Bike-Share Surge

Bicycles parked on the pavement at Mackay, Queensland, 1948 by State Library of Queensland, Australia

Boston’s bike-share program has spread to Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline and Arlington. Boston was vying to be the first city in the nation with a wide, successful program, but has struggled with funding over the past two years.  Last July however, the federal government awarded $3 million to support Boston’s program, with the money earmarked for purchasing bicycles and docking stations.  The program would allow riders to borrow a bike from a docking station for a short, set period of time, afterwards returning the bike to a different docking station for another rider to use.  Minneapolis, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Montreal have launched similar programs and the Velib program in Paris, France has shown marked success with over 90,000 bikes currently in operation.

Nicole Freedman, Boston’s bike-share director, expects membership to reach 5,000 to 10,000 people in the first year of operation with fees ranging from $50 per year, to $10 per week, or, for the less frequent user, bikes could be borrowed by the hour for $5.  Trips shorter than a half-hour would be free for members.  With many U.S. urban centers looking to diversify their public transit portfolios, a robust bike-sharing program is key, particularly in a city like Cambridge where many bikers take to the streets on a regular basis.  That said, “It’s not [necessarily] about cyclists,’’ Freedman pointed out. “It’s about making cycling so inexpensive and convenient and attractive that it is the preferred form of transportation.’’

Local Green Happenings for Spring

Oftentimes, I find myself wondering: what green happenings are taking place in and around Cambridge and Boston?  If you have similar sentiments, there are a number of leads that might satisfy your curiosity.

A smart place to start is, of course, the Cambridge Energy Alliance Community Events Calendar, but on the off-chance you still can’t find what you’re looking for, there is still hope!

Whether you’re interested in a weekend afternoon outing, or changing your transit habits, look no further.  The City of Cambridge has designated May, 2011 as “Go Green Month” and the third week of May as “Climate Change Week.” During the month of May, (and hyper-concentrated in the week from May 13th to 22nd), you can find an array of local activities including nature walks, talks, workshops, and other environmentally-focused events.  Guests include Zipcar, MassRIDES, MBTA, CAC Gallery and Cambridge Bicycle Committee, to name a few.  There are also commuter challenges throughout the month, so take a look if you typically drive to work but instead want to try taking public transit, carpooling or biking.

In addition to Cambridge, Boston has an informative site complete with local area green event listings.  The Boston GreenScene also comes complete with a local green directory highlighting area companies and organizations that focus on green-related industry and services.  Services listed include green consulting, green building and green cleaning in addition to community groups such as Boston Green Drinks and various MeetUp groups.

Wild & Scenic Film Festival comes to Boston!

A possum and a movie camera 1943 by Australian War Memorial collection

For those of you itching to see some good, quality short films on everything from climate change, to sustainable, local farming to climbing Mount Kilimanjaro to raise money for charity, then look no further — the Wild & Scenic Film Festival is in Boston March 25th and 26th!

The event, sponsored by e-inc, consists not only of the film festival itself, but a series of panels, fund-raising events and guest speakers, including Robin Young, host of WBUR’s “Here and Now”.  Panelists include: David Cash, Undersecretary of Policy, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs; Howard Herzog, Senior Engineer, MIT Energy Initiative; Namrita Kapur, Director Corporate Partnership, Environmental Defense Fund; and Alexander Taft, Climate Officer, National Grid.  There will also be a locavore tasting menu of foods and wine and a showing of Carbon Nation with a question and answer session with film producer Artemis Jouzinsky.

I saw the film festival when it came to Maynard last week and was thoroughly impressed by both the high quality of artistic expression and subject matter depth.  I highly recommend going if you can!  Tickets for the Boston showing range from  $10 to $30 depending on which day and events you chose to attend. For more information go to http://www.e-action.us/.

Ultimate Greening Your Home Seminar

Residents of Cambridge, MA were introduced to a new opportunity on February 8th, 2011. Energy efficiency is on the minds of renters, condominium owners, and homeowners alike as the environmental, financial, and physical benefits become more prominently appreciated. Usually when energy efficiency information is available, it is more general and further discussion with specific professionals is suggested, since the process of making home energy efficiency improvements is tailored to unique home and ownership characteristics and often entails several detailed levels of complexity. On February 8th, those professionals were brought together in one place for an evening of sequential enlightenment for curious attendees, with an added bonus of networking amongst their industry peers and less-assumed partners, Green real estate agents.

When the Cambridge Energy Alliance and Coldwell Banker Agents Amy Tighe and Robin Miller designed this new collaborative seminar, their focus was on approaching one seemingly under-served demographic: condominium owners and associations. [This group will, luckily, begin to be served more as the NSTAR 5+ unit (“Multifamily”) energy assessment program rolls out.] That said, this successful design would clearly be valuable to other demographics (e.g. home owners) in addition to condominium owners/associations.

Beginning with the simplest in-home steps and leading to discussion of assessments, retrofits, and financing of projects, Sustainable Life Solutions, Next Step Living Inc., S & H Construction, CPCU Credit Union, CEA, Robin, and Amy engaged enthusiastic condo owners and association representatives in energy efficiency learning in a way that simply made sense. Speakers explained each of their areas of expertise thoroughly in their limited time, intermittently questions were asked and answered comprehensively, sometimes by the several professionals that were in the room, and when presentations were through, meaningful inquiry-fueled conversation rounded out the evening. A happy closeout to the seminar was the drawing of the raffle winner, who took home a wonderful green-living package that was generously donated by Whole Foods.

The results of this innovative event were remarkable: A valuable seminar was put together by unprecedented collaborators in a replicable format; speakers were able to answer significant questions jointly, and see how they might work together effectively in the future; seminar attendees were able to walk out with a mental arsenal of energy efficiency tools, feeling utterly aware of a previously mysterious process, with proper contacts in hand, and ready to share with their peers. This type of event is unquestionably beneficial for all involved, so watch out for announcements of the next installment in months to come!

Green Communities Act

[Tree in a rural area] (LOC) by The Library of Congress

Many Massachusetts residents want to live in a healthy and thriving green community, but don’t know how or where to start considering many of the broader environmental challenges that are so vast they can be paralyzing. With such a wide assortment of programs, subsidies and rebates, it can be a challenge for Massachusetts residents to stay on top of state and local energy efficiency options available to them [even though some communities have organizations like CEA to help navigate].

One useful state-wide resource was established under the Green Communities Act, which was signed into law by Governor Patrick in July 2008 and created the Green Communities Division within DOER to serve as the hub for all cities and towns on all matters related to energy. The Green Communities Act established the Green Communities Grant Program that provides grant funding to cities and towns and other local governmental bodies. In 2010, fifty-three cities and towns from across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were designated as Green Communities. To become a Green Community, a city or town must meet the following five criteria as detailed in the program guidelines:

1). Provide for the as-of-right siting of renewable or alternative energy generating facilities, renewable or alternative energy research and development (R&D) facilities, or renewable or alternative energy manufacturing facilities in designated locations.

2). Adopt an expedited application and permitting process under which these energy facilities may be sited within the municipality and which shall not exceed one year from the date of initial application to the date of final approval.

3). Establish an energy use baseline inventory that includes municipal buildings, vehicles, street and traffic lighting, and put in place a comprehensive program designed to reduce this baseline by 20 percent within 5 years of the baseline year.

4). Purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use whenever such vehicles are commercially available and practicable.

5). Require all new residential construction over 3,000 square feet and all new commercial and industrial real estate construction to minimize, to the extent feasible, the life-cycle cost of the facility by utilizing energy efficiency, water conservation and other renewable or alternative energy technologies. The recommended method for meeting these criteria is adoption of the Stretch Code, 780 CMR 120.AA, appendix to the MA State Building Code.

While the Green Communities Act has already established a solid base and grant program for communities who wish to participate, it’s important to continue to increase public awareness of grant and education programs associated with the GCA.  For example, coordinate state-wide community outreach efforts to expand GCA impact, use GCA success stories to promote more green-community advancement, encourage increased participation in DOER’s Energy Audit Program and utilize Green Communities Regional Coordinators to learn more specifics.

Green Communities Regional Coordinators:

Central Region: Kelly Brown, 627 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01103 (508) 767-2703 / Cell (617) 780-8144
Northeast Region: Joanne Bissetta, 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington, MA 01887, (978) 694-3315 / Cell (617) 823-4029
Southeast Region: Seth Pickering, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA 02347 (508) 946-2838 / Cell (617) 780-7156
Western Region: Jim Barry, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103, (413) 755-2232 / Cell (617) 823-4588

Please note, this article will also appear in the MA E-Sierran this spring.

Massachusetts = Belgium?

A starch factory along the Aroostook River, Caribou, Aroostook County, Me. (LOC) by The Library of Congress

A recent Sierra Club magazine article illustrates, in a unique diagram, how the United States, with 4.5% of the world’s population, is responsible for nearly 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions.  In fact, state by state, U.S. CO2 output equals that of entire countries, as illustrated on the map.  Data are from the 2007 U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Speaking with Climate Change Skeptics

The World Revs its Heat Engine by NASA on The Commons Feel like banging your head against the wall each time you try to discuss climate change with someone you know? Below is a highly valuable blog entry that was spawned from climate change concensus-building expert Larry Susskind‘s participation in a CEA/HEET-sponsored event. Here, Mr. Susskind thoroughly discusses how best to communicate with those who are critical of climate change’s legitimacy. Ultimately you must work around confrontation by facts, to get to the heart of concerns for each conversation partner. If you have been experiencing difficulty communicating with skeptics in your life, this is a blog for you.

From Larry Susskind’s blog, The Consensus Building Approach:

On Wednesday, November 10th, I had an opportunity to speak to a packed room of students and community residents at Harvard College seeking advice on how to talk to climate skeptics. The premise was that students would soon be heading home for Thanksgiving. They were looking for advice on how to talk to family and friends around the holiday table who either don’t believe that global warming is happening, or accept the fact that the climate is getting warmer, but attribute relatively recent temperature changes to natural rather than man-made causes. To get things started, we heard from a local radio talk show host who really is a climate skeptic. He made it very clear that he doesn’t trust Al Gore, is sure that scientists disagree about almost everything (because that’s what science requires), and thinks that anyone who believes that climate change is the result of human activity (rather than cyclical natural phenomena) has been sold a bill of goods.

First, I tried to make clear that seeking to convert “non-believers” is probably a mistake, and is certainly no way to encourage constructive dialogue. Rather, I suggested, the goal of dialogue ought to be to share ideas, advance the cause of mutual understanding, and see what opportunities to reach agreement might exist — in spite of fundamental differences in beliefs or levels of understanding. A number of the students present found this unacceptable. From their standpoint, the threat posed by the continued build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so frightening, they are compelled to convince anyone who doesn’t believe this to admit that they are wrong. These want to repeat and review what the vast majority of atmospheric scientists know to be true — the atmosphere is warming; this is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and methane; this build up is caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels; and the end result will be a worldwide catastrophy — sea level rise that will inundate vast coastal areas, particularly in the developing world; increasing storm intensification the will cause destructive flooding and Katrina-like devastation;increased drought in some areas and increasing numbers of extremely hot days that may cause massive eco-migration; more rapid spread of airborne disease, and irreversible harm to a range of marine and terrestrial species and habitats. The skeptic on the dais with me indicated that scientist can’t possibly know exactly when and where such things will and won’t happen (and he’s right). He also insisted that even if warming is occurring, it is impossible to know for sure whether it is mostly or entirely a man-made or nothing more than a natural phenomenon.

That was my cue. I said I didn’t think that mattered. I urged people interested in engaging in useful conversation with skeptics to shift their conversations to a discussion of risk — to talk about risk and risk management. I used the example of earthquakes. We don’t need to know for sure whether (where and when) an earthquake will occur to seriously consider taking action to minimize its serious adverse effects an earthquake would cause if it does occur. It turns out, we can require construction standards in new buildings that will protect people from collapsing structures. We can even retrofit existing buildings to make them more earthquake proof (although this comes at a cost). While there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to reduce the odds of an earthquake occurring, there are lots of things we can do (including organizing and practicing emergency relief efforts) to save lives and reduce misery and reconstruction costs when earthquakes do occur. Even if the majority of scientists are right — that if we don’t reduce to 350 – 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents in the next fifty years the worst effects of global warming will be impossible to correct, we won’t be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough over the next three decades to mitigate the effects of global warming. So, given the chance that the many thousands of scientists around the world who study these issue might be right, we could look for things to do that will reduce the disastrous effects if climate change is, in fact, occurring. And, if we could find things that also serve to achieve other laudable objectives (that help almost everyone), why would anyone be opposed to that?

So, I suggested reframing the discussion around what is called adaptation. If we can switch to energy sources that don’t involve the burning of fossil fuels, but instead rely on infinite energy sources like sunlight, wind, ocean waves, biofuels and the flow of fresh water, we may be able to simultaneously reduce the adverse effects of climate change (if it does occur), decrease our country’s dependence on imported oil and gas, dramatically reduce the health dangers to human beings, minimize the ecological damage caused by air and water pollution and the degradation of surface lands, and create more jobs in our own country. This would be a “no-regrets” response to the possibility of climate change. Similarly, if we can help every household reduce the amount of electricity it wastes (especially at peak times), we can eliminate the need to build new power plants, thereby reducing everybody’s electricity rates and saving all consumers money. Even if the risks are not fully predictable, a shift to renewable energy (especially if planned in a way that compensates anyone who suffers any losses in the short term as a result of the shift), would be a more desirable way to proceed. If you think about each component of climate change risk, it should be possible to brainstorm adaptive responses that minimize the chances of serious harm to the public and to the environment while simultaneously improving the economy, and enhancing social well-being. That’s what you want to ask skeptics to think about. Ask them to join you in various “thought experiments:”

“Whatever you think the chances are that a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, and that such increases will trigger a host of dangerous and costly consequences, can we brainstorm cost-effective ways to reduce the harm that would occur if the worst happens and achieve a host of other benefits at the same time?”

Improved emergency preparedness in cities will help if flooding of the sort that occurred in New Orleans happens more often. (Increased storm intensity is one of the presumed effects of climate change.) It will also help cities whether any kind of natural or man-made emergency. Almost every city could do more at a modest cost to update and practice its emergency response procedures.

Investments in expensive transportation, wastewater treatment and other municipal infrastructure should probably be made greater consideration for the possibility of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion into fresh water marshes, and increased storm intensity. It would be crazy to be in a position of having to pay off infrastructure bonds long after a facility is no longer useable because we didn’t think twice about climate change risks. Instead, by factoring the risks associated with climate change into infrastructure planning, safer locations or new designs for new facilities might be selected.

As we think about the possibility of a lot more hot days (over 95 degrees farenheit) every summer, what improvements might we make in public and elderly housing that would help people without air conditioning survive? It should be possible to design or retrofit public housing units and to add trees and plantings to keep these units cooler. It should also possible to designate public cooling centers along with ways of helping the disabled get to these locations during a heat wave. Many lives could be saved. These are things worth figuring out regardless of whether anyone is sure that the increase in the number of hot summer days over the past decade was caused by climate change. People died in Chicago two summers ago because of what is now called “the heat island effect.”

When you getting into brainstorming sessions with skeptics, avoid asking yes or no questions. Instead ask “when, where and how” questions. How could we reduce certain risks while accomplishing other worthwhile goals? When we have the information in hand, and the public dialogue that follows could look at the full range of costs and benefits (and I don’t just mean in dollar terms) what kinds of choices might be made? People with very different views about what climate change science allows us to know might still agree on useful steps to take to reduce the risks associated with climate change because these same activities would help them achieve other things they see as important.

Don’t personalize these discussions. Focus on outcomes that would respect everyone’s principles. Talk to people you disagree with in the same way you would like to have them talk to you.

Don’t paint people into corners by saying something like: “Since science knows Fact A to be true, then you must agree that everyone ought to take Action 1.” That will just provoke a counter-attack arguing that there must be someone (somewhere on the web) who disagrees wit Fact A. Moreover, everyone who agrees that Fact A is true will not agree that only Action 1 is the logical thing to do. Instead, ask “Forget for a moment whether Fact A is true or not. What are things that people who don’t necessarily agree about Fact A would suggest are worth doing for a variety of reasons?

Massachusetts Plans for the Clean Energy Future

The Setting Sun and Glass Lantern, Symbols of Solar Energy and Manmade Lighting, Along the Oregon Coast near Lincoln City During the Energy Crisis of 1973-74 01/1974 by The U.S. National Archives

On December 29th, Massachusetts officials announced a state-wide plan to cut heat-trapping carbon gases emitted by homes, cars and businesses in the state by 25 percent below 1990 levels over the next decade.  The targets set by the plan are the highest allowed under climate legislation passed by the state in 2008 and among the most stringent in the nation.  This aligns Massachusetts with states like California and New Mexico, who have already announced similar action.

The Massachusetts plan relies mainly on existing programs such as energy-efficiency standards for building construction, renewable-energy mandates and curbs in the electricity sector under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, of which Massachusetts is a signatory.  Ian Bowles, the state’s energy and environmental secretary, highlighted that the plan is an example of how a state can alter its energy profile with minimal economic impact and predicts instead a net gain in jobs for Massachusetts in the clean energy sector.

Debra Boronski, president of the Massachusetts Chamber of Business and Industry, has doubts about the plan stating, “Our biggest concern — even though it is right to conserve energy — is that alternative resources have to be cost-effective … As far as we know, in Massachusetts, research has shown that alternative energy is more expensive.”

Interestingly, data released by state officials indicated that more than one-third of the total greenhouse-gas emissions in Massachusetts come from the transportation sector.  In response to this information, Mr. Bowles announced the state will begin a pilot “Pay As You Drive” program giving drivers an incentive to cut back on unnecessary travel by linking car-insurance premiums to miles driven.  Congress has authorized $15 million in grants to insure low-income drivers do not suffer an unequal burden.

Other energy options include hydroelectric power from Quebec, weatherization for resident homes, and economic incentives for homeowners to replace oil-fueled furnaces with more efficient models.

—-

Cambridge Energy Alliance is available to help guide you through the above-mentioned process of weatherization as well as retrofitting your home- all starting with signing you up to have your home looked at. If you would like to take advantage of your free energy assessment (which you have each already paid for via utility bills), please head to the CEA sign-up page, or call their Energy Advising line at 1-617-491-0488, extension 121 today!

Clean Water Woes in Boston

Willamette River, Oregon by Oregon State University Archives

In a breaking news article, the Boston Globe reported that the Boston Water and Sewer Commission is releasing polluted water into area rivers, including the Charles, Neponset and Mystic, all of which flow into Boston Harbor.  Massachusetts US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and the Environmental Protection Agency’s New England office alleged the Commission is acting in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.  Federal agencies are poised to take legal action in February following an official lawsuit by the Conservation Law Foundation.  CLF said the lawsuit “documents serious failures in the system that are allowing ongoing unlawful pollution of Boston’s waterway.”  A statement by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission evaded direct mention of the allegation commenting “We have no comments on the specifics, however, the commission takes its role as an environmental steward as seriously as any other and is proud of its contributions to the resurgence of Boston Harbor and the Waterfront.’’  Whatever the official findings, federal intervention marks the severity of the situation and the lawsuit carries an important message: clean water is a basic human and environmental right which must be upheld and respected.

COP16

Earth, as Seen by Astronauts Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt from Apollo 17 by The U.S. National Archives

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.