Wheel Spring 2009 Issue 1

wheel Yale Undergraduate Sustainable Development Journal

Spring 2009

Issue 1

INTERVIEWS |T. Boone Pickens Paul Hawken | Janine Benyus PHOTO SPREADS | Karl Ammann FEATURES | US corn ethanol and hunger in Zimbabwe | South Bronx community seeks access to waterfront | Bananacide | more

3 EDITORS’ NOTE|New Media for the 21st Century. global challenges 5 INTERVIEW | Dambisa Moyo. An economist’s take on ending aid to Africa. 6 BURNING FOOD| How corn ethanol is effecting food supply in Zimbabwe. 8 INTERVIEW | Paul Hawken. Entrepreneur/author hopes for ecological economy. 10 GLOBAL DIMMING| Toxic pollutants block out the sun and cool the earth. 12 BANANCIDE| Extinction threatens America’s favorite fruit. 14 INTERVIEW | Michael Oppenheimer. Princeton scientist speaks on climate.

6

28

local solutions 16 INTERVIEW | T. Boone Pickens. Oil king pushes for energy independence. 17 ON THE GROUND| Diary of a school sustainibility project in Ecuador. 19 FORGOTTEN| A South Bronx community wants access to its waterfront. 21 TOXIC MARYLAND| Glenn Ross champions urban environmentalism. 23 PHOTO ESSAY | Glenn Ross’s Toxic Tour of East Baltimore. 24 HAZARDOUS BUBBLE BATHS| Congress’s lax chemical safety regulation. 25 INTERVIEW | Andrew Winston. Consultant talks energy efficiency. 26 PHOTO ESSAY | On the road in Pennsylvania coal country. 27 INTERVIEW | Karl Ammann. Photographer takes conservationists to task 28 PHOTO ESSAY | Karl Ammann showcases photos from his Africa collection. 29 INTERVIEW | Scott Wiener. Reflections from New Jersey’s clean energy man.

individual connections 31 INTERVIEW | Janine Benyus. Adapting nature’s wonders for human engineering. 33 ELECTRICITY ON WHEELS| An analysis of Chevy’s Electric Car, the Volt. 35 ENERGY DISPLAYS| Allow individuals to monitor their energy use. 37 INTERVIEW | Simran Sethi. Environmental journalist breaks the silence. 38 FOOD SCRUTINY| Why the sustainable food message needs a makeover. 39 INTERVIEW | Edmond Mathez. Climate science from the curator. 40 SMARTMETERS| Building a smart energy grid by communicating with users.

33

41 THE DROP | George Haddad 42 PHOTO CREDITS

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Samuel Breidbart and David Schlussel GLOBAL CHALLENGES SECTION EDITOR George Haddad LOCAL SOLUTIONS SECTION EDITOR Snigdha Sur INDIVIDUAL CONNECTIONS SECTION EDITOR Nikita Pavlenko ASSOCIATE EDITORS Emmy Pickett, Robert Klipper, Thomas Smyth DESIGN EDITORS Chantal Fernandez, Julia Lemle SCIENCE ADVISOR Justin Steinfeld SUSTAINABILITY ADVISOR Zachary Mulvihill BUSINESS MANAGER Daniel Stone

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Sarah Armitage, Wossen Ayele, Alyssa Cheung, Jasmine Dyba, Kevin Hoffman, Lauren Phillips, Austin Shiner, Ari Carni, and Christian Termyn

We speak a 21st century language. Phrases such as sustainable development, climate change, energy infrastructure, food policy, public health, and social justice are commonplace. They can be heard from the struggling auto factories in Michigan to the depleted fisheries of Thailand, and from the roundtables of Copenhagen to toxic recycling depots in China. Sometimes we use them to describe environmental problems. Other times they highlight the failures of government and markets. In reality, these words are inadequate. They fail to explain the emergent complications in global society. To date, the media has done a poor job of communicating to the public about this discourse. Two approaches, both flawed, are generally used. In the most popular scenario, we are told in colorful capital letters that people are going “green” and “ecofriendly.” “Greenness” stigmatizes important issues by playing up sentiment and trendiness at the expense of clarity. In the second scenario, the reader is presented with articles full of jargon and highly technical terms, provincial to all but the well-informed expert. This type of reporting is inaccessible to a mainstream audience. In response to our frustrations with the media, we created Wheel. This magazine represents our efforts to level these issues for an interested, but often uninformed, audience. The wheel, an invention more than 6,000 years old, represents the foundational technology of modern society. The most important mechanical invention in history, the wheel is found in nearly every machine built since the Industrial Revolution. We are interested in the wheel and the tracks it makes—the footprint of our global society.

Yale Undergraduate Sustainable Development Journal postgreen.org Post•green | p!st gr"n | noun, adjective The idea that the environment cannot be separate from human systems. For information regarding submissions, advertisements, subscriptions, contributions, or to provide feedback, please contact us at [email protected] or write us at THE WHEEL P.O. Box 200553 New Haven, CT 06520 Disclaimer: This magazine is published by Yale College students, and Yale University is not responsible for its contents. The opinions expressed by the contributors to WHEEL do not necessarily reflect those of its staff.

To discuss the nature and impact of that footprint, we need to return to the emerging vocabulary of the 21st century. Sustainable development, climate change, energy infrastructure, food policy, public health, and social justice. These concepts represent intersections of the environment, economics, and social issues. When the economy, the environment, or the social realm is seen in isolation, the quality of our actions and their indirect consequences are obscured. Only through interdisciplinary thought can we lay bare our web of relations. We organize the magazine into three sections: GLOBAL CHALLENGES, LOCAL SOLUTIONS, and INDIVIDUAL CONNECTIONS. GLOBAL CHALLENGES outlines problems that we face on an international scale. LOCAL SOLUTIONS highlights inspiring projects and ventures that various groups, businesses, governments, communities, or other organizations, have developed. INDIVIDUAL CONNECTIONS speaks to the role played by one individual, be it the consumer, the student, the citizen, or the worker. In the stories that follow, we do not shy away from contradiction or difficulty. We understand that there are always trade-offs and rarely magic bullets. Nonetheless, taking an honest account of our situation is the only way to move forward.

David Schlussel and Samuel Breidbart Editors-in-Chief

s e g n e l l a h c l a b o l g ENGAGING A NUCLEAR IRAN THROUGH CLIMATE DIPLOMACY

EPA-APPROVED PESTICIDE FOUND TO BE POTENTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS Sometimes it is unclear who holds the prescription pad in the world of climate science. But whoever it was that recommended sulfuryl fluoride as an agricultural pesticide may soon have theirs taken away. According to an April report in Geophysical Research by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers, sulfuryl fluoride, a compound that is widely used to kill insects, is 4,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This for a chemical that was supposed to have, “virtually no impact on the global atmosphere,” according to one industrial producer. But as The Wall Street Journal “Environmental Capital” blog reports, that producer was hardly alone in its thinking. Many people shared this belief when sulfuryl fluoride was first approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004. It was intended to be the environmentally safe replacement for methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting gas that was amongst those targeted in the Montreal Protocol of the late 1980s. According to the blog, sulfurlyl fluoride is the second compound in just a few months that researchers have added to the greenhouse gas cocktail. In October, a team at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found nitrogen triflouride to be 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. What’s worse — the gas is used during the manufacture of solar panels. For now, scientists say that they caught both problems early enough to prevent extensive atmospheric damage by either compound. But it does raise questions about industrial standards and the likelihood that there are still some harmful greenhouse gas emissions that the climate doctors have yet to accurately diagnose. George Haddad

As they try to avoid engaging in any “hot” or “cold” war, Western leaders are now putting pressure on Iran to accept a “cool” peace. Or at least a climatically temperate one. On March 17, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged Iran to turn its nuclear ambitions to good use by creating a new civil nuclear power program with whatever uranium it has enriched, the BBC reports. He promised the international community’s help. Speaking at a nuclear energy conference in London, before an audience of scientists and politicians, Brown framed his remarks in environmentalist rhetoric. “However we look at it, we will not secure the supply of sustainable energy on which the planet depends without a role for nuclear power,” the Prime Minister said. For Brown, this means giving support to non-nuclear states that are looking to develop nuclear energy sources. According to The Guardian, he recommended that an international system be created to facilitate this process. But couched within this environmental message were bold moves of diplomacy. Brown, like other Western leaders, does not want to send contradictory signals by allowing nuclear energy to be developed in his own country while criticizing Iran’s use of it. By offering help, Brown not only legitimized the continued use of nuclear energy, but he provided an incentive for Iran to have its nuclear program fall under international supervision. To this point, Iran has concealed its nuclear program, violating International Atomic Authority and UN Security Council regulations. Brown hopes that the promised financial assistance and the ability for Iran to be a world leader on climate change would make the government reverse this policy, the BBC reports. As presidential elections approach, it seems unlikely that Iran’s leadership will bite at the offer. Nonetheless, climate change is entering the lexicon of serious international policy and the global relevance of climate diplomacy may prove a unifying element in a typically contentious arena. Samuel Breidbart

Putting a Stop on African Aid An Interview with Dambisa Moyo Dambisa Moyo is an economist and author who previously held positions at the World Bank and Goldman Sachs. Born in Zambia and holding a Doctorate in Economics from Oxford, she recently published Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa.

W: Isn’t there more to it than that? Aren’t the conflicts that drive African politics more entrenched in, say, ethnic conflicts or natural resource competition? DM: Just as an example, South Africa and Botswana don’t rely on aid and they have been economically successful. In my view, many Africans do not want to be constantly fixed on an aid tap. Is the political environment challenging? Yes. But you cannot delink the poor political leadership with the aid model.

W: You have called for all Western countries to completely phase out their African aid over the next five years. But given the current state of the international credit markets, would you be willing revise that timeline? DM: Just because the global markets are undergoing very challenging times does not mean that the markets are completely shut off. African governments may find it quite difficult to raise money via bond issue in Europe and the United States, but there’s nothing that says that they cannot raise money in non-traditional markets. They can look to China or the Middle East and they’ll find larger reserves there.

W: So why not change the focus of the aid model rather than eliminate it all together? Can there be better monitoring of how funds are used? DM: It’s been tried and been tried and been tried again. There is a history of failed intervention. In the 1960’s, people said let’s focus on infrastructure, and it didn’t work. In the 1970’s, people said let’s focus on poverty, and it didn’t work. In the 1980’s, it was social adjustment and stabilization. That didn’t work. The most recent failure was the focus on democracies and democratic governance in the 1990’s. All of that has created a big vacuum in African leadership. In the 2000’s, we’ve had what I call “glamour aid” step in.

W: But will that be enough to sustain governments who use aid money for half of their budgets or more? DM: We should remember at some point, hopefully soon, the markets will turn, and there will be some semblance of normality. African governments should focus on how they are going to emerge as equal partners on the global stage. They should ask themselves how they are going to finance economic development once the market comes back. It’s important to remember the long-term versus the short-term implications of what I propose. African governments need to have a fundamental mind-shift about what the role of aid should be.

W: If Western values haven’t worked, is there hope for democracy in an economically stable Africa? Or do African nations need the type of interventionist governance that brought Asian nations to their current economic levels? DM: I completely believe in democracy. I believe that you need economics to be in place and to be right in order to get a political class that can sustain a democracy. You need there to be a group of people with vested interests that can actually hold the government accountable.

W: So to a government like Kenya, which recently shelved a substantial Eurobond issue, or to the governments of Uganda or Tanzania, which have made similar postponements, you would tell them to keep looking? DM: Look, it’s easy to shut down when you can’t get money from Europe or the US. That’s not good enough. How much work has Kenya done to try to build ties with China or India? W: You talk about a mental shift that occurred in Western attitudes towards risk after WWII and how Africans need to adopt that attitude. But what about large aid programs like the Marshall Plan that helped facilitate the regrowth of Europe? DM: There are two fundamental differences between the Marshall Plan and what I would call the racket we have going on now in Africa. The Marshall Plan was a five-year program — short and finite. Aid to Africa has been going on for about 60 years now and there’s no tangible, clear plan to stop it. It’s just an open-ended commitment. Second, the Marshall Plan was a reconstruction of Europe. I use the word reconstruction on purpose — Europe had the infrastructure and the institutions, but it needed help reestablishing what had already existed. The aid experiment has failed on this front. Governments are not held accountable when they have no timeline on their access to a pool of funding. So you have Africans who are disenfranchised and you have rampant corruption. These are artifacts of the aid model.

W: And you think bond issues are another way to shift accountability? DM: If you are an African government with bonds in the international market, the market will shut down on you if you behave badly. Think of how many African leaders over the past 30 or 40 years who have been able to stay in power while drawing from private funds. At a time when we’re being so critical of the capitalistic system, we have to remember that over the past 300 years, it is the only system that has delivered wealth. We have one year of bad problems and all you hear are critics. Meanwhile, for 60 years, the aid model in Africa has not delivered at all, and yet nobody says anything. Something is wrong here if 10% of the African population was in poverty in 1970 and now 70% of the population is in poverty in 2009. W: But China, a country that you look favorably upon for all of the foreign direct investment it has committed to Africa, certainly hasn’t held bad countries accountable. DM: I don’t think the Chinese are perfect, but they are delivering. They are providing infrastructure and jobs, and even in some of these worst case scenarios you see improvements. And when those scenarios emerge, Africans should care enough to hold their governments accountable. Western aid alone hasn’t been able to prevent them from emerging.

Conducted by Samuel Breidbart

When for Fuel, We Throw Food in the Fire U.S. Corn-derived Ethanol and Starvation in Zimbabwe by George Haddad Zimbabwe has been suffering hell on earth under the despotic rule of its leader, Robert Mugabe. Once a hero of the 1960’s liberation movement, Mugabe initially founded his government with the promise of land reform. His administration purchased a third of the white-owned land and redistributed it among 50,000 black families. But over time, the program stalled, primarily as a result of widespread corruption in Mugabe’s government. It was the program’s ineffectiveness that ultimately provoked Western nations to withdraw their aid funding in the late 1990’s. In response, Mugabe introduced a referendum granting himself greater dictatorial power. He began to confiscate land without any type of compensation. He destroyed many farms, effectively eliminating the agricultural base of what was once a great breadbasket in Africa. His political defeat in March 2008 from Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change party only spurred Mugabe’s rage, and in his increasing paranoia, he has resorted to starving his own people in order to retain power. Mugabe’s plan to eliminate the opposition party’s constituents has resulted in record rates of starvation. The maligned leader has been loath to admit his wrongdoing. He pins blame on Western economic sanctions for the situation in his country. In the last decade, food donations from Europe and the United States have been withdrawn from the Zimbabwean government and are now funneled completely through charitable food organizations, such as the World Food Program. The United States and the United Nations have been feeding over half of the Zimbabwean population each month to prevent complete famine. But while it has been easy to call Mugabe a liar based on the up-front facts, further analysis does vindicate, in part, his blame-the-West strategy. In a twist of truth, Zimbabwean misery has worsened in the last year, an unintended result of a U.S. energy policy that has contributed to rising food prices worldwide. Soaring prices in

the global food market have greatly limited the ability of charitable organizations to purchase and provide emergency food to starving Zimbabweans. Specifically, the U.S. Energy Acts of 2005 and 2007, which provided large subsidies to companies producing corn-derived ethanol as a biofuel, are sad indications that the road to hell is paved with a blend of initially good intentions, skewed science, and a political process bought and paid for by special interests. Corn-derived ethanol initially appeared to be a desirable alternative to gasoline. Development of the industry would reduce America’s dependence on foreign petroleum, easing up tensions with the restless Middle East, and it would establish an environmentally friendly energy alternative. When burned, ethanol releases less carbon dioxide than gasoline. Considering current world reserves, the intensified pursuit of crude oil is only bound to worsen in the not-too-distant future. Coupled with the projected growing demand in industrializing nations, such as China and India, the price of oil is sure to rise. Corn-derived ethanol appeared to simultaneously answer national security, environmental, and economic concerns. But these optimistic projections were neither accurate nor complete. According to Jisung Park of the Consilience Journal, calculations show that if all of the farmland of the U.S. were devoted to raising corn for ethanol, it would only produce 12% of the gasoline currently used. Furthermore, the idea that corn-derived ethanol is “carbon negative” is largely an illusion. While it is true that ethanol burns cleaner and releases less carbon dioxide than gasoline, ethanol produces more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline when the complete cycle costs of producing, transporting and refining corn are added. About 1 unit of energy is yielded for every unit of energy required to make corn-derived ethanol. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields 5 units of energy per unit energy invested. This statistic is especially troubling when consid-

ering that part, if not all, of the savings that corn-derived ethanol offers is the result of substantial subsidies paid by the federal government. At its start in 2005, the Ethanol Act provided for $8.9 billion in subsidies paid mostly to powerhouse corporations like Archer-Daniels Midland. The effects of the growing demand for corn-ethanol have had a devastating impact on the global food market that remain hidden beneath the complexities of global food demand and economics. Aside from rising prices as a result of rising demand, other equations of behavior have changed. First, the price of corn is now tied to the price of oil. As the price of oil increases, the price of ethanol has risen in kind while remaining competitive. Conventional wisdom would say that the economies of food and energy remain, for the most part, separate. However, as the price of corn lags behind its ethanol-derived fuel form, the market has responded by shifting grain from the food to the energy market. What has resulted, indirectly, is that any increase in the price of petroleum leads to an increase in the price of corn. Second, land use has been impacted. Land previously devoted to other crops would be shifted to growing corn as prices rise and farmers seek the possibility of profit. But, with more land used for corn, land that was once devoted to the production of other crops, like wheat or peas, would no longer be available. This has produced a domino effect: as the price of oil rises, the price of corn rises, production of other essential crops falls, and the price of those essentials rise. Moreover, corn is a common feed, so as prices go up (the cost of feeding a hog has gone up by at least 85% since 2007 according to Mother Jones), returns from poultry and other livestock have gone down, resulting in reduced production, which has led to higher prices for consumers. Prices for chicken, turkey, pig, and dairy products have gone up. While in the U.S., these increases in costs have been irritating – perhaps even burdensome – in other parts of the world, they have hit like a tsunami. Countries that are particularly vulnerable to the coupled rise of oil and corn prices are ones that both import oil and suffer from food shortages. In such countries, even a marginal difference in the food market could mean the difference between life and death for people struggling to survive. Last year, The New Yorker reported that inflation rose to 11 million percent in Zimbabwe, the world’s highest for a country. Such staggering rates have rendered national currency practically worthless, discouraging employed persons to work since the cost of transportation to get to their job each morning is more than their paychecks. The price of something like a bottle of water can cost up to the equivalent of $19. Over 80% of the citizens in Zimbabwe are unemployed. Because of logistical problems, foreign aid for food

does not reach certain areas, like Jirara in Mashonaland. There, people rely on short supplies of the hacha fruit, which is often quickly depleted before the full village gets a share. The fruit has been infested with worms, but even this does not deter the villagers. Everyday, they walk up to three miles, an enormous distance for a malnourished person, in pursuit of this food. Last Christmas, the Mavambo trust, a charitable organization operating in the suburbs of Harare, prepared food for 250 children. More than double that amount showed up. According to a survey by the World Food Program, the number of people that have only had one meal a day has increased by 43% in the last year, while the number of people who suffer days without eating has gone up from zero to 12%. Compounding this misery, 25% of the population is infected with HIV/AIDS. A recent cholera epidemic has killed thousands. The average life expectancy of a Zimbabwean has fallen to 44 years for men and 43 years for women. On the whole, soaring global food prices can be attributed to high fuel costs, speculation, growing demand for food in countries with strong economic growth like China, and the growing rise in costs from the onset of a growing biofuels market. Of these four primary factors, only the first three are unavoidable in today’s world. The commitment to biofuels can and must be changed. These recent tragedies resulting from an expensive food market demonstrate that corn is just too valuable to be turned into fuel. The University of Minnesota recently released a study that found that as the price of staple foods goes up by one percent, 16 million more people in the world go hungry. If the current trends continue, 600 million additional people would be starving by the year 2025. Hopefully, the ethanol biofuel market does not have to be abandoned. Advances in cellulosic ethanol that use switch grass grown on marginal land hold promise, especially since cellulose-derived ethanol is produced at rates of almost four times the efficiency of cornderived. Other countries, like Brazil, have enjoyed tremendous success with ethanol produced from sugar cane. How did we get here? Are we responsible for the misery of Zimbabwe? It is much too harsh to blame the U.S. for the starvation in Zimbabwe. That sin is Mugabe’s. However, the unintended tragedy of increased suffering resulting from our policies teaches us an important lesson. In the 21st century, finding alternative clean energy sources is a responsibility. In the zeal of this pursuit we must be prudent and vigilant: prudent to consider both the direct and indirect consequences of policies, and vigilant to prevent the pay-forplay politics of corporate-sponsored lawmaking.

The Ecological Captain An Interview with Paul Hawken Paul Hawken is the head of Highwater Research LLC and the Natural Capital Institute, both based in California. He has written extensively about the convergence of business and the environment. In May 2007, he published Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came Into Being, and Why No One Saw it Coming. W: On March 29, the New York Times featured eminent physicist Freeman Dyson in a piece about his skepticism of climate change. Not only is he unconvinced that the scientific data supports a climate catastrophe hypothesis, he has cautioned against the regulation of carbon dioxide. “By restricting carbon dioxide you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese... They’re...changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me that’s very precious.” How would you, an advocate for a carbon-free economy, respond to Dyson’s position? PH: Dyson also said he did not understand the science, that he could be wrong, and I am sure he would add that he is not an economist. I realize that climate activists have lambasted him, but I hope we never lose our appetite for dissent in this country. Still, I think he is mistaken on every account. His more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air-makesthings-grow argument was particularly embarrassing. The idea that retrofitting an economy so that we can stay here a few more millennia is an expense rather than in investment is an artifact of industrial economics that favored externalization of costs. It is cheaper to go off carbon dioxide, not more costly. Amory Lovins and I tried to put a garlic-soaked stake into that argument in our book Natural Capitalism in 1999, but it will not die easily because of the momentum of externalization economics that favors short-term rewards despite long-term losses. I read Dyson’s statements as ecosystemic. He is saying we don’t know enough about what will happen to ecosystems to set meaningful policy. I believe his criticism of Al Gore and Jim Hansen was off the mark because their view is civilizational, and this is a big difference. It may be fascinating to see what climate change will produce on the planet in terms of biology, but the fragility of our species’ tenure cannot possibly endure such sudden changes in water, soil, and temperatures.

W: At the end of this year, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to draft a new international climate treaty. The UN’s top climate officials want developing countries like China and India to outline a plan for curbing their carbon pollution, even if these nations won’t have to commit to any mandatory emission caps. But in March, Li Gao, China’s top climate official said that any new regulations on his country would be unfair, and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters seems to confirm his point -- 50% of increases in Chinese carbon emissions from 2002 to 2005 were due to production of exports for Western nations. How can we assign emissions responsibility to China or other developing nations if they are only meeting Western demands? PH: Well, the U.S. has all the moral weight of a lentil on climate issues. I am very grateful that Copenhagen is happening, but even if best case agreements are accomplished in terms of what is on the agenda, they are insufficient in terms of what is required to stem carbon dioxide at levels that are anywhere reasonable. While Copenhagen preparations are going on, we need a far more ingenious effort to cap carbon emissions than treaties, strategies that will enlist the support of people everywhere, and that can only come about if it is imbedded in economic recovery and restoration. These political impasses are imbedded in power structures that maintain their authority by pandering to collective wants instead of societal needs. That is the way the world is. We don’t have time to change the ways humans have organized their governing structures. We do have time to reimagine our economic and ecologic destiny, however, and while that certainly needs support from governance, we have to recognize that political leaders are always 10-20 years behind. I am not trying to be rude here, I just think it is a fact and we should recognize it. If governing organizations were so effective, we wouldn’t need the 1-2 million non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that address social justice and the environment. I think we can safely say that the true non-governing organizations are the G20 and Li Gao’s statement would have to be made by anyone in his role in order to maintain that position. Lack of imagination is baked into the system. W: For the past 25 years, Gallup has released a poll asking Americans about the tradeoff between environmental protection and economic growth. On March 19, Gallup announced that for the first time, the majority of Americans said they thought economic

growth should be given priority, even at the expense of environmental protection. Do you really believe that the cultural zeitgeist of this country is changing when it comes to environmental policy? PH: When environmental protection had priority according to pollsters, it never actually happened, so polling is fairly meaningless when it comes to public policy. It made people feel good to see such polls but the 2000-2007 period, when environmental standards and regulations were constantly unraveled. The public is vastly misinformed about the economy and the environment. It doesn’t understand how they work and it still thinks they are two different things. In fact your question implies the same schism. The collapse of the US economy has a long ways to go before it finds a bottom. Whether that is a deflationary or hyperinflationary bottom is hard to predict, and a case can be made for both. Regardless, what is important to note is that economic and environmental systems are rapidly collapsing in parallel. Both stem from lack of regulation, corporate fraud, political corruption, and a senseless desire by America to have more and more stuff. This means that economic pressures will surmount other considerations, including the environment to an even greater degree. I expect residential real estate to fall 50-60% in value before it is all over, twice what it is now. Commercial real estate will be hit by massive vacancies and delinquencies. This will be another blow to banks and will hit life insurers hard. Unemployment will easily go to double digit and probably the low to mid teens. The momentum of the de-leveraging and unwinding is more powerful than what is being popularly portrayed in the press. Similarly, the unwinding of the environment and climate change is not well understood. In an April 4th poll, 41% of Americans thought climate change was hyped or over-exaggerated. This comes at a time when many climate scientists will no longer say in public what they see in private because the desire of human beings to avoid the extreme challenges of the future is hardwired by our instinctive drive for short-term security. Those who speak out are chastised or asked to tone down their message. We may have the worst media of any OECD country in terms of its responsibility to society, and the constant dumbing down has taken a real toll. The irony is that the way out of both economic and ecologic collapse is the same path, but that idea is still a non-starter. The most powerful tool to address deflation, joblessness, and negative GDP growth is energy—source, distribution, and efficiency. I believe we need to approach energy as a “moon shot” project, not an incremental change in efficiency and carbon content. I believe the US should commit $6-8 trillion to retrofit the entire country in ten to fifteen years. This includes transport, the electrical grid, electric storage, solar thermal, geothermal, solar PV, wind, and building retrofits. This would be a massive amount of debt if seen traditionally, but it should be seen as investment because it is what is called a self-liquidating debt. It will pay for itself many times over for a long time. The same cannot be said of TARP and bank bailouts. While there would be inflationary pressures created by this vast change in infrastructure, it would create more jobs than any other program, be highly visible in all towns and communities, create a national sense of purpose, enhance security, raise morale, stimulate innovation and investment in research, and recreate the American economy. This kind of vision and inter-generational financing is what the earth and workers both need. W: You talk about building a new economy based on environmental values. In the current state of affairs, the livelihoods of millions of Americans are made in dirty industries, like coal. How can we uproot human lifestyles for abstract idealism? PH: I don’t believe I have ever spoken about building an economy based on environmental values. I talk about building an economy based on ecological principles, which are kith and kin to physics. In other words, we need to build an economy that can endure because it does not destroy its natural capital. We could invert the question and ask what abstract values are the economy based on today? Greed, selfishness, profits, beggar-thy-neighbor? Your choice. As to uprooting human lifestyles, I don’t know if you have ever been to a coal mine, but I can assure you it is dusty misery, a hell realm on earth that creates injured and diseased employees. I cannot think of a worker employed to practice longwall or retreat mining that would not trade his or her job for a dignified, family-wage job on the surface of the earth that contributed to the health and well being of his family, his community and his society. But since these people are not given that opportunity, they are exactly like the rest of us and are fiercely protec-

EU Scientists Tout the Sunrays in the Sahara Economist Milton Friedman liked to say that if you put a government in charge of the Sahara Desert, “in five years there would be a shortage of sand.” But as European Union scientists look southwards to the Sahara, they see far more than sand. They see solar. The Guardian reports that these innovative scientists are urging politicians to stand behind a plan that would harvest enough energy from the Sahara to power the entirety of Europe. At last July’s Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, one scientist estimated that it would only require the daily capture of 0.3% of the sunlight falling on the Sahara to do so. According to CNN, the farm would likely use concentrated solar panel technology, similar to Europe’s first commercial “solar tower” power plant, recently constructed outside of Seville. The desert, which receives sunlight at twice the intensity of Spain, would be carpeted with rotating mirrors that reflect sunlight to a solar receiver positioned at the top of a 400 foot tower. The solar receiver would then heat up a pipe containing water, using the steam to energize a turbine, The Times of London reports. Photovoltaic solar panels, if used in the Sahara, would also be more effective than they would be in Europe because of the desert’s sunlight intensity, according to The Guardian. Some politicians have thrown their weight behind the plan, The Times confirms, most recently French president Nikolas Sarkozy. But the price tag is likely to make some wary. Officials estimate that constructing the full network might cost European nations up to $70 billion, The Guardian reports. Much of the cost comes in constructing a new power grid capable of transporting the energy northward. Scientists also foresee backlash on a local level, as communities may complain about new transmission lines in their area. Samuel Breidbart

tive of their jobs because they need economic security. We must have a just transition. We cannot punish people for trying to contribute to society. Miners know that most electricity in America is generated from coal. They are making a contribution. Transforming the environment means transforming this dangerous charismatic species called Homo sapiens. As we move from carbon-based fuels to renewables, from high-density to low-density energy, we have to remake everything we do. This is an economic opportunity of unprecedented proportion. Shame on us if we do what the US government is doing now. It is forcing carmakers to break contracts with its workers, but it is not forcing banks to break the bonus contracts with the people who profited from this economic debacle. This upside down and unethical world we live is the cause of our environmental turpitude. If we can have an economy that is based on unconditional respect for human beings, we will take care of every other living being as well. W: There are rumors that you are working on a new non-toxic solar technology. Can you address this claim? PH: We are not saying much about what we are doing. Van Jones is a close friend and I mentioned it to him in Washington DC. He subsequently gave a talk at Presidio World College and mentioned it, which got picked up by a reporter who put it in her blog. We consist of John Warner, co-author of Green Chemistry with Paul Anastas at Yale, Janine Benyus, author of Biomimicry, and about 17 of the brightest young scientists, chemists, and physicists in this country. What can we say? Two things. Yes, it is non-toxic. The solar industry employs a witch’s brew of chemicals and metals to engineer its panels. They include tetrobromo bisphenol A, sulfur hexafluoride (the most potent greenhouse gas known to science), selenium hydride, hydrogen selenide, phosphine, cadmium, germane, arsenic, argon, and the list goes on. Second, our goal is not to make a non-toxic panel. It will be the result of what we do. We have a more fundamental goal. Conducted by David Schlussel and Samuel Breidbart

The Irony of Global Dimming Harmful Pollutants Found to Shade the Earth from Global Warming By Justin Steinfeld

In December 2009, representatives from 170 national governments and countless non-governmental organizations will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for another try at an international climate agreement. The environmental threat of India and China, the world’s most populated countries, and the ones that are industrializing at the fastest rates, has been at the forefront of the preliminary talks. Factories in both countries produce heavy particle pollutants that can have long-term health effects on human beings, contributing to heart and lung disease, asthma, and other respiratory conditions. And yet, to the surprise of scientists, it may be these very pollutants that have been staving off the greenhouse effects of carbon emissions. The heavy particles block out the sun, shading the earth through a phenomenon some are calling “global dimming.” Based on the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, the average amount of energy retained on the earth’s surface should be 2.6 to 3.0 watts/m2. But, NASA scientists calculated that the atmospheric sensitivity to energy is about 0.75 °C per each watt/m2. Due to the greenhouse effect there should have been 2.0 - 2.3 °C increase on the surface temperature, a far cry from the 0.75 °C observed. In others words, the earth is not warming as rapidly as expected. Although, there appears to be a strong correlation between the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of global warming, the discrepancy negates causation. Either there is another factor affecting the climate change or the anthropogenic theory that human activity is causing global warming must shatter. The “global dimming” effect may explain the discrepancy. Along with global warming, scientists have been researching other global climate changes. Climatologists noticed that between 1950 and 1990, the global average amount of sunlight that reached the earth surface had decreased by 8 - 11%. Scientists theorized that this dimming is caused by particle pollution, which acts like normal clouds except it completely blocks out sunlight, cooling the earth’s surface temperature. The particle pollution often released with greenhouse gas emissions has been “masking” the full effects of the global warming. Ironically particle pollution seems protective in terms of the overall temperature change. However, it is not only toxic to humans and the environment but the effect of its global dimming causes a net depression in the amount of photosynthesis performed by plants. This leads to a lower production of food and rate of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. Masking is the main reason why global warming was underestimated for so long and implies that the earth is in a much more dire situation then initially measured by scientists. On the bright side, global warming is now a more tenable theory and global dimming has helped us to better understand the impact human activity has had on the earth’s atmosphere. On the other hand, since 1990, there has been a trend of global brightening. A paper released in 2005 updated the previous research on radiance, the amount solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. These scientists found that since 1990 the overall radiance has increased by 6%. This change was contributed to the reduction in particle pollution since 1990 due to the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1990 and other similar acts worldwide. In addition, the economic downturn that followed in Eastern Europe, which had experienced over 33% dimming before the brightening, may have reduced their particle emission through overall reduction in commodity production and total emission. This suggests that dimming since 1950 is still existent but waning. The effect amounts to a decrease of 1.5 watt/ m2 in the overall amount of heat energy radiated back from the earth’s surface since 1950, resulting in a temperature decrease of about 1.1°C. When applied to the temperature increase due to the global warming effect, the theoretical effect of human activity amounts to an increase of 0.9 to 1.2 °C; within statistical error of the observed 0.74 °C. This dimming and brightening explains the discrepancy in the global warming statistics and brings new insight into how humans have drastically affected the climate. It is incumbent on the representatives at Copenhagen to heed this recent scientific understanding of climate change. Allowing the poisonous particle pollution from India and China to fill the earth’s atmosphere is certainly not the solution. However, in order to effectively respond to climate change, the representatives must have the foresight to respond to both the effects of global warming and global dimming.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT TO EXTEND BEIJING DRIVING RESTRICTIONS In early April, the Chinese government announced that it is extending restrictions on the number of cars that can enter Beijing’s congested streets. The extension will result in the removal of one-fifth of the city’s personal cars — nearly one million of them — on a daily basis. A vehicle’s license plate number will determine the days on which car owners are allowed to drive. Although the restrictions are much less stringent than those imposed during the Olympics, many motorists, citing the inconvenience of the city’s overburdened mass transit system, oppose it. According to The Guardian, other motorists have called for less forceful measures – like a higher tax on gas – to discourage driving. The government – which will contribute to the effort by banning onethird of all official vehicles on a daily basis – has also announced that trucks that fail to meet emissions standards similar to those adopted in Europe will be restricted from the center of the city. Speaking to The China Daily, city official Li Kunsheng estimated that limiting the number of cars and raising emissions standards on the heaviest polluters will reduce total emissions by up to 20 percent, or 750 tons per day. According to the Xinhua News Agency, in the time since the Games concluded, Beijing has had more “blue sky days” than any point in the past decade. Robert Klipper

BOLIVIA’S LITHIUM RESERVES LOOKED TO AS THE ENERGY FRONTIER For years, energy analysts have talked about finding the next Saudi Arabia, a nation that owes its world power to its natural endowment of petroleum. Now, electric car advocates are now saying that Bolivia has a rightful claim to the title. As The New York Times reported on February 3, the landlocked nation – South America’s poorest – has half of the world’s lithium, a mineral ideal for use in electric car batteries. Held under the vast salt flats that blanket Bolivia’s mid-section, the lithium has a remarkable energystoring capacity. To traditional investors, everything seems to be falling in place for Bolivia to escape its economic woes. But according to The Times, Bolivian president Evo Morales has been reluctant to budge on what he considers foreign exploitation. While some might see it as protectionism, Morales, whose administration has a history of expropriating natural resources, views it as his patriotic duty. The Times reports that he has built his case around providing protection to the indigenous groups that dwell on the salt flats and keeping the influence of multinational corporations to a minimum. And while some environmentalists are sympathetic to this cause, adding that lithium mining might be ecologically harmful to the region, CNET News reports that many are afraid of the consequences of having the world’s lithium supply fall short of demand. That would hinder the development of electric car technology, which many consider crucial to goals of greater energy efficiency and independence. Struggling U.S. automakers are also following the situation closely, as many are betting their futures on the success of hybrid technology, The Times reports. Morales is well aware of this situation. But before he lets his country go the way of Saudi Arabia, he wants to secure for it, and himself, all of the power he can find. Samuel Breidbart

Bananacide

The Possible Extinction of America’s Favorite Fruit By Christian Termyn

America’s is a culture of favorites. Indeed, a collection of what is conclusively popular in America might very well constitute our most substantive and enduring cultural symbols: symbols of a tendency to popularize, if nothing more. Americans are famously defined by their imports and appropriations – ironically, being imports themselves – and notorious for their ignorance of the true sources of these. This is especially true of our food. Whereas Spam and Tang were ephemeral, highly stylized fads in American consumption, spaghetti, sushi, and countless other meals and snacks that are now staples, or favorites, are barely fathomable as originally foreign and experimental. Much of what defines Americans begs the simple cultural question: what would America be like without this, or that? Credit is due to American originality, however, as evidenced by both a complicated history of imports and by our novel appropriations of these as well. By now, for example, Americans know spaghetti and sushi well enough to have redefined them uniquely. And this is not to mention that certain foods are only a fraction of those American symbols widely recognized as not having been theirs to begin with. To many, it is reasonable, even commendable, that a culture should so quickly embrace that which is foreign. But America’s consumptive appropriation of foreign foods and commodities reveals a dangerous disconnect. It is problematic, for instance, that much of the fruit Americans enjoy has always been imported. The banana exemplifies this trend. Once a symbol of exoticism, it is now commonplace, though even a century spent in American supermarkets and homes has not promoted the fruit’s true rootedness here. What does it mean that only a negligible quantity of the bananas we consume has ever been grown domestically? The American history of an acutely un-American commodity, the banana, is one of exploitation and ignorance. Now, America’s most popular fruit faces extinction. Consider the banana, consider its extinction, and then consider an America without bananas. If the next page in this history could very well describe a banana-free America, to ask what will have changed becomes increasingly relevant. The Banana India, China, Brazil, Honduras, Ecuador - these nations are among the top banana producers worldwide and yet they only constitute a handful of the countries producing annual banana yields in the millions of metric tons. The genus of the banana, Musa, thrives in most subtropical climates despite being native to a specific region of Southeast Asia. As “subtropical climate” hardly limits cultivation, it is understandable that the world has developed a taste for bananas. Evidently, roman Emperor Augustus had a taste for bananas as well. The Standard Encyclopedia of Horticulture even suggests that Musa is named for Antonio Musa, his physician and nutritionist. Alexander the Great is also said to have enjoyed an occasional banana while in India in 300 BC, about 400 years after the banana is believed to have been mentioned for the first time in history in ancient Buddhist texts. Islamic conquerors brought the banana back to Palestine. Arabic merchants spread bananas all over Africa. A quick thousand years passes and the Portuguese are starting the first banana plantations in the Caribbean in the early 16th century.

The United States certainly has a taste for bananas. Indeed its citizens consume more bananas each day than apples and oranges combined. The history of banana consumption here is young and unnatural, however. Prospectors from the United Fruit Company introduced Americans to the fruit barely a century ago and yet fifty years later, it was already their favorite. People love that bananas are seedless and praise the convenience of a fruit so easily peeled. They are naturally incredibly nutritious and a favorite of children. It is not surprising that with giggles and childish jabs, Americans have even appropriated the banana as a sex symbol. Bananas may be socially and economically ubiquitous here, universal to supermarkets and lunchboxes alike, but not long ago they were as exotic as Bloody Mary performing Rogger and Hammerstein’s “Bali Ha’i” on postwar Broadway. The paradox is that, logically, the banana should retain its exoticism today. The meager 14,000 tons of bananas harvested in Hawaii last year reflect that the United States hardly holds a place as a banana producer among the many nations with annual yields totaling millions of tons. This figure would likely surprise most Americans, though as with many of their most consistent imports, they display very little inclination to conceptualize the banana starting with its true source. But despite the American consumer’s dramatic disconnect from banana production, the threat of banana extinction today has everything to do with the pressures imposed on foreign plantations since Americans erupted an insatiable taste for the fruit. Banana Extinction While one can certainly locate a variety of species within the Musa genus for sale in American markets, the one species that dominates over 80% of global commercial production is not coincidentally the overwhelming favorite here as well. A deep yellow when ripe, seedless, and with a distinctly soft peel, the Cavendish banana is the iconic image of the fruit that Americans have come to expect of markets, and markets of producers. Though its popularity today might suggest otherwise, the Cavendish variety had yet to exist at the time when importers first introduced bananas to the United States. Somewhere between 1910 and 1915, over a decade after the United Fruit Company had established its production regime in Central America, growers began to notice yellow and withered leaves on some of their plants. At the time, the Gros Michel variety was the sole focus of importers and thus of growers as well, and vast tracts of lowland forests in Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere had been stripped of trees to make way for sprawling plantations. Gros Michel plants had been cultivated asexually, each a clone of the other, and thus entire plantations were predisposed as susceptible to the same diseases. Panama disease, as it came to be called, was a fungal wilt that quickly decimated entire crops. Facilitated by deforestation, floodwaters spread the pathogen, and the Gros Michel was soon so nearly extinct that major exporters were forced to revamp their entire mode of production around a new, Panama-resistant species. The United Fruit Company famously invested millions in hybridization experiments to quickly replace the Gros Michel. In order to be a commercial success, hybrids had to possess both resistance to Panama disease, and a strong resemblance to Gros Michel fruit — the variety around which the American mass market had formed. By sticking

to any single variety, the banana industry ensures that all the bananas in a shipment ripen at the same rate, creating huge economies of scale. The Cavendish, like the Gros Michel, remained the “fruit equivalent of a fast-food hamburger: efficient to produce, uniform in quality, and universally affordable,” writes Dan Koeppel, in his 2008 New York Times OP-ED. Koeppel’s metaphor ensures another important distinction between a banana and a Big Mac: the banana is a living organism. It can get sick, and since all Cavendish bananas, 80% of commercial production, come from the same gene pool, today’s population is equally a susceptible to collapse as the Gros Michel. Over the past decade, a emerging strain of Panama disease has devastated crops in Southeast Asia and Australia, though strict soil and banana regulations have prevented its spread to Latin America thus far. Furthermore, major banana producers have been hesitant to invest in a new, disease-resistant export banana considering the dedication of the American consumer to the iconic, familiar Cavendish variety still unaffected in Latin America. Without Bananas Despite laying the groundwork for astounding profit margins, America’s specific taste for the Cavendish is ultimately frustrating to banana breeders constrained by the plant’s biology, the organization of production, and the structures and aesthetics of mass markets. If the Cavendish were to go extinct, this delicate, single-variety market would need to be built entirely from the ground up based on several specific agroecological constraints. At the moment, the export producer ic concerned with satisfying current tastes while ensuring that in the reasonable event of an extinction crisis, his families and his communities are prepared to make these serious changes. For Americans, this balance is hardly delicate, and no more involved than whether or not they will have a banana to slice over their cereal. Herein lies the difference between a taste for a food, and a dependency on the same. The banana entered popular culture in the United States as an icon of tropical nature and people, every bit a peculiarity and never a necessity. From the outset, this exotic allure shielded Americans from the reality of the banana’s simultaneous role as a very important staple commodity for many developing countries, together with wheat, rice, and corn. American’s teach their children to understand the relevance of rice to global food security, though the banana in their lunchbox should elicit similar concern. Even if Americans were to extrapolate greater significance from the bananas they consume, the Cavendish would be an inaccurate locus for this understanding. Bananas in general are a very delicate commodity on economic, social, environmental, and political grounds. The Cavendish, however, is not the species produced by those who depend on Musa for survival. In every way an exotic fruit, it was developed by Americans (United Fruit Company) and entirely for American tastes. In countries where the banana is indigenous, only the most delicate varieties are eaten uncooked — the notion of cooking and eating green bananas did not take hold in the United States. For tropical cultures, local bananas are steamed or boiled, and fried to complement cuisine without care for the peel-ability, yellowness, and even size that they are. So while there are more than 1,000 varieties of bananas – most of them in Africa and Asia – the Cavendish is the only banana seen in American markets save for the occasional exotic. The banana industry is a vitally important source of income, employment, and export earnings for major banana exporting countries, mainly developing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in Asia and Africa, where world banana exports totaled an estimated $5.8 billion in 2006. A strong bond exists between banana-generated

income and household food security, as export volume or price changes bring about income changes for those directly employed in banana production, including both smallholder farmers and plantation wage earners. In addition, secondary and tertiary industries and their employees also feel the impacts of those changes. The highly regional character of the international banana market means that a collapse in the Cavendish variety will not devastate Musa production universally. That said, Honduras, Panama, and other Central American countries were cultivated economically and socially to serve the American import market, and would be devastated by a Cavendish blight. Since the early twentieth century, commercial banana production has had glorious connotations. The United Fruit Company, to them, represents extravagance, modernity, and development. The transformation of lowland landscapes and livelihoods alongside the extension of railroads and introduction of shifting plantation agriculture formed around this single, susceptible variety. Rising demand led to changes in production of major agribusinesses, spawned international migrations, and transformed great swaths of the Honduran environment into monocultures susceptible to plant disease epidemics that in turn changed Central American livelihoods. To abstract Cavendish genetic susceptibility to socio-economic genetics as well is sadly accurate. Bananas, like any agricultural commodity, are products of both evolutionary contingencies and human agency: at once biological organisms and cultural artifacts. Based on the real threat of Cavendish extinction, industry researchers will realistically either develop a replacement by performing similar hybridization experiments to those that replaced the Gros Michel or genetically modify the Cavendish to eliminate its susceptibility to Panama disease. Whether or not the Cavendish itself endures to serve the American market, its highly fetishized role, in form and function, will never be vacant. In addition to being just as available as any other basic grocery item, America’s favorite fruit has slipped into Anglophone street slang, literature, popular music, and comedy. For foreign and native items alike, American favoritisms are not easily reversed. The American history of the banana, however, embodies the blindness with which our culture equates progress with rising rates of consumption and technological innovation. This country imports so much, yet with minimal concern for those burdened by changing landscapes and livelihoods. Emile Frison, a plant pathologist working with the Frenchbased International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), emphasizes that “work on the banana genome will be concentrated on finding ways to improve the varieties on which Africans depend for their survival, rather than the one you and I buy off supermarket shelves.” Would Americans embrace a genetically modified banana? Have a basket of them in school lunchrooms? Officially, a bunch of bananas is a hand; a single fruit, a finger. This terminology is universal to producer cultures, in homes, on plantations and in offices. Somehow, Americans have selectively imported only the fruit itself, even through decades of turmoil in Latin America and now the eminent collapse of commercial production. Eating a banana has not accompanied the aristocratic tradition associated with the consumption of other tropical commodities such as tea, coffee, and chocolate. Here, the Cavendish banana itself was only momentarily exotic, and has remained reliably simple since its popularization despite the diverse population that considers it a favorite. In some places, people eat close to 1 kg of bananas every day. They can eat in two weeks what the average American might in a year. Even for their ‘favorite’ foods, most Americans are incapable of conceptualizing dependency. But while the formation and evolution of US mass markets for bananas is recognizably the foggy tip of a long-distance food chain, the cultural and technological vehicles of this evolution might successfully make it so that this exotic fruit may never slip beyond our reach.

The Prognosis An Interview with Dr. Michael Oppenheimer

Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University. He also serves as the director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. Previously he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program at the Environmental Defense Fund.

W: Right now you’re working with scientists at the Princeton Geophysical & Fluid Dynamics Laboratory to develop a model of Earth’s ice sheets in order to predict their behavior in a warming world. What is happening to our ice sheets? MO: It appears that the warming has increased the rate of ice loss at the periphery, both in Greenland and the West Arctic ice sheets. The periphery is the warmest anyway, where the ice sheets sort of nuzzle down towards the ocean. On the other hand, the Greenland ice sheet appears to be experiencing an increase in precipitation in the center and therefore is growing to some degree. We believe the atmosphere is moister because climate change is resulting in additional evaporation of moisture from the surface of the ocean, which heavier generating heavier precipitation in many parts of the world as well, though that doesn’t seem to be happening in Antarctica. On average however, both ice sheets are losing more ice than they’re gaining and have become an important contributor to sea level rise. W: Are they melting faster than we expected? MO: Yes, absolutely. W: But these aren’t the only large ice sheets in the world. What about places such as the Andean glaciers? MO: Glaciers almost everywhere are shrinking. The only exceptions appear to be the center of Greenland and the center of Antarctica. W: Is the solution geoengineering or carbon sequestration? MO: I think it’s possible we might learn enough one day that that might be an option, but we don’t know enough right now. These areas definitely deserve more research. W: Many scientists say that if we cannot stabilize atmospheric carbon around 350-400 parts per million, we’re toast. Do you agree with the idea of a tipping point? MO: We can’t stabilize at those levels in the short-term. We might be able to do it over the course of a couple hundred years. So if you want to talk about the objectives of this century, it is very, very unlikely that we’d do it. I think the best we can do this century is to try to avoid concentrations above 450 parts per million. So we’ll get warmer. I think if we apply

ourselves adequately we can still keep it from being catastrophic and if we can avoid losing most of the ice in the ice sheets then we can avoid other potentially catastrophic outcomes. It will require focused effort beginning now. W: How do students at Princeton feel about climate change? Would you encourage student activism on college campuses? MO: I see a lot of very concerned, engaged students. They’re not marching in the streets the way we were in the 60’s, but there are many other ways to get things done. I’m more interested in them seeing themselves as an educated and effective political force than concerning myself with what particular tactics they use. It’s a different world – you’re going to have to use different tactics. I’m encouraged by what I see. The level of engagement on the end of the students is quite high. W: The G20 is attempting to reform the global financial system. Do you think we need the same, a global environmental governance organization? MO: I spent a lot of time involved with and thinking about the international negotiations to limit global warming. I was involved in the committees twenty years ago that helped stimulate the negotiations. And I boycotted them during the Bush years, but I think I’m going to start going again. Some of my research will be aimed at how to reach a successful sustainable deal on the international level. I think we need global environmental governance, but I don’t know if it needs to be one organization. The United Nations Environmental Protection program is in some sense that organization and it hasn’t done a very good job. We need institutions. Whether those institutions will be structures like UNEP, I don’t know. I think we’re in a year of real innovation in terms of such institutions. W: T. Boone Pickens is talking about natural gas cars and in a recent TED talk, Shai Agassi announced his plan for an electric car boom, with battery swaps in place of gas stations. What seems most promising? MO: Those are all good ideas and there are a lot of different ideas on how to rethink the transportation system. If we have a strong cap on emissions, make everybody understand that the limits are only going to increase, and at

the same time make regulatory requirements on motor vehicles that would favor plug-in hybrids, for example, I think we’d make a long leap in the right direction. I don’t pretend to know which technology is best and there probably is no silver bullet. I’m particularly skeptical of those who present any one answer as the answer because almost all of these brilliant ideas will turn out to be wrong. But somewhere out there, there is a set of right answers. We have to create the conditions for those to surface. W: We think that the media struggles with reporting on environmental issues because our current problems are just so complex. Have you found the current reporting on climate change to be a liability rather than an asset? MO: The media is struggling for a lot of reasons. Their inability to deal with climate change and other complex scientific issues is not new, but in the current media environment it has gotten worse because they don’t have the resources to support the kind of intensive study required—getting people to stick around on the same issue for long periods of time. So yes, we all need to be concerned about them and I think the media has not overall done a very good job on this issues. W: What is your final prognosis? MO: There are too many people dependent on fossil fuels and consuming too many goods that don’t have any real value and that wind up mostly polluting the world. We need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible and one way to do that is become much more efficient, reduce waste, and create the conditions in which we can actually have the renewable energy revolution that people have been talking about for forty years. Do I see the first steps beginning to happen? I think so. I think governments have finally awoken to how serious the problems are and I have some optimism that we’ll over the next few years take the first steps here in the United States to catch up to where some of the European countries have been and then move forward, leading the way, making deals with developing countries and finding away we can all live comfortably and peacefully on the planet without destroying it. I think we live in an era where that actually might happen. Conducted by Zachary Mulvihill

s n o i t u l o s l a c lo

WORLD’S CHEAPEST CAR UNVEILED IN INDIA

FORECLOSURE FISH FIND EMPLOYMENT AMIDST MORTGAGE CRISIS

Swimming pools all across California have been turning green recently, though not necessarily in a good way. As CNNMoney.com reports, California, like other warm-weather states, has seen some of the highest foreclosure rates in the ongoing economic crisis, mainly because housing starts were highest in those states in the early part of the decade. And as homes there are falling into disrepair, state officials are showing concern over the high number of abandoned backyard pools that are being left untreated. These “green pools” – so called because of the algae that builds up in their waters without chlorine treatment – pose a significant public health risk. According to MSNBC, they provide excellent breeding grounds for virus-carrying mosquitoes. The West Nile Virus, which can be fatal, has in past years been linked to mosquitoes in area. But as public health officials have scrambled to deal with the problem, the solution that they have come up with is still ecologically troubling. Nicknamed the “Foreclosure Fish”, the Gambusia affinis, has a peculiar taste for mosquito larvae, reports The New York Times in an article from December 2008. California mosquito control teams drop several of the fish into the infested pools, and simply wait for the guppies to finish snacking. For citizens so inclined, bags of the fish can be picked up for free at local distribution sites, and deployed as necessary. Some have applauded the move because it avoids the need to introduce chemicals through pesticides. Yet studies and past experience has proven that these fish, native to the Gulf Coast, can be just as dangerous in non-native ecosystems. As The Wall Street Journal reports, this is particularly the case in California, where fish are predators of the endangered California red-legged frog. UCLA biologist Jared Diamond once compared the fish to atomic bombs for these amphibians. So far, such ecological disturbances have not been detected by any state agencies. But it may only be a matter of time before frogs and fish battle out the next stage of the mortgage crisis. Samuel Breidbart

For Indians joining a swelling middle class, not every slumdog will become a millionaire. But, if Tata Motors has its way, millions of India’s poor will be able to purchase their very first automobiles. According to Reuters, on April 9, Tata began taking orders for the Nano. The Nano is a 10 foot long car that weighs about 1,300 pounds, has a top speed of about 65 miles per hour, and gets about 56 miles to the gallon. The basic model costs $2,000 and, according to U.S. News & World Report, it is the world’s cheapest. Reuters reported in Mumbai that a throng of prospective customers showed up on April 9 at Tata Headquarters to apply for a car purchase: 100,000 winners will be selected by a computerized lottery and receive their Nanos within a year. For the next few years, as Tata plans to roll out the Nano in great numbers, experts are predicting a shake up of India’s automotive landscape. The Nano is expected to empower first-time car owners and connect isolated rural communities. Not everyone is clamoring about a potential automotive revolution, though. Industry experts from the used car and two-wheeler markets fear that it could seriously cut into their sales. According to the AFP, used car dealerships in Mumbai said prices had fallen by 15 to 20 percent since the Nano was announced, and smaller rural dealers fear further falls when the Nano is released. Business Standard reported that the Nano will also steal away scooter buyers, who buy about 95,000 scooters every month. Others warn of tremendous implications for gridlock and pollution. As quoted in The Star, Anumita Roy Chowdhury of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, said that before buying the Nano, purchasers should ask themselves what kind of India they want, “a congested polluted one or one that promises a good quality of life.” According to studies done by the Centre, one person dies every hour in New Delhi from air pollution-related diseases. Tata’s advertising campaign has been effective in raising excitement for the Nano. But for the time being, its $2000 price tag may still prove too costly for most Indians. According to Reuters, in 2007, over 836 million–or 77% of Indians–lived on less than half a dollar a day. Nonetheless, a tide is fast approaching. Millions of Indians are destined for economic empowerment and their emergence from poverty will not come without associated costs. David Schlussel

Don’t Mess with Energy Independence An Interview with T. Boone Pickens T. Boone Pickens is a billionaire oil magnate who is currently the chairman of BP Capital Management. In the summer of 2008, he announced the “Picken’s Plan”, a policy outline that promotes alternative energy sources. W: Are Obama’s carbon credit policies the type of direction that this country needs? TBP: When you say carbon credit, I see a carbon tax. I’m not big on taxing anybody, especially in this kind of economy. But I do think this: when President Obama says that he’s not going to import any oil from the Mideast or Venezuela in 10 years, he means it. And the only way that can happen is if we use our own resources. We could use a battery, but a battery won’t move an 18-wheeler. The only thing that’s going to move an 18-wheeler that we have in America is natural gas. So you go to natural gas for the heavy duty, try to do the light duty on a battery, and if you can’t, use natural gas for that, too. But natural gas is nothing more than a bridge fuel for 20-25 years. The battery will be perfected at that point, or a fuel cell will be. We have to get off hydrocarbons in the next 20 to 25 years. W: What would a natural gas infrastructure look like? TBP: You’re going to have to pick your way along to get from New Haven to Texas using natural gas. You’re going to have the infrastructure, and you’re going to have the vehicles that can do it, but it may take us three to five years to get there. I drive a natural gas vehicle to work. It’s a commuter car. I fuel it in my garage. It has a range of about 200 miles. I drive it to work and at night I just plug it in and it refuels. It costs about a dollar a gallon for my fuel. W: How effective has the “Picken’s Plan” been? TBP: When I started the “Picken’s Plan” in July of 2008, I had no idea how much support I would get for it. Now we’re going to do this virtual march -- it starts on April 1, and that’s going to have 10 million people involved in it. And we’re going to pour emails; there are going to be calls going in to representatives. But what I want is younger people who are going to get involved, because I am going to get rid of some of this responsibility to the younger generation. I am 80 years old; I have clearly pointed out the problem and nobody argues with me about it. W: What propels you to continue your efforts? TBP: I enjoy doing it. I know the problem, and I can explain it very well, and I can give you the solutions, too. I’ve been very effective on this because I’ve gotten with the NAACP, the Rock the Vote. I’ve got American Electric Power, I’ve got Owens Corning, I’ve got the Sierra Club, American Lung, AT&T, and my good friend Ted Turner. I have the National Conference of Black Mayors and I have 185 mayors with me in the United States, so there’s no question that when you get down

and discuss it, however long you want to, that we have to get on our own resources. We have to use the natural gas as a bridge fuel to the next transportations fuel, and there’s nobody who argues with me. They just ask how they can help. W: What is your take on the peaking of global petroleum extraction? TBP: I do believe in peak oil. I believe that the world has peaked at about 85 million barrels a day, and here we are using 21 million of the 85, using 25 percent of all the oil produced every day in the world. And we only have 4 percent of the population and 3 percent of the reserves here in the United States. Here we are, the big gorillas, using most of the oil, and that is not going to continue. Something has got to happen. We are not going to be allowed to use 25 percent of the oil with 4 percent of the population and 3 percent of the reserves. The numbers just don’t fit. W: Will change come from activists and the government, or from the market? TBP: I think you’re going to have to have both. We’re going to try to go as fast as we can. If you were going to plant a tree, the best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago. Just in case you didn’t do it, the second best time is today. We have not had any energy plan in America for 40 years. If we go forward 10 years like we have in the last 40, we will now be importing 75% of the oil, and we will be paying $300 a barrel for it. That solves two things for us: that solves health care and education. Because if we’re paying $300 a barrel for 75 percent of our oil, we won’t have the money to do anything about health care or education. So you got to get it fixed. And it’s got to be young people who have to assume responsibility for this at some point. The way they can do it is from the grassroots up. You put the pressure on Congress to get the legislation to help solve the problem. The Obama administration wants what you and I are talking about right here. But you’ve got to keep the pressure on. You can’t let up on Washington, because they’ll get distracted by some other problem. So you just keep the pressure on for an energy plan. If they don’t have the plan in two years, then they are going to be identified as being for foreign oil. And you need to identify those people. This doesn’t have anything to do with politics and doesn’t have anything to do with making money for Boone Pickens. It all has to do about America, and all of us here in America. Conducted by Thomas J. Smyth

The Ecuadorian Diaries By Snigdha Sur DAY 1 (TUESDAY, MARCH 10)

The sun is blazing. I have been up since 6:30 a.m. We are at the Federico Gonzales Suarez School in Otavalo. I am dressed in jeans I haven’t worn since 7th grade (that still magically fit me) and have tied a bandanna around my head. My work gear. Gilberto, who also owns the hostel we have been staying at, about a 10-minute drive away by car (but probably an hour-long walk because of the steep hills) introduces us to Raul and Mario, who will help us immensely in the days to come. We don’t stand around long. We are each given a hoe or machete and taken to a wide expanse of green at the back of the school. Dig, they say. Holes. About this big. The landscape around us is lush; there are so many shades of green. The grass below my feet is long. As I start the backbreaking work of hoeing, which I will do for the next few days, I cannot get over the darkness of the dirt. I feel as if I am touching and disrupting this place, but for a good cause. Trees planted decades ago by the Peace Corps (or some other ignorant group) have started to take over the Ecuadorian landscape with the absence of any indigenous predators. We are to replace these trees with a forest of indigenous ones. By the end of the trip, we will have dug over 150 holes for the forest. We have a long way to go. -----Mario says we can stop early. During our break about an hour before Mario’s news, we had played with the eager kids, who think we are gringos from Germany. Pedro, who is part of the Cifuentes family, the family we live with in the hostel, is relentlessly mischievous. Mario tells us we are going to walk to the waterfalls in the remaining time, until the bus will pick us up at 2. No one told us the trek would be that difficult. When we ask the children about the waterfall a few days later, they laugh at us. They tell us they go to the waterfall all the time. For us, it’s hard climbing up that elevation. But I can feel my thighs getting stronger. I can feel my body getting stronger. The earth is giving me this strength and it is this very ground that I hope to help with my strength. By the time I hear the deafening roar of water crashing down, I knew it would be worth it. It was beautiful.

DAY 2 (WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11):

After a breakfast of warm rolls with jam and butter and fruit juice, we are again off to dig. Like in Louis Sachar’s Holes, the second day is always worse than the first. And the third day will be worse than today. I already feel my future blisters along my palms. I have found it is harder to dig holes on a slope. I have found that exposing the dirt for too long will cause them to dry in the arid, sunny Ecuadorian weather. I have found numerous worms and bugs in the dirt squirming about. But I have also discovered things about the students who have accompanied me on this trip, soon to be some of my closest friends. It is hard work that brings people together. Jhenette and I like digging together, alternating our plunges so it goes faster. After we are satisfied with the depth, we get the small plants, wet the roots, and place them in the center, grabbing more dirt to settle it into place. We step on the dirt to pack it down and then water water water. Water is so important for these plants, especially in hot Otavalo. Gilberto says we will be working on the defunct irrigation system next, to make the space usable for composting and fish emulsion to be used as fertilizer. But more on that later. During break time, some of the children come over and decide that they could spend their time better helping us rather than playing ball. They are so much better at us in everything. They are better at playing basketball, volleyball, walking to waterfalls, and even digging. Each 10-year-old can finish digging a hole in half the time it takes me. Yes, they are a bit messy and less careful, but they are fast. They are amazing. It saddens me that I never had this lifestyle in America. I have already had to put a banaid on a blister that just popped today. And so it goes. The best part about working so hard is that everything tastes so good when you are that hungry. Tonight, for dinner, we had fried plantains with a hot colada drink. I also fell in love with the new love of my life: Fabio Cifuentes, age un ano y tres meses. They call him ojitos because when he smiles his large eyes become so small. He loves opening the door from the kitchen into the dining room, as if he is checking in on us.

DAY 3 (THURSDAY, MARCH 12):

We finished planting most of our plants, I think. Today was just like yesterday. Hard. Except Pablo, who works for the Cifuentes at the Hostal El Geranio, and our trip leaders think it’s also a good idea to hike to the Peguche waterfalls about two and a half miles away after the work day. My mind and heart are up for it but my body’s still aching. We all go for it. The Ecuador landscape’s greenness hasn’t ceased to amaze me yet. Cows amble by. It starts raining. I start to wonder what this would be like if this land were untouched. If I had thought the waterfalls on Monday were gorgeous, Peguche was breath-taking. These are the kind of scenes you see on postcards (and I did buy postcards of it, I admit). These are the places people will never believe exist unless I take a picture of myself with the falls and its surrounding green behind me. I am wet.

DAY 4 (FRIDAY, MARCH 13):

It is raining. Though we have gotten to the school at the usual time, we resort to do away with our boredom by playing the trademark game of this trip: Uno. As we wait in the dining area for the nursery kids, the nursery children stream in for food. They are cute. As I look through the pictures I take of them, you can see how one toddler thinks no one sees him as he hits the girl right next to him. We don’t work that much today. When it finally brightens, we start digging up the grass in a rectangular shape for the seeds for a garden. I would think this would be better than digging holes, but it isn’t. Before you know it, the hot Ecuadorian sun starts beaming again. Nate Gould starts telling us riddles and before long, it becomes an addiction. Physical and mental exertion. Yes, this is my Spring break and I am loving it. And before we know it, it is 2 pm and the beginning of our first and last weekend in Otavalo.

DAY 5 (SATURDAY, MARCH 14):

It is market day in Otavalo and by the time the day is over, I am broke. I have bought an alpaca sweater, Ecuadorian banana leaf art, and lots and lots of jewelry. Vanessa says she was awakened by the sounds of a squealing pig, which I saw roasted with peppers in its ears and a tomato in its mouth later that day. We saw chess sets pitting white conquistadors against the natives. We saw gourds painted and carved with the most intricate designs. We saw monster hats that Nathan Gould says he will use as his Halloween costume later this year.

DAY 7 (MONDAY, MARCH 16):

It has been almost a week since we started digging and today will be our biggest (and arguably most important) dig day yet. Gilberto told us to start digging all the sediment that has been deposited in the irrigation system from over 15 years of not being in use. We have to dig through at least one feet of dirt over a trench that is at least 40 feet long and four feet wide. Oh, and it is also filled with water. Members of our group start thinking of creative ways to move the water out. We use pails. We use our hoes. Nathan and Lee then decide to use a hose, placing one end in the trench and the other outside of it. Why are we doing all this, I think. Gilberto, with the help of Ecuador’s Ministry of Agriculture, wants to reintroduce fish in the school. We will remove all the sediment to allow for a worm farm. Fresh dirt and compost will be placed in the trench, where worms used to feed the fish will also be grown. The fish, which will be placed in circular cement cylinders nearby, will help in producing non-chemical fertilizers for the plants. The fish will be used for more than just eating; the NPK-rich fish manure, along with the compost, can fertilize the plants. Mario, Amandla, Jason, Jose, and Nathan also work on clearing out a tank with dirt over ten feet deep. Water, coming from a nearby stream, will travel through this tank. As it travels by slowly, any dirt particles will sediment out, leaving clearer water for the fish in the consequent tanks. We are on our way to successfully creating a closed system, where any nutrients the plants strip from the soil to grow will be returned to the soil through non-chemical fertilizers, compounds that will enrich the ground and plants will be able to use in its most natural form. I worked through break. It looks like we might be able to remove all the dirt and water from the trench today. When we’re done, we start helping out the others who are digging in the deeper trench. We shovel the dirt they have thrown out of the trench into a wheelbarrow and wheel it to a farther location. It helps but the dirt on the grass near the trench is accumulating fast. There is a lot of dirt in there.

DAY 8 (TUESDAY, MARCH 17):

It rained again today. Those in the deep trench are still digging. I am still wheelbarrowing.

DAY 6 (SUNDAY, MARCH 15):

We seem to have signed up for another hike, this time around Lake Cuicocha, which sits in the center of the mountains of Mount Cotacachi (around 15,000 ft in elevation). We will spend the day walking around the lake. Pablo says it is a five-hour hike. I have run out of synonyms for beautiful, gorgeous, breath-taking, eye-poppingly amazing, you have to see it to believe it. Because Ecuador is all these things, especially its natural beauty. It’s important to change perspective; each view was distinct and equally peaceful. They say there used to be a restaurant and town on the island in the middle of the lake. But one day, everything caught on fire. Since then, it has been left uninhabited.

DAY 9 (WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18):

Today is our last day in the fields. The Ministry of Agriculture visited the school grounds to see our work. He will give the school a stipend if Gilberto’s vision of a sustainable solution pans out well. This is a system that relies on the interconnectedness of living things. The children put on a great show for us. They know we are leaving, and they are sad, too. They dance, sing, and read. A little boy named Diego dances with our trip leader Jhenette. Another girl, slightly older, dances with Jeremy. When we get home to the hostel, we have our last lunch in Otavalo. I have grown to love this place, even after I got lost the first day on the streets of Sucre. It is hard to see now how our work will improve the landscape but I trust Gilberto’s reasoning. I only wish I could come back five years from now to see it all flourishing.

In New York City, a Neighborhood is Left Behind By Lauren Phillips

As the movement to reduce America’s carbon footprint expands, many cities have discovered that the large systems of highways built after WWII are not only encumbering the move toward more sustainable cities, but also damaging the lives of the people who live near them. The Sheridan Expressway, which runs through the Hunt’s Point neighborhood of the Bronx, NY, is such an example. The non-profit organization Sustainable South Bronx has been the leading voice in the fight to tear down the expressway, but it has faced both internal and external obstacles. In 1958, Robert Moses, one of the most controversial figures in the history of urban planning, sanctioned and began the construction of the Sheridan Expressway. Moses’ vision for New York as a city accessible to volumes of automobile traffic could only be realized with a system of highways leading to Manhattan. The logical place to build was the dispensable neighborhoods of the South Bronx, inhabited by some of the city’s poorest minority residents. However, one begins to question the necessity of a 1.12-mile freeway that links two highways that themselves merge only two miles later. Sustainable South Bronx, which has called for the Sheridan’s demolition for years, calls the highway “poorly planned” and “redundant,” a relic of the era when the car was king. The Sheridan’s placement is indicative of a common problem in large cities with poor, minority populations. Undesirable structures viewed as necessary for the city, such as waste disposal plants and highways, are placed in neighborhoods with low property values and negligible political clout. After the highways were built through the South Bronx, housing prices fell and attracted mostly poor, minority families. Minorities consistently fare worse compared to whites in terms of pollution exposure as a result. Hunt’s

Point has a 98.8% minority population and half its residents live below the nation’s poverty line of $10,400 per capita. The presence of the highway further reduces home prices and reinforces the cycle. Sixty years later, this highway link still stands between Hunt’s Point residents and access to the Bronx waterfront. Almost all New York City neighborhoods have some access to the waterfront, but Hunt’s Point residents are cut off by railroad tracks, a food distribution center, a fertilizer plant, and more than 20 waste treatment facilities (which also elicit constant complaints of foul odors). The New York Times, in 1999, called Hunt’s Point one of the most environmentally abused parts of the city. The five-acre Barretto Park is the only park, servicing nearly 50,000 people. The park has no public swimming pool; teenagers often plunge into the Bronx River— in which garbage and sewage overflow float regularly after storms—for relief. Even after the initial controversy over its construction, the Sheridan remains a presence in New York politics. When it and the nearby Cross Bronx Expressway were initially constructed, thousands of residents were evicted from their homes and given less than 30 days to find another place to live. According to Sustainable South Bronx President Miquela Craytor, this contributed to the poverty of the area. In 1997, tensions flared over Department of Transportation’s proposition to extend the highway. The DOT claimed the extension would keep more trucks off Hunt’s Point’s surface streets and improve access to Hunt’s Point’s food distribution center, one of the largest in the world. Although a 10-year-old boy had been struck and killed by one of these trucks in the previous year, community opposition against extending the highway ran strong. A manifestation of this community outrage, the Sustainable South Bronx was founded by life-long resident Majora

Carter in 2001. The project supports tearing down the Sheridan. Its mission statement reads: [We] address land-use, energy, transportation, water & waste policy, and education to advance the environmental and economic rebirth of the South Bronx, and inspire solutions in areas like it across the nation and around the world. After winning a MacArthur Foundation grant in 2005, Carter left the organization for the far more profitable private sector. Her for-profit “green” consulting firm, The Majora Carter Group LLC, can charge as much as $25,000 for speaking appearances. Craytor, the Sustainable South Bronx project’s new president, hails from Portland, Oregon and earned a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. The lack of a Bronx-native leader has arguably detracted from Sustainable South Bronx’s growing strength. Sustainable South Bronx wishes to follow the example of other U.S. cities that have demolished inner city highways and replaced them with green space and affordable housing. In San Francisco, the 1989 earthquake hastened the demise of the Central Freeway, which was torn down. The Hayes Valley neighborhood that the Freeway had previously traversed, subsequently flourished. According to the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, many other problems the neighborhood had dealt with previously, such as drug dealing and prostitution, sharply declined after the highway’s demolition. In Milwaukee, the demolition of a section of the Park East Freeway opened up space for 28 city blocks, allowing the city to reconnect streets, open a new six-block-long tree-lined boulevard, and extend the city’s river walk. The repercussions of the expressway are visible everywhere in Hunt’s Point. In addition to the massive industrial complexes that blight the neighborhood, the Bronx suffers from air pollution higher than 90% of the nation, according to scorecard.org, and is among the worst 10% of counties with elevated cancer risk due to pollution. It is difficult to see how this could not be traced to the abundance of highways cutting through the area and lack of open space. Despite community pressure and evidence of the highway’s harm, plans to build a riverside park in Hunt’s Point without demolishing the Sheridan illustrate the remaining opposition at hand. The New York City Parks and Recreation department has begun construction on the South Bronx Greenway project, a plan to ring the Hunt’s Point waterfront with a series of

bike and pedestrian paths. Carter helped to engineer the proposal, and the Parks Department has stated that the paths should be completed within the next five years. But if the Sheridan is not torn down, the parks will continue to be geographically isolated from the neighborhood’s residents. Any potential benefits, such as cleaner air and the potential to combat neighborhood obesity by giving residents access to safe, places to walk and run, will be rendered moot. The Department of Transportation currently has two major plans for the Sheridan under consideration, according to Ms. Craytor. One plan proposes the expansion of the Sheridan several miles northeast to connect to I-95. The other proposal, by Sustainable South Bronx, calls for the demolition of the highway, opening up space for riverfront access and mixed-use housing. The DOT has had these proposals under consideration for three years, and has given no definitive answer. The last proposal Sustainable South Bronx made for community development—to use an industrial area as a new eco-industrial park—however, was met with disappointment. The area will instead play host to a new jail. The Mayor’s office has not addressed the issue. Mayor Bloomberg has a wellestablished reputation as a champion of environmental causes, though his proposals have produced mixed results. His congestion-pricing plan was shot down in the state legislature last year, and his initiative to place underwater turbines in the East River to harvest tidal power was halted in 2007 by the river’s strong current. However, when it comes to tackling more local environmental issues, Sustainable South Bronx has found the office less than helpful. When asked for a statement on the Sheridan expressway plan, Bloomberg’s press office reported that “the Mayor is unfamiliar with the issue” and that no press release on the subject has ever been made. Today, the overpass remains a contentious issue, an issue that seems antiquated in today’s world of climate change, water wars, and organic agriculture. But the poor in the South Bronx are still less likely to have access to the type of environmental assets other city dwellers take for granted. The overpass endures as a powerful symbol of that fact. Even when the Greenway project is completed, residents will continue to have difficulty reaching a safe place to be outdoors and interact with the Bronx River. And unless Mayor Bloomberg makes himself aware of the issue, Hunt’s Point may continue to be left behind.

Glenn Ross

Organizing for the Urban Environment by Wossen Ayele On a clear March afternoon, Glenn Ross, a bearded large-framed African-American man, sits in the cluttered office of his Baltimore row house, a short drive away from his childhood neighborhood. “I come from a family that says, if it’s not broke, make it better,” he says, the walls adorned with dozens of certificates, awards, newspaper clippings and a gigantic satellite map of East Baltimore. Those familiar with him know that the words of his parents have served him and his community well. After nearly three decades of community service and activism in environmental justice—and a fair amount of acclaim—Ross has just recently become comfortable being known as an envi-

ronmentalist. Now 58, Ross moved to the city in 1980 form Laurel, MD, after serving in the Army and completing brief stints as a semi-pro football player and later, a self-defense instructor at a Maryland Department of Corrections. He recalls being one of the first African-Americans to live in his neighborhood, and encountered what he describes as “racial problems.” He soon realized that the latent issues of his new neighborhood were obscured by an attractive veneer. “When I moved here, you had the white marble steps, the clean windows, the Elvis Presley bust,” Ross said. “But the alleys were

atrocious.” Garbage filled the alleyways while rat infestation plagued the community. After gutting his home and ridding it of rodents, he began to help his neighbors with their extermination. He eventually joined the McElderry Park Community Association and led the “Rat Rub Out” program for the city. He followed that up with a neighborhood sanitation project, winning back-to-back Baltimore City Paper’s Best Community Activist awards in the process. Baltimore has no dearth of community groups or associations; there are over 900 community associations for a city with fewer than 650,000 residents. Historically, however,

these organizations have been unable to work together towards improving Baltimore. Ross cites Baltimore’s fragmented and territorial nature as the culprit. Ross links this problem to his belief that the city government naturally fears coalitions as they pose a greater threat to the status quo. “You can fight all day like this,” said Ross matter-offactly, hand outstretched with fingers apart. “But you can fight better like this,” he said, balling his hand into a fist. Realizing the territorial nature of community groups, Ross, then the director of the Citizen Planning and Housing Association (a citywide umbrella organization) strategized how to bring people together. But closing the hand into a fist required creative approaches. From the get go, Ross developed his group by avoiding what he perceived as the shortcomings of other community groups. “We didn’t just have complaint meetings; we had educational meetings. So my slogan used to be ‘This is not a bitch session. Bring your pencil and pad–you’re going to learn something.” His methods were varied. He offered workshops that helped individuals receive city services in a more streamlined and convenient manner. “Usually,” said Ross, “When you have a sanitation problem, you call a number and get transferred and transferred. We said, when you have a sanitation problem, you call this person between this time in the morning and this time in the evening…and this is their supervisor.” Initially, Ross also used incentives to get people to come out to his community events. In a time where most of the community leaders in the city were women, Ross organized a pantyhose giveaway aimed specifically at these female leaders. These strategies worked, and before long, the city government started going to Ross to mobilize people to work on citywide initiatives. Many of these initiatives were focused on environmental issues, even if they weren’t viewed as such initially. Ross helped coordinate “Shape-Up Baltimore,” “The Mayor’s Campaign for a Cleaner Baltimore”, and “Off the Wall”, an anti-graffiti program. At the same time, Ross began educating himself on the environmental issues that affected his community by attending workshops and seminars at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institute’s East Baltimore Campus. For over 20 years, Ross served as the Johns Hopkins community’s go-to guy and also did contractual work with the institution. “I tap into research dollars to bring it back into the community, bringing college students into the community to volunteer,” he said. Ross logically connected what he learned from working with the city about sanitation and community development with what he learned from Hopkins about the environment. His new mission became to educate his community on how specific environmental factors affect their health. He also adopted a new motto: “Changing the game by educating people.” His projects are based on the realities of Baltimore and health threats specific to the city. For example, many of the homes in Baltimore were built in the late 19th and early 20th century with plaster, horsehair, asbestos and other contaminants. The vacant lots of recently demolished old homes can become environmentally hazardous since they attract dumping and become filled with contaminants. Ross said children often use these lots as playgrounds. “Whenever the wind blows, it’s blowing all of the dust off the lot,” Ross said, and straight into people’s yards, onto playing children and pets and onto clothes drying

on the line. Ross also deals with storm water runoff and underground water flow; many of these contaminants end up in the Baltimore Harbor. His work in environmental issues highlights the disconnect between the environmental discourse with which many are familiar and the reality of how the environment affects the urban poor. Ross remembers one instance where two outside environmentalists asked him why their presentations in poor urban communities weren’t effective. Ross asked them to give him their presentation. “You just left me thinking about snow-capped mountains, the water streams, the salmon, the wildlife, kayaking. We don’t kayak,” he said to them. “You need to be talking about the mold and mildew in our basements... rodent droppings left inside and outside of our houses. You need to be talking about lead paint and how landlords will paint a radiator a nice color but its not radiator paint. And in the cold weather, when we turn our heat on, it’s letting these fumes off and people are getting sick from it.” The man-made environment is usually far more relevant for many who live in urban areas. Ross’s philosophy is consistent with the larger environmental justice movement, which serves to reduce the disproportionate environmental burdens that are placed on marginalized peoples. In Baltimore, the marginalized people bearing these burdens are often poor and often black. This reality is not lost on Ross who has noticed this trend. In 2003, Ross began working with the Environmental Justice Partnership (EJP), comprised of community residents and leaders, the Maryland Institute College of Art and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The group advocates environmental justice for the residents of East Baltimore and joins Hopkins researchers examining urban environmental issues with local communities struggling with the same issues. In 2006, Ross began taking Johns Hopkins students on a tour of toxic sites that detail the history of environmental hazards in East Baltimore. Initially informal tours in the cars of his friends, these tours have regularized to fourteen sites and are so popular that he now rents out a bus. As a native of the area, Ross brings immense background knowledge to these tours, often telling what these sites were like some 50 years ago or noting the homes of local politicians past and present. Ross hopes that the EJP and the tours can shed light on the environmental problems that his neighbors are facing and foster dialogue and action to correct them. Ross has worked with many in the Baltimore political landscape: individuals, institutions and the municipal government. He has his own metaphor for how to traverse the political landscape. He likens it to a chessboard with three levels. The bottom being residents, faith based organizations and social groups; the middle being institutions like universities, developers and investors; and the top being the political authority. “Its a game,” he said, where the question is “how do you do a successful project, without it getting blocked or co-opted?” Glenn Ross understands how to maneuver through the chess board and his body of work attests to that. As a community advocate, Ross provides a clear model for how environmentalism can be made relevant to the urban community. He has been successful at incorporating the realities of urban living into environmentalist discourse and in the process mobilized his community and inspired a new generation of environmentalists that East Baltimore, and other urban neighborhoods, desperately need.

Toxic Tour of East Baltimore by Wossen Ayele

1. Before being filled with contaminated building materials, this garbage dump was a veteran’s cemetery. The contaminated dust of crushed building materials hang in the air on windy days and today, the surrounding area has the highest number of respiratory problems in the city. When the cemetary was initially bulldozed, the EPA piloted a phytomediation project, planting African ferns and sunflowers to soak up the arsenic and load that crept into the soil. But no one told the residents, who would frequently pick and eat the sunflowers. 2. This is where the materials from the contaminated landfill were transported. There was so much dust and runoff in this neighborhood that the city had to use street sweepers at night to clean it off. 3. The neighborhood around this electrical station was traditionally working class and white. According to Ross, “Once Johns Hopkins and the Health Department realized the that neighborhood was unhealthy [due to cancer causing agents in the electrical transformers], the residents were informed and it was suggested the the families should move. But, the property owners could not sell their property because the word got out that it was unsafe. The city purchased many of the homes and approved them for Section 8 low-income housing.” 4. This playground is in the same neighborhood. In the background, Ross said, “you can see an old abandoned chemical building. Between that building and the fence is a series of railroad tracks. The railroad tankers that travel those tracks carry contaminated liquids. They line up there in the mornings, waitig for destination orders. As they st, they leak on a regular basis.” The contaminated fluids run down into the gutters, near where children walk to school and play everyday.

5. Just down the street, this landfill is filled with gravel and crushed glass. When it rains or it is particularly windy, it can cause negative health effects. According to Ross, “Hopkins did a survey in this neighborhood and found a lot of

people were bleeding, bleeding from the throat and nostrils from all of this dust.” Ross says that the city government is aware of this study.

Swimming in Toxins by David Schlussel

In March 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics published the first study on the presence of two known carcinogens in baby shampoos, bubble baths, and lotions. Of 48 widely-used products that were tested, 61% were found to contain formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. The cheerful labels like Grins & Giggles Milk & Honey Baby Wash, and Sesame Street Bubble Bath: Orange Mango Tango branded onto these dangerous substances mask a vexing question: Why are America’s children swimming in toxins? Ever since Americans cleared away New England forests for domesticated agriculture, used pesticides to beat back infectious disease, and fertilizers to stretch the limits of crop yields, Americans have come to believe that, with enough force, they can tame nature. In this vein, Congress passed the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) in 1976. All chemicals that were in use before 1976 were deemed suitable, but if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can prove that a chemical discovered after TSCA was passed is unsafe, it has the authority to police its use. It governs the roughly 82,700 chemicals in commerce, generating a false belief that the government can properly control the flow of toxic manufactured chemicals through our environment. The public is starting to wake up. They are asking questions. Why are mercury, lead, chromium, and cadmium, very potent neurological toxins, used in our computers and electronics? The traditional defense, like when smokestacks are hailed as the signs of progress, is that toxic chemical risks are minute. They are insignificant in comparison to the good that chemicals have contributed to society, in the form of medicine, consumer items, and industrial services. Regulating most toxic chemicals, it is claimed, would stifle innovation, and cost industry billions in resources to satisfy compliance with little gained. In fact, since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has used it to evaluate the safety of just 200 chemicals and banned only five. This lax attitude is amplified by the difficult nature of trying to demonstrate which toxic chemical, measured in parts per million, is the direct culprit of something like a specific diagnosis of disease or the pollution of a freshwater lake. The damage comes from

accumulation over many years of minute quantities of chemicals. We now have the scientific data to show that many commonly produced and released chemicals can cause cancer, brain damage, developmental problems, and birth defects. We have also learned that these chemicals, which can wreak havoc on natural ecosystems, do not stay put. They enter into the bodies of humans, animals, plants, and other organisms. They pass through our water, soil, and the atmosphere even thousands of miles away from industrial sites. According to their data, the EPA registers an average of 2,000 newly synthesized chemicals each year. Cosmetics have at least 5,000 chemicals; more than 3,200 are added to food. We live in a toxic soup. A study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York found 167 different chemical pollutants in the blood and urine of nine participants from five states. Of those 167 compounds, 76 are known to cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects. None of the subjects studied worked with chemicals or lived near an industrial facility. With this knowledge it is time to act. Calls for precautionary principles are often derided as obstacles to liberty and free enterprise. When so many American lives are at stake, such reasoning should no longer be taken seriously. While the microscopic nature of these substances means there are few high profile lawsuits or media uproars, the health damages from toxic chemicals have become a silent disaster. In fact, on February 26, the American Chemistry Council, a leading chemical industry trade group, told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee of the House of Representatives that the government should act to modernize the nation’s chemical regulatory system in order to restore public confidence and reflect the latest scientific research. This is the first time in history that a major chemical industry group has called for reform to TSCA. The American public must continue to exert pressure. Continuous efforts will be needed to push the government and its interest groups towards reform. For inspiration, we should look to the achievements of the European Union. The “Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical

substances” (REACH) law, went into effect on June 1, 2007 in the EU. Its provisions will be phased in over the course of 11 years. Manufacturers and importers will be required to gather information on the properties of their chemical substances, and to register the information in a central database. The European Chemicals Agency will manage the databases, coordinate the in-depth evaluation of suspicious chemicals and operate a public database in which consumers and professionals can find hazard information. The law also calls for the gradual substitution of the most dangerous chemicals when suitable alternatives are identified. The cost of compliance has been estimated at about 5 billion euro over 11 years, and the health benefits are projected to save billions of euro in healthcare costs. The efforts American lobbying groups to try to prevent the passage of the law were to no avail. The REACH philosophy is ‘no data, no market’ and American products that are not registered as nontoxic will not be exportable to Europe. The EU is cleaning out its kitchen and we must not be left behind. It is time to overhaul our system. With tens of thousands of synthesized chemicals being constantly released into our surroundings, greater precaution and transparency must prevail. We must begin by reevaluating the thousands of chemicals that were grandfathered into TSCA in 1976. Then, looking to REACH as a model, we must enact legislation that, by demanding safe design, encourages innovative and intelligent manufacturing practices. William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things offers a guiding principle: “Prefer ecological intelligence. Be as sure as you can that a produce or substance does not contain or support substances that are blatantly harmful to human and environmental health.” Rather than allowing the release of deadly substances and then watching the government fail to keep them under control, we must demand ecological intelligence from industry. If we can design production systems that are certifiably safe, we are designing a prosperous and healthy world.

W: How might your recommendations change for corporate environmental strategy considering the economic downturn? AW: Well, I just finished a new book that is coming out this summer about going green in hard economic times. It addresses this theme of ‘what does it mean to go green now?’ It’s called Green Recovery. I believe that going green is one of the ways out of this mess – that one of the core principles of going green is doing more with less, saving money, and using fewer resources. This is not an idea commonly held in the business world. It’s important to understand that going green saves money, that it doesn’t just cost money. Some aspects of green do cost money, for instance if you wanted to buy organic cotton for your clothing line, or renewable energy, but there are lots of aspects of green that are surprisingly costeffective. I think companies don’t look as hard at resource efficiency as they could. We lean towards layoffs as a quick way to save money when layoffs can be very expensive for companies, and resources could save much more money than people realize, saving as much as some number of jobs. So I think there are some real social benefits to the discussion, too. W: What about benefits of green marketing? Do you find that companies are “green-washing” their advertisements in order to appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers? AW: Well, I think that not all of the green marketing going on right now is effective. I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to call it “green-washing”, but there are certainly companies out there that stretch the truth. If you have something measurable, something verifiable – if there is something significantly different about your product or service –you should market it and be rewarded. W: To what degree do you see companies taking the initiative to source more sustainable materials for their products in terms of cutting costs? Isn’t that almost universally more expensive? AW: Yeah, well that’s tough to say universally more or less expensive. Look at Wal-Mart which is pushing the greening of the supply chain in a really profound way.

Cutting Energy, Cutting Costs An Interview with Andrew Winston Andrew Winston is the president of the consulting firm Winston Eco-Strategies. He recently co-authored Green to Gold with Yale Law School professor Daniel Esty.

W. So you think that what Wal-Mart is doing is pretty legitimate? AW: Well, yeah. Wal-Mart’s efforts are absolutely legitimate. You can have a long discussion about their social issues and pay and healthcare and all these other things, but reducing fuel use in their fleet, which they’ve done aggressively, changing lighting in their stores, getting their suppliers to use less packaging—those are all really happening. The supply chain pressure is completely legitimate because they believe that it does cut costs. Unfortunately, there are short-term investments to get to those cut costs. Wal-Mart is not going to necessarily help their suppliers with that additional expense, so they’re trying to push some of the up-front costs further up the supply chain, which is what they’ve always done. That’s nothing particularly new. So I think the supply chain thing is more complicated, and I do believe that it does reduce costs along the whole value chain to reduce resources. There is, however, a critical distinction that I make in my new book between investments and costs. If people are looking for things that don’t cost a single penny, they’re not going to find many things. At the simplest level, you can get people in the company to turn off the lights when they leave the room, just like you would in your home. That costs nothing. If you really want the savings, you’re going to change the light bulb to a compact fluorescent one. But that means buying the new light bulb and spending money up-front. If companies are in a situation where they have literally no cash, or no investment in capital, people, and research, then they’re basically just in survival mode. They’re practically bankrupt. I’m talking about the fact that even in down times, companies are still allocating some spending. They’re allocating investment dollars to something even if those dollars are fewer than they were. The question becomes are they putting any of those dollars towards green issues. Conducted by Christian Termyn

A Trip Through Coal Country By Nikita Pavlenko Driving through Central Pennsylvania, I was struck by the deathly stillness of the land on either side of the interstate. Flanked by bare, bony trees, mounds of coal, and the remains of Interstate-61, the town of Centralia sits nearly abandoned. Only after taking a side road did I find the remains of the town: empty plots of land, three graveyards and several row houses buttressed by brick supports. A fire has been raging in the coal mines underneath the town for decades, with no sign of stopping any time soon. Supposedly, burning trash in the town’s landfill ignited the blaze, though nobody has been able to definitely explain the fires to date. The effects are obvious. Only a handful of people now call this town home--down from thousands in previous decades. The entire town was evacuated by the government in the 1980’s and 1990’s save for a few holdouts. Even Centralia’s zip code was revoked. In place of a lively rural town, there are now only jagged cracks in the ground, spewing sulfurous smoke, alongside empty plots of land where there were once houses. I-61, which used to cut through the town, is sealed off due to the enormous cracks caused by the intense heat underground. One of the few remaining structures is an Eastern Catholic Church, spared by its position on a hill overlooking the town. Former residents still visit for services from neighboring boroughs such as Ashland. In the center of Centralia stands a bench, still bright green, proclaiming the town’s founding in 1866. Behind the bench there is a centennial plaque commemorating the time capsule buried underground in 1966, to be unearthed in 2016. If the heat of the intervening years hasn’t melted its contents, its opening will mark a bitter 150th anniversary for the once-hopeful town.

Why Conservation is Failing Africa’s Wildlife An Interview with Karl Ammann Karl Ammann is a wildlife photographer and conservationist based in Africa. In 2007, he was named one of Time Magazine’s “Heroes of the Environment.” W: What goes into the production of each of your prints? KA: Where photography is concerned, it’s more of a hobby than a profession. Most of us have to accept that one isn’t going to become rich taking pictures of wildlife, but it’s a great hobby to have. When I started off it was easier to sell technically perfect images; then there was more of an artistic feel later on. People wanted to see the artist interpreting beyond what was a technically beautiful portrait or landscape shot. Now that the digital aspect has come, photographers can simply use their computers and manipulate an image to the point where it becomes computer art instead of photography. W: How did you first become involved with the issue of bushmeat—the hunting of wild animals to eat or sell? KA: The story goes back about 20 or 25 years. I had done wildlife photography before, but I was on a trip with my wife and some friends up the Congo River and it was just amazing how much bushmeat came onboard this ship. It begged the question, “Is this a regular occurrence?” I started to realize it was a big problem and the world was not taking it seriously. I felt the need to further document it to make the point that it was a serious problem. W: Just how widespread is the problem? KA: West Africa has been largely logged out and hunted out—there’s some wildlife left, but the bushmeat hunting problem is probably on the decline because there isn’t that much wildlife left to hunt. Central Africa was opened up in the last 20 years, so bushmeat hunting in Cameroon too is probably on the decline because it no longer is really profitable. The number of big mammals has declined enough that hunters don’t feel like they’re getting their return any more. East Africa is becoming a serious problem, but not so much at the top-

end of the market as in Central Africa, where the rich buy bushmeat and are willing to pay two or three times the price of beef or pork. In East Africa it’s mostly the poor doing snare hunting; guns are better controlled. In Southern Africa I don’t think it’s much of a problem yet. W: Have there also been any policy changes that have made a difference on the bushmeat front? KA: No I don’t think so. I don’t think the socalled community conservation projects are working. All we have done is drive the problem from on the table to under the table—they’re very good at beating the system in those parts of Africa, not just with bushmeat. W: You have written that what is happening on the bushmeat front is symptomatic of events and trends in Africa. What do you mean by this? KA: I’m just talking about the unsustainable use of resources—the wildlife is a good indicator or test of how unsustainable these practices are, but it seems to be with all natural resources, we’re going the same way. The economic crisis will probably put us a step back. W: You were profiled in Time Magazine a few years ago as a Hero of the Environment. The article opened with the statement “Karl Amman’s photographs are too gruesome for a coffee table.” How would you respond to critics who argue that the “softer” images of wildlife in publications like National Geographic do more to promote interest in the natural world? KA: I think it’s a hypocritical attitude to have. These conservationists are starting to look a little bit harder. National Geographic will now have a cover story about global warming. Five to ten years ago it was all about entertainment and giving the people no negative news. It was a question of selling magazines. Now they’re beginning to show a bit more responsibility and every now and then have a story, but it’s always something with a happy ending or hope at the end or whatever. When it comes to National Geographic and television channels like Animal Planet, everybody is the same. They want to entertain; and if they don’t entertain,

then they will lose viewers; and if they lose viewers, then the producers have a harder job. They don’t want harsh stories; they want uplifting tales. There can be some problems, but in the end they have to be solved with a happy ending or a hero. The viewer isn’t to be left hanging with a negative image. W: You have some interesting views about the nature of wildlife conservation. What do you call “the conservation establishment” and why do you think that this establishment just doesn’t cut it? KA: When it comes to the conservation establishment, we’re talking about the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Jane Goodall Institute—they’re all multi-million dollar outfits. They think they’re raising money on the basis that writing a check will solve the problem and you can go to bed and sleep well. But we have seen none of that solving of the problem in the last 30 years. W: Are there any conservation organizations that you think are taking the right approach? What makes them different? KA: If you look at them individually, there are organizations like Greenpeace that do not take money from governments and companies. There can be no doubt that if you start taking funds from corporations, you’re in bed with them. If they are emitting pollution here or there, you have to look the other way; you want to keep the money flowing. So I think Greenpeace in that sense is an exception. Maybe there are some others, but Greenpeace is the most prominent one. They can pull the envelope harder because they don’t compromise themselves by taking money from governments or big corporations. W: Would you describe the business model that you would like to apply to conservation organizations? KA: In the business world, your results are measured in the bottom line, in figures—that means you’re either winning or losing. In the conservation business, people spend millions and millions of dollars, pay themselves salaries and bonuses like everywhere else, but there is no measuring results. They constantly report

success, but no one audits what “success” means. Take the Jane Goodall Institute: these are the world’s most prominent chimps. More money $2.5 million a year has been spent on them than any other mammal in the world, but they’re still declining in population growth rates around the small national parks. Who measures and evaluates this and says it is a waste of time? This $2.5 million could save ten times more chimps in some remote corner of the Congo where population pressures aren’t as intense as at Lake Tanganyika. These are some aspects of this independent third party auditing of conservation projects. It’s not a big business model, just finding out what works and what doesn’t. Nobody does it; it doesn’t exist. W: Which areas of national policy would you particularly like to see changed? KA: In these so-called democracies, the politicians will do what the people want, but the people are still pretty selfish. At the moment we’re just consuming too much. A prime minister in Africa is not that different from a trader on Wall Street. The mentality is exactly the same—wanting more and more. We need to get to the point where the policy makers look ahead and accept policies which are unpopular, but I don’t think the democratic system will allow this, so I don’t think mankind’s future looks particularly bright. W: Are there any leaders in the conservation movement whom you particularly admire? KA: There are people out there, but basically people who need to make a salary out of conservation cannot

say what I am saying because they would have too much of a conflict of interest. A lot of people think privately that things are pretty bad out there, but publically they have to present hope. They have to toe the line of whomever they work for, the NGO. To raise money, you do it with hope, selling potential success, not by saying, “it’s almost too late, so let’s cut our losses here and concentrate on this area.” There are some people who are trying, but I think that these people at this stage are not going to make much of a difference. W: Would you speak about your experiences living with two chimpanzees at your home in Kenya? KA: On the Congo River trip, we picked up one bushmeat orphan, worked through all the paperwork, and realized that no one wanted him in the Congo. Everybody had enough chimps as it was. We had the longterm responsibility, so we accepted it, and now it’s a lifetime responsibility. We’ve set up a trust fund for him. The female was meant to be companion; she came also as a bushmeat orphan from the Congo with no future. I think they have as good a life as captive chimps can possibly have. It’s still not perfect in the sense that they would probably be better off in the wild, but on the other hand, I think if they could choose today, they would probably prefer the life that we could give them. They have food every day, a warm bed, pillows to sleep with, and veterinary care. Anywhere in Congo today, they would have to worry about the guy with the shotgun coming to shoot them out of the tree. Conducted by Sarah Armitage

New Jersey’s Mr. Clean An Interview with Scott Weiner Scott Weiner is the Executive Vice President of Resource Energy Systems (RES), a company that offers customized solar solutions for commercial properties. He has served in the New Jersey government, participated in industry collaborations to promote sustainable development, and worked for the Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at Rutgers University.

W: What policy initiatives have enabled the rise of New Jersey as one of the largest producers of solar energy in the country? SW: The excellent solar access in New Jersey, known as the “Saudi Arabia of flat roofs,” has allowed policy makers to incorporate job creation and economic policy into energy diversification. It really started in earnest back around 2003-2004. The New Jersey policymakers were concerned with trying to diversify the energy supply in a way that was environmentally appropriate. What made this all possible was finding a way to monetize the societal benefits of renewable energy—particularly solar—and that has been through the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and, in New Jersey’s case, the solar REC. New Jersey was the first state to carve out a specific obligation for electricity suppliers to include solar in their portfolios. Policy makers identified solar energy as an effective resource to supply power in times of peak demand. In New Jersey, what started as a solar initiative to create jobs has now become a really important public policy initiative. In the current economic climate, the state is now looking at the whole gamut of renewable energy to be the next emerging industry for the state. W: Do you see hydrogen and fuel cells as playing a role in NJ’s energy diversification initiatives? SW: I spent a few years around the hydrogen and fuel cell business. In the future, absolutely. The big problem with hydrogen is a classic “chicken and egg,” particularly when it comes to transportation. To oversimplify it, all car manufacturers say, “Okay we can get a hydrogen car going, but then there’s the fuel.” The fuel companies say it’s not going to be cost effective for them to build out a supply infrastructure until there are cars to use it. Thus far, the federal government has stood on the sidelines. When fuel cells were first being talked about, people said we need to focus on hybrids now. I’m a proponent of the idea that we need everything. In a generation from now, there may not be any carbon-based fuels around. But it won’t happen with a big bang or a snap of the finger. It’s going to be a transition. During that transition, there will be a plethora of options: hydrogen, hydrogen-hybrids, petroleum-hybrids, electric cars. W: How can you get state governments to collaborate on designing power lines to bring clean energy from remote localities to urban population centers? SW: The problem of transmission lines is one of the factors that is

going to drive two broad initiatives. One is the smart grid. It won’t completely eliminate the need for new transmission lines but it will address it in a significant way. The second thing is dealing with a paradigm that goes back a hundred years, which is centralized power generation from large power plants. Distributive generation is pushing a new paradigm. In the northeast, Midwest and California, power generation is becoming competitive. The role of the electric utility is beginning to change. Right now, we’re at the cusp of redefining that role. It’s no longer a generator, but a distribution company. The question policymakers are wrestling with is: to what extent should utilities be engaged in the ownership and deployment of distributive generation facilities? Should utilities do that or should the private sectors, such as RES and others? It’s a bit of an oversimplification of the question, but it’s a major topic that the country must wrestle with over the next couple of years. W: Do you think that the private sector or utilities are best suited to deploy distributive generation facilities? SW: I do not think it is a simple either/or choice and the best answer is yes to both because utilities, the regulated distribution companies and the private sector each have a role to play. The model of the vertically-integrated electric utility operating large, centralized power plants is a thing of the past in many jurisdictions. Some technologies in particular jurisdictions may be ripe for private sector deployment while other technologies at an earlier stage of commercialization may benefit from the economic sponsorship of a utility. I think that each state should first address defining the role of the utility in the context of it a distributed generation model. W: A lot of cultural debate comes along with these technology and policy changes. SW: Absolutely. I taught a seminar at Rutgers about how we, as a society, get ourselves to think about impacts on two generations out, let alone ten generations out. And, you know, the citizens of this country often operate by worrying about things that will only affect themselves. The long-term view of environmental stewardship in policy is something that has been lost in the political culture that we have. One of the greatest challenges we face is making decisions where the benefits are being designed for two, three, four generations out. Conducted by David Schlussel

l s n a u o i t d i c v e i n d in con MANHATTAN’S SECRET BEEHIVES

CLEAN CLUBBING: DANCE-ENERGY CAPTURE AND STORAGE

As politicians and scientists rack their brains to come up with the cleanest way to generate electricity, perhaps all they need to do is just dance. At least that would be the answer for the owners of Club Watt. Opened in September 2008, The New York Times, reports that Rotterdam’s Club Watt is the brainchild of a Dutch company that calls itself Sustainable Dance Club. On face, it looks like any other European disco – strobe lights flash on 20-somethings in tight jeans, dancing to the beats of Europe’s finest techno. But what makes Club Watt unique is that those 20-somethings, largely unbeknownst to them, are doing the work to keep lights on and the beats going. As The Times reports, researchers from Sustainable Dance Club created a dance-floor that turns the moves of a dancing clubber into energy that can power a light bulb. According to the company’s website, underneath the floor tiles are special springs, which become electrically active when compressed. This phenomenon, based

on the technology of piezoelectricity, allows energy to be harvested and used to charge a battery. Further North in Britain, London’s Club Surya is using similar technology. The Daily Mail reports that Andrew Charalambous, Surya’s owner, has even incorporated sweat into the mix when it comes to powering his club. As dancers perspire throughout the evening, temperature sensitive walls change colors. Still, it is unclear exactly how much electricity can be generated from these new dance floors. According to The Times, at Club Watt, it will likely require two dancers to power one lightbulb, meaning that the dancer’s will account for no more than 10% of the electricity that the club used. Charalambous has higher hopes. He told The Daily Mail that up to 60% of his club will be dancefueled, with the rest run on solar panels and wind turbines. Whether or not these numbers are met, each club has effectively made a party out of sustainability. Samuel Breidbart

NEW YORK, N.Y. — Beekeeping is taking flight in Manhattan -- but so far, illegally. Beehives are growing in popularity on the roofs of upscale Manhattan residences, despite a health code clause that prohibits keeping animals that are “wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm” and threatens to fine beekeepers $2000 for violations. In January, New York City Councilman David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights) introduced a bill to legalize beekeeping in the five boroughs, The New Republic reports. The proposed legislation would create a licensing process for beekeepers. They would have to detail their beehive location and plans to receive a two-year, nontransferable license, supervised by the Commissioner of Health. (Yassky is currently running for New York City Comptroller.) But an underground beekeeping scene already exists. Professional and amateur beekeepers install hives on rooftops across the city. And neighbors hardly know they are there. On one rooftop in Manhattan, two small hives hold 60,000 or more bees, two queens, and, six months after they were installed, 60 pounds of excess, harvestable honey. This prodigious output is due in part to the untapped re-

sources of Manhattan flowers. Because there are not many bees, the competition for pollen is slim. One beekeeper, who was granted anonymity because of legal concerns about her beehives, said she was motivated to keep bees after the spread of colony collapse disorder (CCD), a mysterious disease that has threatened bee populations across the country in the past few years. Urban beekeeping can be better for bees than commercial beekeeping. Urban bees are less stressed and have more uncontested territory to work in, whereas most bees in the United States are employed as contract laborers, trucked from field to field to pollinate huge farms. According to The New York Times, scientists speculate that this stressful, transient lifestyle might have contributed to the spread of colony collapse disorder. The Manhattan honey, artfully packaged and sold at a local gourmet cheese shop, is another bonus to keeping bees in the city. Some buyers claim it helps to fight allergies, because it gives immunity from the same flowers and pollens it is made from. Regardless of its anti-allergic properties, this writer can attest that it tastes far better than your average honey.

Thomas J. Smyth

Nature’s Brainchild

An Interview with Janine Benyus

Janine Benuys is president of the Biomimicry Institute which recently launched the website AskNature.org. Her latest book is Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. W: Can you discuss your biomimicry taxonomy database? JB: It’s called AskNature.org. Our goal with the website is to create a resource, a free public domain, for anybody who is designing. This is a resource that allows them to be able to type in a functional term that they would normally use—like “how does nature filter?”—and out will come ideas from the natural world, ones that have evolved through 3.85 billion years. The goal of these ideas is to get people to create more bio-inspired and more sustainable products, processes. It’s for people who aren’t biologists themselves but would like to be inspired by the natural world. W: How do you develop entries? JB: When we created the database, we spent a year with a team of four people filtering through biological literature. It was really fun for the scientists that we hired. They read all this cool stuff about how nature moves, propels, and springs, as well as how trees handle compressive and tensile strength and how they cantilever their branches out. We sat there with scanning pens, sucking up the text. While doing this, we also had a list of sustainability challenges and looked at things like what’s keeping a fuel cell from being affordable—it is the platinum anode, which is where the hydrogen chemistry is done. So every time we were reading biological literature or anything about hydrogenase, or an unusual hydrogenase enzyme—that’s where the chemistry is done in the natural world—we would clip that, because we knew that there was a sustainability challenge that would match that. And so we looked at things like desalination and water purification, which we are now going to be very important, and when we came across a biological strategy that had to do with removing salt from water, whether it was in the nasal glands of sea birds or mangroves, or our own kidneys, we would pull that. And then we would put that under “Filtering salts from water” as one of the challenges. W: Is it completely open to the public? JB: It’s a completely public domain with 2,000 nature strategies organized by function. We really believe that the scientific knowledge that can lead to these inventions should be part of our scientific

commons. Then, hopefully, what you’ll go and do is take an idea, and create some sort of new green chemistry process or whatever, and that’s what you’ll go and patent. W: In Biomimicry, you write about some researchers at Arizona State University who are studying the photosynthetic abilities of leaves as the basis for a miniature solar cell they are deising. Obviously the search for effective alternative energies is a huge domain—I was wondering if you could tell me about any exciting projects that have emerged? JB: Since the book came out, there have actually been developments on a thin-film solar cell based on photosynthesis. It’s called the “dye-sensitized” solar cell. It’s based on chlorophyll—which is a dye— and the way leaves and photosynthetic bacteria pull in sunlight to use in bio-chemical processes. It’s really different than the photovoltaic cells that you might see on your roof. There’s also a company called bio-power in Australia that is testing a wave-energy harvesting device that’s based on kelp and how kelp wave in the ocean. As these devices wave and sway back and forth like kelp, energy is being harvested. Another type of technology is a wind-turbine that rotates in low-wind speeds that’s based on the flippers of a humpback whale. These whales have scalloped edges on the leading edge of their flippers. It turns out that these edges help the whale by reducing turbulence and drag, allowing the humpback whale to turn in these tight little circles to do its bubble feeding. When you apply that to a wind turbine, it also reduces drag by about 32% and it increases lift by about 6%. Well, turns out, that’s really good for slow-wind speed turning. The company’s called Whale Power. W: How is biomimicry being used to deal with diminishing accessibility to clean water worldwide? JB: Well, there is this really cool idea, based on aquaporin. There are pores in a lot of your cells, like your red blood cells, that let in water but nothing else. It’s different than reverse osmosis – what we use now – that works by pushing water against a membrane and catching the salt on one side. Instead, the water molecules are pulled through these little pores in your red blood cells. And they’re

mimicking those now, these aquaporin molecules. I think that’s really going to change water filtration. I think we’re going to start filtering water more like living cells do. W: Have you implemented your ideas in a commercial context? JB: We’ve got a company called the Biomimicry Guild, a group of twelve biologists that consults companies like Boeing, Nike, General Electric, General Mills Food, Interface Carpets, Kohler Plumbing, and Herman Miller Furniture. These companies come to us and have a particular functional challenge. For example, they might ask: “How does nature reduce vibration or sound?” or “How does nature reduce odor?” in a non-toxic manner, without using a lot of energy or materials. That’s how we get to the sustainability piece of this. When you look at nature’s solutions, they tend to be incredibly parsimonious—they sip energy, they shave materials. Tell people at Yale that there’s a new career called “Biologist at the Design table.” If you’re taking biology as an undergrad right now, think about getting as broad of a science background as you can. We’re looking for people who have a specific knowledge of organisms. If Boeing asks us how—actually, I can’t say what they’re asking—but say they ask us how nature creates color. Well we ask, “How is color created?” and look at everything from amoebas to zebras. First, it takes a broad, acrosstaxa understanding of organisms and ecosystems. Then you must look with a functional lens, translating what you’re reading and what you know of the scientific world, to communicate with non-scientists. W: You have discussed the idea of using a Redwood forest as a model for the market place. Could you elaborate further on how these models work? JB: You can have a system like a field of annual plants, that’s called a Type I system, and that comes in after a field has been turned up, like a farmer’s field, and what we call “weeds” come in. That system is very much like what we’ve been in the past; our economy has been sort of been, taking virgin materials, turning them into products and waste, and then reaching back and taking more resources. A very linear, put-through process, without a lot of recycling and closed loops. And that Type I system works only if you’re going onto your next opening. This is because the Type I field of annual plants—basically

very small plants—put out a lot of seeds that travel and go to the next opening. In a few years, these plants are not going to be there. W: What kind of systems do we want our economy to emulate? JB: There are several ways you can find ecological analogs. One is, for instance, is to mimic a natural forest and the different trophic levels – levels of organisms that break down. Consider a log on the forest floor. What is actually happening is the material in the log is being broken down, then it is being eaten and up-cycled into different organisms’ bodies. A fungus might be up-cycled into the body of a fungus, which might be up-cycled into a body of a sort of a mite or a centipede, which might be used in the body of a bird. Essentially, there’s a log that goes through all these remanufacturing levels. To stand back and take a look at a forest like that and trace the material flow and the energy flow, we wind up with what ecologists call a food web, where you see that everything is connected to everything else. Very little waste is flowing out of that forest. This is what companies are starting to think about doing. They’re designing these things called eco-industrial parks. These are companies that are co-located. The waste of one company becomes the raw material of the other company. So say one company makes fly ash as one of their waste products. The company next door is a gypsum company that makes dry wall, so they take that fly ash and they use it in the dry wall. The waste heat from that process might be used to warm greenhouses to grow vegetables at another company. Those are called industrial ecologies. Basically the idea is to use ecologies as models, at the economy level. W: With all your biomimicry consulting and research, how do you connect to your roots in conservation work? JB: Another part of the Biomimicry Institute is our nonprofit arm, which includes a program called Innovation for Conservation. We’re asking the companies who are creating bio-inspired products to donate a percentage of their proceeds in order to conserve the habitat of the organisms that inspired their design. So this sort of comes full-circle in a way. Conducted by Alyssa Cheung

How Much Spark in the Volt? A Comparative Analysis of Chevrolet’s Extended Range Electric Vehicle

by Kevin Hoffman The wild success of the hybrid Toyota Prius has helped fuel a new fervor among auto manufacturers. With the increasing awareness of the dangers of climate change, as well as the unpredictable and volatile price of gas, consumers are more than ever are looking for cars that offer higher efficiency and lower emissions. As new cars that meet these standards emerge on the market, all offering different power setups, a key question arises: what amount of “spark” is optimal? General Motors is betting that they got that amount right with the Chevrolet Volt, as is the US government. Though it must first overcome the hurdles common to electric cars in the past, the Volt could eventually prove to be a popular car and some day could perhaps even become the epitome of the “green” car. From Ayrton-Perry’s electric tricycle in the late nineteenth century to General Motor’s doomed EV-1, the history of the automobile is littered with the remnants of the electric car – a concept that never took hold, time and time again. Yet electricity has been a presence in the auto industry since the beginning. Robert Davidson was the first to show that a road vehicle could be powered using a battery, and he did so nearly twelve years before Carl Benz introduced his internal combustion enginepowered tricycle. As the speed and range of the electric motor in these vehicles improved, their use became more widespread. In fact, in 1896, the first taxi service in New York was started using 12 hansoms and one coupé – all powered electrically. The electric vehicle flourished from 1900 to 1912 in a “golden age”; in 1903 London had more electric-powered cars than those with internal combustion engines. However, Henry Ford’s Model K and Model T spelled trouble for the spread of electrically powered cars. While the number of electric cars on the road peaked in 1912, three years after the rousing success of the Model T, there were still thirty times more gasoline-powered cars on the road than electric cars. Finally, with the development of a self-starting engine to replace the difficult manual crank handle, as well as a muffler to quiet the historically cacophonous internal combustion engine, the electric car’s future was sealed. Gasoline provided more speed and more capability for traveling long distances, not to mention that in 1916 an electric car cost about $1100 more than a Ford Model T. Despite the passage of nearly a hundred years, seemingly little has changed: these are the same problems plaguing modern electric vehicles. After the electric car’s boom in the budding stages of the auto industry, there was little inter-

est in it until the 1960’s. It was then that raising awareness of gasoline pollution first spurred the creation of several conversion cars, such as the Eureka Williams Corporation’s version of the Renault Dauphine. But these never became popular due to cost concerns. Throughout the 1960’s and 70’s, a similar pattern developed: a company would pop up, focusing on either converting cars to electricity or designing a brand-new electric car and sell a few hundred units, but never carve out a big enough niche to survive. Then, in the 80’s, governments sought to fund electrical vehicle programs because of their environmental benefits. Thus, major automakers like Ford began to work with General Electric to create an electric vehicle, a prototype of which was presented to the US Department of Energy in 1988. This set the stage for the first major legislation regarding the electric vehicle, which came at the hands of the California Air Resources Board in 1990. The mandate outlined a certain percentage growth of cars sold in California that had to have zero emissions. “This would require General Motors, for example, to sell about 14,000 electric cars in California by 2003. GM fought the legislation and eventually had it overturned, and even went so far as to have every last of their electric EV-1 cars, first marketed and leased in 1996, removed. Ford did the same with its Th!nk and EV Ranger, and Toyota followed suit with its EV Rav-4. However, not all electric cars ended up in the compacter. While the EV Rav-4 was removed from the market, Toyota kept the Prius, a hybrid marketed since 1997, available. In fact, the Prius did so well that it played a major role in propelling Toyota Motor Corp past GM as the world’s largest auto manufacturer in 2007. American car companies suddenly saw the need to act against this competition in the market, and GM and Ford suddenly began to invest more into research and development for environmentally friendly electric and hybrid cars. Now, the need for American automakers to respond deftly to Toyota’s hybrid blockbuster is both more dire and more difficult; the Japanese manufacturer currently holds 77% of the US’s hybrid market, and is planning to release a plug-in hybrid in 2009. Furthermore, it seems as if the government is once again encouraging the development of vehicles that have lower emissions, with eleven states expected to institute Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) vehicle requirements by 2009. In addition, the Bush administration signed into law an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) in 2007; automakers will now have to maintain

a fleet average of 35 mpg (miles per gallon) by 2020. The consumer is also drawn more and more to environmentally conscious choices (both out of concern for the earth and style), with some 35 million Americans reporting that they try to be “green” in their purchases. Thus, with pressure from three angles (competition, government, and purchaser), American car companies are finally taking electric cars seriously. Detroit establishments GM, Ford, and Chrysler are to be rolling out EVs, and multiple startups like Tesla Motors and Miles are trying to corner a niche in the market. Still, though, the same perennial problems of capability and economics serve to feed the EV skeptics. This brings us to the Volt, the car that is “redefining the auto industry,” according to manufacturer Chevrolet. Due to be released in 2010, it is not a hybrid, but then again not purely electric. Yes, the only mechanism for turning the wheels is an electric motor, but after the lithium-ion batteries are depleted (after about forty “emission-free” miles), a 1.4-liter gasoline engine kicks in to supply electricity to this motor. GM reports that the Volt will have an EPA rating of over 100 mpg, a somewhat misleading statistic. Various sources confirm two things: the electric motor’s forty-mile range and a 48-50 mpg rating when the gas engine is being used. Adding these two figures gives slightly less than this touted rating, but only for the first gallon of gas used. Regardless, the Volt is intriguing, and the federal government is already putting some stake in its success. A $7,500 subsidy is being offered to buyers over a year before it begins showing up in dealerships. This is key, because the cars are expected to cost up to $40,000 (a base model will be in the mid-thirties), a hefty price tag for a compact car. Even at that sticker price, GM will admittedly not turn a profit on this highly technical product. In fact, it turns out that the 100-mpg rating is not in fact a true rating, but merely an incentive for GM to keep manufacturing the Volt. It will allow GM to continue to manufacture and sell gas-guzzling SUVs and keep under CAFE fleet average standards. While it is impossible to weigh this in the total carbon footprint just yet, one can analyze just how this car will stack up to consumer expectations. In terms of capability, the Volt does fine. It can reach speeds of 100 mph, and can go about 300 extra miles using the tank of gas to power the electric motor. Both of these statistics are more than adequate for most drivers; the first test is passed. Economically, it is still a bit pricey. It is possible, though, that the

“green” conscience of consumers will help here. And the governmental tax breaks will provide a boost in sales as long as funding for them lasts. How “green” is the Volt, exactly? The best way to see is a comparison of the amount of carbon dioxide exhaust emitted for a certain number of miles driven. For the first 40 miles after a full eight-hour charge, the Volt is completely electric. GM estimates it will cost 50 to 80 cents for a full charge on a 120 V outlet. Using the average, 65 cents, and an average US cost of a kilowatt-hour as 12 cents, it is possible to extrapolate exactly how much carbon dioxide is released during those first 40 miles. According to a study done by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, the average amount of carbon dioxide exhaust from American electrical power plants is 893 kg/MWh. With all of this data, one can calculate that the Volt indirectly releases 10.6 pounds of carbon dioxide when running on battery power from a charge (assuming 100% efficiency), in the form of exhaust from an electrical plant. Past the 40-mile range, the gas mileage is 50 mpg. The EPA estimates that 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted per gallon of gas burned, so for the vehicle to go another 60 miles is another 23.3 pounds of pollutant into the atmosphere. This leaves a grand total of 34.9 pounds of carbon dioxide released for the Volt to drive 100 miles. How does this compare to a fully electric car like the new Tesla Roadster? The Roadster’s sleek new design shows promise for the fully electric car industry because it appears to have beaten the capability limitations that have acted against the industry for years. According to the company web site, the batteries supply a range of 220 miles and plenty of power: the top speed is 125 mph. The site also claims that with a full 3.5-hour charge in off-peak hours (at night), it will probably cost about one cent per mile to drive the Roadster. Using the same plant emissions data from the above calculation, it releases 16.4 pounds of carbon dioxide for ever 100 miles covered—half that of the Volt. The downside? The sticker price of the Tesla Motors base convertible is $109,000. In addition, having only delivered 70 vehicles so far and already dealing with worker layoffs, the company might not survive to service the vehicle in the future. As a bit of comparison, consider the Saturn Sky, a roadster that looks similar to the all-electric Tesla. With a base model, assuming a future price of gasoline of $3.00 per gallon, an average of 20 mpg over the car’s lifetime, and driving 15,000 miles per year, it would take an incredible 36 years of driving the Tesla Roadster for the costs to even out. It is reasonable to estimate 88 years for the investment to break even in comparison with the purchase of a Volt. Another reason not to buy? The batteries in a Tesla Roadster need to be replaced every 5 years or 100,000 miles, ensuring that an owner would have to pay for that service (which promises not to be cheap) multiple times. It is clear that, for now, the Volt is a better option than an electric car that has the capabilities that they typical consumer seeks. But how does it stack up against the model of environmentally friendly cars: the Toyota Prius? The Prius is rated for 45 mpg, and is a bit cheaper than the Volt at $22,000 base price. It emits 43.1 pounds CO2 for every 100 miles driven, about 10 pounds more than the Volt. However, the lower cost of the Prius may be incentive enough for buyers to be steered in that direction. What’s more, Toyota is getting ready to release a plug-in Prius in 2009. Depending on the price range of that vehicle, it could shake up the Volt’s market niche even more. On the whole, the Prius and Volt are very similar cars. Both are 4-door small sedans. Both incorporate some amount of electricity. And both are more economically feasible than an all-electric car like the Tesla Roadster. In fact, taking into consideration the tax subsidy promised to Volt buyers, the prices may end up being only about $5,000 different. For that amount, the lower emissions and “domestic purchasing” idea may sway Americans to the Chevrolet

California Startup Plans Battery Swapping Stations for Electric Cars With public environmental concerns higher than ever, many look to the electric car to ease the amount of pollutants being spewed from the tailpipes of the estimated 600 billion automobiles on the road today. But there is still one problem: a lack of infrastructure. For those traveling long distances, there simply are not enough plugs on the side of the highway. Even if there were, who would want take hours of a travel day to wait for a recharge when filling a car with gas takes minutes? Shai Agassi, a millionaire from Silicon Valley, is looking to tackle that problem by doing away with traditional charging ideas. He has a vision of sustainable mobility, and the money to back it up: according to a BBC report, Better Place is the possessor of the biggest startup capital of any new technology company in the world --¬ ¬$300 million, to be exact. In essence, the company acts like a cell phone service provider. Subscribers to Better Place will be paying for the miles they drive on Better Place-provided power. Meanwhile, Aggasi’s company is forging alliances with automakers to produce compatible automobiles. Nissan and Renault have already agreed to produce cars with batteryswapping capability, and prototypes are on the road. Better Place works by supplying the power for these vehicles. The goal is to deploy charge stations to always keep electric car batteries charged, continually maintaining a 100-mile range. These will be installed in businesses, parking garages, and even consumer homes. Their plan also includes battery exchange stations that will always have a large supply of charged batteries that can be switched in and out of cars on the highway. Such a massive infrastructure overhaul has its skeptics. “Oh, about nine out of ten people say it’s crazy!” said Agassi in an interview with CBS News. “But the other ones are actually saying, ‘Where can I put my money?’” It is these investors that give the company a bright future. In fact, Better Place has already gained support from the governments of Israel, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Hawaii, and Northern California. “It’s immensely fast,” Agassi told CBS. “[It’s] the infrastructure project of our generation.” But if it works, this entrepreneur, who has been compared to the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, will have been the one to wean the world off the pump and onto the plug. Kevin Hoffman

court. Interestingly, the Prius started out in a similar high-cost position when it debuted on the American market. However, massive demand has lowered the price. If Chevrolet can corner a part of the market and sell enough Volts, then the price will be driven down, making their new model even more competitive with its Japanese counterpart. It will be very challenging for the Volt to unseat the Prius as “green” king. With the market already well cornered by Toyota, Chevrolet will need to sell a large quantity of their new car in the few months following its debut in order to have its manufacture remain economical. To do so, Chevy should heavily market the vehicle and its added environmental benefits. Indeed, as the Volt website states, the car could help 75% of Americans fully commute within the 40-mile range. Translation? It could help 75% of Americans fully commute without “a single drop of gas.” If this message is conveyed to buyers, the Volt can be the next “spark” to the auto industry.

Energy Monitoring for Eco-Dorks by Sarah Armitage

Imagine knowing exactly how much electricity you were consuming each time you turned on a light bulb in your dorm room. It certainly seems a simple concept, yet this level of awareness of personal energy consumption is certainly easier said than done at an educational institution such as Yale, where students never see a monthly utility statement or directly pay an energy bill. Enter real-time energy monitoring systems. This growing technology offers the opportunity to measure—almost instantaneously— personal electricity and water consumption, even in institutional buildings like Yale’s residential colleges. The concept of institutional energy and water monitoring stems from the idea that people require both information and incentives to alter their behavior. Even the most well-intentioned, eco-friendly students leave common room lights on overnight at the end of a long study session or forget to unplug cell phone chargers as they rush out the door for class. Monitoring systems aim to provide students with the information about personal utility consumption that would be necessary to change these habits. Without knowing exactly what it means to spend ten minutes in a hot shower or to leave music playing when leaving a room, students simply do not have sufficiently direct and immediate awareness of the consequences of their individual decisions. Energy monitors bring issues surrounding personal consumption to the forefront of students’ minds—in real time. Displaying data on touch-screen kiosks or interactive websites, the monitors have already been installed at dozens of colleges and universities across the country. From Harvard University’s new graduate student residence to Columbia University’s new undergraduate “green dorm,” from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s 856-resident Morrison Hall to Elon University’s much smaller dormitories, energy monitoring systems are appearing in a wide variety of residential buildings at a wide variety of educational institutions. In all cases, these institutions share a commitment to educating their students about the envi-

ronmental consequences of their lifestyle choices. Most colleges and universities have combined the installation of energy and water monitors with some sort of dorm energy competition in an effort to provide the missing incentive. Similar to the recent Project Lux at Yale, these competitions have encouraged students to consider how their decisions as individuals contribute to the total energy and water consumed by their dormitory as a whole. In these competitions, students have been rewarded for reducing their consumption with prizes ranging from special privileges in the next year’s housing lottery and discounts in their housing costs to a free pizza party and eternal glory for their hallway or dormitory. In many ways, the energy monitoring program at Oberlin College has served as the best model for educational institutions. Launching their program in the spring of 2005, Oberlin used their first Dorm Energy Competition to measure exactly how much more effective these sorts of contests could be with real-time energy monitors. They found that in dorms receiving only weekly energy use reports, or low-resolution feedback, reductions in consumption averaged around 30% during the marking period. Compare that to average reductions in energy use of 55% in those dorms that did benefit from the high-resolution feedback of real-time energy monitors. Notably, studies at Oberlin found that reductions in consumption were not significantly increased when systems monitored individual floors rather than simply the building as a whole. Oberlin’s energy monitoring program has continued to see enormous success. Since March 2005, Oberlin’s Campus Resource Monitoring System has overseen the installation of energy monitors in over 30 different campus locations. An interactive website allows students, faculty, and members of the public alike to compare average individual electricity consumption or total dormitory electricity consumption relative to the baseline for 17 different residential buildings, measuring “consumption” in watts, 100-watt incandescent bulbs per hour, gallons of

gasoline per week, miles driven in an SUV per month, or hamburgers per hour. Dartmouth College has taken a slightly different approach. Designing their energymonitoring software themselves, they have made a particular effort to link use of the resource in question to an associated environmental impact. Dartmouth’s energy monitors and associated website both include an animated polar bear that plays contentedly on a sheet of ice, observes anxiously the cracking of the surrounding ice, or falls helplessly into the water as the ice breaks completely, all depending on the level of personal energy consumption—associated with a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions—in the given building. According to Lorie Loeb, a computer science professor who has spearheaded this effort at Dartmouth, the goal has been to reach students emotionally as well as intellectually, not only showing them the effects of their decisions with charts and graphs but also with art and animation. So far, energy monitoring systems have been installed in two undergraduate residences as part of “GreenliteDartmouth”, a program similar to Oberlin’s Dorm Energy Competition that aims to reduce campus energy consumption by increasing the information available to undergraduates and strengthening the incentive for them to alter their behavior. The leaders of GreenliteDartmouth have plans to expand the program this spring. They hope to measure not only personal energy use, but also personal water use, heating, and paper used for printing, associated with the shrinking of water bodies, the depletion of oil fields, and the felling of forests, respectively. But while the program at Dartmouth seems particularly intriguing, it has received mixed reviews on the ground. Stephanie Crocker, a Dartmouth freshman who lives in the monitored McLaughlin Cluster residence hall, explains that the actual displays on the energy monitors have not been working for a significant part of the year. Though the GreenliteDartmouth website still shows the animated polar bear and provides the data

collected by the monitors in real time, “no one besides Eco dorks like me check it,” she says. Other schools have also experienced problems with the quality of the information recorded or synthesized by their energy monitoring systems. UNC Chapel Hill’s Office of Sustainability found that the various meters in Morrison Hall were not calibrated properly, leading to skewed or incomplete data on the energy monitors—a problem which they are still struggling to fix. As their Research and Outreach Manager Brian Cain explains, “[energy monitoring systems] are only as good as the data they receive.” In most cases, however, installation of energy monitors has proceeded without incident. Even at Dartmouth, Professor Loeb reports that since the installation of real-time energy monitors, the two dormitories in question have seen 22% and 14.5% reductions in personal energy use, respectively—through reductions in energy used for plug-load and lighting alone. Given high-quality data, these energy and water monitoring systems are incredibly powerful tools that not only educate students about the effects of their individual decisions but also lead to real reductions in institutional utility consumption. In many ways, real-time energy and water monitoring represents the next generation in institutional sustainability. Advocates of these systems recognize that a building can only be as “green” as the individual decisions of its occupants, regardless of what technologies are employed or what materials are used in the building’s construction. The recent rise in energy and water monitoring systems at colleges and universities across the country speaks to the fact that a truly sustainable institution must encourage or even mandate responsible habits on a daily basis—that is, in real time.

Breaking the Silence An interview with Simran Sethi Simran Sethi is an environmental journalist who hosts “The Green” on the Sundance Channel. She co-created treehugger.com and has appeareed as an environmental correspondent on Oprah and CNBC. Next March, she will be publishing a book on eco-elitism. W: You have realized and harnessed the power of mass media. How can media be used to change people’s awareness? SS: The most important thing to do is to build connections in the reporting that we do. Think about it. What is addressed in the current reporting? What is obscured? What stories do we hear over and over again? We hear about changing light bulbs, ten easy ways to save the planet, quick tips. What do we not hear? Environmental justice issues, the challenges of pollution in certain communities. We understand the world through the information that we are given and I think we as journalists need to do a much better job of building these connections and helping people recognize that the change that is to occur is systemic. It is extremely important to change light-bulbs and get a reusable bag. But if you think the work is done once you have bought a bunch of new stuff then we have all failed. W: You have written against nuclear energy. Why are you against it and what alternatives do you propose? SS: It is interesting because most people don’t pay attention to where their energy comes from. Over 50% of energy comes from coal, which adds to greenhouse gases emissions. If we think about how we get our energy, nuclear energy seems like a much cleaner

option. But should we go towards something that seems clean even if it can be really unsafe? There are many environmentalists that come out in favor of nuclear energy because of the threat of climate change. I would argue that the costs and hazards involved in transporting materials, the of amount water used to cool down sites – all these things that contribute to generating the energy – are extremely dangerous. We live in an era where we are not immune to attacks, and nuclear facilities can be a prime target. You can argue that France is getting their energy from nuclear and that it’s working from them. If we had no other alternatives, maybe I would be inclined to look towards nuclear as an option. The truth is that we have some of the best wind energy in the country right here in Kansas that we are not utilizing, yet we are looking to build another coal plant, which would be the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the country. To leverage wind and solar, to harness hydroelectric power through low impact dams, is the priority. To look to nuclear first is shortsighted. We are having to grapple with some poorly thought out byproducts like what happened with ethanol. I urge people to re-think the nuclear option when we have so many opportunities. Monocul-

tures do not work — they don’t work in media, they don’t work in agriculture, they don’t work in energy. We will continue to make ourselves vulnerable if we don’t start thinking about embracing a diversity of solutions. W: Many people weigh the destruction of a climate catastrophe against the effects of nuclear energy on indigenous populations that live on the land where uranium mining occurs. Do you have any thoughts on how to call on people to be consistent in their values and their actions? If people really cared about indigenous populations we wouldn’t be extracting oil from the tar sands in Canada. I would argue that trying to encourage people to realize that uranium mines are located in the exact same communities is not the way to sway them. Trust me, I wish it was. To me environmental issues are civil rights issues. It is appalling that we are willing to allow certain communities to bear the brunt of our environmental burdens. My thoughts are that this is another example on how indigenous populatinos are exploited and how the most vulnerable communities in the world are going to be the ones that suffer the greatest injustices. My guess is that the folks on board with nuclear energy are not concerned with the communities that the mines are in.

W: You have frequently spoken about the need for increased public discourse on poverty and racism. The two are very interdependent with each other as well as with the environment. Environmental racism was first defined by Benjamin Chavis, former Executive Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1982, “as the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities and the official sanctioning of a life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in people of color communities.” Do you have any examples of environmental racism that you would like to bring to the attention of the public? SS: It is really an issue about communities disappearing. Look at the migrant farming communities in California. The people that live there are the very people who touch all the food that we eat. Their water is poisoned and their kids are suffering the effects of that. It makes no sense to me that the things we put on our food and into the ground and into the soils then end up poisoning our water and going into the food chain. For some communities it is happening in ways that are really affecting people over the long term. We need to start grappling with the racism and the classism that occurs. I think that we have a lot of work to do. We need to work past the idea of changing light bulbs to the idea of transformation and inclusion. Conducted by Emmy Pickett

Streamling the Sustainable Food Message by Austin Shiner

The Yale Sustainable Food Project (YSFP) is a jumbo tub of popcorn shrimp, often tasty yet occasionally unpalatable. Let me explain. I approach popcorn shrimp with caution. The lowly bite-sized buggers clamor for attention yet fail to draw a satisfied grin across my face. Tempura, Japanese style “fritto misto”, strikes a different cord: the shrimpy variety simultaneously coats my tongue with the essence of brine and snack food. Shrimp, fundamentally, are shrimp, pleasing and direct – refinement is what separates tempura from a bucket o’ crustaceans. The sustainable food movement needs a touch of Botox around the eyes. It’s a problem of reasoning, not intent: YSFP, along with Slow Food and Alice Waters, has relied too often on “bucolic splendor” argumentation. As such, “organic” and “local” agriculture suffers from the stigma of naïve elitism so often affixed to environmental movements, thwarting the agricultural reform America desperately needs. Such argumentation was on display in Battel Chapel just last year. Speaking in front of a packed house, Alice Waters questioned the audience: “Have you ever savored the sweet deliciousness of a fully ripe peach fresh from the tree in August?” The condescension implicit in Waters’ remark is haughty, suggesting that “regular folks” can’t comprehend the pleasures of a listless, sun-is-always-shining-in-California lifestyle. The Yale Farm, although admirable, reinforces the notion that personal, get-yourhands-dirty agriculture is the only road to sustainability. What about the millions of Americans with two jobs, a foreclosed mortgage, and a hungry family? Can they jog to the farmer’s market, window-shop heirloom potatoes and naturally raised wagyu beef, and return home in time for yoga? No. Despite decades of well-intentioned activism, agribusiness and federal farm subsidies still control American agriculture, precluding a class-neutral agricultural revolution. We need sustainable farming on a grand scale: only with an inoffensive and destigmatized image can groups like YSFP convince Washington to realign farm subsidies and provide affordable, quality produce for all Americans. Yale Dining demonstrates the present dif-

ficulty of eating a fully local, sustainable diet. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Yale University Dining Services withdrew its expansion of the Yale Sustainable Food Project due to budget constraints. In fiscal year ’06’07, YUDS purchased $2.2 million of regional and/or organic foods out of a total $8.5 million budget. Recall that Yale’s endowment was 1/3rd again as large in January 2007 as today. If Yale couldn’t afford to maintain its modest investment in sustainable foods in 2007, what hope remains for sustainable agriculture during a jobslashing, GDP-burning economic meltdown? YSFP must emphasize the economic and political imperatives of local, responsible farming while shedding the “green stigma” of Birkenstocks and beards. The “bucolic splendor” argument trivializes YSFP’s message and leaves an unpleasant aftertaste akin to popcorn shrimp: it must be eliminated. As such, the telling statistics of YSFP’s table tents will shine through. The recent tent “No Free Lunch” reveals that, “addressing obesity through healthier diets could prevent at least $117 billion per year in medical costs, lost productivity, and lost lives.” Such potent figures, destigmatized, can persuade the Yale Administration that sustainable, local agriculture is a necessity, not a luxury. Here’s an example of a streamlined, nonintimidating message: America’s obesity epidemic and resultant spike in healthcare costs, due in large part to the cheap calories of agribusiness, drains billions of dollars from our economy every year. Geographically centralized monoculture farms, such as those in the Midwest and California, must truck or fly their produce across the country, drinking foreign oil and belching greenhouse gases along the way. Small scale, local agriculture demands much greater human input per calorie than agribusiness; thus, breaking monoculture farmland into smaller, polyculture plots would create thousands of jobs. Healthcare, energy, and unemployment: President Obama’s hot button campaign issues under one umbrella. YSFP is unquestionably a force for good. Forget popcorn shrimp: with a PR makeover and a dash of refinement, YSFP can be the tempura of the sustainable food world.

Climate Science from the Curator An Interview with Edmond Mathez

Edmond Mathez is the curator of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the American Museum of Natural History. He recently authored Climate Change: The Science Behind Global Warming and our Energy Future and organized a related exhibit. W: How do you communicate science effectively inside a museum? EM: Communicating through exhibits is different than through the written word or television. It’s a medium where we can speak better to the imagination. At this museum, we’re very well aware that the good exhibits are those that are rooted in the academic science. That means that behind the things that are interesting to people--the objects and the dioramas that they can touch and that capture the imagination--there’s got to be serious content, in the form of text for example. W: What are the challenges you find in educating the public about climate change? EM: One of the reasons that public doesn’t understand what climate change is all about is because they don’t understand the scales of space and time that the climate plays out on. You hear people complaining about a cold winter, saying they don’t need to worry about global warming. Well, climate is not something that plays it out in days, or even months. It happens over a decade or more. W: But given the information available, what is preventing the media from educating the public on climate change? EM: People are usually bombarded with huge amounts of information that no one can really sort through. The media doesn’t really understand the subtleties between what we know and what don’t know. Scientists understand the uncertainties associated with our climate models and they understand the strength of the conclusions that can be based on them. But when that gets translated into the media, the subtleties are usually lost. That’s when you hear the skeptics rail about climate models being basically useless – something that is certainly not true. W: How do you combat the skeptics? They seem to be doing a pretty effective job. EM: The thing I try to emphasize is that there is a strong observational basis for climate change. We know, for example, that the globe has been warming over the last century from observation and that observation is very

clear-cut. We know that greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for the last 150 years or so. And we know that this is a very unusual time in terms of the rate at which atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising. From these observations we’ve developed a very robust theory linking warming to greenhouse gas buildup. But as soon as we say it’s a theory, which technically means that we aren’t 100% sure, some people interpret that to mean it’s very uncertain. That’s wrong. W: Are we doing enough to explain this situation to kids early on? EM: One of the things we try to do is train teachers to help kids appreciate science more. I have a son in middle school and the science he gets in middle school is bad. It would be a wonder to me if he develops an interest in science, and especially a natural science. I think that from my own experience, getting out in the field and making observations in the natural world – trying to understand it – is an important part of education.” W: In his response to President Barack Obama’s stimulus package, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana criticized government spending for, “something called volcano monitoring,” claiming it was a waste of federal money. As a geologist whose research touches on the area, how do you respond to the governor’s allegations? EM: It was utterly ill-conceived -- like saying that we don’t need monitoring for tsunamis or earthquakes. In fact, just like with earthquakes – we can’t predict their occurrence, but we must still monitor them so we can determine the risk at any one place, in other words, compute the probabilities of an earthquake of a certain size happening in a certain region. This type of research is important to make people aware of the risks, to find ways of mitigating the dangers, and to further the science. W: What policy suggestions do you have for the Obama administration in order to deal with carbon emissions? EM: I think the essential solution to avoiding dangerous climate change is pretty apparent. We have to figure out ways of producing clean electricity. The other issues, such as conservation, are important, but unless we figure out ways to produce electricity cleanly and on a global scale, we’re basically screwed. I think that the Obama administration understands this. For example, the emphasis to increase investment in the electricity transmission infrastructure is absolutely essential if we’re going to develop wind and solar to their fullest potential. Conducted by Samuel Breidbart

Saving Energy, Saving Money by Nikita Pavlenko The EPA estimated that given the average of hours of electricity consumed by the average single-family home in America, 7.21 metric tons of carbon dioxide is released per home. Cutting down on home energy use could drastically reduce carbon emissions as well as diminish the need to construct new power plants. Put in economic terms, less energy used amounts to millions of dollars saved. Now more than ever, the ability to monitor and quantify energy use rests in the consumer’s hands. With that, households and businesses have the power to adjust energy consumption in order to both reduce their waste and its impact on their pocketbooks. Just in the past few years, new technologies have arisen that allow individuals to easily see what they are consuming, when and how. One such development is the proliferation of Smart Meter technology in homes throughout the world. A Smart Meter differs from previous generations of electrical meters in that it is capable of informing both its user and the utility company of real-time energy consumption in a home. The real-time data allows for changes in energy consumption both on the micro and macro level, as patterns of use become easier to view and understand. Smart Meters have proven popular with end-users and utility companies who in some cases subsidize them. The Italian energy giant Enel invested over $2 billion into the installation of around 30 million smart meters throughout Italy starting in 2001. With an estimated savings of $500 million a year, they expect for the system to pay for itself in only four years. Enel foresees a bright future for smart metering, claiming that their $2 billion investment was only the beginning. The company is committed to fostering the growth of smart grids and intelligent power networking throughout Europe. One upcoming innovation that Enel is hoping to introduce will be load modulation in response to congestion at times of peak demand. Following in Italy’s footsteps, some power providers in California have also decided to encourage smart metering. However, introducing the technology is more difficult in California owing to the more fragmented nature of American utility providers. Regardless, Southern California Edison plans to install roughly 5 million

smart meters in the next 3 years. Like Enel, SCE plans on using the meters to work with certain appliances and thermostats to reduce energy usage during peak use--an important consideration in California, which has suffered from several energy crises in the past decade. Energy companies hope to decentralize their services in the long term, eschewing the current topdown structure in favor of one that relies on feedback from users in order to affect change on the macro scale, similar to the Internet. Google Inc., known for its eponymous Internet search engine, is now working on a new

technology called Google Powermeter, to facilitate such a transition. Powermeter will consist of a free download that allows users to connect their home “smart meters” to the internet, allowing for the transfer of energy consumption data to Google. Google then organizes and stores the data, allowing users who opt-in to the system to view their own energy usage. What makes Google’s Powermeter technology so promising is that it merges simple

aesthetics, ease-of-use and integration with the already-robust Google suite. Ideally, checking the current energy usage in one’s home will become as convenient and instinctive as checking one’s email. A user simply logs into his or her Google account and has access to a chart of energy consumption by hour, updated in real-time. If somebody opts to toast bread with a toaster instead of an oven, the energy savings are shown immediately on a chart. Though Powermeter is only in its betatesting phase, with use restricted to Google employees and their families, feedback has been positive. Russ Minov, a software engineer, claims to have saved over three thousand dollars a year through the use of the program without significantly changing his lifestyle. According to Google, the program helped him trace his high energy usage to his out-of-date refrigerators and incandescent lights, allowing him to replace them in order to save money on electric bills. The real-time nature of Powermeter’s chart allows users to actually see the actual impact of turning on a specific appliance, such as a television or dishwasher. The Powermeter also works in conjunction with Google’s Energy Saver, an add-on for Google Desktop that optimizes a PC’s power use in order to conserve energy and meet EPA standards. It does this by setting the computer to either sleep or hibernation mode after a certain period of inactivity, in compliance with the EPA’s Energy Star recommendations. In addition, the program adds up the total amount of energy saved by all of its users and converts it to something more whimsical, such as the amount of energy required to power a jumbotron at a sports game. Breakthroughs in both the hardware and software sectors of our energy infrastructure take us further towards the ideal of a “smart grid”, a power infrastructure that promises to be more efficient, cost-effective and reliable than the one currently in place today. The key to its success comes from the improved ability to render one’s consumption tangibly, make this information easily accessible, and provide immediate feedback if changes are made. Thus, cutting back and embracing efficiency is a response that pays off.

What is the environment? A question as perplexing as the meaning of human existence or as simple as a mere definition: the place in which we live. Most answers, covering the entire range of complexity, leave us feeling hollow, detached. Synonyms of environment include “background”, “surroundings”, “nature”… but none of these words offer us any greater sense of understanding. It all started with hunter-gatherers of Northern Mesopotamia 10,000 years ago. In the hilly flanks of the Zagros Torres Arc, they planted the first seeds into the ground, becoming the originators of our greatest invention: agriculture. Mankind, since then, has gone down the irrevocable path of modernity. And its rewards have been great. Abstract thinking, comfort, wealth, the written word, even the computer I use to communicate my ideas to you. The globe has flattened, and men have enjoyed power, intelligence, and leisure far beyond any of Earth’s other species. But such extraordinary gifts have come at great cost. Our environment suffers. And we don’t understand it. We hide ourselves behind creations that we call “manmade.” Our modernity, our macadam streets, tall skyscrapers, currents of electricity, and noisy car horns have separated our minds from the environment. We forget that our technologies, our creations, are the manipulations of our surroundings, our environment- in an altered form. We forget that we are not separate. We do not realize that our cities themselves are nature, great gardens of granite. To really understand the environment, we must go back further. If we consider the beginnings of time, we see that all mass and energy originated from a single explosion. All events that have transgressed since owe their existence to that one tiny point, that big bang. In this way, every galaxy and system is interrelated. As humans, we are children of the stars, our very flesh and blood a mixture of elements synthesized in the heat of burning balls of gas. We, as humans, have come from the processes of the environment and are born into it, we are sustained by it, and ultimately, when we die, our bodies return to it. It is foolish to consider ourselves as separate from it, or even merely a part of it. As we define our environment and our surroundings, we see that these things really define us. Like two sides of the same coin. Or like a magnet with opposite poles. One pole can never exist without the other, and therefore, one must define the other. Similarly, the environment is like our south pole, and together we function as one. It is our medium of sustentation, one that we can never escape. As we learn to reconnect with our environment, people call us environmentalists, tree huggers, and label us as inconsequential special interests. But our scope lies beyond the petty whims of politics. Our interest is special only in that it seeks to enhance our most miraculous gift of life. We are not environmentalists. We are the environment. George Haddad

p o r

Cover - Lingual X, 110.366: Urban Farm/flickr 2T World Bank Photo Collection, KE020S11 World Bank/flickr; 2M Karl Ammann Copyright © 2008 KarlAmmann.com; 2B Thingermejig, electric smart car EV/flickr 3 Background - Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images 4 Background - ESRI ArcWorld Supplement 5 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation 5 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation; 5M World Bank Photo Collection, KE020S11 World Bank/flickr 6 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation; 6M CR Artist, corn and Iowa sky!/flickr 7 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation and ESRI Tele Atlas 8 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation and ESRI Tele Atlas 9 Background - NASA 10 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation 11 Background – David McNew/Getty Images 13 Background - ArcGIS -SRTM: NASA, NGA, ESRI GTOPO30: DCW, USGS EROS, ESRI 14 Background - Eole, Dirty pool/flickr 15 Background - ArcUSA, U.S. Census, ESRI (Pop2007 field) 16 - All photos by Snigdha Sur 17 - All photos by Snigdha Sur 18 Background - ESRI Tele Atlas, National Atlas of the United States, USGS 19 Background - ESRI Tele Atlas, National Atlas of the United States, USGS 20 Wossen Ayele 22 All photos by Wossen Ayele 23 c a r a m e l, les 1000 et une couleurs du marketing/flickr 24 James Moore, Wal-mart/flickr 25 All photos by Nikita Pavlenko 26 Karl Ammann, Copyright © 2008 27T Karl Ammann, Copyright © 2008, 27B Karl Ammann, Copyright © 2008 28 Background - ESRI Tele Atlas 29 Background - Sustainable Dance Floor (Set), Sustainable Dance Floor - Daan Roosegaarde/ flickr 30 Background - Autan, Indian Lotus in Ubud, Bali/flickr 31 Background - Tanakawho, Lotus center/flickr 32 Background - ESRI Tele Atlas 33 Background ; 33T Alex Wong/Getty Images 34 Background - ESRI Tele Atlas 35 Background - ESRI Earth Satellite Corporation, ESRI Tele Atlas 36 Brooke Anderson, CBE Toxics Tour of East Oakland/flickr 37 Background - toastforbrekkie, Popcorn shrimp/flickr 38 Background - National Climate Data Center 39 arohilla, kWh/flickr 41 Background - Nikita Pavlenko