In A Perfect World, Capitalism Would Actually Work.

Capitalism is often vilified as the source of most modern evils, from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer to inequalities in environmental health. The problem is we don't live in a perfect capitalist society so capitalism is as flawed as the system that supports it. There's really no such thing as a perfect capitalist society though. According to Adam Smith in his The Wealth of Nations, in true capitalism every man pursuing solely what is best for himself will result in what is best for society. True capitalism means everyone has; perfect access to information, perfect access to all goods and services, free movement of goods and labor, no external factors like taxes or subsidies affect prices, and all goods and services are economically quantified and accounted for.

None of these parameters are true in our current economy. Environmentalist often focus on the last aspect of capitalism, the idea that all goods and services are economically quantified and accounted for. Environmental resources like metals, minerals, wood, water, air, and soil, along with environmental services like water and air purification and soil production, are often severely undervalued or not valued at all. The cost of polluting the air and the water are born by society at large, not by the company which does the polluting.

The secret to a sustainable society according to Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins in their book "Natural Capitalism; Creating the Next Industrial Revolution," lies in giving natural resources their fair value - hence 'natural capitalism.' How would this work? Put simply, stop subsidizing industries that harm society (like giving oil companies millions in tax breaks every year and selling large scale industrial agriculture heavily subsidized water) charge a reasonable prices for limited resources (like expanding 'pay as you drive systems' including more tolls, higher parking fees, or including the cost of insurance in gasoline so more driving costs more, all working to reduce driving and limit the expansion of asphalt) and close the resource loop by making industries responsible for all of their waste.

All of these practices would encourage business to take natural resources into account in all their economic calculations, and lead to innovation in industries that realize there is an economic benefit to preserving the natural resources they rely on. The other main reason industries have been slow to adopt high efficiency resource saving practices, is that they are too focused on short term profits, and are unable to see the multiple benefits of holistic solutions. Factories with outdated generators could install new ones that use half the energy and would pay themselves back in a year and 5 times over in their entire lifetime, but they aren't upgraded because stakeholders will only accept a payback of 6 months. Industries fail to realize that by constantly moving their production centers to countries with the cheapest labor they impoverish their own customers and cripple their ability to innovate new technologies by never developing a strong base from which to grow. Instead of competing to produce the best product, they are competing to produce the cheapest. This works well for a short while, but it is a race to the bottom which everyone will loose.

A more holistic approach, realizes that well thought out solutions solve multiple problems, which in the end is more cost effective. Take efficient buildings for example. Investing in small amount of efficiency, like better windows can be expensive and barely pay itself back. But with a holistic design, a building can become much more efficient and economical. For example, the Rocky Mountain Institute spent a good deal of time and money designing their new office. Despite the larger initial cost, because it was so well designed the final building ended being cheaper to build then a standard design due to reduces materials. It was so efficient, even though the center was in the Rocky Mountains where temperatures can easily reach -40 degrees in winter, the only heating system for the 4,000 structure was two small stoves, and the Institute was able to grow bananas there!

The book cites in-numerous other success stories of companies, communities, governments, and individuals that used creative new approaches to economic and resource and created amazing innovative solutions which saved money, resources, and improved standards of living. Natural capitalism can help people break out of the old business as usual models, and reconsider new solutions to old problems. It is a fascinating read, and for anyone who thinks sustainability is hopeless or pointless, you will find the solutions in this book incredibly inspiring.

In a Completely Sustainable World, We Could All Consume More?

Most modern day environmentalism and sustainability efforts are tied to efficiency; reduce, reuse, recycle. According to these mantras, being green means self sacrifice - you have to use less electricity, less water, drive less, and consume less, all steps to make your environmental foot print 'less bad.' 'Less' is not really the most fun or inspiring way to live life. So what if you could consume as much as wanted and feel like all your consumption is actually improving the planet rather then harming it? According to Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart, you could.

The key to creating a future in which human beings lives are improved along with the natural environment, as described in McDonough and Braungart's book "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things," is to realize that industry and the environment do not have to be opposed. Why do humans have such a large negative impact on the Earth? Most people contribute it to our large population which is overwhelming natural systems. Ants also build cities (colonies which are expansive complexes with specific locations designated for diverse tasks), farm their food (some raise aphids, others nurture fungus colonies), and wage war against other ant groups. The total mass of all the ants in the world is greater then the mass of all people in the world, so why aren't ants ruining the planet? All of the activities that ants do actually serve to improve the planet,  not harm it, and they are in fact a crucial factor in maintaining soil health and litter removal. So why can't people, be more like ants?

Take for example furniture upholstery. Most textile factories us a large number of diverse chemicals and toxins in their manufacturing process, including cobalt, zirconium and other heavy metals. Fabric trimmings are often considered hazardous waste which is difficult to dispose of, and clean water consumed for the process is released as toxic-sludge. While the fabric is being used, toxic particles are abraded into the air and breathed in by the people sitting on it. When the fabric has served its purpose, it is either land-filled or incinerated, depositing its remaining toxins in the air or soil. Is this really the best way to make furniture?

The authors of 'Cradle to Cradle' helped create a different approach. They designed a fabric made from wool and ramie which together made a strong comfortable fabric. They then selected finishes and dyes that only had positive qualities - 38 of them compared to the almost 8,000 chemicals commonly used in the textile industry. While all of this required an expensive and laborious research process, the end product was higher-quality and more economical. When the fabric went into production, regulators came to test the effluent, and found the water quality leaving the factory was actually higher then water quality entering the factory. Areas of the factory that had previously stored hazardous-chemicals were converted to recreational rooms for employees. The fabric did not release any harmful chemicals due to abrasion from normal use, and when people were finished with it, they could throw it onto the soil or compost pile and it would actually contribute nutrients and improve soil quality.

This concept of a 'cradle to cradle' design process, which takes into account all factors in the life cycle of a product rather then just production and sale, can be applied to all types of products, and can lead to industries that provide valuable goods at reasonable prices while making the world safer for consumers, producers and nature alike. Recycling is a good idea, but most goods that are recycled are not designed with recylability in mind. This means these products may be recycled, but they are often downcycled to a product of inferior quality until they must eventually be disposed of, and often require extra chemical inputs to compensate for their impurities. If products were designed to be fully recyclable, either as plastic or metal that can be continually reused as a high quality material and kept in the industrial loop, or as a completely biodegradable substance that can enhance environmental health, then consuming more would never mean damaging your health, community, or environment. A system of production and consumption that leads to more economic growth, more available resources, more healthy and happy people and a more healthy environment. 'More,' now that's a lifestyle people can get excited about.

A Little White Picket Fence: the curse of the American Dream

In the 'good old days' of the 1950s, it was every American's dream to have a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a car in the driveway and a tv in the living room. Now that almost all US citizens have reached this dream, we may be starting to realize it isn't really what we expected.

People used to flock to the city from the country because cities were the vibrant centers of trade and life. Now people have mostly flocked from the cities to the suburbs, every family living in their own little fenced off island of idyllicness. What has this gotten us? Certainly privacy, but more then we bargained for.  There are very few neighborhoods that feel very neighborly any more. We have lost our public gathering spaces - there are few if any local parks, local shops, local bars or restaurants. We must drive to all of these things, amidst a sea of sprawling strip malls and highway overpasses. Most people aren't close enough to any of the amenities they use, and even if they were would probably drive anyway. Who wants to walk along congested 4 lane roads and wait at crosswalks for ages before the light changes? All of this driving around in a concrete jungle has dissolved any sense of community towns may have once had. Instead we have the 'soccer mom,' identifiable by their large vehicles used to ferry kids, groceries and sporting equipment in constant circles around town.

If you work 35 years of your life and have a one hour commute each way every day to and from work, you will spend 2 years in a car - 728 entire days of your life, sitting in traffic. How did we decide this was a good trade off for having a white picket fence?

Instead, you should find a community in which you can truly live. It can be a city or a small town, but a place where the number of businesses, shops, and restaurants actually cover a greater surface area then the parking lots serving them. If you were close enough to walk to work, the store, school, or the local hangout, there might actually BE a local hangout where people from the community could actually go and recognize their friends. It even might be a local restaurant, not a nationwide jumbo chain. Just think, no more traffic jams, no more finding parking spaces, no more $40 at the pump ever few days. That is what efficiency is really all about.  More efficient living can  save a lot energy through reduced driving miles, but efficient living also leaves a lot more time and space for, well, living.

Happy New Year!!!

Congratulations, you have made it to 2011, and you know what that means - New Years Resolutions. Making them, breaking them, and forgetting about them right. But the New Year really is a great opportunity to actually start doing some of those things you always said you would - a fresh new start. Now forget about the gym membership and the new fad diet - these things are all well and good but unlikely you will stick with them, and you'll probably spend a lot of money in the process. Instead, pick a few easy, manageable goals you know you'll be able to stick to. Here's a few ideas that will be good for your health and your pocket book, and good for the planet too.

- Home Cooked Meals: They may take time and forethought, but home cooking is much healthier and cheaper than eating out. If you don't have much time, just pick one day a week and cook a big batch of things you can reheat and recombine throughout the week. That way, you can eat multiple home cooked meals without having to cook ever night, and you even save energy as well as time by cooking all at once.

-Eat More Vegetable: You don't have to go vegetarian, but just substituting a few more veggies for meat will help boost your energy and immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and reduce your environmental footprint since meat is so resource intensive to produce. Just add a side salad to every meal, or eat one meal a week that's entirely veggie - you might find you actually like it.

-Take a Hike: To the store, to work, to the bank. Try and find at least one trip you usually take by car each week and walk or bike it instead. It's free exercise, will reduce your stress from driving and parking hassles, will save gas money, and cut down on your emissions.

-Grow Something: Even if you don't have a yard, having a few potted plants around the house can add a little color and cheer, purify the air, and are enjoyable to care for. For those with more space, a small vegetable garden can provide a healthy hobby and a surprising amount of fresh delicious produce straight to your table. Even if you only have space for a small window box herb garden you will be well rewarded - you have not lived until you've had really fresh basil.

-Read a Book: Get out from behind your computer or television, take a walk to the local library and check out a book. It's free, you might even save a little on your electric bill (those huge flat screens are heavy users), and it's a good way to take some time out and relax, and maybe even learn something.

There are lots of other little things you can do, especially to save energy and consume a little less. Be creative, have fun, and share it with your friends.

Green Hot Water to Save Yourself Some Green

I recently replaced the old water heater in my house. The old heater was, unfortunately, electric which is far less efficient, more expensive, and carbon intensive to run then a gas water heater. But, as retrofitting the house to accommodate a gas water heater was prohibitively expensive, electric it must stay.  I discovered an interesting new technology however, which is the only Energystar rated electric water heater, the electric heat pump. The top electric heat pump is the GE GeoSpring which uses less then half the electricity of a normal electric water heater by using heat in the ambient air temperature to warm water through a heat pump exchange. The Energy Guide rating of a GE GeoSpring says that its annual cost of running is $199, which is a huge improvement over the top rated standard GE electric water heater of $501 a year.

I also unfortunately discovered that the GeoSpring is not for everyone - it is just slightly larger then a standard water heater (which in my case made it impossible to fit underneath the old water hookups coming out of the wall) and since it uses surrounding air it requires at least 5 inches of open space on all sides of the heater and a well ventilated or open room to work efficiently. The heat pump works best when ambient air is warmer, so it will not be as efficient in cold regions, and it actually puts out cold air so you probably wouldn't want it competing with your heating system in a cold climate anyway. This however is perfect for typically warmer climates like California or the Southwest. The space requirements both for the size of the heater and the air flow means it would most easily replace systems that are already installed in the garage or other large space, and all of the hook ups are the same as a standard electric heater. Don't worry about 'energy efficient' meaning poor performance either - the heat pump actually heats water faster, more consistently, and more of it then a standard.

The biggest drawback most people see however, is the price tag. Currently the GeoSpring sells for $1400 to $1600. Up until the end of this year federal stimulus money will write off a third of that, and additional rebates are available through states and local utilities which could make the upfront cost competitive with a standard electric heater. All these rebates expire at the end of the year, however, and few people are willing to shell out $1500 when they could shell out $500 or less. A GeoSpring is still a good investment for any willing to do the math however.

If you use as much hot water as the Energy Guide estimates when they calculate average yearly cost of running a hot water heater, and large households use more, that means you would save $300 a year by switching to a heat pump. At that rate, the heat pump would make up the $1000 difference in just over 3 years, and its entire cost in 5. Add all this up over the lifetime of the pump and you can save thousands of dollars, about an extra $1500 after it has paid itself off if you only keep it for 10 years. The way todays stock market has been performing, I'd say a guarantee of at least doubling your money is a pretty good investment.

Learn more at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=heat_pump.pr_savings_benefits and http://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/

An Island of Green

In the most densely populated parts of the United States, our surroundings are largely coated in concrete and asphalt. The natural hydrology of the land has been interrupted. Instead of rainwater runoff naturally being absorbed into the soil, our cities must build gargantuan sewer systems connected to a web of storm drains that contaminates our clean water with all the oily residues washed off the city streets. It is an expensive and inefficient system. In New York City, legislation nearly eliminated discharges of dirty water by manufacturing, but their water ways are still none that you'd want to swim in. Over 75% of the contaminants still in the rivers come from the runoff from city streets.


At New York University's Environmental Health Clinic they have come up with a creative solution to this and many other environmental problems plaguing the city. The Environmental Health Clinic at NYU, also known as the X clinic, isn't like other university health clinics. You still make an appointment to come in and discuss a health concern, but instead of giving you prescription medications, they prescribe actions. "Patients" may be prescribed to perform local data collection or any number of 'urban interventions' aimed at understanding and improving environmental health. They may also be given 'referrals' to specific art and design projects, environmental organizations or local government and civil society groups that can utilize the data and actions prescribed to promote social change. 


The NoPARK project is one XRx prescribed. A NoPARK takes a standard 'no parking' zone, mostly those associated with fire hydrants, and turns the space into a green zone. By replacing the asphalt with low growing plants like mosses and grass, these micro-engineered green spaces prevent storm water runoff, purifying the water before it rejoins the water system. This living space is a low maintenance surface cover that stabilizes the soil, replenishes groundwater, alleviates strain on overtaxed sewer systems, and provides beautiful green space in the middle of the city. The NoPARK zone is still accessible by emergency vehicles which can simply park on top of the resilient vegetation. The XClinic estimates that if every 'no parking' zone was turned into a green space in NY city, 97% of all the cities contaminated runoff would be eliminated.


To find out more about this and other environmental health prescriptions, visit http://www.environmentalhealthclinic.net/  or watch a fascinating TedTalk by director of the XClinic Natalie Jeremijenko at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/natalie_jeremijenko_the_art_of_the_eco_mindshift.html and learn how to perform your own random acts of eco-action.

California, Carbon Trading and Agriculture

On December 16th California Air Resources Board of approved a cap-and-trade carbon emissions trading scheme for the state. The program, which takes effect in 2012, is supposed to reduce the state's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legislation is a large part of the environmental legacy that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has worked hard to develop. There is much concern from critics on both sides of the issue concerning the effectiveness of the carbon-trading scheme to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and its economic effect on businesses in the state. What if California could use this new legislation to actually encourage a growing sub-sector of the mainstay of the state's economy while reducing green house gas emissions?

Agriculture is by far the most lucrative industry in the state, and while it may not produce visible clouds of black smoke pumping into the atmosphere, it is actually a large source of green house gases. Commercial livestock and dairy operations produce a huge amount of methane gas, around 25% of the worlds total, which is 21 times as potent a green house gas as carbon dioxide. It also causes soil degradation and runoff, as does commercial crop production. It is estimated that 7% of net carbon in the atmosphere is a direct result of soil loss.

The worlds cultivated soil contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere - this is a double edged sword because as we strip the soils for agricultural purposes we release all of this carbon. If we were to adopt more sustainable farming practices however, we could actually rebuild soil and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Many consumers are already turning away from commercial industrialized food, as research continues to show that it is negatively impacting our health not only by degrading our clean air and clean water, but also by exposing us to a toxic mix of chemicals and hormones. The "Slow Food" movement is already growing, and organic, biointensive, permiculture and family owned-and-operated farms are becoming a larger part of the agricultural economy.

If California were to include agricultural emissions and runoff as a source of atmospheric green house gases, industrial farms using unsustainable practices would be required to have permits for all the carbon they waste. But, farms that adopted measures that would actually improve soil health could receive carbon credits which they could sell for an increased profit. If cattle were raised on well managed grasslands instead of commercial feedlots, the grasslands would be a carbon sink and the cattle would not produce methane due to unnatural stress on their digestion system. Thus the conversion cost of switching from a feedlot to a free-range operation could be easily covered not only be reduced input costs and increased product quality, but by the sale of carbon credits. This would encourage the development of the sustainable agriculture industry in California, promoting family owned operations and increasing the number of skilled agricultural jobs.

Not only would this reduce the states total green house gas emissions, it would also improve the states water supply. Inefficient chemically dependent agriculture uses a larger amount of water due to poor soil quality, leading to increased runoff. This contaminates waterways with the harmful agricultural chemicals, and with increased mineral runoff like selenium, a naturally occurring element in California soils which has accumulated so much in soils and waterways the city of Sacramento recently voted to double water rates to pay for a new filtration system to remove it.  In a water scarce state like California, encouraging farmers to employ methods that will reduce their water use and eliminate polluted runoff could save the state billions in future water development projects. Healthy soils and waterways also reduce the potential of fires and flooding, both of which are huge economic drains throughout the state.

Californians would also save huge amounts of money in healthcare costs because their air, water, and food would be cleaner and healthier. In the long run, not only would including agricultural systems in a cap-and-trade scheme lead to improved air quality and reduced risk of climate change, it would encourage local agricultural development, sustain this development in the future leading to permanent job growth, reduce state and individual costs for water and healthcare, improve our food supply and make it more self-sufficient.

Even if agricultural waste doesn't get included in the cap-and-trade legislation, you can still help all of this come about by buying sustainably grown food from a local farmer. It's cheaper then you think.