Wise land management for the public good

I just got a notice about what sounds like an interesting book,  Conservation Communities: Creating Value with Nature, Open Space, and Agriculture


It's published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), described as a "nonprofit research and education organization."


According to the website, its members are "leading property owners, advisors, developers, architects, lawyers, lenders, planners, regulators, contractors, engineers, university professors, students and interns."


Now, our Green Tech Skeptic is wary of a development book sponsored by developers and lawyers, but this approach seems to make sense for both people and the environment in which we live. I'll review the book later, but for now, here are some of the basics.


There's good reason for developers to promote the idea. The author, Edward T. McMahon, says that the "conservation development" he promotes, which involves preserving large amounts of land in perpetuity as part of the overall development plan, can temper the backlash against sprawl that has spawned widespread no-growth movements.


Let's face it, unless we want to start policies to limit population growth, housing and land use has to grow as well. Our Green Tech Skeptic thinks we desperately need to limit, even stop, population growth. We're an invasive species, and gross overpopulation of any species damages the environment. We've demonstrated that  more than adequately. But our GTS doesn't know a socially acceptable way to do that.


Conservation development means creating communities that preserve natural landscapes and resources that are worth preserving for their "aesthetic, environmental, cultural, agricultural and/or historic values." It also means more vertical development of housing in order to keep those spaces open.


The idea goes beyond most "planned communities" that includes open space. The open space should be planned to preserve the values described above.

Now, our Green Tech Skeptic likes his little house in San Francisco with his small organic garden with fruit trees, a strawberry patch, tomatoes and pumpkins, plus a little grass for his dog to play on. But smart development should include some community gardens where urban farmers can play and open fields where urban dogs can run. And there must be enough open space to keep buildings from blocking out all the sun.


Of course, getting local planning communities to adopt sensible policies may be harder than forcing transit officials to take public transportation to work. The San Francisco regulators are crazy. But with community backing, perhaps we can come up with rules to allow sensible development, preserve areas that need to be preserved, keep the developers from trying to take every open spot of land around, and keep left-wing environmentalists like GTS from opposing all development.


Well, it's a nice thought, anyway.

Small businesses support clean energy legislation

A national survey of 800 small businesses says they support for clean energy initiatives, believe it will help the economy and can provide them with future opportunities.

The survey was conducted by Small Business Majority, American Business for Clean Energy, and We can Lead. Of course, those were the results they wanted to find, given their agendas. But the survey was conducted on behalf of those organizations by independent pollsters Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint, and the questions seem to be fair. You can read the report, including questions and answers, in a PDF format.

Assuming it was an accurate survey, small businesses believe that:

Clean energy is a way to boost the economy and provide new opportunities for small business (61 percent.)

Clean energy and climate legislation is a good thing (50 percent.)

Energy legislation should include interest-free loans to small businesses to upgrade their energy efficiency (62 percent.)

Certainly, there are those who think clean energy legislation is a waste of money.

But even if you're a Global Warming skeptic, it only makes sense that we start cutting energy use and move to more sustainable practices. We want businesses to have a future. And isn't that the definition of "Sustainable"?

Send a spine to congress

I got a notice today from the Post Carbon Institute, which opines on alternative energy issues. The organization thinks President Obama's speech on the Gulf oil spill was a tepid bow to Tea Partiers.

Clearly, our politicians need to get a backbone. If you believe that oil addiction is something we need to wean ourselves from, the PC Institute will send some spines to congress if you send them a sawbuck.

My opinion is that we're probably stuck with Big Oil for years to come, no matter what. Too entrenched, difficult to replace cost effectively, makes too many billions of dollars for powerful corporations. But until oil drillers can demonstrate that they can deal with disaster, they should be held liable for the billions of dollars of environmental cleanup, habitat restoration, and lost jobs from any spills they cause. Political backbone might help.

Here's the Post Carbon Institute plea for bucks for backbones.

What's it Going to Take to Beat BIG OIL? 537 Spines.

The horrific Gulf oil spill disaster has clearly shown that our nation's leaders need us to show them what it means to have a backbone. So let's do just that - let's send one directly to President Obama, Vice President Biden, and each and every member of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

For every donation of $10 we will send President Obama or a member of Congress a spine with your name on it.

In his oval office address last night on the BP oil spill, President Obama took an important, though long overdue, step in acknowledging that the days of cheap and abundant energy are essentially over.

"For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked‚ not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

But the President failed to follow these words with any proposal or plan.

Not since Jimmy Carter has one of our nation's leaders shown the backbone to really take on our addiction to fossil fuels--afraid, perhaps, to suffer the same political fate as Carter--while with each passing day and year we run out of time and resources to avert disaster.

In his recent response to President Obama's speech Post Carbon Institute Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg wrote:

Maybe the Carter Curse is real. Perhaps straight talk about energy is political suicide. But if nobody at least tries - if no one has the courage to make specific proposals that are commensurate with the scale of the challenge that faces us - then the political survival of the current office holder is essentially irrelevant.

Clearly our nation's leaders haven't found the backbone to stand up to Big Oil and break our addiction to fossil fuels, so we're asking you to lend them yours.

Our nation's leaders need 537 backbones. With your help, we'll drop ship a big box of fortitude on Washington D.C.

Along with a toy spine sent in your name, we will also include an optional statement from you, to our leaders, about what you are doing in your life to kick the fossil fuel habit. We'lll be documenting our backbone shipments in pictures and videos that will be uploaded to thePCI Facebook page, so keep an eye out on this campaign's progress.

We need to send 537 spines to Washington D.C. pronto. This means we'lll need help, so please help us spread the word.


For more columns on Green Tech and other issues, please visit my web site.

Plastic waste in the ocean

One of the most insidious forms of pollution in our oceans is plastic.

When plastic bags and bottle are not properly recycled or disposed of, many of them end up in the oceans. And we mean a lot -- 10 MILLION TONS of it in the Pacific Ocean alone.

Ocean currents deposit huge amounts of this pollution into huge floating masses of decomposing plastic particles. One of them is known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" - 3 million tons of plastic in a patch the size of Texas. Check out this article: http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a071104.html

A United Nations Environment Program report also estimates that 46,000 pieces of plastic debris floats at or near the surface of each square mile of the ocean. Filter feeders like whales, shellfish and jellyfish ingest this stuff. Larger pieces choke other marine life.

But it also breaks down, leaching potentially toxic chemicals into the ocean. Here's an article in National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090820-plastic-decomposes-oceans-seas.html

There is no technology solution to this problem. The solution is to stop using technology -- end our dependence on plastics, be sure to recycle what we do use. Retailers add three cents to the price of products for every plastic bag they hand out. Reusable cloth shopping bags pay for themselves very quickly.

In San Francisco, grocery stores are now banned from using plastic bags. If you use a cloth bag, the stores give you a five-cent credit for every paper bag you would have otherwise used.

The Clean Water Action group is encouraging eliminating the use of plastic bags by retailers. The group is organizing a campaign to send letters to you legislators. You can do it from here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2155/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3881&tag=email

THAT's a good cause.

How to deal with oil spills

It still amazes me that BP, and presumably other oil-drilling companies, had no idea how to stop a deep-water oil well leak. I mean, they had absolutely no disaster plan in place. This is like having no emergency care available when people are hit by a car.

Here's what to do to prevent such problems in the future:

Require all oil companies to develop and test programs to deal with any potential disaster they may cause. Make them demonstrate how well the plan will work before any new well is tapped.

When there is a spill, invoke heavy fines every day until leakage is stopped and the mess is cleaned up. We require expensive fail-safe systems for nuclear power, why not oil, which has a far worse record of environmental disasters than nuclear?

Invoke these laws and see how quickly oil companies clean up their acts.

Of course, that means higher prices at the pump. So be it. We need to make clean energy alternatives more competitive.

Speaking of that, an organization called Plug In America is using the spill as a pitch to raise money for its cause, supporting the switch to electric vehicles. The organization says that in America, cars use 40% of the oil we use. Can plug-in cars help cut that figure? I don't know.

But here's the fundraising letter I got. Decide for yourself.

***

Dear Fellow Clean Car Supporter,

I think I speak for all of us when I say that I am outraged at the environmental catastrophe that is occurring right now in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a horrible feeling to watch helplessly as tens of thousands of barrels of oil spew into the ocean each day, threatening species loss, habitat destruction, and economic ruin on an unimaginable scale.

There is likely little to come out of this debacle that's positive, but a silver lining might be that Americans will finally wake up to the folly of continuing our unabated dependence on oil. As you may know, over 40% of oil that Americans use is consumed by cars, trucks and SUVs. If every American car were plug-in electric and charged at night, the Department of Energy reports America would not have to build a single new power plant to fuel them. There would be no need to drill for new oil. Our future fuel is already available.

Plug In America has long promoted the benefits of plug-in electric vehicles for good of the environment, economy, and national security. With the ongoing crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, we see the opportunity to turn the tide of public opinion away from cars powered by dirty oil to those that use cleaner and more efficient electricity. We also see a chance to ensure that the debate over the climate bill in Washington results in provisions that foster the proliferation of plug-ins.

But to continue this vital work we need your help. Strike a blow against big oil by supporting Plug In America's campaign to accelerate America's adoption of plug-in electric vehicles.

Donate today at www.pluginamerica.org/donate

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Dan Davids
President, Plug In America

FREE TODAY: Learn to write a green business plan - online at 4pm PST

For all you green tech entrepreneurs trying to get funding:

You might want to check out the free "Executive Summary Webinar" today.

As someone who has written a couple business plans (neither of which were funded) I know the importance of starting off with a great executive summary. VCs often never get past that part of the proposal. So the summary has to be good enough make them keep reading -- or at least glancing through the proposal.

It's sponsored by Cleantech Open, whose mission is to "find, fund, and foster the big ideas that address today's most urgent energy, environmental and economic challenges."

Nothing to lose on this one except an hour or so of your time.

Registration is at

http://www.cleantechopen.com/app.cgi/events/181/view

How our planet will die

OK, this is an exercise in mental masturbation, but I thought I would share it.

Someday, our planet will die. Most likely it won't happen for hundreds of millions of years. Billions maybe. So don't worry too much. But if you really want to, bigthink.com has asked some thinkers how it will happen. Will we kill our own planet, or will something else?

   Paleontologist Peter Ward: Asteroid. Happens every 100 million years or so. Or warming poles retard wind and ocean circulation and hydrogen sulfide bubbles up from below and kills us all.
   IMHO: Asteroids too small a chance to worry about. Sulfuric acid? Too little is known about air and ocean dynamics to make this too worrisome. But it's worth considering.

   Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku: Not warming. The world will freeze. Hell, the universe will freeze. It's expanding. But don't worry, we'll know enough about physics that we'll be able to escape into a parallel universe.
   IMHO: We'll all be long dead before the universe is. Escape to other dimensions? Maybe that'll be sooner. I read a science fiction story about that when I was a kid. But who knows?

   Whole Earth dude Stewart Brand: Global warming.
   IMHO: We have no idea. Every week another scientist comes out with another prediction of the world's future warming, bringing up factors we hadn't considered before. We don't even know what factors we still have not considered. Our computer models are as accurate as a blind one-legged armadillo trying to hit a target three miles away. Still, that means we have as much reason to worry as not worry. So worry seems the more logical choice. Besides, all the crap we're pouring into the atmosphere can't be good. Besides, the world won't end. It'll just go on without us. Cockroaches will go on.

   Astronomer and astrophysicist Edward Sion:  Asteroid again. But we have the technology to push it out of the way.
  IMHO: He's right. So why worry?

   Physics professor Melissa Franklin: The Large Hadron Collider creates a black hole.
   IMHO: Wasn't this idea all the rage BEFORE the Collider was started up? Yeah, well, some physicists thought the atomic bomb would set the atmosphere on fire too. Besides, the Collider doesn't work that well anyway. I won't entirely rule it out. But I don't entirely rule out the possibility that a big elf in a red suit can visit every chimney in the world in one night, either. Similar odds.

There are five more. I'll address those tomorrow. Unless I'm sucked down a black hole.