Clearly this isn't a green building issue, but seriously how is it possible that the Republican-led House of Representatives made it an immediate priority to cancel the House cafeteria’s four years of biodegradable food and beverage packaging and bring back the Styrofoam?  This is a case of flipping the bird to former Speaker of the House - Nancy Pilosi, Dem's, the environment and clearly showing some lack of  initiative on the the GOP's part to create jobs and work on some serious budget issues.   

Given our current high and rising oil prices, producing these products that will take a half a millennium to break down, what is this high minded decision all about?  Clearly bio-degradable products are key, but if composting is not available, these products can't be placed in the recycle bin.   The initial cost is higher, but the long term goals of producing and composting everyday take-out products that are corn-based are a much better option the petroleum based products that may be cheap on the customer end of the production cycle, but cost more over  our lifetime. 

Following an almost two decade effort to reduce vehicle emissions in the city where nobody walks, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority retired it’s last diesel bus this week and has now become the only major transit agency nation-wide to install a complete bus fleet that is fully equipped with alternative fuel technologies.  

This Southern California urban area began running diesel busses in  the 40’s and now the MTA has over two thousand busses powered by compressed natural gas, in addition to six gas-electric hybrids and one fully electric bus.  

MTA officials estimate that by eliminating diesel engines the city can reduce the cancer causing particulate matter released from these busses by 80% .  Ahhh, a breath of fresh air.  I’d love this since I get head ache’s every time I travel through LA.

While these buses cost more to purchase and maintain than the old school diesels’, clean air and efficiency will offset the upfront costs in the long run. Using less imported fuel to power this mass transportation project and lower gas prices is priceless considering you have no plumes of exhaust billowing out the back of the buss.  

While this is an important step for clean air and a break from the exhaustion of the nasty old bus pulling away from the curb,  it is key to note that this project was long in coming and cities like my home town of Santa Barbara has already replaced our entire bus fleet to incorporate alternative fuels.
I’m excited about this progress and would love to see this program expanded nationwide.  Although I don't think compressed natural gas is the best choice of alternative fuels, but this is one step forward for communities to breath easier.

In less than 24 hours California voters will determine the election of a new governor, legalization of pot and proposition 23, a closely watched environmental election fight.  Passage of prop. 23 will suspend the golden states innovative global warming law of 2006, until the unemployment rate reaches %5.5 percent or lower for over a twelve month period.  This number is unobtainable and has been for decades.

Whether or not you believe in the science of global warming or support green innovation this is a ballot measure of significance.  Two of the largest proponents of this initiative are from two Texas oil companies; Valero and Tesoro Corp.  What they stand to gain from status quo is huge if they receive the voters support. 

What kills me is that these oil companies have such a vested interest in our economy, as they think that they have our best interest in mind.  Coincidently the brothers that own Tesoro also own Georgia Pacific, which is so called going “green”.   I’m curious as to why the are working to instill fear of green initiatives when they are the only ones to loose if we move forward and become competitive in a new world market.

Despite holdups from the federal government, our  local county officials here in Santa Barbara, CA., are implementing a plan to allow private property owners  to get affordable loans for green building upgrades. 

This instrumental program also known as emPowerSBC, will all allow the county to loan money to property owners for sustainable upgrades including solar projects and residents will repay the loans via their property tax bill. 

This week Silicon Valley based Khosla Ventures, a group of venture capitalists welcomed the newest member to their team of green tech investors, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  

With over 1.1 billion invested in tech firms that not only include clean technology, the venture group announced the addition of Blair as a senior advisor at their summit for limited partners in Sausalito, California.  As a new advisor Blair will advises Khosla portfolios on public policy.
Khosla continued investing in clean tech companies over the last few years, while total investment capital fell to $2.3 billion in 2009 from $4.1 billion in 2008, according to the National Venture Capital Association.  

Blair brings to the table his involvement in the leadership of “Breaking the Climate Deadlock” effort, an endeavor to raise awareness and build consensus towards an international climate policy.   

Whether or not you are a climate change skeptic or believer, this group is focused on technology, not just to address emissions, but to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new innovative technologies and jobs.  Silicon Valley is known for it’s creative, ambitions and innovative start-ups of the 90’s, and I would love to see an infusion of cash pumped into new and emerging companies that can design and create new and inspiring products for intelligent, sustainable and  smart design.  With investments in green tech, we can compete on a global scale in new manufacturing opportunities, retool existing facilities and employ a displaced workforce to create a new tech revolution.  

Khosla is one venture capitalist firm. Hopefully others will follow suit and move our economy forward with an infusion of funding that is not available from the banking industry for small businesses and start-ups.

Researchers at UC Berkeley are perfecting a technique that will allow clothing manufacturers to embed microscopic fibers that can produce electricity from simple body movements, such as hiking, walking or stretching. While it might take up to three years for clothing containing this technology to hit the shelves of your local GAP store, this new breakthrough technology offers us a great opportunity to reduce our electricity demands on local utilities and reduce our costs for charging all of our high-tech devices.  

These nano sized generators are constituted of micro-filaments that are similar to fishing line, extremely flexible, but are so small they can barely be seen with the human eye.  These ultra flexible fibers can withstand not only the laundry cycle, but are resistant to chemicals and heat.  And when they are woven into clothing fabric according to the researchers accounts “the fibers can soak up the untapped energy produced by the human body” and with even more vigorous motion in certain joints, additional energy is generated.  

This new fiber technology utilizes piezoelectricity, that allows you to produce energy through applied stress, similar to rubbing your hands together to keep warm.  While the dream of producing energy from tiny components has been a far off dream for many scientists, the research team at Berkeley has developed an innovative way to effectively solve this problem.

While this technology is not yet available,  I love to read and learn more about innovative research and development, but only wish we had the funding through loans, grants and subsidies, to inspire and enable more creative and innovative minds the opportunity to design, create, and implement new products to compete in a new market that can create jobs in the green sector as well as revive our economy.  

I welcome your thoughts, comments and feedback on my post.  I would love to engage thought leaders in evolving technologies to offer us insight and education on new developments in alternative energy projects. 

Following ten years of planning last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved a controversial offshore wind project off the coast of Cape Cod. This project will provide 420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy.  In average winds, this project known as  Cape Wind will provide three quarters of the cape and islands electricity needs.

Of course with every project their are vocal critics and this one no doubt will be caught up in the courts for some time.  With many locals decrying the potential loss of view along with a tribe of Native American's  citing sacred grounds, I am sure this project is dead in the water.   While I can see both sides, I’d much rather see wind turbines than oil rigs.
As a native of Santa Barbara, a small town 90 miles north of Los Angeles that experienced a large oil spill 40 years ago that inspired the birth of Earth Day a year later, oil derricks still dot our shoreline.  We see them every time we drive in town, visit the beach, kayak, sail or take a trip to the Channel Islands.  While the lights at night are nice, I’d love to see a moon lit ocean than these beasts working 24/7 to quench our thirst for oil.  Not to mention that the quality from our coast isn’t pure enough to fuel cars, just clean enough to make water bottles and plastic bags.

Our lapse in memory to the risks of offshore drilling was awoken late last month with the horrific BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.  It is well known that all off-shore wells are not the same.  At depths below 30,000 feet, such as the drill site in the gulf, extremely high pressure and high temperatures make drilling a considerably high risk and a blow-out’s ticking time bomb.  

While the cost of clean up is BP’s responsibility to a certain extent, no where near the cost of clean up or restoration.  The minimal amount of cash from the oil company and the associates, can’t possibly cover the cost on the environment, clean up, loss of jobs as well as the quality of life for years to come..  We can no longer depend on the status quo of our current energy supplies.  

While implementation of clean energy projects will take time, I hope that we start now and not look back in 5 years after another horrific  event takes place and we wonder why again accidents like this have happened again.
I challenge us all to to conserve energy, fight for policy change and think of creative solutions to our dependence on the status quo for our energy needs.

New Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for lead paint take effect today, which just happens to be Earth Day.   These new guidelines require contractors involved in the removal of lead based materials to be certified and follow stringent work practices to prevent lead contamination.

This new regulation will apply to all contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects in target projects constructed prior to 1978, when the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint.  Failure to follow these new guidelines will result in fines of up to $37,300 and or jail time. Target projects are those that involve any renovation, removal or repair of painting projects in homes, child care facilities and schools built before 1978.  The EPA is expecting that more that 125,000 contractors will enroll and become certified in lead safe practices this week alone.  This one day course at a cost of $300 dollars has it’s equal share of fans and critics.  

While the EPA might not be bleeding edge on environmental concerns, many vocal participants in  the construction field have voiced their complaints from the cost of the classes, increased regulations, and the issue that new regulations will increase the cost of lead paint removals for consumers, thus reducing their job prospect's.  

The removal of lead materials is known to increase exposure to lead contaminated dust, which is associated with developmental and behavior problems in children as well as high blood pressure and hypertension in adults, among other associated physical and environmental risks. So, I don’t why this minimal cost of training is a concern considering the health risks to homeowners and construction employees to warrant negative feedback.  

Disposal of these materials is a whole other issue.  Where we live, we are fortunate to have a local drop off location for hazardous waste, which will also supply you with materials to package waste free of charge, ensuring that this waste doesn’t enter the local landfill.  I’m not sure how it works in other communities, but would love your input.  Looking forward to reading your comments.

Last week the Public Utilities Commission approved the Southern California Gas Company’s  request to install smart meters, at a cost to customers of over one billion dollars.   The gas companies request was approved by a 3-2 vote, and will implement a new program beginning in 2012, to install over 20.5 million smart meters.  Users then will be able to view in  real time, information on how much natural gas they use running stoves, water heaters and home heating systems. With the cost of over $200 per meter, rate-payers will be charged about $70 cents per month for 25 years per smart meter, the projected life span of each meter. I feel that this smart metering system is a money loser considering the minimal savings.  Since natural gas is purchased by utilities well in advance of demand, the price of fuel is not as volatile as electricity.  And really, what customer is going to monitor their hour by hour usage while they are at work?  The peak usage of natural gas is well understood by most.   Rates go up in winter with increased usage during the cold months, or long hot showers and go down in the warmer California months.   A spike in the bill or unusual usage are not foreseen as with electricity.

Additionally implementing smart meters for gas will eliminate over 1,000 jobs in this economically hard hit state.  While the company plans to spend one million to retain and retrain meter readers, customers can expect to see spikes in their monthly bills as consumers have seen with the new smart metering for electricity in Northern California.  I would love to see more efficient usage of energy, but this doesn’t seem the most cost effective measure.  I would love to hear your thoughts. 

Our 2010 Eco Pulse study will publish in a few weeks so we’re furiously analyzing the data and formulating what it all means.  A theme that keeps rising to the top (and I wrote about it a few weeks ago) is the idea that belief in global warming and the desire to buy green products are not interrelated.  That’s a great thing for the marketers of green products, since belief in Global Warming is way down.  Here are a few relevant stats:

• Sixty four percent of respondents said they’re searching for greener products these days (up from 60% last year).
• The primary reason to purchase greener personal care products was (by far) “to limit my (and my family’s) exposure to toxins and chemicals (21%) compared to 10% who selected “to preserve natural resources for future generations”.
• The primary reason to buy greener home improvement products was “to save money” (17%) compared to 10% who replied “to save natural resources”.
• Only 48% (compared to 58% in 2009 and 57% in 2008) said they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Global warming or climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activity.” The change primarily occurred due to a large shift to undecided responses (30% compared to 22% last year) and not a marked increase in disagreement (21% compared to 19% last year.)
• Last year 18% felt “very personally responsible” to change daily habits and purchase practices to positively impact the environment. This year only 14% felt “very personally responsible”.
• Only 24% would choose the environment, over their personal comfort or convenience, compared to 26% last year and 31% in 2008.

The moral of the story here is that Americans buy green products for very different reasons per category, and the reason is typically not “to save the planet!”  I have some die-hard environmentalist colleagues/friends who are troubled by this.  They seem hell-bent on convincing people to see the damage they’re inflicting on the planet so they’ll be morally moved to change their ways.  It’s just not worth the trouble.  We actually have a nation of Accidental Environmentalists — people who will make greener product choices and begin adopting greener behaviors.  They’re just doing it for different reasons.  Their actions and purchases will ultimately contribute to a healthier planet, so, in the end, everybody wins.  Why pick a fight that’s unnecessary?