Commentary

LiveCooler Foundation, Inc. today announced a partnership with the Massachusetts Democratic Party to enable delegates attending this August’s national convention in Denver to offset their travel by investing in charitable carbon offsets that benefit low-income families in Massachusetts. Carbon offsets from MA-based non-profit LiveCooler.org will lead to the installation of energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs in the homes of low-income families who can’t afford them, thereby reducing energy costs and demand.

The MA Green Delegate Challenge program was announced today by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Senator John Kerry, Boston City Councilor Mike Ross and Marc Pacheco, Chair of the State Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. “LiveCooler’s innovative approach to both fighting global climate change and helping low-income families reduce their energy costs is a win-win,” said Senator Kerry.

The 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) has challenged all attending delegates to offset their carbon emissions, and will recognize the state with the highest percentage of participating members during the Convention in August. LiveCooler.org’s solution is the only offset program specifically designed to benefit low-income families in the delegates’ home district in Massachusetts.

Dan Ruben, who led the effort to “green” the 2004 convention in Boston, and is now Executive Director of Boston Green Tourism, “When we greened the DNC in Boston four years ago it was a big step forward for the environment and the Democratic party. I’m delighted that the DNC and especially the MA delegation are building upon this tradition by making the connection between energy efficiency, local action and global warming.”

Going Green: How It Works
MA Delegates and supporters go to http://www.LiveCooler.org/massdems, to sponsor offsets.For a $15 donation, delegates and supporters sponsor a one-ton offset which is equal to 5.5 CFL bulbs installed. This donation installs enough bulbs to reduce 1,800 KWh of electricity use over 5 years, which saves $300 and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by one ton (2000 pounds), which meets the DNCC challenge standard (one ton per delegate).

“I’m proud to work with LiveCooler to make Massachusetts the greenest delegation in the nation,” said Boston City Councilor Mike Ross. “Working together our delegation is going to offset thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide, directly assist low-income families and make an immediate yet lasting impact on our environment.”

Jay Barnes, Executive Director of LiveCooler Foundation noted, “While LiveCooler’s national charitable offset program already operates in several Massachusetts municipalities, delegates and donors who live in locations in which LiveCooler does not yet operate can request that a program start in their municipality. This further localizes the offsets for the delegates - installing energy efficient bulbs in low-income homes within their community - saving their constituents energy and money.”

Delegates can work with LiveCooler to start programs in their local communities. Friends, family and supporters of the delegates can make tax deductible donations in honor of their favorite delegate or the MA delegation as a whole.

About LiveCooler Charitable Offsets
Using nominal, tax-deductible donations, LiveCooler purchases and installs energy-efficient CFL light bulbs in low-income homes.These charitable carbon offsets cause a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and reduced electricity bills for low-income home owners.

“Though LiveCooler is installing CFL bulbs throughout New England and in Washington DC as well, the focus of this partnership with the Massachusetts Democratic Party is for installations in Massachusetts.” said Mr. Barnes.

“The structure of LiveCooler’s carbon offset gives it a distinct advantage in the marketplace,” said Nick d’Arbeloff, Executive Director of the New England Clean Energy Council. “Since the money they collect is going to energy savings that wouldn’t occur otherwise, and that’s extremely important.”

LiveCooler uses donations to buy and install compact fluorescent (CFLs) lightbulbs in the homes of low-income families. In order to keep program costs down, LiveCooler works with non-profit, low-income family assistance organizations to get the CFLs installed. These assistance organizations install the CFLs within 60 days of the LiveCooler donation and provide paperwork for an audit trail. Once installed, less electricity is used, thereby burning less coal and putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The low-income families or their non-profit support groups using the CFLs save roughly 5-10% on their electric bill every month for 10 years (the estimated lifetime of the CFL).

I was at a meeting of a group of environmental activists recently that was held in a community meeting room at a large grocery store.  The meeting was going to last a couple of hours and I was thirsty so I decided to get a drink from the store.  Soda, diet soda and juices are too sweet for my taste.  So in spite of their checkered environmental reputation, I bought a bottle of water.

Many people in the meeting were drinking fruit juice and that got me thinking.  Is a plastic bottle of fruit juice that much of an environmental improvement?  Sure, the juice probably didn’t come from Fiji or France but the fruit may have come from Australia or Chile.  The bottled water was put through an energy intensive filtering process but the fruit juice probably needed to be pasteurized, another energy
intensive process.  Furthermore, the fruit needed fertilizer, pesticides, etc. and (hopefully) the water did not.

I am not a beveridge sustainability expert but it seems to me that the criticism of bottled water comes from comparing it to tap water.  Tap water is usually free and it is local and therefore is the ultimate green drink.  But why are we less critical of fruit juices and soda?  Are the people who decide to stop buying bottled water switching to bottled juice or soda?  Or energy drinks?  And is that better for the environment?

The radio station, a member of the Clear Channel radio group, has selected LiveCooler.org to offset the impact of yesterday's annual Kiss Concert at the Tweeter Center outside of Boston.  On Kiss 108's behalf, LiveCooler is installing 965 energy-efficient lightbulbs in the homes of 120 low-income families in Boston.  Over five years, the 965 bulbs will reduce 168 tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save $30,000 in electricity costs for the low-income families.

Kiss 108 FM also took steps to minimize the amount of driving to the concert by promoting GoLoCo, a ride sharing service. 

Here is the link to ABC's viewer feedback website where you can see other amateur Earth Day videos.

The exhibit authored by the MIT Energy Club and the MIT Sloan Energy and Environment Club provides the following answer:

Coal

Using coal would require 635,000 tonnes of coal or 6,350 rail cars.  That many rail cars makes a train 63 miles long.  The coal would produce 1,576,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Wind

Using wind would require 74 square miles of land with 240 wind turbines.  0 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Natural Gas

112 billion gallons of natural gas would be needed to do the job and 749,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Biomass

64 square miles of forest would be needed so that 1,649,000 tonnes of wood could be harvested.  64 square miles is 10 times the size of Cambridge.  160,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Solar

Solar would require 2.2 square miles of land covered with solar panels.  0 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Nuclear

530 pounds of uranium would be needed and 55,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Yes, cost and minor issues like radioactive waste are not compared but it is a thought provoking nonetheless.  Coal comes off looking absurd and certainly the most environmentally damaging from a climate change standpoint.  Biomass also does not look particularly attractive with its large land requirement.  Wind and solar look good with their zero carbon dioxide footprint but interestingly wind requires 74 square miles to solar's 2.2 square miles.  Combined with the fact that solar is more easily sited on a roof than wind is makes solar look much better.

Nuclear is the dark horse option.  Long (still?) the third rail of energy options, Nuclear looks pretty good when the 530 pounds of uranium are compared to the 2.2 square miles of solar panels or 74 square miles of wind turbines.  Maybe someone at MIT will figure out a way of reprocessing the nuclear waste into something more manageable.

Here is a sampling of the exhibitors:

WormJava - a gardening product made from worm castings.
The Hempest - a large hemp clothing manufacturer.
Le FP Green Body Care - vegan body care products.
Ella Vickers Recycled Sail Cloth - a line of bags and cases made from old sails.
Pixxlz.com - a 100% soy ink, 100% recycled paper print shop.
Second Rotation - buys your old cell phone or gadgets and recycles them.

The American entrepreneur is a great source of innovation and value creation.

What a great idea.  Take the material that comes from the Nike recycling program, match it up with scrap leather from the manufacturing floor and you've got a green sneaker.  The name is a perfect match of the basketball culture of talking trash and the idea of using trashed materials to make the sure.  (Note the stitching which looks stylish but is designed to enable the use of small scraps of leather.)

Problem is, you can't buy a pair.  At least, you can't on the Nike online store.  The sneaker was introduced in February so it may be too soon to tell.  But it is disappointing that the Nike web site and the Nike online store are not pushing the sneaker to all us impressionable shoppers.  Is the problem one of scale?  How difficult is it to create a high-volume assembly line (are sneakers made on assembly lines?) that makes a sneaker from scraps?  Or maybe the problem is that the Nike marketing department has determined that the youngsters that must be their market sweet spot are not into a green sneaker.

If you hear any news on the Nike Trash Talk, let us know.

(Photo via Treehugger.)

Kodak, Wal-Mart to Recycle Picture Kiosk Consumables
“Kodak and Wal-Mart are launching a national program to recycle used materials from in-store picture kiosks, including ribbons, spool and cartridges.”

USPS Approves Reusable Envelope Line
“The United States Postal Service (USPS) has certified reusable envelopes that allow for the initial envelope to also be used as the reply envelope.”

Cadbury Reduces Egg Packaging by 20 Percent
“With Easter less than a month away, Cadbury has unveiled a new product that will reduce cardboard and plastic packaging.”

New Nike Shoe Made from Manufacturing Waste
“The Phoenix Suns’ Steve Nash debuted the Nike Trash Talk shoe last night, which is a new shoe made from recycled leather and rubber.”

Pirates Launch Recycling Programs at Ballpark
“The Pittsburgh Pirates have announced a new green campaign that will feature ballpark recycling efforts, energy reduction steps and other eco-friendly plans.”

Con-way Freight Cuts Emissions by Reducing Truck Speed
“Con-way Freight has modified the engine settings on its fleet of 8,400 tractor-trailers in a bid to improve fuel conservation and reduce carbon emissions. The truck engines’ speed governors have been reset to reduce maximum speeds from 65 to 62 miles per hour.”

Staples Copy Centers Switch to FSC Recycled Paper
“Office products giant Staples is now using recycled-content paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as the standard copy paper at its 1,400 Copy & Print Centers throughout the U.S. The copy paper - Staples own brand - is made from 50% post-consumer recycled waste content.”