. In this New York Times Magazine feature article, Daniel Smith profiles the emerging field of eco-psychology. This form of psychological research explores how environmental degradation effects personal anxiety, despair, and depression.

2. As the World Burns: How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming. From Rolling Stone Magazine's Jeff Goodell. Your one-stop-shop for the complicated history of climate policy in the United States.

3. Plastic or Plastic? Brown University student Alyssa Ratledge beats me to the punch and writes an op-ed in the Brown Daily Herald (allbeit better written than anything I could have ever put together) expressing her bewilderment at a recent Bookstore's policy requiring, yes requiring patrons to take a plastic bag at the checkout counter. Don't want one? Already have a reusable cloth bag or backpack with you? Too bad...

4. Global Weirding is Here: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wonders "if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore" and emphasizes four key arguments for a national response to climate change (mostly paraphrasing his book, Hot, Flat and Crowded with a climate-weather twist thrown in).

5. In this The American Prospect article, Grist.org writer David Roberts reviews two automobile-oriented books. One, Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What it Says About Us?) I read last winter and loved. The other, Reinventing the Automobile, is co-authored by William J. Mitchell, the head of the Smart Cities program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lawrence D. Burns, the recent vice president of research and development at General Motors, and Christopher Borroni-Bird, GM's current director of advanced vehicle-technology concepts. This trio attempts to address current transportation problems and argues that reinventing automobiles means reinventing cities (music to the ears of a sustainable urbanist).

REVISED: Dylan Ratigan Understands the Difference Between Weather and Climate, Do You?

2010-02-17T10:36:00.001-05:00

UPDATED 2/17/10 10:36 AM (see original post below): So apparently I've fallen victim to the very misunderstandings about weather and climate that I've been trying to shed light on in recent weeks. I'll explain:

While Ratigan was correct, scientifically speaking, in his description of warmer air = increased moisture = increased precipitation, he was wrong to argue (and I was wrong to agree with him) that the massive storms the DC area experienced last week were proof of climate change. As we discussed in one of my environmental science classes last week, science doesn't prove anything, it can only disprove things. Sure these storms are consistent with the hypothesis that global warming will produce more severe weather patterns, but it is important to note that no single storm, no ten storms, no twenty storms would ever prove (or disprove) the existence of climate change because of the difference in time scale I described a few weeks ago. Climate is a decadal system, while weather operates in a much shorter (i.e. day to day) period.

Seems like I got caught up in the "he said, she said" banter that has dominated the climate debate recently. I read a comment on a blog the other day that said something along the lines of, "These [climate/weather] anecdotes are cute, but let's stick to the facts." I agree: Let's let science do the talking and formulate our opinions based on these facts, thereby avoiding the impulse to impose our existing beliefs on what we observe in nature.

ORIGINAL POST 2/10/10 5:26 PM:

Finally, FINALLY someone in the mainstream media has demonstrated a basic understanding of scientific principles. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how some have taken record low temperatures and increased snowfall this winter in the US to discount the impending realities of climate change. I focused primarily on this clip from a Fox and Friends broadcast:

But this week MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan has set the record straight, and he explains why these record snowfalls are, in fact, proof of climate change. Watch below:

How to Build Community

2010-01-23T23:44:00.002-05:00

Read and be inspired:

I received the above poster for the holidays this year. Imagine if we all aspired to these ideals...

Weather versus Climate: What's the Difference?

2010-01-10T23:48:00.004-05:00

(image via NASA)

Somehow in the chaos of the climate debate, skeptics and supporters alike have misunderstood the fundamental distinction of what is actually happening to our planet. If you are one of the many people unclear about the difference between weather and climate then this post is for you.

To illustrate the confusion (or willful misdirection of public discourse), please watch the clip from Fox & Friends below:

One sentence in particular should have jumped out at you. At second 32 co-host Steve Doocy quips, "Yeah that global warming thing is really kicking into high gear, isn't it?" after reporting freezing temperatures across the United States last week. Some (achem, Jon Stewart) are quick to jump at the hosts of Fox and Friends for the way they misinterpret and dumb down issues to push a conservative agenda, but I think this example may speak to a deeper lack of understanding that extends beyond the boundaries of liberal and conservative media wars.

Have you ever wondered about the integrity of the climate debate when you hear reports of a record snowfalls or sub-zero temperatures? Have you ever asked yourself how the climate can be changing and the globe can be warming if it still gets really really cold?

Let's set the record straight...

The essential difference between weather and climate is a matter of scope and timing. Simply put, according to excerpts from an elementary school primer included in this recent UN Dispatch article, weather is "the conditions in the atmosphere in a certain place during a certain time. Weather is always changing." Climate, on the other hand, is "what the weather is generally like over long periods of time, such as years or decades in a particular area. A place that has little rainfall has a dry climate, and a place that has high temperatures has a hot climate."

To further highlight the distinction between weather and climate consider the following quote from How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, written by blogger Colby Beck and vetted by the climatologists at Real Climate. In his series, Beck outlines the many climate change denial arguments and offers responses to each one. Read his response to a weather-versus-climate oriented objection below:

Objection:

Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?

Answer:

Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of predictability is comparably different.

Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time, generally around 30 years. This averaging over time removes the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is clearly quite a challenge, as your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness to, but the latter is routine and reliable.

This by no means says that it is necessarily easy to predict climate changes, but clearly seizing on the weather man's one week failure to cast doubt on a climate model's 100 year projection is an argument of ignorance.

Now that we've clearly established the meanings of weather and climate it is important to note that, as this Met Office article points out, although some regions have experienced lower-than-normal temperatures recently, it is not cooling everywhere. From Met Office: "North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal - in many places by more than 5 °C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10 °C." See the map below for the global temperature trends above and below the regional averages:

As it turns out, not only was Steve Doocy substituting weather patterns for climate trends, but even if we do use his logic, parts of the earth were warming during the same period. So the next time you hear your local weatherman remark, "It's going to be another cold one out there today folks!" don't make the same mistake Doocy did. Even if our days are colder (albeit in winter) and snowfalls are higher, the climate is still changing.

Trees For Rent!

2009-12-25T15:21:00.003-05:00

If anyone else is looking to lower their carbon footprint this (well at this point, next) holiday season then The Living Christmas Company may spark your interest. Instead of cutting down a tree and discarding it after a two or three week stay in your living room, the guys at Living Christmas Co. will deliver a potted tree of the desired size and species to your doorstep and come back to collect it at the end of the holiday season.

According to this New York Times article, company founder and landscape architect Scott Martin was unnerved by the sight of abandoned trees lying about after Christmas in his hometown of Los Angeles. Now he and his coworkers (mostly laid-off architect friends) don Santa hats, elf ears, and reindeer antlers and deliver trees all across LA. In only two years of operation, The Living Christmas Company has increased its inventory from a handful of trial customers last year to over 400 this season, and they had hoped to finish with around 500.

The carbon savings from this service are pretty obvious: instead of uprooting carbon-sequestering trees, Martin and his colleagues allow them to keep growing, continuing their life cycle (somewhere William McDonough is cheering). In fact, families who become attached to their trees are allowed to label them and welcome them back to their homes the following year.

Don't live in LA and don't have a tree rental service in your area? No problem. Try doing what my family did last year: we bought a small 3 or 4 foot potted tree and planted it in our backyard after the holiday.

What could be a better way to honor the spirit of Christmas than by celebrating nature instead of taking a little piece of it?

Have We No Shame?

2009-12-09T00:40:00.007-05:00

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was rocked earlier today by a document known as the "Danish text." The document, apparently drafted by the so-called "circle of commitment" (including the UK, the US, and Denmark) centralizes climate power among rich countries and strips the UN of authority in future climate negotiations. Read the full text here.

John Vidal describes what is at stake in this Guardian article:

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto Protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

Developing nations were understandably outraged by not only the implications of this measure but also the secretive fashion in which it was drafted. And in case you are wondering how passionate these countries are about fair and equitable treatment, African nations staged a walkout earlier this year at a climate conference in Barcelona citing a lack of emissions commitments from developed nations.

For me the Danish text is particularly alarming (not to mention damaging to the image and success of the conference in general), because it is such a bold departure from the collaborative essence I believed these talks to value and promote. There is too much riding on this conference to allow these blatant and ill-founded digressions to occur. The mentality embodied in this text is a direct threat to the political and environmental stability of our world. It remains to be seen how this will effect the negotiations moving forward, but if this selfishness and short-sightedness exhibited in this document is not checked at the door during the next week and a half of the climate negotiations, we are all in a hell of a lot of trouble...

Hacked CRU Emails: Smoking Gun or a Shot in the Dark?

2009-11-30T23:44:00.006-05:00

Computer Code, via The Matrix

In case you haven't heard by now, a week ago the world's leading institutions of climate research, the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK, was infiltrated by computer hackers.

Soon information from the hacked emails leaked its way onto the internet (first on The Air Vent, a blog devoted to climate skepticism) and ignited the blogosphere. Since then climate skeptics have had a field day, using certain information from the hacked correspondence between premier climate scientists as proof that climate change is an international conspiracy. This incident may have finally unleashed the tension that has been building for months as the UN Climate Change Conference approaches (it begins a week from today, on December 7th in Copenhagen, Denmark).

Opponents to climate legislation have pointed to a few key phrases and to support their claims of climate conspiracy. Juliet Eilperin identified contentious content in this Washington Post article:

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's [CRU] director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of [Michael E.] Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The words "trick" and "hide the decline" are particularly troublesome. But Andrew Revkin of the New York Times reports further:

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

The folks over at RealClimate, a blog produced by climate scientists and perhaps one of the most interesting and professional climate blogs out there, also responded to the CRU hack (excerpts below, but I highly recommend you read the full post):

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

Despite these explanations, it is easy to see why these comments have sparked controversy, especially for those who have been hunting for cracks in the climate edifice for years...

At a time when Climate Skeptic in Chief, Senator James Inhofe (R - OK), dubbed 2009 "The Year of the Skeptic" because of Congress's inability to pass comprehensive climate legislation and the subsequent decline in the expectation for what can be realistically achieved in Copenhagen next week (This is a separate issue entirely, profiled here), the CRU hack comes as another blow to the climate movement. Watch Inhofe's personal message to Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) below (Inhofe is the senior Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Boxer the senior Democrat):

Inhofe has since called for an investigation into what he calls a manipulation of climate research, saying, "The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending E.P.A. rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated."

Finally, in this eloquent and provocative article, Mark Lynas of The Guardian explains why this incident represents a "dangerous shift in climate denial strategy" and his colleague George Marshall describes how public trust in scientists as unbiased and objective communicators has been tarnished.

Oh, and just how heated has the discussion gotten? Watch actor-environmentalist Ed Begley Jr. spar with Fox News host Stuart Varney:

Michael Pollan's Secret Remedy

2009-11-11T20:54:00.010-05:00

In the video above, Michael Pollan makes the connection between the energy crisis, health care reform, and climate change (although he presents them as separate issues, I would argue that energy and climate can be considered two symptoms of the same problem). What is the thread that ties these issues - some of the most significant challenges of our time - together? The answer is deceptively simple: Food.

Pollan, author of the award-winning book The Omnivore's Dilemma, has made quite a name for himself investigating the complexities, hypocrisy, and corruption of the corporate food system in the United States (Click here for David Kamp's brilliant synopsis of the book from the New York Times Book Review). As the way we produce food in this country becomes more industrialized, Pollan writes, the distance our meal travels from farm to dinner plate becomes longer and more convoluted. And when we lose sight of where our food comes from, we also lose sight of the value of what we use to fuel our bodies (leading to cultural, nutritional, and environmental problems).

In light of this basic explanation of Pollan's work, I pose the following questions: Is it possible to kill three birds with one stone? Is it possible to solve the energy crisis, alleviate the burden on our health care system, and mitigate the effects of climate change by reforming the way we produce, distribute, and consume food in this country?

Complexity is No Excuse for Complacency

2009-11-08T23:43:00.002-05:00

We've screwed up. Big time. If this Guardian article is correct, and US lawmakers have really given up hope of going to Copenhagen ready to commit to strict, binding climate change legislation, we've made a very grave mistake.

According to the article, Todd Stern, the State Department's Special Envoy for Climate Change, said, "It doesn't look like [a treaty is] on the cards for December." He offered instead that negotiators were intent on producing a blueprint in Copenhagen that would lead to a binding legal agreement "perhaps next year or as soon as possible."

I'm sorry Mr. Stern, but that is simply not good enough.

US participation at Copenhagen is the keystone of the success of the climate treaty - without bold US support, negotiations will surely fall apart. As is the case in most international negotiations, world leaders look to the United States to set the precedent for action (see how countries compare on their climate positions here). As troubling as this reality may be, it makes perfect sense. Why should other nations commit to emissions standards when the richest country, which also happens to be the world's second-largest producer of greenhouse gasses, refuses to? And as we have already witnessed during the preliminary climate meetings in Barcelona last week, leaders of developing nations are prepared to oppose any negotiations in which developed countries do not promote strict emissions standards.

Given the current US attitude, whatever comes out of Copenhagen this December will at best become another Kyoto Protocol: an international climate treaty (December 1997) that the US refused to ratify and it was thus rendered largely ineffective. Below is the map of countries who ratified the Kyoto treaty (green) and the only one who didn't (red):

To put it bluntly (from the Guardian):

The US shift resets expectations for what will be accomplished at Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming.

We're the game changers. We're the movers and the shakers. We're the country all other countries look to for guidance and direction, and through our indecision and delay we've let down the international community (not to mention slapped all of these people in the face).

Speaking in Barcelona, Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Commission's chief negotiator, said: "It is a Catch-22 situation. People are waiting for each other so it is difficult to blame anyone. [But] the US position is significant. Clearly the US has been slowing things down." It's as if world leaders are all standing around looking at one another to take the first, definitive step forward. Not only has the US demonstrated an unwillingness to step forward: we've taken a step back.

For Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's Minister for Climate and Energy and COP15 President, failure is not an option:

“If the whole world comes to Copenhagen and leaves without making the needed political agreement, then I think it’s a failure that is not just about climate. Then it’s the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century. And that is and should not be a possibility. It’s not an option."

She eloquently and accurately frames what is at stake in the video below:

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said the reduced role for Copenhagen could work out to the world's advantage by giving America, China, and the international community more time to co-ordinate their efforts. But as Hedegaard says, complexity is no excuse for complacency. Just because climate change is a terrifyingly complicated issue, that doesn't mean it's okay to postpone negotiations. In some ways the damage has already been done - we may very well have sacrificed a unique opportunity to form a global pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by failing to work on this issue domestically in the past year. Of course it is possible for other countries to pick up the banner and propose tough emissions standards in December, but without US support the treaty will fail to mark considerable progress.

This Week in Climate Politics

2009-10-31T14:03:00.001-04:00

1. The US Chamber of Commerce faces off with President Obama over climate change regulations.

2. Senate Republicans, led by James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), threaten to boycott a key committee vote on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.

3. Other Republicans, most notably Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), recognize that "constructive Republican engagement will produce a better climate and energy bill than one produced by Democrats alone."

4. A report by Deutsche Bank’s global asset management group and Columbia University’s Earth Institute makes the connection between favorable climate policy and renewable energy investment.

5. Looking ahead: What's at stake at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?

In the Battle for Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, What's Missing?

2009-10-28T14:45:00.059-04:00

A Toyota Prius hybrid rear-ended an electric Tesla Roadster in Denmark several days ago, pushing it underneath a Volkswagen Touareg and highlighting the ongoing feud between these coveted vehicles (read the full report of the accident here).

In all seriousness though, with these energy-efficient automobiles engineers and designers are achieving two very important goals: 1. providing a vehicle that produces little or no carbon dioxide emissions (transportation-related CO2 accounts for roughly 25-30 percent of all emissions in the US) and 2. maintaining the freedom and independence inherent in personalized transportation.

As manufacturers continue to recognize the value of hybrid-electric vehicles, the transition from automobiles powered by fossil fuels to those powered by electrons will accelerate. But we need extensive infrastructure improvements to support this shift. Some states, California especially, have invested large sums of money in projects which promote electric vehicles. But when I refer to the need for infrastructure, I am not just thinking about roadside recharging stations. I am talking about something much more complex: the way we produce our electricity. What's the use in shifting from autos running on gasoline to autos running on electricity if that electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant? Point source and not just tailpipe emissions must be factored into this equation.

If we are to succeed in this endeavor, we're going to need some help from the big dogs...

Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden attended the opening of the new Fisker Automotive plant in Wilmington, Delaware (previously owned by GM), touting the benefits of electric vehicles. The same morning, President Barack Obama announced a $3.4 billion investment plan for the ailing US energy grid at the unveiling of Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, the largest photovoltaic facility in the country (pictured above). Watch the full speech below or read a detailed synopsis from Grist.org here:

The beauty of the dream for a safe and secure renewable energy future is the amount of technological innovation and collaboration it will take to make it happen. We are becoming more and more aware that we have the technology we need to succeed and it is now up to our leaders to step up to the plate and implement policies which incentivize sustainable development. Some have already - Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is currently under review in the Senate - but this is just the tip of the policy iceberg and there is much more work to be done. There are tremendous political obstacles to overcome (see here, here, and here).

One closing thought: If Rush Limbaugh can go gaga over low-emissions vehicles (in this case, the electric Ford Focus), we all can. Enjoy:

McKibben's Challenge: When Good Politics are Bad Science

2009-10-23T01:06:00.000-04:00

On the eve of what he says will be the "single most widespread day of political action the planet has ever seen," 350.org Co-Founder and Director Bill McKibben has written an op-ed in the Boston Globe challenging President Obama to answer the call to action (see post below or click here for background on 350.org's International Day of Climate Action).

McKibben argues that climate change is different than any problem we have faced before, and that Obama's strategy of "working with Congress to pass something modest" simply will not work. Climate change defies conventional political paradigms:

The negotiation that really counts is not between Republicans and Democrats or industry and the greens, or even between the United States and China. The real bargaining is happening between human beings and physics and chemistry, and that’s a tough negotiation.

Mother Nature has drawn a line in the sand: 350 ppm is the highest acceptable concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no negotiating. There is no compromise.

In order to meet this goal, we must demand more serious climate action from our legislators and our Commander in Chief (McKibben says, "The bill making its way through Congress explicitly aims for a world with 450 parts per million carbon."). If Obama is worried he will exhaust his political capital by throwing his weight behind stricter climate legislation while dealing with health care reform and the struggling economy, he must look no further than the 4594 events planned in 175 countries this Saturday. With such widespread support from the global community, how could he afford not to promote bold policies?

McKibben concludes his piece in the Globe with the following challenge to our President:

It would risk real political capital to push for change on the scale that the science demands. Since even a politician of his talents can’t amend the laws of nature, though, let’s hope that beginning today he’s willing to take some real risks.

Obama is scheduled to give a speech on "American leadership in clean energy" at MIT in the morning to promote the Senate climate bill. Let's listen carefully to what he says and decide if he lives up to McKibben's challenge or if he reverts back to conventional political practices.

(Image above courtesy of the Boston Globe)

350.org International Day of Climate Action

2009-10-18T00:58:00.016-04:00

One number will determine the fate of our planet. 350 parts per million is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide above which the earth can no longer naturally sequester (absorb) the greenhouse gas and climate change occurs. 350.org, a nonprofit organization focused on raising awareness about this essential benchmark, is creating an international movement to pressure political leaders to agree to adopt strong climate legislation at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.

In a recent post on Treehugger.com, 350.org Co-founder and Director Bill McKibben describes the significance of the 350 limit and also outlines the challenges we face in order to meet it:

It's as if we suddenly discovered what normal body temperature was, so we'd be able to tell when we were running a fever. In that sense, it came as a great relief.

But in every other sense, it was a pretty devastating number. For one thing, we're already past it, at 390 ppm and rising two ppm annually--that's why the Arctic is melting. For another thing, it means the work nations and individuals must do to reduce their carbon footprints is much larger, and must happen much more swiftly, than we'd believed. Hansen's data [Jim Hansen and his team of NASA researchers established the 350 metric] shows that as a planet we'd need to get off coal by 2030 in order for the planet's forests and oceans ever to bring atmospheric levels back down below 350--that's the toughest economic and political challenge the earth has ever faced.

The time to hesitate, to doubt, and to second-guess has passed. We now have a quantifiable metric for the success of our environmental efforts, and it's going to take a hell of a lot of collaboration and innovation to meet it before the effects of climate change become irreversible.

This Saturday, October 24th, 350.org is hosting a global call to action to mobilize members of the international community. So far there are 3,769 events planned in 163 countries. By demonstrating to our respective governments that there is definite support for climate legislation, we pressure them to act boldly in Copenhagen. The following video captures the essence of the event:

To find a 350 rally near you, or to start your own if there isn't one already, click here.

We have an immense amount of work to do and a desperately short amount of time to do it. If we are to ever succeed in this endeavor, we are going to need everyone's help. We need to send a clear message to our political leaders that we won't accept anything less than a commitment to carbon legislation in Copenhagen that respects the 350 ppm limit. Let's get out there on Saturday and make our voices heard.

Change Yourself, Change the World

2009-10-14T20:01:00.001-04:00

Colin Beavan is the No Impact Man. Through his blog, book, and documentary film (trailer above), he has increased awareness of the ways in which individuals can improve their quality of life while creating positive environmental change.

In the Spring of 2009, Beavan founded the No Impact Project, inspired by his year-long, zero-carbon experiment in New York City. The mission of the No Impact Project is:

To empower citizens to make choices which better their lives and lower their environmental impact through lifestyle change, community action, and participation in environmental politics.

The idea behind this mission is that "individual behavior change leads to both cultural change and political engagement." Again the importance of personal agency in transforming national and international paradigms comes to the foreground of the climate debate.

Sure, the lifestyle he promotes is intimidating (if only at first) and presents some problems. The biggest of these obstacles is that not everyone is readily willing to sacrifice the amenities we have come to take for granted in today's society. But through his work Beavan challenges us, asking, "What if those amenities distract us from what is most important? What if we could live better, happier, and healthier lives without them?"

Starting on Sunday, October 18th, the Huffington Post is hosting the first ever No Impact Week in partnership with the No Impact Project. This initiative will give each of us the opportunity to experience some or all of the lifestyle changes Beavan and his family went through during their own experiment, and ideally it will show us that the task of living carbon-free is not so daunting after all. To get more information about No Impact Week, follow this link and to register click here.

How Walkable is Your Neighborhood? Walk Score Has the Answer

2009-10-04T23:55:00.009-04:00

Two of the most important concepts in the field of sustainable urban design today are dense, mixed-use development and neighborhood walkability. Dense developments are those that make the most of the available land and pack a lot of urban infrastructure into a small geographic area. Mixed-use developments are those that include buildings from diverse real estate sectors (office, retail, residential, etc.). Walkability refers to the degree to which residents can effectively and comfortably walk around their neighborhoods and also incorporates what they have access to on foot. The two ideas are related in that it is a lot easier to walk to work if your office is close to your house or apartment (the same argument can be made for grocery shopping, schools, yoga classes, and so on). The opposite of dense, mixed-use development would be a sprawling neighborhood where most uses are accessible only by car. Consider the comparison below:

One mile walk in a compact neighborhood (Seattle's Phinney Ridge, left),
and one mile walk in a sprawling neighborhood (Bellevue, WA, right).

Even though you are walking the same distance, it is clear that you can access a lot more in a densely planned area than you can in a sprawling suburb. Not only does dense, mixed-use urban design reduce transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions, but it also improves the health and well-being of residents, strengthens local businesses, and enforces a sense of place lost to most commuters who are insulated in their shells of metal and glass (i.e. automobiles).

One company is trying to quantify this somewhat vague idea of walkability and make this information accessible to all. Walkscore.com is a user-friendly website which rates neighborhoods on a scale from 0-100 based on their proximity to amenities (including schools, grocery stores, movie theaters, parks, libraries, pharmacies, retails outlets, etc). Simply plug in your address to the search bar and the software - integrated with Google Maps - provides a readout with your score. For example, below is the walkscore of the White House:

As you can see at the top, it scores a whopping 97 percent and is classified as a "Walkers' Paradise." Given it's location in the heart of a major metropolitan area this should come as no surprise. But let's try another example. Below is the walkscore for former President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas:

This property scores a pathetic 0 percent and is classified as "Car-Dependent." Does anyone else think this map looks really lonely?

I will be one of the first to point out that Walkscore isn't perfect: for example, some of the destinations they include in their calculations aren't truly what they claim to be (for example, Shop N' Go Inc near my dorm in Providence is not exactly what I'd call a grocery store...). But it is important to note that the company acknowledges these flaws and includes a page on their website identifying further drawbacks. The algorithm can't account for everything and no score will ever supplant actually hitting the streets and deciding for yourself, but Walkscore is nevertheless a valuable tool that will continue to be updated and improved.

The following statement is part of the company's mission:

"Our vision is for every property listing to read: Beds: 3 Baths: 2 Walk Score: 84. We want walkability and transportation costs to be a key part of choosing where to live."

I eagerly await the day that dense, mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods become highly valued and sought-after communities.

Ken Burns's Newest Documentary Focuses on "America's Best Idea," National Parks

2009-09-27T01:02:00.001-04:00

Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir in Yosemite, 1903

Ken Burns, award-winning documentary filmmaker (The Civil War, Jazz, Baseball), is at it again. His newest endeavor, entitled "The National Parks: America's Best Idea," explores the complicated history of our nation's oldest landmarks. This 6-part miniseries debuts tomorrow night at 8 PM EST on PBS and runs through Friday night (one two hour segment will be broadcasted each night this week). For those of you familiar with Burns's work, "National Parks" is sure to be shot in his trademark narrative style: intellectual yet accessible, thoroughly informative, and very engaging. I for one am excited to hear his account of one of the most significant ecological struggles and achievements of our forebearers. So tune in tomorrow night at 8 PM and follow this link to the PBS website for more information.

Shame on You, BMW

2009-09-25T16:40:00.008-04:00

Watch the recent BMW commercial above. Maybe you have seen it already - it ran during nearly every break during the US Open two weeks ago.

"Americans are always finding ways to be more responsible," the actor begins, gazing longingly at the energy efficient compact fluorescent (CLF) light bulb in his hand. He continues, "And so is BMW," as the ceiling comes alive and hundreds of bulbs illuminate to reveal the company's new line of fuel efficient automobiles (that is, if you consider 28 mpg highway to be efficient).

The clip on the television screen could not have been more incongruous with the message of the commercial. My roommate Hadley and I couldn't help but laugh at the hypocrisy each time it aired. If BMW truly practiced what it preached, it would have shot this commercial in the dimly lit studio it started out with.

With this in mind, I have a few simple questions for the folks at BMW...

How are you "finding ways to be more responsible" by creating the brightest commercial in the history of bright commercials?
On the topic of your "commitment to lowering emissions," does that include increasing the energy consumption of the studio you used to promote your product?
Did no one in the marketing department pick up on this? Really? I mean, come on...

While questions one and two are straightforward and identify the contradictory messages of the commercial, question three is considerably more complex. The unfortunate reality is, the answer to question three is probably a "yes," but BMW expects people to buy their cars regardless. Maybe they thought no one would pick up on it (although it's kind of hard not to). The idea to take away from this is we shouldn't be letting companies get away with things like this. Does anyone else feel a little taken advantage of? It's insulting to be presented with garbage and expected to consume it. It's also more complicated in this situation because the product itself is quite luxurious, while the way it is marketed is more dubious...

This scenario relates back to something I have referred to in several previous posts: the power we have as consumers to dictate the direction of the market. I know very few (if any) of you were planning to skip down to your local BMW dealerships this weekend and pick up a new ride, but this same idea can be extrapolated across all product lines. Each time we purchase something, we endorse the way it was manufactured (and in this case, marketed). Be on the lookout for products with misleading environmental claims, an advertising strategy known as "greenwashing." The website GreenwashingIndex.com allows concerned consumers to post and review advertisements. Commercials are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 (one being authentic and five being bogus) based on each company's honest disclosure of its environmental responsibility. Cast your vote on the BMW commercial here.

If we work together we can show companies they can't just talk the talk - they have to walk the walk too. If they are going to say they are committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they have to mean it, and it is our job to hold them accountable.

From Oil to Plastic (and Back Again?)

2009-09-17T23:56:00.016-04:00

In a recent post on Green Inc., the environmental blog of the New York Times (feed available to the right), Matthew Wald describes how one entrepreneur has found a niche in the market for disposed plastics and is closing the production loop of this petroleum-based waste. After years of research and testing, a Washington DC based sustainable waste management company called Envion has developed a way to return plastic to its original form - crude oil (or at least something resembling oil). Wald explains the significance of this technological breakthrough:

"Entrepreneurs have been trying for years to turn low-value wastes into high-value products. Waste plastic is among the lowest in value, and gasoline or diesel fuel the highest, but machines that carry out that conversion usually consume a lot of energy and get gummed-up by leftover material that they cannot convert."

Using a new technique - heating the plastic with infrared energy - the team at Envion has made it feasible to extend the life cycle of plastics. This reduction process produces a murky, yellowish fluid which can be mixed with additional components and sold as gasoline (see image below).

This innovation has significant implications for the world of plastic consumption. As I wrote in a previous post entitled Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, disposable plastic water bottles are a considerable contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. I also referenced William McDonough's book Cradle to Cradle, in which he advises altering the traditional production process from a manufacturer --> consumer --> landfill (or cradle to grave) system to a manufacturer --> consumer --> manufacturer (or cradle to cradle) system. With the invention of its new plastics converter, Envion has done just that. As Todd Makurath, the company's director of global brand management explains, “This could be transformational in how we handle plastics."

Of course this new technology is not a perfect solution. As Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace accurately points out in this Washington Post article: "To make it big, this company needs people to waste plastic." He adds, "We need to question whether we should be using plastic at all to begin with."

Even though Davies has a valid argument about the fundamental fault of plastic consumption, it is unrealistic to disregard initiatives such as this one on a matter of principle. The fact is, even without Envion's prodding, people are discarding plastic products at an alarming rate (roughly 50 million tons of plastic waste are generated annually in the US). By taking on the task of reforming this deeply flawed and broken system, Envion provides a creative short-term solution to a very systemic problem. It is obviously not the only piece of the puzzle, but it's nevertheless an important one.

Beaten to the Punch

2009-09-11T16:52:00.007-04:00

I have a confession to make. Several weeks ago my girlfriend Lucy brought it to my attention that this blog has some serious competition. On August 21st, she posted a link to Slate Magazine's environmental blog on my facebook profile. What is it called, you wonder? Nothing other than The Green Lantern: Illuminating Answers to Environmental Questions. In an instant, the title I had once considered to be a brilliant combination of my passion for reporting on environmental issues and my affinity for one of the Justice League's banner heroes was defiled (see images below). Instead of being proud I was left with the rotten and pervasive disappointment you feel when you discover the brain-child you have loved and nurtured is not your own, but in fact an illegitimate bastard fathered by someone you've never met.

The Green Lantern, left, and yours truly, right, Halloween 2007

Since this unfortunate reality was brought to my attention I have been struggling with how to break the news, and I have not yet decided what I'm going to do about the existing title. I am currently brainstorming alternatives, but so far nothing has inspired me. I am also considering, having fully disclosed the symmetry between this blog and Slate's GL, keeping my title as is. I will be sure to keep you updated on how I decide to resolve the commonality, and if you have any new title ideas I am open to suggestions!

My Summer at the Urban Land Institute: Solar Cities and the Year 2050

2009-08-29T18:26:00.003-04:00

So I figure I have been back home in Guilford long enough and I should let you know what I was doing this summer in Washington, D.C. For two months (all of June and July) I was interning at the Urban Land Institute, an urban design and real estate development nonprofit organization focused on promoting responsible land-use policies. The mission of ULI is to "provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide." ULI boasts a membership base of over 40,000 professionals (including architects, developers, planners, realtors, etc.), has district councils across the country, and offices around the globe. It was a very engaging and dynamic place to work because there were dozens of projects taking place on subjects ranging from infrastructure and affordable housing to sustainable development and economic recovery strategies. The office itself was LEED-CI (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Commercial Interiors) certified, reflecting ULI's commitment to the environment.

As far as my internship was concerned, I was splitting time between their Information Group (publications) and Initiatives Group (progressive urban think tank). In general, my ULI managers were great about giving me a high level of responsibility and autonomy in the office and they trusted me to respond appropriately in my work. Everyone has heard the usual intern coffee-run and copy-making horror stories, and fortunately my time at ULI could not have been more different.

I was working on two main projects throughout the course of the summer. My first task was to write up a case study for the Developments section of ULI's monthly magazine, Urban Land. Specifically, I was researching Babcock Ranch, a planned sustainable city designed by Kitson & Partners to be powered exclusively by the sun. The development will boast the world's largest photovoltaic facility (75 megawatts), a renewable technology mecca Syd Kitson, Chairman and CEO of the real estate development company, hopes will attract greentech companies and create a living laboratory for innovation. In his words, Babock Ranch will be a "place where businesses, universities, and government can test, and implement, its best ideas for the future.” Listen to Kitson talk about "Southwest Florida's City of Tomorrow" and watch an amazing computer rendered walkthrough of the development in the video embedded below (make sure to watch it in high quality!). This case study was exciting to put together because I was granted an in-depth look at a development that could very well change the composition of this country's urban fabric.

The Babcock Ranch marina and town center.

A view from the (solar panel-covered) rooftops.

Sid Kitson, Chairman and CEO of Kitson & Partners, guides
us on a virtual tour of Babcock Ranch

This summer I also worked to update The City in 2050 exhibit and companion publication, the former of which debuted last October at ULI's annual Fall Meeting and Urban Land Expo in Miami. The exhibit serves as a diagnostic analysis that identifies the social, economic, and environmental challenges our world will face in the next 40 years and how urban centers can be the cradles for solutions to those problems. Last year's material was especially US-centric though, and as the exhibit will soon travel internationally (first to the Middle East in early October for Cityscape Dubai, the largest real estate development conference in the world), I was in charge of spearheading the initial research and collecting data a global audience can relate to. It was incredible to know that my efforts on this project were greatly contributing to a forward-thinking urban initiative. Listen to ULI Worldwide President Rick Rosan speak about The City in 2050 project and view images from the exhibit below:

(If you have questions about these two projects or would like some more information about them, please let me know!)

Copenhagen, Continued...

2009-08-27T21:43:00.000-04:00

So in my post last month entitled A Portrait of the Future of Transportation Planning: Auto Lovers Beware, I referenced a section of Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic where he describes how more and more Copenhagen commuters are forgoing their cars for bicycles, and how city planning officials have aided this transition through their urban design decisions (you can read about it here if you missed it). Well, the citizens of Copenhagen are at it again, as this Treehugger.com article reports. Officials plan to spend $47 million to establish a system of bicycling "superhighways" stretching far into the surrounding suburbs, allowing bicycle commuters faster avenues to get to work and hopefully persuading more residents to jump on a bike instead of into their automobiles. Copenhagen is proving itself to be the trend-setter when it comes to alternative transportation. Learn more about the proposed bicycling infrastructure at Copenhagenize.com.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

2009-08-18T00:25:00.000-04:00

During my stay at Lucy's place in Chocorua, New Hampshire last week (sorry for the blogging hiatus!) I picked up an old (well, May 2007) copy of the New York Times Magazine which had a very interesting and informative article about the history of bottle deposit legislation. Author Jon Mooallem reveals the economic and political complexities behind enacting this seemingly straightforward piece of legislation.

By placing value on something otherwise valueless, bottle deposits incentivize recycling and thereby promote behavior that ameliorates the burden of disposable containers on the environment:

According to the Pacific Institute, producing the bottles for American consumption in 2006 required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil (not including the energy for transportation) and bottling the water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Click here for a carbon footprint comparison of nine major bottled water brands.

And according to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), states with bottle bill legislation have a beverage container recycling rate of about 60 percent, while non-deposit states achieve only about 24 percent.

Mooallem's article also addresses the daunting task of updating this 70s era policy to be more relevant, as the typical five cent deposit established 30-40 years ago equals only about one cent today. Imagine if all states implemented these programs (only eleven states currently have such systems in place), and if instead of the laughable five cent return, bottles were granted a 25 cent deposit. Who, then, would throw away their bottles? And what if plastic water bottles were also included in addition to the carbonated and alcoholic beverage containers that are accepted today? These improvements would at the very least stimulate a massive increase in recycling and at best would alter the relationship we have with our disposable containers and make us more mindful of the consequences of our waste (consider the implications of throwing something "away," and ask yourself if you can answer where that "away" is).

This article hearkened back to one of my favorite books, William McDonough's Cradle to Cradle. McDonough examines the contradictions and short-sightedness of the system of manufacturing established by the Industrial Revolution. He emphasizes the need to close the production loop from a manufacturer --> consumer --> landfill (or cradle to grave) approach, to a manufacturer --> consumer --> manufacturer (or cradle to cradle) approach. In the bottle deposit article, Mooallem cites how in the past beverage distributors would retrieve empty glass bottles for reuse (glass was too expensive at the time to simply discard), and suggests returning to a similar system which makes producers (and not consumers and municipalities) responsible for the ultimate fate of their containers. Bottling companies resist such a regression and understandably so: why start paying the collection and recycling costs they have shirked for decades? Plastic beverage containers have become so cheap to produce there is no economic incentive for corporations to assume responsibility for the waste they create.

The current system of five cent bottle deposits is outdated and needs to be reformed if there is any hope of curbing our nation's rampant rate of waste disposal. What were once dynamic pieces of legislation that gave value to the valueless and promoted recycling have become afterthoughts in the three to four decades since their inceptions. More states need to implement such legislation and those states that already have policy in place need to make sure that it adequately incentivizes the responsible disposal of containers.

I will conclude with the following tracker from CRI, which records the number of beverage cans and bottles that have been landfilled, littered, and incinerated in the US so far this year:

That's a lot of aluminum and plastic...

For All You Alternative Transportation Naysayers Out There, This One's For You

2009-07-28T15:16:00.002-04:00

Take a good, long look at the images above (click to enlarge).

This poster hung on the wall of the City Planning Office in of Muenster, Germany back in 2001. It depicts the amount of space needed to transport sixty people by car, bus, and bicycle. Although I think it was originally intended to operate purely on a city planning level (reducing traffic congestion), it has important implications for sustainable urbanism as well (mitigating greenhouse gas emissions). I am tempted to say more, but won't because the poster largely speaks for itself.

A Portrait of the Future of Transportation Planning: Auto Lovers Beware

2009-07-23T12:15:00.016-04:00

The questions surrounding our transportation system are some of the most intriguing and provocative questions related to the climate change dialogue. According to the Department of Transportation, vehicle-related emissions make up 28 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, so improving automobile efficiency, increasing availability of and access to public transportation, as well as making changes to our urban structure which promote walkability and curtail automobile use have very real implications for mitigating the effects of global warming.

In many ways, my pursuit of an Urban Studies Degree originated from my interest in the transportation sector. It was my study of transportation planning and some key literature - most importantly Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What it Says About Us) - that got me thinking about how macroscopic urban development plans can influence micro-level decision making, and the tremendous potential this relationship has for positive environmental change.

One thing is for certain: our nation is addicted to oil, and along with it, our cars. But who could blame us? Our society is geared (pun intended?) to value the autonomy of automobile use, and to make matters worse we have a national urban composition that encourages this behavior. Starting after World War II, government planners established the system of interstate highways we still use today that promotes sprawl and a decentralized lifestyle. Apart from the freedom and convenience, we drive our cars as often as we do because the current urban fabric offers no viable alternative.

But how can we change our behaviors if our current system is rigged so heavily in favor of automobile use? As a society, we need to radically shift the notion that automobiles are the primary mode of transportation and create a planning paradigm where multi-modal streets (aka streets friendly to multiple uses, for example a road with a designated bus and bike lane), walkable neighborhoods, and mixed-use development become our priorities. Fortunately, officials in several major cities around the globe have taken it upon themselves to begin this transition.

As part of his PLANYC 2030 initiative, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently made a decision to promote pedestrian street access and directly undermine automobile use in Midtown Manhattan. As you may know, earlier this summer Bloomberg closed Times Square to traffic, transforming a five block section of Broadway from a chaotic bumper-to-bumper jam into a pedestrian-only plaza complete with lawn furniture (see photo above and slideshow here). In the midst of a city renowned for its traffic (and its bad drivers), this ambitious makeover of an iconic urban landmark could spell the beginning of the end for cars in the Big Apple.

A second example of city leadership favoring pedestrian priorities over those of automobiles was recently featured in this New York Times article. Four years ago, a $384 million recovery project was completed in Seoul, South Korea. This plan peeled back a major transit artery which sliced through the center of the city to reveal the Cheonggyecheon, a largely forgotten waterway that had been entombed in concrete after the Korean War. Spearheaded by then Mayor of Seoul and now President of South Korea Lee Myung-bak, this urban revitalization project brought wildlife back to the heart of the city, created a place where residents (an estimated 90,000 per day) can enjoy the green space along the banks of the stream, and restored a waterway with historical significance for South Korea. In the words of Lee In-keun, Seoul’s assistant mayor for infrastructure, “We’ve basically gone from a car-oriented city to a human-oriented city.”

The third example comes from Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic, referenced earlier. One of my favorite anecdotes from the book, Vanderbilt describes how the Traffic and Planning Office in Copenhagen devised a plan to reduce the amount of auto traffic flowing into the center of the city. Government officials decided to take action without announcing their plan to the public in a truly remarkable display of the macro-micro relationship I described above. Between 1994 and 2005, the city gradually phased out parking spaces in favor of parks and bike lanes. During this period, the total number of spaces was reduced from 14,000 to 11,500 and bike traffic surged an incredible 40 percent (today one third of commuters bike to work). Ironically, biking has become so popular in Copenhagen that the city now has a bicycle congestion problem.

These three initiatives send clear and bold statements to members of the international community, and they will hopefully lead to similar projects around the globe in the years to come. It is understandably difficult to measure how much carbon dioxide these initiatives prevent, but they are undoubtedly moving transportation in a direction that not only has less of an impact on the environment, but also improves the lives of the people living in these communities.

Our auto-centric world may very well be dissolving, city by city, block by block. We will just have to wait and see what happens…

(Note: Image 1 & 2 source: The New York Times, Image 3 source: Streetsblog.org)

On Transforming Market Trends and the National Consciousness

2009-07-16T23:10:00.001-04:00

Last semester as we were studying for our North American Environmental History exam, a friend of mine asked me what environmentalism meant, to which I responded, "a hyper-awareness of how everything you do affects the world around you." At the time it surprised me how easily I had come up with that definition, but I guess it has been something that I have been thinking about a lot in the past year or so. In in a simple yet comprehensive way, I think this definition captures the essence of the environmental movement. In recent months, I have begun the transition from ignorance and obliviousness to deep eco-awareness, and have altered my behaviors accordingly. From phasing out the use of plastic water bottles and the consumption of meat (yes you heard me right - as shocking as it is to myself and to those who know me well, I am pretty confident I am slowly but surely becoming a vegetarian. More to come on this decision in further postings.), to taking public transportation - or even no transportation at all - I am restructuring my lifestyle to become one that has less of an impact on the natural world.

This type of awareness is vital for the long-term success of our nation today. We need to transform the national consciousness from one of eco-ignorance to eco-awareness. It is also essential that this awareness does not sit idle, but translates into action (awareness does little good if behaviors remain constant). Today, a staggering 95 percent of the scientific community believes in climate change, but how does this number translate into action? This benchmark, identifying the problem, is only half the battle. A nationwide transition to eco-awareness can be facilitated by reliable, easily accessible information that links consumers with products that reflect their desire to reduce their impact on the environment.

Fortunately, a lot of this information is available already: Detailed, minute-by-minute energy performance consoles are installed in some high tech green buildings, allowing residents to monitor (and curb) their energy use. New cars are being outfitted with computers that can calculate and display key driving statistics, among them miles per gallon. Grocery stores are now offering more information about the food we eat, including nutritional facts, country or state of origin, organic certification, etc. Even corporate mammoths are jumping on the bandwagon – Walmart is set to unveil a “sustainability index” on all of the products on its shelves, giving shoppers an unprecedented window into the production of the goods they buy. These mutually reinforcing trends – consumers becoming more aware and demanding more sustainable products, and producers releasing more information about their goods – have the tremendous potential to influence the direction of the market in the coming years.

It is important never to underestimate the power we have as consumers to demand socially and environmentally just products. One of my favorite quotes from Food, Inc., a recent documentary which reveals the complexities and corruption of our industrialized food system, explains: “When we run an item past the supermarket scanner, we’re voting for local or not, organic or not.” The same idea can be expanded to all consumer products. Every time we buy something, we endorse the system through which that product was created. So take advantage of the information that is out there, and start voting for products which deserve our support. What do you say we facilitate the nation’s transition from eco-ignorance to eco-awareness together?

The 2009 Campus Progress National Conference

2009-07-09T18:49:00.010-04:00

So I figure it is about time I profile the conference I attended yesterday that motivated me to start this very blog. As I mentioned in my previous post, I heard about the event, as well as Campus Progress itself, from my girlfriend Lucy who had heard about it from a fellow intern. Campus Progress is the college-focused division of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank founded in 2003 by John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration and recent co-chair of President Obama's transition team (aka an all around baller).

The Conference was hosted at the luxurious Omni Hotel in NW Washington DC, and began with a complimentary breakfast in a massive ballroom. Lucy and I found our seats among the other 1400 some-odd college students piling into the room. The morning plenary was dominated by Campus Progress (CP) and Center for American Progress (CAP) staff welcoming us all to their event, headlined by the CP and CAP Directors, David Halperin and John Podesta, respectively. Podesta spoke extensively about his path to the national stage (it helps to go to kindergarten with a future president of the United States), his vision for the CAP (the largest and most effective progressive organization in the nation), and his close relationship with two US Presidents.

After the morning introduction, we broke out into focus groups on different topics, including health care, climate change, human rights, labor rights, and college affordability. I attended the panel on climate change (duh!) and thought it was really interesting. The speakers were great and informative, but I thought our small group discussions were most valuable. It was amazing to engage my peers in dialogue about climate issues, effective organizing methods, and the importance of social networking.

After the morning sessions, lunch was served in the ballroom, accompanied by speeches from Van Jones (Special Advisor for Green Jobs, White House Council for Environmental Quality), Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services), and John Prendergast (Co-founder of the Enough Project) and Joel Madden (activist and member of Good Charlotte). Jones, an incredible and captivating public speaker, detailed the challenges presented by climate change, and how a green economy can not only be a solution to mitigating carbon dioxide emissions, but also to lifting the nation out of recession. He spoke of the importance of connecting our renewable energy centers with our population centers.

Sebelius stepped in briefly (she had just come from, and had to return shortly to Capitol Hill), to talk about the status of the current health care legislation and about how we needed to transition from an "illness system" to a "wellness system," yet she failed to explain the role reform of industrialized agricultural and the nation's current nutrition delivery system would play in this shift.

Prendergast and Madden, quite the dynamic duo, described at length how key minerals needed for the production of our electronics (cell phones, laptops, iPods, etc.) are being mined by gangs in Africa who use rape as a weapon in the war for social control. They drew comparisons to the blood diamond situation in Sierra Leone (where gangs had previously used amputation as their method for social control) and how consumer pressure caused jewelry titans to alter their buying strategies. They both stressed the amount of power we have as consumers in our ability to dictate economic markets depending on the purchasing decisions we make. They implored us to "create a critical mass of confrontation" so that the big electronics manufacturers would be forced to change their practices. When asked by a member of the audience who were the most flagrant of the rape-electronic offenders, they replied that it was an "industry-wide issue" and all were culpable.

After the lunch presentations, we broke up into focus groups again, this time covering topics from the economy and free media, to hip-hop, threat assessment, and faith. I attended the media session moderated by Amanda Terkel, CAP deputy research director and recent Bill O'Reilly ambush journalism victim (see video here). The panelists were all very interesting and came from diverse journalism backgrounds. Media has been something in the forefront of my consciousness lately - CNN is always on at my office gym where I train every day after work, so it's kind of hard NOT to pay attention. One of the panelists, who argued in favor of "hungry journalism" ( read comprehensive and contextualized journalism) as opposed to "drive-by journalism" (read minimally investigative and devoid of perspective), articulated precisely what bothers me about CNN and other commercial media outlets (in case you're wondering, they are drive-byers). They skip almost jubilantly from topic to topic, on subjects ranging from celebrity gossip, to airline crashes, to political coups without delving below the surface or delivering comprehensive coverage. One panelist also referenced an interesting quote that my mom had told me a day earlier: the role of the media is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." All in all the session was tremendously informative, and also contributed to my desire to start this blog, itself a form of free media.

Following the afternoon session, we all returned to the ballroom to hear the "big three" presenters: Daily Show correspondent John Oliver, Speaker for the House Nancy Pelosi, and Former President Bill Clinton. Let me just pause for a moment and let that resonate and also give me time to ponder referencing John Oliver in the same sentence as the other two (ahh, what the heck!?). Oliver was incredible, and barraged the eager and attentive audience with 110% of his Daily Show charm and wit. He testified to the strengths of the British public health care system ("Just look at my teeth!") and also how much of an honor it was to work alongside John Stewart every day. He admitted how far he still has to climb on the learning curve of political satire, dissuaded us from the notion that he would start his own show like Stephen Colbert, and also revealed his concerns of deportation (his visa is set to expire on Saturday). All in all, he undoubtedly brought down the house, and who's to blame him? As he put it, we are his target demographic, after all...

Pelosi ducked in briefly - she, like Sebelius earlier in the day, had to rush back to the Capitol after her address. She spoke about the "three pillars" of American society: 1) Energy, 2) Education, and 3) Health Care. She profiled the challenges she and other members of Congress faced in the weeks to come as debate on health care reform raged on. But she wanted to clarify the public option, which has come under such scrutiny lately, explaining that the new plan would not put government between you and your doctor, but rather take insurance companies OUT.

Clinton was absolutely, positively AMAZING. An eloquent and engaging speaker, Clinton urged us to get involved in solving the problems in this "very interdependent world that is inherently unstable." He explained how being a good citizen forty or fifty years ago meant simply voting and paying your taxes, but that now it was necessary to be "public servants as private citizens" who advocate for and practice innovative and progressive behaviors in our daily lives. He described the extent to which building retrofits were the real low-hanging fruit of the climate change movement and cited the recent plan to retrofit the Empire State Building, one of the few architectural symbols of the United States, as evidence of this opportunity. All in all, he argued that if we are to ever catch up with Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the world leaders in investment in renewable energy technology), we need to rethink how we fundamentally operate as a nation and as a society. He was not shy about detailing the challenges which lay ahead, but he also made it clear that if there were any generation equipped to handle them, it was us.

All in all, the 2009 Campus Progress National Conference will be a day I remember for a long time. The speakers, the fellow participants, the discussion groups, and the panelists were all very inspiring. Lucy and I were asked today whether we learned a lot at the conference, and although there was a considerable amount of information covered, we agreed that it was the inspiration and motivation we felt by particpating in the event that was truly invaluable. I want to ride this emotional and intellectual high as long as I can, and hopefully it will aid me in my desire to save the planet and its people for years to come.

Note: All images courtesy of Campus Progress. Full album can be found here: (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2634592&id=10312041466)

When the Beginning Began...

2009-07-08T21:32:00.000-04:00

So I have been thinking of establishing a blog for a while now, starting sometime in the last year (I honestly can't remember the exact moment) and culminating in this post, which I boldly assume people will actually want to read. I am still unclear what form this blog will take in the long run, but I hope to eventually use this page primarily as a sphere of commentary for environmental issues, policy, advocacy, etc. But I want to also warn you that I can't promise that other topics won't squeeze their way onto the page (from politics and baseball, to graphic literature and general life reflections). But perhaps most importantly, this will be a place for my friends, family, and eventual random followers (hey, it could happen!) to get updates on what I am involved in and to hopefully spend their time on something worth reading. I will be honest, this process is a lot more difficult than I anticipated, but I hope you bear with me as I find my voice on the internet (though chances are, since no one is following it yet, you will only read this original post after I have written several more...). So the reason I have chosen July 8, 2009, as the date to write my first post is because I attended the Fifth Annual Campus Progress National Conference today, and was incredibly inspired. My accumulating desire to start a blog combined with my newfound appreciation for social networking sites and online media outlets created a critical mass tonight that I simply could not ignore any longer. Today would be the day I would pop my blogging cherry.

So I had never heard of Campus Progress before my girlfriend, Lucy, sent me a link to the conference website a week ago. But the panel topics sounded interesting and the speakers were a real draw (they included former President Bill Clinton, Speaker for the House Nancy Pelosi, former Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration and founder of the Center for American Progress John Podesta, Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality and author of The Green Collar Economy Van Jones, and last but definitely not least, Daily Show correspondent John Oliver). I was also excited about the opportunity to come together with 1000+ other college students to discuss the difficult challenges facing our nation and our globe today, and try to brainstorm possible solutions to them. The day was jam-packed and lasted for almost 11 hours, but it was worth every single minute! I imagine tomorrow will be just as packed as I participate in Youth Lobby Day (also a Campus Progress event) and descend upon Capitol Hill to engage members of Congress in discussions concerning relevant issues - my topic will be climate change. More details on both events will be sure to follow in the coming days.

So say what you will. I know this has been a pretty lame first post, but I'm warning you: The beginning has begun, the threshold has been crossed, and now (for better or for worse) there is no turning back...