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).

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.)

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.”

NESEA is an organization that has been working on sustainable energy since 1974 and this conference is their 33rd.  The conference is targeted to builders, architects, building managers, policy makers and students.  The collective goal is, in effect, to build energy-efficient, profitable homes and buildings and to retro-fit existing structures to reduce their energy costs. 

In addition to workshops and meetings, there was a large trade show floor full of exhibitors of a wide array of renewable energy systems, energy efficiency products and tax credit information.  Even without the amount of federal support given to the fossil fuel industry, the renewable energy industry is thriving.  There were solar panels, wind turbines, combined heat and power units, green foam insulation vendors, geothermal providers, green modular homes and green architects.

There were a few surprises.  Wal-Mart was present.  Their booth showcased the green products they carry in their stores and they were handing out free non-plastic, non-paper bags that said, 'Paper or Plastic? Neither.' that did not have a Wal-Mart logo on them.  Regardless of your opinion of Wal-Mart, during the past two years they have made substantial improvements in their energy use and provided a boost to compact fluorescent lightbulbs by rescuing them from bottom shelves and providing customer education.

Another interesting vendor was Green Depot.  Green Depot is a cross between 'Home Depot' and 'Natural Resources Defense Council'.  They carry FSC-certified lumber, insulation made from recycled denim, tile made from recycled glass, zero-VOC paint, formaldehyde-free plywood and particle board, bamboo and cork flooring, etc.  Green Depot has 5 retail locations in Brooklyn, Long Island, Philadelphia, Newark and Boston. 

As you have heard, LED lights are the next big thing in energy efficient lighting.  They are still quite expensive but the hope is that the prices will be dropping over time.  They are even more efficient than the highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. 

The product EFI showed me is called the LR6 LED Downlight (Ok, the name is not super catchy) from Cree Lighting Solutions, Inc., in North Carolina.  The idea is to create a very efficient light that is easy to retro-fit into an existing recessed lighting fixture, that creates a very high quality of light.  The LR6 does quite well.  It replaces a 70 watt bulb and only uses 12 watts.  It screws into the existing light bulb socket eliminating the need to reinstall a new recessed can unit.  The light quality is very high (CRI=92) and the light lasts for 50,000 hours or 15 years.  It costs roughly $100 but saves $348 in electricity and $10 or so in incandescent light bulbs over the 15 years.

Go to Cree Lighting or EFI for more details.

In this case, we are talking about a metric ton of CO2 which is 2,204 pounds.  Mr. Ames' cube, built last year with the help of his 9th grade physics students, is 27 feet wide by 27 feet high by 27 feet deep. 

Photo via http://www.sustainablemilton.org.

Three cheers to Mr. Ames and his students for helping us get our minds around 1 ton of CO2.

In 2007, grid-connected solar power capacity increased 58% and wind power capacity increased 28 percent according to Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).  The data gathered by REN21 shows large increases in renewable energy use by many countries particularly the countries of the European Union. 

While the US contributed to the increase, America's $10 billion invested in renewable energy was smaller than Germany's ($14 billion) and China's ($12 billion).

China continues to confound the conventional wisdom.  While much is made of China's rapidly growing coal-fired power plant capacity, China leads the world in solar power capacity.  (See figure below.)

For more information go to ENN or to REN21 itself.

The regulation is not particularly noteworthy for the impact it will have on the environment but on what it says about how important capitalism is to the Chinese government.  The all-powerful Chinese government could just tell the businesses what to do but instead chose to tie environmental improvements to the businesses' need for capital.

The move is similar to American air pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants where they do not have to install anti-pollution technology unless they are expanding or upgrading the power plant.  The American regulation and the Chinese regulation are designed to not create an additional burden on a business unless it is investing more money. 

Here is an example of how our politics and economy are more similar than different.

Justin Lahart writes an interesting story on this topic in the Wall Street Journal.  The bottom line is that moving the clock forward in spring used to provide a net savings in energy costs because we used less electricity in the late afternoon.  But with greater adoption of air conditioning, the savings from daylight savings are wiped out by greater air conditioning use on hot afternoons.

In particular, I enjoyed Mr. Lahart’s description of Benjamin Franklin’s suggestions for daylight savings in Paris where he lived for a time:

“In 1784, he observed what an ‘immense sum! that the city of Paris might save every year, by the economy of using sunshine instead of candles.’ (Mr. Franklin didn’t propose setting clocks forward, instead he satirically suggested levying a tax on window shutters, ringing church bells at sunrise and, if that didn’t work, firing cannons down the street in order to rouse Parisians out of their beds earlier.)”

That sounds like an overly proactive energy policy to me.

Rock salt, the current leader in road de-icing, is plentiful and inexpensive.  So why are some highway departments switching?  Rock salt is a highly corrosive substance that not only melts the snow and ice but accelerates the corrosion of our cars and our roads and bridges.  Rock salt is also tough on the environment where it kills roadside vegetation and gets into the surrounding water supply.  Another disadvantage of rock salt is that it loses its effectiveness below 17 degrees fahrenheit.  The new organic-based liquid de-icers are effective down to temperatures as low as -8 degrees fahrenheit.

Less corrosion, less environmental impact and better performance.  The problem is cost.  The liquid de-icers are more expensive.  But if one calculates the improved lifespan of our roads, bridges and cars, perhaps the cost differences are not so clear?

Interested in reading more?  Here are two articles:  Today's Wall Street Journal (registration required) and the Fort Wayne, Indiana Journal Gazette.