Going Green

“To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them.”

By David Ochsner

So you want to go green. Before you jump in the car and head out to the Megalo-Mart to buy some of those pigtail light bulbs, you should ask yourself: How much energy will I consume driving to the store? How green are the store’s practices? How does my daily routine affect the environment, and how can I change it?

Buying those squiggly CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) is a start, but the biggest step you can take toward a greener world doesn’t require a trip to the store, or an expensive solar array on your rooftop. What it takes is a change of attitude.

Our wasteful habits have become so ingrained that is not uncommon to find people on a sweltering day sitting by space heaters in their hyper-chilled offices. We have come to believe that is our divine right to sit in a line of idling cars at a burger joint with the a/c blasting, amused by DVDs while we await heavily processed foods that have traveled thousands of miles to meet us at this place - wrapped, boxed and bagged for our “convenience” (plus a Chinese-made toy for the kiddies!). This absurdly wasteful routine is part of an oil-drunk, unsustainable lifestyle that is causing irreparable harm to our planet and is passing along impossible debts to our children. Considering the energy inputs that go into a Happy Meal alone, it may be time to rename it “The Last Supper.”

Popular authors such as Jared Diamond (“Collapse”) and Michael Pollan (“Omnivore’s Dilemma”) tell us that we must find a way to regulate ourselves and not gorge on an artificial bounty supported by nonrenewable resources and the deprivation of others and future generations.

Greener, more sustainable lives do not necessarily result from sacrifice. Rather, they are derived from more and more people who ask, “How much do we really need in order to live a quality lifestyle?” It is a question posited by Jeffrey Harris of the Alliance to Save Energy in an interview with the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 12, 2007). “Do we really need oversized cars and oversized houses?” Harris asks. Our focus, he says, “has to be on consumption, because the atmosphere doesn’t care about efficiency, it responds to the volume of greenhouse gases put into it.”

The atmosphere also doesn’t care whether you are a Republican or Democrat, or about your particular stance on climate change. With oil supplies dwindling, and average world temperatures rising, reality is going to slap all of us very hard if we don’t wake up from la-la land and do something about it.

Common sense

My grandfather probably never thought about his carbon footprint, but he was doubtless aware of his place in the scheme of things. Being Swiss, he threw little away. His tidy garden and fruit-laden orchard in Sutton, Neb., thrived on compost and a homemade drip-irrigation system. Coffee tins guarded young tomato plants while shiny pie pans did a fair job of scaring the birds from the cherry trees. On the back porch, stacks of cottage cheese containers awaited their turn to serve as seedling pots, while back issues of the Clay County News functioned as boot caddies and degradable weed barriers.

He would have thought it a little strange to attend a lecture or workshop to learn habits that he believed constituted common sense. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see people today from all walks of life eager to attend those lectures and workshops to learn both old and new ways to conserve and build healthier lives and communities.

There is a growing awareness of interconnections and interdependencies within our communities and between human systems and the natural world. In his book, “Web of Life,” physicist Fritjof Capra proposes a shift from linear thinking to systems thinking and calls for an “ecological literacy” that describes our essential interdependence and interconnectedness within human communities and with the natural world.

Understanding these interdependencies can reduce the potential of unintended and unanticipated consequences whether you are greening your home or your community. For example, recycling is a good thing, but if you are making a special trip by car or truck to the collection center across town, the environmental benefits are lost to the energy consumed and carbon generated from the trip itself. Recalling Harris’s comments in the Wall Street Journal, how much of what we recycle do we need to consume in the first place? Do we really need to drink bottled water when tap water is just as good or, in most cases, better than bottled? Even if you recycle those plastic bottles, you may want to consider that it takes more than three liters of water to manufacture just one liter of bottled water, not including the water in the container itself.

So think before you drink. Ask yourself why the sandwich in the fast-food restaurant is wrapped in paper even though you plan to eat it there. Or consider what it takes to conjure up “fresh” melons in the produce aisle … at Christmas.

Cradle-to-cradle thinking

A few years ago architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart offered a new way of thinking about consumption cycles through a design concept dubbed “Cradle-to-Cradle.”

Conventional approaches to sustainability usually make energy and material efficiency their ultimate goal. “While this can be a useful transitional strategy, it tends to reduce negative impacts without transforming harmful activity,” wrote McDonough and Braungart in 2003. “Recycling carpet, for example, might reduce consumption, but if the attached carpet backing contains PVC, which most carpet backing does, the recycled product is still on a one-way trip to the landfill, where it becomes hazardous waste.

Cradle-to-cradle design, according to McDonough and Braungart, “offers a framework in which the effective, regenerative cycles of nature provide models for wholly positive human designs. Within this framework we can create economies that purify air, land and water, that rely on current solar income and generate no toxic waste, that use safe, healthful materials that replenish the earth or can be perpetually recycled, and that yield benefits that enhance all life.”

It is a model through which material flows cyclically in appropriate, continuous biological or technical nutrient cycles, with all waste materials productively reincorporated into new production and use phases.

Any farmer or rancher could tell you that.

Getting practical with energy

So what can you do to help? Let’s start with energy. Our buildings consume more than 65 percent of the electricity in the U.S. and nearly 40 percent of total U.S. primary energy use. Another big slice comes from the cars and trucks that transport us and our goods and services between those buildings.

Climate-control systems account for about the half of the energy used in our homes and businesses. If you can’t afford a new furnace or air conditioner, you can still save energy by regularly replacing filters, using a programmable thermostat and sealing up cracks. When the sun beats through your windows on a hot day, close the drapes. Our public utilities offer all sorts of advice like this in addition to energy incentives for homes and businesses. Both the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) and Lincoln Electric System (LES) have renewable-energy initiatives that offer incentives for customers to conserve and expand the use of renewable energy. If our utilities succeed in lowering energy use even a point or two, it could eliminate the need for new coal-fired power plants that contribute to air pollution and global warming. Both OPPD and LES are also helping drive community-based green initiatives, respectively serving as founding members of the Green Omaha Coalition and the Lincoln Green by Design partnership. Perhaps the most successful “green” municipally owned utility is Austin (Texas) Energy, an oft-recognized national leader in conservation and clean-energy programs.

When the time comes to replace your climate-control system, or any major appliance, you can look for the Energy Star label sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA and DOE also have Web sites crammed with green information.

But going green doesn’t have to be technical or expensive. Common sense is free. Use natural lighting whenever you can to illuminate interiors, and on blazing hot days head for the cool of the basement or visit the neighborhood swimming pool. Also remember that ovens, lamps and other appliances generate a lot of heat, and should be used sparingly during the hottest times of the day. And even if you have efficient CFLs, shut them off when you leave the room.

Buying or building a house? Think small. The bigger the house, the more to heat, light and cool. More space also means more trips to the store to buy more things to put into those spaces (according to the Worldwatch Institute, average new homes in the U.S. grew nearly 38 percent between 1975 and 2000, to 2,265 square feet—twice the size of typical homes in Europe or Japan and 26 times the living space of the average person in Africa). If you’re building new, look for developers who are mindful of how homes are situated to sunlight and wind currents, how they are connected to daily amenities and fit into the natural environment. Are you able to walk to the store, or bike to work or school?

Getting around

Designing more efficient buildings also means locating them in ways that require less driving between them. Cars and light trucks account for 40 percent of the nation’s oil use, and the total distance traveled by Americans exceeds that of all other industrial nations combined. If we want to get serious about greening our communities, we need to drive less and walk, bike or use public transportation more. If you are buying a new car, look for the most efficient model possible, but also remember that if you drive a hybrid you are still burning gasoline. So keep it parked if there are alternatives to driving.

Americans use public transportation for only 2 percent of urban trips. We can do better, and soon we will have no choice. Our auto-centric lifestyles are not only bad for the environment, but they are also driving an inefficient pattern of urban design that sucks up public funds for road building and leaves little for other transportation alternatives. An auto-centric community also disenfranchises large segments of the population—those who cannot drive or who cannot afford to own and operate a car. With energy prices continuing to rise, this segment will only grow. (Memo to the Nebraska Department of Roads: It’s time to join the 21st century and 49 other states as the Nebraska Department of Transportation).

Living in a material world

In terms of energy consumption and waste, we should consider these questions when making any purchase:
• Do I really need this?
• What do I own that already serves the purpose of the desired item?
• If I buy it and decide to dispose of it later, can it be recycled, reused or donated?

Unfortunately, much of what we buy isn’t designed to last or to be repaired, which explains why TV repairmen have gone the way of the dodo, and why we toss out four and half pounds of trash per person per day, double what we discarded 40 years ago.

Although recycling is important, it isn’t as effective as reducing the use of materials from the get-go. One way to do this is to buy locally and to buy goods in concentrated or bulk form to reduce the cost of transportation and packaging. Buy items that can be refilled. Paper or plastic? How about bringing your own reusable shopping bag?

If something has outlived its usefulness, then it is time to recycle. According to the EPA, a four-person household that recycles all newsprint, aluminum, steel, plastic and glass can cut greenhouse-gas emissions from decaying solid waste by 41 percent. Recycling also cuts down the energy needed to make new products (recycling aluminum cans alone cuts the energy needed to manufacture new cans by 95 percent).

The building, construction and demolition industry is a major source of landfill waste - 136 million tons in just 1996 alone, according to the EPA. Fortunately, many companies are discovering economic benefits and additional sources of revenue by recycling these materials.

A number of organizations across the country are also helping to facilitate the process. EcoStores Nebraska is a nonprofit organization in Lincoln that sells second-use building and
remodeling materials to the public at 50 to 90 percent off retail. Since it opened in June 2005, EcoStores has diverted hundreds of tons of materials from the local landfill - doors, windows, lumber, tile, fixtures - items that are finding their way back into the built environment and local economy. Reusing these items rather than throwing them away reduces demand for virgin resources, the need for increasingly limited landfill space is reduced, and the embedded energy in these materials is recaptured rather than wasted.

A final note on recycling. Those CFLs are great energy savers and last a long time, but when they do eventually burn out, don’t toss them into the trash. They contain a small amount of mercury and should be recycled. Most communities have a government agency or local nonprofit that deals in hazardous-waste recycling and disposal. A great resource in the Plains region is the nonprofit WasteCap Nebraska, which provides waste-reduction and recycling services to many Nebraska businesses, including on-site assessments, training and product-recycling research and recycling contract management. WasteCap is also a good source to find a number of regional environmental service providers.

Getting technical: The rating systems

With the growing interest in green building comes a variety of rating systems and standards. Some have been designed by communities or companies to fit particular needs or conditions, but it is generally agreed that there are three major rating systems in the country:

Energy Star: This is probably the most ubiquitous in terms of consumer contacts. Introduced in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Star was created as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. EPA claims that with the help of Energy Star, Americans saved enough energy in 2006 alone to avoid greenhouse-gas emissions equivalent to those from 25 million cars, while saving $14 billion on their utility bills.

LEED: The nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council, founded in 1993, sponsors Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). It has become a nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings, promoting a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.

National Green Building Standard: The newest of the three, The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) is developing standards that are flexible depending on region (Energy Star also allows some flexibility between regions to account for climate and other variations). NAHB is working with the International Code Council (ICC) in the development of standards for green home-building construction practices, expected to be completed by the end of 2008.

Economic incentives

Green is smart money. The Wall Street Journal, Money and many other business papers and periodicals are crammed with articles these days on everything from green products to green investing. Eco-friendly policies are helping companies attract young talent, increase productivity and reduce costs, observed writer Dana Mattioli in the Nov. 14 edition of the WSJ, noting that a “recent poll on green employment by MonsterTRAK.com, a job Web site geared toward students and entry-level hires, found that 80 percent of young professionals are interested in securing a job that has a positive impact on the environment, and 92 percent would be more inclined to work for a company that is environmentally friendly.”

People want to live in places that are healthy, have outdoor amenities, transit systems and other signs of a vibrant culture. It is no wonder that at the recent Omaha Land Development Conference the discussion often centered on sustainable development practices. As one speaker noted, going green increases property values, results in energy savings and lower costs for maintenance and operation, increases marketability and leads to healthier and more productive employees.

Going green isn’t a political movement or a gathering of flower children. What it ultimately represents is a coming to our senses before it is too late. Our current lifestyle is neither cost-effective nor sustainable even for the near future, and continued inaction will lead to extreme consequences. In the best of our populist traditions, we can begin to make a difference in our local communities and throughout the Great Plains by working together as citizens not just of towns and cities but also of ecosystems and watersheds, connected to the very resources that lie at the heart of our quality of life and economic viability.

It’s either cradle to cradle or cradle to grave. I prefer the former; how about you?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Propeller  •   Reddit  •   Magnoliacom  •   Newsvine  •   Furl  •   Facebook  •   Google  •   Yahoo  •   Technorati  •   Icerocket