Dresden Moving on Climate Protection

Posted on June 13, 2011 by John Bolduc

Dresden, a city of 220,000 in the eastern part of Germany, was the target of Allied firebombing in World War II that largely destroyed the city. The wonderful skyline of towers built by the Saxon kings was restored and the downtown area is vibrant. While the eastern part of Germany has suffered from emigration to other regions, Dresden has been growing modestly.

The City is bisected by the Elbe River and has a number of tributaries that flow into it. In 2002, Dresden saw a major flood that inundated the city center, including the central railway station. Over 1 billion Euros in damage was inflicted by the floods and some lives were lost. The flooding was the result of the Elbe River overtopping its banks, rising groundwater, and the Weisseritz River defying its re-direction and flowing in its historic route. The 2002 flood is at the front of City officials’ minds as they develop responses to climate change.

Dresden has a small climate protection office formed in 2010 and headed by Ina Helzig. The office focuses on climate mitigation initiatives. Dresden’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 2010 levels by 2030. The City sees their climate and sustainability program as part of their economic development strategy.

Work on adaptation has been centered in a regional initiative called REGKLAM that is funded by the federal government. The adaptation program is at the stage of assessing Dresden’s vulnerabilities in order to develop their strategy. But they have already taken action to prevent a repeat of the 2002 flood. The City’s strategy includes preventing additional development in floodplains, monitoring weather conditions, raising flood retention walls by about 1 meter, creating a system of temporary flood retention barriers to protect the city center, modifying the combined sewer system to store more water and reduce the frequency of sewage overflows to the Elbe, and lowering groundwater levels under key buildings. An underground retention facility was constructed at a central pumping station to hold 35,000 cubic meters of storm flows. The City has also installed additional gates in the combined sewer conduit system to shut down the pipes and use them for storage. Dresden believes the improved system will help them minimize the flooding effects of climate change.

One other climate-related strategy that Dresden, and some other German cities, employs is to protect air flow channels coming down from of the surrounding mountains. Most of the land within the city boundaries is open space. There are valleys that slope down to the Elbe River that bring cooler air to the Elbe and into the city. Land use changes and development that would reduce this effect are restricted. While this wasn’t done as an adaptation measure, I think this strategy will help Dresden cope with rising temperatures. This approach has not been taken in any American cities as far as I know. But it would complement other efforts to reduce the urban heat island effect.

Freiburg’s Eco-Villages

Posted on June 8, 2011 by John Bolduc

Rieselfeld Center

Two areas of Freiburg have been developed as eco-villages — Rieselfeld and Vauban. The eco-villages showcase integrated planning based on principles of sustainability.

Rieselfeld, the larger of the two, was built on land that was formerly used for sewage disposal. It lies toward the western outskirts of Freiburg. There are about 4,500 apartments in buildings of 3 to 5 stories housing around about 10,000 people. Most of the buildings are built to a “low energy” standard for heating requirements, which we are told is about 65 kwh/square meter (in Europe they use kilowatt-hours as a basic energy metric in the way we use BTUs).

Solar panels and green roofs appear throughout the development. The ecumenical Maria Magdelena Church has a solar PV system on its roof. The revenue from the feed-in tariffs and electricity savings is used to support solar energy projects in Ethiopia.

Virtually all the buildings in Reiselfeld are connected to the district heating plant located in the development. The plant runs a co-generation system to produce electricity and heat and is fueled by wood pellets produced from a forest certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.

Rieselfeld is adjacent to large areas of open space. Also, open greenspaces have been incorporated in between buildings and arranged in a way to encourage interaction among residents.

In terms of car dependency, Rieselfeld appears to be typical of Germany, although that means there are still a lot of bicycles and walkers. There are bicycle paths and bicycle friendly streets throughout. A tram line comes into the development, making it easy to access the city center.

In contrast, Vauban is a little more “alternative” in feeling. The buildings are set closer together and vegetation around and on the buildings seem more unkempt. We also noticed a lot of children in the development. The eco-village has about 5,500 residents.

Vauban is built on a former French military base. When the Berlin Wall fell and it was clear the French would be leaving, citizens started thinking about the future of the area. The citizens advocated for an affordable residential area. We were told that citizens were much more involved in the planning of Vauban than in Rieselfeld. Freiburg’s 1986 climate protection plan influenced the eco-friendly design.

The plan for Vauban retained many of the large trees that were on the former military base and reused some of the buildings.

There are examples of buildings that meet Passivhaus standards (15 kwh/square meter). Passivhaus is a private energy efficiency standard developed in Germany and used by some developers and followed by some cities. The first multi-family building to meet Passivhaus standards in Germany is located in Vauban.

Geo-exchange heat pumps are commonly used. All the buildings are connected to a neighborhood district heating plant, except the multi-family building that was the first to meet Passivhaus standards. That building was intended to be connected to its own biogas plant that was to be fed by sewage from the building. However, the biogas plant was not feasible.

Vauban Cogen

In Vauban, cars are less encouraged than in Rieselfeld. No car parking is included at or adjacent to residences, except for visitor spaces. Residents who own cars are obligated to purchase spaces in one of the common garages (we saw two). The garages have large solar PV arrays. A city tram line goes through the middle of Vauban.

Waste management practices are less conspicuous. Recyclable and compostable materials are collected separately from trash. We were told that there is a system whereby residents can pay lower rates for trash disposal for recycling and composting more and using worm farms. Trash is commonly incinerated in Germany.

Across the street from Vauban is a small Plus Energy housing development, called the Freiburg Solar Settlement. Architect Rolf Disch designed multifamily homes and small commercial buildings to produce more energy than they consume. It’s the first and only such development in Germany, we were told. The buildings are modular units that are mostly pre-fabricated and are finished on site with siding and details. The roofs are completely covered with solar PV panels, which also form long eaves to provide shading in summer and allow sunlight to reach the south side windows in winter.

Plus Energyhouse

Rieselfeld and Vauban seem like large leaps for most Americans. But for communities like Cambridge where multi-family residences are the norm, they seem possible. But a key factor that enabled their development in Freiburg is that the City government has more land and public housing under its control. So it is a lot easier for the projects to be planned and sited than in Cambridge.

Fast Times at Cap&Trade High

Posted on June 8, 2011 by Dean Fogarasi

Governor Chris Christie

You may not know this, but “Cap and Trade” isn’t just a buzz-phrase for something many environmentalists would like to see the U.S. adopt for regulation of greenhouse gases–it’s been a reality for 10 northeastern states since 2009. With the announcement of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s plan to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) this year, the hot-button issue of Cap and Trade has again come to the surface of environmental news sphere. Cap and Trade, the market-based mechanism that many call for to help steer our energy production from fossil fuels to renewables, has been employed under a cooperative agreement called RGGI (“reggie”). RGGI is a joint venture by the New England states along with New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, to limit emissions from electricity plants and collect revenues for member states through auctions and sales of CO₂ emission allowances. These revenues are intended to be re-invested by the states for things like efficiency improvements, renewable energy installations, and consumer financing, although NY, NJ, and NH have used a portion of their proceeds toward their state debts. Overall, about 80 percent of the $860 million collected so far have been strategically invested since the first auctions were held in ’08.

Here in Massachusetts, about 80% of our $123 million windfall has been put toward utility-run efficiency improvement programs, while around 20% have gone to state-run initiatives including the multi-faceted Green Communities program, which was featured here on Warm Home Cool Planet back in February. Other states have created “Green Jobs” programs, as in New York. According to RGGI’s own assessment report released this February, investments in efficiency and renewables have created appreciable direct and indirect economic benefits, along with expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. As a minor caveat, there have not been, to my knowledge, any independent studies yet evaluating RGGI’s effect on either the economy or emissions.

So, in light of what seems like progress for RGGI member states, Christie’s decision to end his state’s participation by the year’s end has received plenty of criticism. Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut was among those disappointed, stating “Governor Christie’s decision…reflects the kind of policymaking that must change if we are to move forward as a nation.” Christie’s explanation for the decision does, on the face of it, take a pro-environmental stance, as he claims New Jersey will be able to achieve emission reductions progress and job creation through its own forthcoming policies, including preventing new coal-fired plants from being built. The decision to withdraw isn’t quite final, however, as environmentalists plan to mount a legal challenge. Whatever ends up happening with New Jersey’s RGGI saga, don’t expect regional Cap and Trade arrangements to go by the wayside, as Politico’s Darren Sammuelsohn explains. And if the EPA sets nation-wide emissions caps for electricity plants, RGGI just might serve as a template for other regions to form their own carbon markets.

The March on Blair Mountain

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Tara Holmes

On June 5th, roughly 600 activists and marchers began a five day 50 mile hike from Marmet, West Virginia to Blair Mountain in protest of mountain top removal (MTR), a destructive and highly contested form of strip mining. Blair Mountain, one of the last, originally standing mountains in that region of Appalachia to avoid MTR, is also an historical site with battle fields and artifacts dating back to the Civil War and before. It’s also, like many of the pristine mountains in that region, loaded with coal reserves. Unfortunately, for the residents of states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia, MTR is an all too common reality. Current data show that as of 2010, an area the size of Delaware has been mined using MTR techniques and there is, tragically, no end in sight given our insatiable demand for coal-fired power.

The March on Blair Mountain aims to draw attention not only to the environmental devastation plaguing Appalachia, but to the countless union jobs lost as a result of MTR. Before MTR became standard practice, union laborers mined for coal in these same mountains using traditional deep-mining methods. Today however, the mechanization of MTR has made the mining process more “efficient” thereby cutting half the workers that deep mining traditionally employs. In Boone County, WV the state’s most heavily mined county, 2,053 miners working in underground mines produce more than 10 million tons of coal a year, while 1,086 surface miners produce 12 million tons. One local miner was quoted as saying, “MTR is a job killer, it is not a job creator.”

While coal mining alone remains a contested topic for both energy policy and environmental policy, what’s currently taking place in Appalachia is complete annihilation of million-year old mountains and the associated streams and ecosystems that sustain life in that region. Tens of thousands of acres of land have already been demolished – if not irreparably – and water tables are now laden with coal runoff and other debris impacting the health of local residents and wildlife alike. At the same time, energy demand continues to rise, while the Earth’s precious resources remain finite. And mountain top removal is just one of the high-impact energy extraction industries; the Alberta tar sands, hydrolic fracturing (“fracking”) and deep-ocean drilling are all loosely regulated, dangerous and environmentally damaging businesses.

We need a cleaner, renewable revolution for our pressing energy woes and we need clean, green job alternatives and training options for those pushed out of archaic industries, such as coal mining. This revolution also comes in the form of energy efficiency behavior changes at home and renewably sourced energy options from utility providers. The Earth simply cannot sustain current energy demand without an alternative (and immediate) solution on a global scale. Please visit The Last Mountain to learn more about action points you can take and to see clips of the new documentary film coming out this month about Blair Mountain.

Green Mobility in Freiburg

Posted on June 7, 2011 by John Bolduc

The Altstadt

Cars are prominent in Freiburg, but there is a different relationship between people, bicycles, transit and cars compared to home. Cars defer to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit as they negotiate the city streets. Bicyclists and pedestrians move around each other fluidly. There is also a higher level of convenience in using non-automobile travel modes.

Freiburg has made the Altstadt – the old core of the city – a car-free zone. Only residents who live within the zone and service vehicles can drive in. Pedestrians, cyclists, and the tram are freer to move. Fraziska Breyer of the City government told us that when the car-free zone was proposed, businesses were very concerned that shoppers would shun the center. But the decision has instead made the old city a more attractive area for shoppers and visitors. The streets are bustling with people and cyclists are everywhere. To some degree there are too many cyclists in the old city. On the main street of Kaiser Joseph Strasse, the city had to prohibit bicycle parking near the area where the tram lines intersect because they were blocking walkers.

The tram (street car) system is excellent The trams do not for the most part run on separate rights-of-way. They run on rails in the street along with the cars and cyclists. Throughout the city, trams have traffic signal priority; the lights change as the trams approach to allow the tram to move through intersections. And the system makes it very easy to use the tram. Tickets can be bought at electronic vending machines and there are multiple choices – single rides, all day passes, group passes, etc. When you board the tram, there are no conductors or turnstiles to go through. Riders are expected to punch the tickets themselves to mark the time their use started. Conductors do spot checks and scofflaws can be fined. When waiting for the tram, there are electronic information boards that give riders real time information on when the next tram will arrive. There is also an extensive bus system, although I didn’t have the opportunity to ride a bus. To top it all off, the public transportation system is 100% powered by renewable energy – 80% hydro and 20% solar, wind, and other renewables.

There is an extensive network of bicycle lanes, paths, and roads. We were told there are 410 kilometers of these facilities. In some areas whole street segments are marked to give bicycles priorities. Cars can be on these bicycle roads, but they have to drive at similar speeds to cyclists and defer to them.

Traffic rules are enforced on cars and cyclists. A 30 kilometer per hour speed limit applies in the city center. It’s enforced by radar and photo. Cyclists are expected to follow traffic rules too. Frau Breyer said she once turned right at an intersection without stopping at a sign and was caught by the police. She received a ticket.

Freiburg has a non-profit car sharing association. It sounded like it has had a similar effect to Zipcar in Cambridge, providing an alternative for people who don’t want to own a car and eliminating the need for owning a second car.

Bike parking at the train station

Freiburg seems to take all modes of transit and weave them into a seamless system. Our study group took a bicycle tour of the city’s sustainability highlights. We rented bicycles at a shop housed in a building that also provided bicycle parking for a fee on two levels and car sharing below. The building was located at the main train station, which was intersected by the tram system. Buses and taxi stations were also located there. The whole system was reliable, flexible, safe, and enjoyable.

The transportation mode shares reported by the city in 1999 – the City said the data is being updated – is 23% pedestrian, 27% bicycles, 18% transit, 6% ride sharing, and 26% single occupancy driving. I’m not sure if that is all trips (I think that is so) or just commuting.

I wasn’t able to learn all the factors that enable Freiburg to have such a wonderful transportation system. I’m sure there are reasons why it is easier to have such a great system in Freiburg, but it makes you want to replicate it at home.

Next: Freiburg’s eco-villages – Reiselfeld and Vauban.

Freiburg – Greenest City in Europe?

Posted on June 3, 2011 by John Bolduc

Kaiser Joseph Strasse, in Freiburg Center

I’m on a personal study tour of Germany and Holland to see what German and Dutch cities are doing about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. The tour is organized by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, an organization that the City of Cambridge has been a member of since 1999. Our tour leader, Jade Jackson, is leading our group of 4 Canadians and 2 Americans through Freiburg and Dresden Germany, and then on to Bonn to attend the ICLEI Climate Resilient Communities conference. We will end up in Rotterdam in The Netherlands. I thought I would try to share what I see and learn along the way. I hope you find it useful and interesting.

In Cambridge, we often look to Europe for examples of how to make the city more sustainable given that we are a dense urban community that in many ways is more similar to European cities than American. On this tour, I’m looking to see how the cities here have implemented actions that we have thought about, and actions that we have not even considered yet, particularly in regard to adaptation.

Freiburg, of the Black Forest, is our first stop. It might be the greenest city in Europe [or the world?]. Renewable energy is a big focus here. But they also have a very admirable sustainable transportation system, waste management, and land use.

Freiburg’s old city center was largely destroyed in World War II. About 80% of the city center was bombed toward the end of the war. After the war, the city decided to keep the historic street pattern and re-build on the foundations of the destroyed buildings, reconstructing in the historic style. Much larger new development surrounds the old city, but within the city boundaries there are large areas devoted to farms, vineyards, and protected forests; about half of the city is open space. Today, Freiburg is a growing city of about 220,000 people with a major university and service base.

"Nuclear power, no thank you."

We met with Franziska Breyer, of the City’s environment agency, who presented the history and overview of the city’s sustainability efforts. Freiburg’s green movement began with anti-nuclear protests in 1973, when new nuclear plants were proposed just across the border in France and nuclear waste storage was proposed nearby in Germany. Those protests led to people thinking that they could not just be against nuclear power, but need to be for something. I visited Freiburg 30 years ago as I was involved myself during college in anti-nuclear protest at home and wanted to see what the fuss was about here. Ironically, as we arrived in Freiburg last weekend, there were again anti-nuclear protests taking place as the Conservative government reconsidered its nuclear policy in the wake of Fukushima and reversed course, deciding to plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2022. So I imagine the protests were part celebratory.

The alternatives Freiburg has come up with encompass energy efficient construction, solar energy, district energy, wind energy, biomass, a well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system, and waste reduction practices. I’m sure we didn’t hear about everything.

Freiburg has set a goal in 2007 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 1992 levels by 2030. As of 2009, the city has achieved an 18.6% reduction. The municipal government has a climate protection budget of 1.2 million Euros, which is largely funded by annual payments from utilities for use of public space for infrastructure. The budget does not include additional funds set aside for energy efficiency subsidies provided to residents (21 million Euros since 2003), investment in public facilities and infrastructure, transportation, and other services.

Frau Breyer talked about the sustainability concept that the city’s efforts are based on. While it is common to think of sustainability in terms of balancing the 3 “E’s” – ecology, economy, and equity, she said in Freiburg they see sustainability as fundamentally based on ecology and that this is not negotiable. Without a sound ecology, there cannot be a viable economy and equitable society. The economy and social welfare flow from this sound ecological base.

The city is working to grow its green economy. The green city initiatives are seen as a factor in attracting green businesses to locate in Freiburg. There are about 1,500 green businesses employing about 10,000 people. Of those ten thousand, about 1,500 people are employed in the solar energy sector.

The energy strategy is based on energy saving, efficient generation, and renewable energy. About 10% of the electricity is supplied by nuclear in Freiburg. About half is produced by co-generation units that also provide heat through district heating systems. In addition to larger co-gen units, there are about 90 small CHP units around the city.

Badenova Sports Stadium roofs covered with Solar PV

Solar energy is very visible around Freiburg. Currently 12.3 MW of solar capacity is in place, producing over 10 million kilowatt-hours annually. For context, the City of Cambridge consumes about 40 million kwh of total electricity annually,which is a small percentage of total use in Cambridge. Cambridge has close to 1 MW of solar PV in place. In Freiburg, solar thermal panels cover about 15,000 square meters. Solar PV has been ramped up by very generous feed-in tariffs created by the federal government, which pays owners for the electricity production. The federal government is now moving to phase out the feed-in tariffs as they believe they have served their function of creating a solar industry. We were told that while the feed-in tariffs have been successful in expanding the use of solar PV, the price of solar PV has not really decreased, which was one of the goals of the policy. And while solar panels are a common sight in Freiburg, they are installed on a minority of buildings.

There are 5 medium sized wind turbines installed on the hills around the city. They produce 14 million kwh every year, more than produced by all the solar PV panels.

Bugginger StrasseHi-Rise, first to meet Passivhaus energy standards

We were told that increasing efficiency in existing buildings remains a challenge. The City has invested 21 million Euros since 2003, which has leveraged an additional 23 million Euros. Generally the funds have been used toward efficiency improvements when buildings are undergoing major renovations. This investment has reached about 3 to 4% of the building stock.

The Vice Mayor said they see the future trend being toward more short-distance district heating, noting the high cost of installing infrastructure, and more micro-CHP.

There is more to admire in Freiburg’s energy practices, including their eco-villages with buildings meeting Passivhaus standards and Plus Energy houses.

Upcoming: Sustainable Transportation and Freiburg’s eco-villages – Vauban and Rieselfeld.

A New Kind of Sustainability Workshop

Posted on May 26, 2011 by JesseGorden

Cross-posted from the Sustainable Business Leader Program blog.

On May 23rd the Sustainable Business Leader Program, Cambridge Local First, and the Cambridge Energy Alliance hosted a new kind of business sustainability workshop: a business-to-business conversation featuring the Cambridge Brewing Company, a handful of business-centered sustainability services, and a score of small business representatives curious about their own green options.

By having many of the players in the room at the same time, small Cambridge businesses were able to comfortably learn how they could make their businesses more environmentally friendly while saving valuable natural resources and money.

The workshop featured a presentation by Phil “Brewdaddy” Bannatyne, owner of Cambridge Brewing Company, who highlighted the steps that his business took to “go green,” including much praise for the Sustainable Business Leader Program, and shared insights into the challenges and benefits of doing so.

After the presentations, business representatives had the opportunity to meet and hear from various organizations about the many programs and incentives that are available to them to make their own journey of sustainability and energy efficiency easy, rewarding, and fun. Arrow Paper, New Generation Energy, Prism Consulting, Save that Stuff and ThinkLite were on-hand to showcase their services and answer questions during the networking portion.

Attendees (and organizers) enjoyed this informative and relaxed night, and folks left with a clear understanding of how and why to green their small business, after enjoying conversation, food, and free local brews.

Please browse the links throughout this article to make use of the resources presented that evening.

The Sustainable Business Leader Program, a program of the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Boston, supports locally owned independent businesses in improving their environmental business practices, reducing their carbon footprint, and saving money. Visit http://www.sustainablebusinessleader.org to learn more.

Fostering Sustainable Behavior

Posted on May 25, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Tara Holmes

This past Friday, I attended a workshop lead by Dr. Doug McKenzie-Mohr entitled “An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing: Fostering Sustainable Behavior.” As someone who’s personally very intrigued by the oftentimes overlooked (and dare I say critical) link between our everyday psychology and environmental sustainability, I was eager to attend. What I learned was both enlightening and somewhat anticipated.

In brief, humans, at least the populations Dr. McKenzie-Mohr has studied, tend to default to the easiest common denominator of behavior when it comes to environmentalism. Of course, this isn’t to say there aren’t outlier personalities who go above and beyond the “green” call, but overall, unless regulated to do so, or cajoled by neighbors or friends, most people will resort to the path of least resistance. Knowing this intrinsic behavior trend, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr was able to extrapolate on how to best create systems whereby these same individuals could easily do their part to create a more sustainable, healthy and balanced planet.

One interesting example is recycling. Initially in the 1980s, recycling was seen as a confusing burden to the majority of consumers. Today however, many people view recycling as commonplace and most US cities have recycling facilities in operation. Now, to what extent these materials actually are recycled is another policy issue altogether (Cambridge has historically recycled at a rate of 35% and now with added single-stream recycling, that’s expected to increase by 10-25% in recycling tons). Even so, the mere act of recycling, sorting out plastic from paper and glass from cardboard is today viewed as a commonplace action that requires little thought. So, how did this behavior change happen? Interestingly, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr cites community influence and social norms coupled with municipality engagement. If a person sees their neighbors, family members or friends recycling, they may begin to question their own behavior and adapt accordingly.

Energy efficiency and green energy demand is another example. Today, consumers have a multitude of product options from CFLs via utility rebates to energy-saving Energy Star appliances, but, as Dr. McKenzie-Mohr pointed out, there remains a disconnect between awareness of the the product’s existence, where to get the rebate for said product and product installation. These barriers may seem trivial, but they can lead to significant impacts, both environmentally and programmatically. During the workshop, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr cited an example of a user who purchased a low-flow shower head only to have it sit in a drawer due to installation confusion. It’s thereby key to not only increase awareness of energy efficiency products, but to educate the consumer on proper follow through behavior and maintenance resources to ensure the true benefit of the product is achieved.

In brief, sustainable behavior impediments can be boiled down to the following barriers: commitment, affordability, convenience, and incentives. The Cambridge Energy Alliance, like many local and national energy efficiency organizations, strives to reach consumers and the community via outreach and education and aims to address each of the mentioned barriers, which is a key first step. The critical next step is up to the consumer: application and follow through. Only then do they – and the planet – reap the true benefits of increased sustainable behavior.

A New Lens on Environmental Change

Posted on May 25, 2011 by mdlittlehale

Bringing people together from a wide range of fields to make new strides in environmental change

While the environmental movement is nothing new, dating back almost a century, the approach of activists, organizations and policy makers is continuously evolving. The Garrison Institute is taking measures to contribute to this evolution by creating the Climate, Mind, and Behavior Program. The CMB program looks to combine a number fields to solve environmental issues.

The Garrison Institute holds a CMB Symposium where leading scientists and thinkers from the fields of environmental advocacy, neuro-economics, behavioral and evolutionary economics, psychology, social networking, policy-making, investing and social media together to focus on new approaches to reducing emissions on a large scale. The event has been held in March annually since 2010.

The program approach is to use recent developments in understanding human behavior and human nature combined with the fields of psychology, evolutionary theory and apply it to environmental and climate change issues. The goal is to come out with new tactics to tackling environmental issues across the board, from reducing emissions to clean water, and everything in between.

Another important aspect of the CMB program, in conjunction with the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), is the envisioned “behavioral wedge.” A goal for individuals to make simple behavioral changes to eliminate a giga-ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The “behavioral wedge” looks to make an early difference because regulatory changes, investment, research, and other new approaches take some time to implement. This CMB/NRDC research hopes to provide for progress to be made during the lull as other initiatives from the CMB program take shape.

By aligning climate change solutions with the way people think and behave, the Garrison Institute looks to produce much more effective and efficient solutions to solve our environmental problems. To track progress, The Garrison Institute’s website keeps a blog for updates on the CMB program, as well as a wealth of other resources and information related to the project.

Massachusetts Residents Call Out Scott Brown, Rally Strong for Clean Air

Posted on May 23, 2011 by joshlynch

Crossposted from 350.org

Today I got to stand next to more than 50 Massachusetts mothers, children, workers, community leaders, and people of faith to kick off something truly unique – a “crowd-funded” citizen’s campaign to hold Senator Scott Brown accountable for voting to gut the Clean Air Act. At 12:00pm on the sidewalk in front of the JFK Federal Building in Boston, also known as Scott Brown’s district office, we held banners and puppets of Scott Brown and his fat cat supporters “Coal” and “Oil, signs, and a blow-up of the new ad our friends and neighbors funded.

The text of the ad read: “Senator Brown: On April 6th you voted to gut the Clean Air Act. Was it because dirty energy companies and their corporate front groups poured more than $1.9 million into your campaign last year? Are you working for people or Big Polluters?” Interested in joining us in funding the ad? Check it out here.

Right after the rally Marla took our message up the JFK elevators to Senator Brown’s office, delivering word of the rally along with 103 postcards and 240 letters from members of the Massachusetts Council of Churches and Mass Interfaith Power and Light. The messages called on Senator Brown to support the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide next time a vote comes up on the Clean Air Act and ensure low income people have access to weatherization and green jobs.

At 6:30pm tonight at a podium inside the Newton Marriott Hotel Scott Brown will host a “Women for Brown” fundraiser (with a $1000 minimum) alongside the brand new Women For Brown coalition, a group created to respond to the League of Women Voters’ ads calling Scott Brown out for his April 6th vote to gut the Clean Air Act. We know what Scott Brown is going to say at that podium tonight: “Today in front of my office the political attack machine was at it again, playing politics as usual with the public.” He’ll talk about the “special interest groups” who are attacking him for trying to defend jobs. Yes, he will raise some money tonight. But the more Scott Brown digs in his heels, the more votes he will lose.

Today’s rally was no “political attack machine,” as Brown calls people who criticize him. Today’s rally was everyday-Massachusetts – a state where you don’t get to draw a line between jobs and the environment, the economy and climate change. People here across the political spectrum and in all corners of the state understand the threat of climate change and know that the jobs of tomorrow and today are in clean energy.