simple + green

Good news for all Green boating aficionados: the first hybrid speedboat was on display over the weekend in San Francisco Bay.

Green technology came to the blue waters of San Francisco Bay on Friday, when what the manufacturer calls the world’s first hybrid recreational boat was introduced to two of California’s top resource officers.

The super-fast, super-sleek 25-foot speedboat uses a combination of electric and diesel engines to produce a low-emission vessel that should warm the hearts of the greenest motorboat sailor.

The interesting facet to consider is that motorized boats create pollution a little differently than cars. And the switch to a low emission engine could be a boon. But the hybrid technology sounds as though it works much like a Prius or other hybrid auto.

The hybrid solves the problem by starting and running in the harbor under electric power. The demonstration boat’s electric motor was so quiet Friday that no one could hear it.

There are two ways to consider this news. Fortunately, correcting air pollution for any vehicle is a positive. And breaking into a new market helps to bring some much needed PR to hybrid technology.

Unfortunately, large-scale boats, such as ferries, tugboats and container ships use old-fashioned diesels. And pollute both air and water and an alarming rate.

For now, we can see this as a great step forward. But until the big boats move to alternative drive systems, we’re looking at a small rather than large-scale win.

image credit: Franco Folini

Greenstrides says that San Francisco International Airport (SFO) will be reconstructed using green building materials.

And according to the San Mateo Times, it will be more than just green building materials in use:

In addition, many elements of “green” design will be incorporated. The terminal’s builders aim to use green building materials and regional products, while its designers are planning to reduce carbon emissions by 12,000 tons annually, use high-efficiency lighting and recycle much of the water used in the facility.

“We want to do this as environmentally friendly as possible,” said McCarron, who added that the terminal’s price tag comes in at $383 million.

Terminal 2, the airport’s former hub for international travel, once was the busiest terminal in the Bay Area’s busiest airport. But when SFO opened its new billion-dollar international terminal six years ago, Terminal 2 was left closed.

This was due mostly to the sharp dropoff of air travel in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Interesting news, for sure. Especially considering all of the construction that has happened to date.

My question: aren’t they undoing the entire set of construction they already did? Won’t it be less green if they have to dump a huge volume of previous building materials?

We’re in the midst of a pre-summer heat wave here in the San Francisco Bay Area. So global warming is on the mind more than usual.

Seeing this article on the places most threatened by global warming has the same effect as seeing “An Inconvenient Truth”: it scares the pants off of me!

Citizen Sugar posted this, based on an article on ProTraveller.

The list includes:
* Palau, Micronesia
* Great Barrier Reef, Australia
* Maldives, Indian Ocean
* Virgin Islands, Caribbean
* Cook Islands, Pacific Ocean
* Galapagos Islands, Pacific Ocean
* Belize Barrier Reef, Belize
* Red Sea Reefs, Egypt
* Tokyo, Japan
* London, United Kingdom
* New York City, USA
* New Orleans, USA
* Jakarta, Indonesia
* India
* Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
* Yellowstone National Park, USA
* Lake Baikal, Siberia
* Glacier National Park, USA
* Columbia Glacier, Alaska
* Death Valley, USA

Islands, coastal areas and tropical areas seem the most likely to suffer.

Certain parts of the world (Asia) have been seeing much more rapid acceleration in temperatures. Which is the main reason that Tokyo is on the list.

Interestingly, ProTraveller tries to point out positives (huh?) of a slight increase in temperatures for certain areas.

For example, they argue that a more Mediterranean climate in British Columbia will boost their wine business and take market share away from wine hot spots like the South of France and the Napa Valley in California.

Any unnatural temperature shifts, like we’re seeing now, are most definitely not positive.

But points to them for trying to see a benefit.

I guess.

Republican Presidential nominee-to-be, Senator John McCain,

is calling for an emissions limit to fight global warming.

Well, it’s an election year, after all.

Sen. John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change.

McCain, in a speech at a wind power company, also pledged to work with the European Union to diplomatically engage China and India, two of the world’s biggest polluters, if the nations refuse to participate in an international agreement to slow global warming.

McCain has some pretty nutty ideas, and ticking off China is certainly one of them.

Part of me wants to be fair, and applaud his stance. But the man has a pretty weak record when it comes to his environmentally-focused Senate votes.

And this speech, while possibly sincere, may just be campaign rhetoric:

In speeches on the campaign trail, McCain frequently highlights the threat of climate change in speeches, but he has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate. In recent years, he has pushed legislation to curb emissions that contribute to climate change, but he has missed votes on increasing fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy.

In his speech Monday, the presumptive Republican president nominee renewed his support for a cap-and-trade system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on greenhouse gases by either reducing emissions on their own or buying credits from more efficient producers.

So now McCain joins Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in taking swifter action against global warming. Which is much better than the current administration can claim.

May the most Green (and sane) candidate win!

image credit: 4×4jeepchick

According to some US government officials, wind power will be the main weapon in the fight against global warming. And they have a plan.

Sort of.

The US Energy Department says windmills could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030 and put a huge dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

Windmills spinning over the Great Plains and along the coasts could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2030 and put a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions, federal officials said Monday.

Although wind farms now generate just 1 percent of the nation’s electricity, a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that wind power could play a far larger role in the future. It could supply roughly the same percentage of the nation’s power as nuclear plants provide today.

The main point from all of this is the word ‘could, as this is not a prediction. There doesn’t seem to be an actual plan to roll this out.

Not yet.

But for some of us, wind power is already in the mix.

Consider:
1. California is already a significant source of wind power.
2. In 2006, 1.8% of the state’s electricity was generated by wind power. That number should continue to grow.

But also consider that a heat wave, caused by fading summer winds off of the Pacific, stops wind power generation.

Allegedly, this could be mitigated by power sharing between windmill farms in different regions.

The main way to accomplish an integrated wind power solution, according to the article, is to create windmill farms throughout the Great Plains portion of the country.

To collect and distribute to different parts of the country equals an infrastructure. And that would be significantly expensive.

Once the US Government steps in, we can hope that the outcome is a broad system of windmills, generating and sharing energy. This is definitely a story to watch.

So: will Obama, Hillary or McCain talk this up as they stump for the office of President?

(read the full report here)

Here is a very cool blog I found via the Treehugger forum:

The Green Athlete is a blog by Chris Lieto, three-time Ironman Champion and former U.S. National Ironman Champion. It’s a really cool resource, and place to keep up with Lieto’s adventures and events.

Here is the Green Athlete mission statement:

The Green Athlete, an International campaign led by Pro Triathlete Chris Lieto, provides resources and ideas that support athletes in their effort to live green. The Green Athlete campaign encourages athletes of all levels and abilities who lead busy lives and want to make small changes that add up to big results. A core component of the campaign, The Green Athlete Web site, provides weekly tips that cover everything from where to recycle your running shoes to what food choices will help make a difference.

As a runner always looking to find ways to be more green, this is a fantastic resource. For me, the product reviews (running shoes, especially) will likely be the most helpful.

And I get to learn a little more about Chris Lieto and his friends and fellow Green Athletes.

Of interest, he also links out to these other Green Athletes (some of which I’ve heard of, some of which I haven’t):
Laird Hamilton
Ian Thorpe
Bob Burnquist
David “Calamity” James

I caught this item about Colorado Rockies pitcher Jeff Francis in the latest ESPN Magazine:

The number = $15K
When they rang in 2008, Rockies Pitcher Jeff Francis and his wife, Allison, resolved to become more conscious of the environment.

So they donated $15,000 of their own green to purchase 250 recycling bins for Coors Field. There’s one next to every ballparks trashcan.

“We recycle, we compost, we try to do things that really aren’t difficult, but could make a big impact on the world,” Jeff says. Nice save for a starter.

How cool is that? Pro athletes, like musicians and actors, have access to large amounts of money. Yet most athletes don’t get active in causes like this.

But give credit to Jeff Francis: he really put himself out there to help.

I wonder how many others have done something like this without the publicity.

If you have any anecdotes like this, drop me a comment!

Here are 3 updates on the forthcoming hybrid Cadillac Escalade - better known as the Eli Manning Superbowl MVP SUV!

** Please note that I’m not in the market for a hybrid SUV - instead, I find the unveiling of this car interesting. The buzz around the Escalade coming to market brings it into focus for me.

1. China: the Escalade made an appearance at the recent Beijing Auto Show, where it was announced that it would be available in China in 2009.

What the Beijing Auto Show also witnessed this year was the Cadillac Escalade hybrid which would launched in China next year. Cadillac Escalade is powered by a fuel saving 2-Mode Hybrid system.

2. UK: They’re taking orders for the Escalade, which is due to be available in summer:

American Car Imports of London one of the UK’s leading American vehicle importers are taking orders now for the new 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid. The latest luxury SUV from Cadillac will be in the showrooms at the end of summer 2008 and initially just the standard wheel-base version will be available as a Hybrid.

3. As a reminder, the Hybrid Escalade will get 20 mpg combined, compared to 14 mpg in the city for the regular Yukon.

So, the US projection is still late 2008 for this car to hit the market, with sometime the following year for certain international markets.

Now, when will Eli Manning get his?

image credit: Jellaluna

As California looks at water rationing, after an unusually dry spring, maintaining a yard will get challenging.

PlanetGreen posted some good tips on being Green by keeping your lawns fresh and green:

Tips from Minimize the Water You Use on Your Lawn:

* Learn what your community’s restrictions are.
* Water well to encourage deep root growth.
* Water early in the morning.
* Don’t water the street or sidewalk.
* Avoid runoff
* Water different areas with different amounts
* Consider letting your lawn go dormant this summer.

(and, if all else fails):
* Think about getting rid of the lawn altogether

We need to think about making these changes. California may need to ration water, after having the driest spring in 150 years (!)

In fact, San Francisco and Marin County counties have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent. Not every county is in the same spot, but across the board this is a time to conserve.

Even if water rationing is not mandated, here are some really good tips for conserving water:

Lawns: Water between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Cars: Use a bucket and a hose with shutoff nozzle to wash cars or go to a car wash that recycles and reuses its water.

Yards: Don’t water more than three days a week or on consecutive days.

Laundry: Put full loads into front-loading machines.

Leaks: Find and repair, particularly in toilets.

Driveways: Use a broom, not a hose, to clean them.

Pools: Cover pools and hot tubs when not in use.

Or is it?

Green Daily has a very interesting recent post covering this very idea.

Some of the main points are:

* Organic milk requires as much as 80% more land use than conventional. This has the potential to raise global warming and release more nitrates into groundwater.

* Organic farms use more fuel per vegetable because each acre has a smaller yield than conventional farming.

* There is no correlation between pesticides and rising cancer rates. In fact, cancer rates are falling.

* There is no conclusive evidence that organic food is healthier. As soon as one study comes out claiming it is, another one is released rebutting it.

Of course, each of these is subject to contradiction. And doubt.

The Daily Green post is based on a recent article by Ronald Bailey, (which in turn is based on an article in the Independent), who admits in the lead up that, while he buys organic produce, he is “strongly against over-hyped sustainability and nutritional claims for organic foods.”

In other words, he is aiming to debunk much of what we - organic consumers - base our choices on. These aren’t hard to dispute: the jury has long been out on benefits of organic foods. While most studies find that eliminating pesticides is a positive, the other side of the coin is less clear.

As #4 of his “Myths”, Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous, Bailey lifts right from the Independent article:

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a “cocktail effect” of pesticides. Some point to an “epidemic of cancer”. In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years.

This is all given with no further attribution, facts or evidence. What is the source for information? The U. S. National Cancer Institute, for one, has been accused of manipulating their cancer statistics. What is the likelihood that other countries have government agencies that likewise provide less than true information?

To be clear: the Independent is UK-based. So when information such as this is quoted:

Less than 1 per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic

consider that other non-attributed details in the article are likely to be UK-focused. Which makes me wonder if a US-based viewpoint would read the same.

The real question: will any of this information dissuade you from buying organic?

Or are you worried that those that are uninformed might decide to stick with conventionally-produced foods, causing that market to stabilize?

Or do you feel that this article won’t affect the organic market either way?