About Tara Holmes

Tara lives in San Francisco (but hails from Massachusetts). She is passionate about environmental conservation and increasing public awareness of environmental issues. Tara received a BA from Connecticut College and an MPA with a concentration in environmental policy from The Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She tends to focus on politics and business, but also touches on behavior. Tara has worked at the World Resources Institute, the MA Department of Energy Resources and spent summer 2010 working on UN-REDD research and policy in Paris, France for ONF International. She is currently involved with SF Environment, Friends of the Urban Forest and sits on the Board of Directors for Randall Museum Friends in San Francisco. She enjoys being outdoors as much as possible! Twitter: @tmhol. Personal Blog: http://taraholmes.wordpress.com/ In addition to the posts listed by clicking her username above, she also contributed to the post Whitehouse goes solar!

Dreaming of a Green Christmas Tree?

Posted on December 21, 2010 by Tara Holmes

Debating on whether or not to get a real or fake Christmas tree this year? Well, if you haven’t already, then think twice: a recent article by the New York Times reported that unless you keep your fake tree for 20 years or more, it’s more environmentally conscientious to purchase a real tree. It sounds counterintuitive – aren’t Christmas tree farms agriculturally damaging and don’t we need more trees intact to act as carbon sinks? Turns out, it might not be that clear cut.

Using calculations that included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts, a Montreal-based environmental consulting firm found that the annual carbon emissions associated with using a real tree every year were one-third of those created by an artificial tree over a standard six-year lifespan. Additionally, fake trees often contain polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which produces carcinogens during manufacturing and disposal. “The natural tree is a better option,” said Jean-Sebastien Trudel, founder of the firm, Ellipsos, that released the independent study last year.

Most fake trees found in Target or Walmart are produced in China, adding further transportation and manufacturing cost to the environment. Nonetheless, many American consumers continue to believe that reusing the same tree year after year is a better, more environmentally sound option. “You’re [actually] not doing any harm by cutting down a Christmas tree,” said Clint Springer, a botanist and professor of biology at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. “A lot of people think artificial is better because you’re preserving the life of a tree. But in this case, you’ve got a crop that’s being raised for that purpose.”

Americans have many consumer options this Christmas. It can be daunting to make the best choice for the environment while immersed in wrapping paper, plastic bags and shopping malls, but remember to think twice about getting the fake tree and instead opt for the real, local Christmas tree this year. Oh, and they smell better too!

EPA vs. Industry

Posted on December 13, 2010 by Tara Holmes

In a victory for environmentalists, on Friday, a US federal court denied an appeal by industry groups to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions starting in early January, 2011. The Obama Administration supports the EPA’s regulation of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, from major industrial sources due to the inability for more comprehensive national climate legislation to pass through Congress this summer.

Beginning in January, the EPA will require big emitters such as power plants, refineries and cement manufacturers, to obtain permits for polluting greenhouse gases. Companies will also have to follow EPA guidelines regarding the best technologies to control emissions when expanding or building new plants or factories.

Critics of the regulations argue the EPA is not equipped to handle the task of controlling GHG emissions and that regulations would damage the US economy. David Baron of Earthjustice however stated, “We’re glad the court rejected these baseless attempts by polluters to stall progress toward cleaner cars and safer air.”

Smart Growth Awards

Posted on December 10, 2010 by Tara Holmes

The EPA recently announced the winners of its Smart Growth Awards program, a program that ranks national cities and communities on metrics of green development and environmental design sensitivity. The program also ranks urban planning elements such as density and compact community development. The recent winners are: Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, NYC, Baltimore and 20 rural Maine communities. NYC came out on top this year with increased bike paths and carved out public spaces as key improvements. “New York City has achieved a relatively small carbon footprint, given its size, through its commitment to creating compact and walkable neighborhoods” the EPA said.

Portland won EPA recognition for its “Making the Greatest Place” growth plan which “…calls for maintaining connections with nature, preserving existing neighborhoods, strengthening employment and industrial areas, and concentrating growth in designated centers.” In Maine, 20 towns linked by Route 1 collaborated in an effort to preserve the region’s rural character, while in San Francisco, a seedy alleyway South of Market area was turned into vibrant public space lined with restaurants, shops, and a farmers market. Finally, Baltimore won for a green building design that rehabilitated an historic building into a mixed-use residential and commercial space that revitalized the surrounding neighborhood.

With Cambridge and/or Boston’s ever-increasing commitment to sustainability, let’s hope that we make the list next time!

COP16

Posted on November 30, 2010 by Tara Holmes

As delegates, politicians and heads of NGOs from around the world gather in Cancun, Mexico this week and next for the COP16 conference, the follow-up to the climate talks in Copenhagen, or COP15, many are wondering what will result from these talks, and more importantly, what, if any, internationally binding climate contracts will be made. Many speculate that any progress at COP16 will be frozen by continued immobility on the parts of China and the United States, who held their own separate talks earlier this fall, however refuse to budge on overarching climate agreements unless the other moves first.

Reports have suggested that the Cancun talks are only a stepping stone to the 2011 conference in South Africa with little tangible action expected to result. Nevertheless, climate change must be taken seriously and acted upon right away. A recent report out of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Oxford University states that up to one billion people will lose their homes to climate change (rising sea levels, droughts, crop failure) by 2100. Furthermore, fresh water scarcity is a growing concern as rising sea levels lead to fewer fresh water resources.

While it will be interesting to monitor the COP16 talks over the coming weeks, it’s important to keep in mind that the atmosphere is at a critical tipping point, with many climate scientists allotting 5 years before we’re at the point of no return. 2010 is posed to be one of the hottest years in recorded history and weather patterns are notably shifting in many regions of the world. To continue to push serious action off until the future is a critical mistake; there is simply no more time to waste.

Power Hungry US

Posted on November 22, 2010 by Tara Holmes

In a recent post by GOOD, a detailed breakdown of 2008 energy consumption in the US illustrates the range of energy use across the country by state. According to this data, Massachusetts comes in with 1.00 – 1.49 quadrillion BTUs of total energy consumption, while California or Texas, for example, come in at more than 2.50 each. The graph also breaks down total energy consumption by person, or per capita. How does your state measure up?

The Fate of Vermont Yankee

Posted on November 15, 2010 by Tara Holmes

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, located in the town of Vernon on the boarder of Massachusetts and Vermont, has been a topic of environmental concern and debate for many years. On Sunday, November 7th, the plant shut down due to a cooling water leak, but was back online to the New England grid early next Thursday morning.

Local residents and politicians, fearing the dated, aging plant could lead to potential nuclear disaster, have been pushing to permanently close the plant for years. In fact, the consensus in the Vermont Legislature is that Vermont Yankee should be closed when its 40-year license expires in March, 2012. Entergy, the Louisiana-based power company that owns the plant, has since put the reactor on the market as of last week given the continued resistance by the state of Vermont. Nonetheless, the fate of Vermont Yankee remains somewhat unclear.

The Brattleboro Reformer reported Thursday that in nearby Keene, NH, city officials are debating whether to sign a letter asking to be involved in decisions on how the reactor would be torn down. Clearly the push to close Vermont Yankee is significant, particularly when neighboring states express concern and take action. The question however remains: if Vermont Yankee shuts down, what alternative energy source will take its place? For now, the focus is the closure of an archaic power plant. What would ensue remains open for discussion and debate.

A Monumental Victory for Clean Energy!

Posted on November 3, 2010 by Tara Holmes

All clean-energy eyes were on California yesterday as voters had the historical choice to vote yes, or no, on Proposition 23, a proposition initiated by two Texas oil conglomerates: Valero and Tesero, as well as Koch Industries. Prop 23, as it’s called, was a measure to revoke California’s landmark climate bill, AB 32. Stating that a clean economy is too costly in the current economic state, the Texas companies marketed Prop 23 as a measure that would decrease unemployment in the state and secure existing energy jobs. However, Prop 23 would also rewind all of the progress California has made on clean, renewable energy standards and the green economy – an economy that is both nationally and internationally reputed as groundbreaking in the field – while increasing profits to two out-of-state oil companies.

Nevertheless, resoundingly, in a major upset to Texas oil, Californian’s decided that a clean energy future was more important than a future reliant on fossil fuels and voted no on Prop 23, thereby securing a clean energy future while demonstrating to the US and to the international community that the green economy remains strong in the state, even during challenging economic times and marked unemployment. The political campaign against Prop 23 was backed with aggressive and consistent messaging by Senator Barbara Boxer and newly-elected governor Jerry Brown, as well as a multitude of environmental organizations.

Calling for a Lighter Fleet

Posted on November 2, 2010 by Tara Holmes

The Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club is urging Boston-area residents to come out and voice their support for a first-ever increase of emissions standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation announced a proposal calling for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from heavy trucks and 7-10% reductions from other trucks between 2014-2018. The EPA and DOT are holding a hearing in Boston later this month to discuss this proposal; the trucking industry is expected to oppose the standards.

The vehicles covered by this announcement consume 20% of all on-road transportation fuel used each year, despite representing only 4% of all vehicles on the road. Furthermore, unlike passenger vehicles, these large pickups, freight trucks and garbage trucks (for example), have never been subject to federal fuel efficiency or global warming tailpipe pollution standards.

While the EPA/DOT’s green-friendly proposal demonstrates improvement over existing standards, the Sierra Club, among other environmental groups, have expressed dissatisfaction with the standards, calling for even higher emissions reductions within a similar period of time. Specifically, asking for a 35% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from long haul tractors pulling van trailers by 2018.

In response to this announcement, the Sierra Club is urging citizens to come out, voice their opinion and support increased emission standards that cut greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. Please see below for specifics on how you can become directly involved!

For further information contact:

James McCaffrey or Gina Coplon-Newfield, or call 617-423-5775

Thursday November 18, 2010, 10am-5pm

Hyatt Regency Cambridge, 575 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA

Sunny California

Posted on November 1, 2010 by Tara Holmes

On the heels of recent 10-10-10 and 350.org events, last Monday, the US federal government approved the largest solar energy project in the world—four plants costing one billion dollars each in southern California. The so-called Blythe solar power plant will consist of four, 250-Megawatt plants, built on public lands in the Mojave desert. “When completed the project is expected to generate up to 1,000 Megawatts of energy … That’s enough electricity to power up to 750,000 average American homes and to make Blythe the largest solar power plant facility in the world,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said. Given the recent explosion of Chinese solar and wind development, this news comes at an opportune time for the US renewable energy market.

The total capacity will be roughly equal to the turbine output of a nuclear power plant or a large modern coal-fired power plant, according to Solar Millennium, the German solar company in charge of developing the facility. Solar Millennium plans to begin construction on Blythe this year and at the height of construction, the project is expected to create more than 1,000 jobs, which is good news not only for green job creation, but for job creation in general in a sluggish US economy. The Blythe facility is one of a number of renewable energy projects that have been approved in recent weeks by the Interior Department.

Music for Mountains

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Tara Holmes

In a recent Orion article by Erik Reece, an important connection between the human sprit, music and environmentalism is made. This connection is illustrated through the destruction of Appalachian mountaintops for coal and the recent Music Saves Mountains concert organized by the National Resources Defense Council and Emmylou Harris. While the knowledge of mountaintop mining in Appalachia is nothing new, the need for significant public action is. Emmylou Harris, a renowned folk singer, makes the point that, “It seems like artists today, particularly country artists, tend to play it safe … But mountaintop removal is based on pure greed and it’s doing such incredible damage.” The bigger question at stake is apathy; what will it take to get Americans to take a stand against blatant environmental destruction, such as mountaintop mining?

In current culture, songs are less and less about environmental issues, as were past folk songs by John Denver for example, and more and more about the individual. For example, “Toby Keith’s latest single, ‘American Ride,’ doesn’t so much deny global warming as revel in it: ‘That’s us, that’s right, / Gotta love this American ride. / Both ends of the ozone burnin’. / Funny how the world keeps turnin’ . . .” Clearly one cannot sum up an entire culture based on popular music, and there are many who do not follow standard norms, however, the growing concensus that there’s an increasing disconnect between Americans and nature is a startling one. In a recent ENN article, the author makes note of the Environmental Paradox and how humans are more and more decoupled from ecosystems due to time lags and increased technology. Perhaps the need for a psychological grassroots revolution in America is in order? One reminscent of days when people were less distracted and consumed by massive amounts of information, but were actively involved in their communities, politics and their planet. Without the collective action of many who care, the Appalachian mountains, like many natural wonders of this Earth, will be left to those who do care – about profit.

Warm Home Cool Planet

Sustainability begins at home

Author Archives: Tara Holmes