Thursday, January 15, 2009
Bike Rally
The SF Bike Coalition is calling for an emergency rally tomorrow, January 16, from 7:30 - 10 a.m. to protest the city's proposed removal of the bike lane at Market and Octavia. The rally will take place at the same intersection.
It's the city's solution to a frightening number of accidents there. I've ridden by on a bike and I can honestly say I would never ride there. Cars are whizzing off the freeway and have no inclination to look or slow down for bikes before they turn.
SF Bike's proposed solution is a raised bike lane.
If you can't make the rally, SFBike has a link to send an email to relevant parties.
| Jan 15 at 04:56 PM
The Art Of Persuasion
In 2005, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus made a lot of green activists see red when they published an essay alleging the "Death of Environmentalism." Essentially, they claimed that environmentalism had focused on negative rhetoric, parodied along the lines of, "but the [obscure creatures] are dying!" That message, they said, was failing.
Whatever you think of Shellenberger and Nordhaus, they did have a valid point. I'm thinking about this today as SFGreen welcomes a new blog from the San Francisco Department of the Environment. The blog introduces itself by saying:
Our goal with this blog is not to provide compendia of 'greener than thou' environmental tips....It's also not our goal to depress you with doomsday environmental disaster tales, or make you feel bad about what you're doing to or not doing for the environment.
The blog promises, instead, to talk about the city as our environment, and how we can all live together in it. I'm excited to read it, but the premise got me thinking...
Imagine that a group of people regularly slap their mothers. Another group of people thinks this is wrong. They present data on why slapping your mother is bad for your mother, and, in fact, for you. The slappers reject the data.
Then the anti-slappers propose a series of activities that they see as more rewarding and enjoyable—not to mention less repugnant, which the anti-slappers strategically do not mention—than slapping your mother. Most of the slappers insist that slapping your mother is quite rewarding, thank you; a few admit that there are perhaps better activities, but they just can't bring themselves to change their habits.
How does this drama end? Eventually, the anti-slappers get morally righteous:
You just CAN'T run around slapping your mother!,
You're all going to die if you keep slapping your mothers!, and
Stop it! Stop it right now!.
This just alienates the slappers further. There's a standoff, and animosity brews between slappers and anti-slappers.
Yes, my metaphor is quite transparent: We have been abusing Mother Earth. It's easy, and for many it's fun. I'm not sure how to extend the metaphor to what SFE has done, which is essentially to try to redefine the debate. Let's not talk about your mother anymore, let's talk about this other activity, which might eventually teach you another model of living that is antithetical to mother-slapping. After all, what better than city living to teach you how to play well with others?
I like it. After all, I think humans have lost sight of our social-animal instincts, and might be reminded that doing onto others can be surprisingly rewarding. But I'm also an anti-slapper (much as my mother might beg to differ). For slappers, the more of us run around being nice to each other, the more room there is for them to bully themselves into getting what they want. City living makes that example plain enough.
Are these uber-slappers happy? I don't think so, but what do I know? Instead, I've started to think about the different groups of people in biological terms. Some people tend toward morality and leadership by example. They are community builders. Some people tend toward amorality, and thrive by doing whatever they feel like to get whatever they want. (Note to the woman who knowingly very, very nearly ran me and another pedestrian over in a crosswalk because she didn't feel like stopping at the light: I mean you!)
I find some relief in these essentialist ironies. But I don't know how the slapping/anti-slapping debate will finally conclude, unless it is by the number of anti-slappers growing slowly, because the anti-slapping lifestyle has immediate rewards.
What do you think? How will we move towards a less violent treatment of Mother Earth since moral righteousness seemingly doesn't work?
| Jan 15 at 10:48 AM
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Fat Power
While we're on the topic of slightly strange men who power their transportation with body fat, I'll flag a profile of Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (pictured), founder of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus.
For 20-odd years, Blumenauer, a Democrat, has been pushing cycling as an essential part of good transportation planning and an effective way to combat obesity. He's also behind the tax credit for bike commuters that was approved in October with the (first) bailout plan.
I've gotten interested lately in such synergistic solutions: Improving bike access would solve any number of problems, from income inequality and obesity to expensive road projects and the climate crisis.
A small example from my own life: When my car was stolen and I became a car-sharer (first with Zipcar and now with City CarShare) and bike rider, I had to plan more carefully when I would grocery shop, where I would go, and what I would buy. Now, when I go, I'm organized enough to remember reusable bags and bulk containers, both of which save me money. I save myself redundant trips for things I forgot. And my SF Bike Coalition membership gets me a discount at Rainbow Grocery and Zipcar, both of which are green businesses. Quality of life, financial, and environmental improvements amplify each other.
When you go from feeling like everything is broken to feeling like making a significant change is easy and fun, you know you're on the right track.
Have you come across any such synergistic solutions in your life? Share in the comments!
| Jan 14 at 12:15 PM
Advertisement : Skip 
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Weird News: Living Off The Fat Of The Earth
It's strange and sad that human civilization is facing a serious energy crisis while many individual humans are unhappy with the excess energy they carry around in the form of fat.
The irony smelled like an opportunity to one Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, who said he ran his and his girlfriend's SUVs using fat that he liposuctioned from his patients. It appears the doctor's patients were paying not just for his vehicle, but also for his fuel.
The doctor, Craig Alan Bittner, blogged about his "green" success on a now-defunct blog called lipodiesel.com. It's not clear how he converted his patients' fat into fuel. But he claimed,"The vast majority of my patients request that I use their fat for fuel - and I have more fat than I can use." Apparently, so did they.
Animal fat makes good biodiesel, but [using human fat]* is illegal for what I imagine are obvious reasons. Bittner is being investigated, and has fled to Latin America.
* Clarification added per reader confusion. Thanks.
| Jan 13 at 12:13 PM
Weird Weather Watch: Hot Here, Cold There
Yesterday was among the warmest January days the Bay Area has ever seen. It's hard to complain when it's 74 degrees and sunny, even if it is January. But the month is also shaping up to be one of the driest Januarys—normally the wettest month in the area. If we don't get more rain soon, the state's drought will begin to make things pretty unpleasant for all of us: Like me, you might not like rain but you do need water.
Meanwhile, things are already quite unpleasant in the middle of the country. Think 20-30 degrees below zero. It's so cold that salting the roads is ineffective. Minneapolis saw 200 accidents during the morning commute alone. In Grand Forks, ND, the low was 37 below, a full six degrees colder than the 1979 record.
And for those of you inclined to ignore paragraph one and argue that the cold temperatures in the midwest mean global warming is a lie, nix.
| Jan 13 at 11:47 AM
Monday, January 12, 2009
Free Money
I've blogged before about how the United States appears to be falling behind Europe and Asia in the solar industry, based on the fact that foreign-owned companies are providing many of the green jobs in the U.S.
Switchboard, the NRDC blog, has a post analyzing some highlights of a recent report on investment in the solar industry. It's wonky, but one point at least stands out: most U.S. investment in solar is future-oriented venture capital, whereas most investment in Europe is now-oriented private equity.
Financial structures and government incentives do indeed influence how industries develop, even when it comes to private investment.
Another unusually wonky post on Switchboard today makes a similar point. It argues that the huge tax break for homeowners in the United States, coupled with the different ways that suburban and urban mortgages are evaluated, means that the government subsidizes sprawl and income inequality (bigger house = bigger tax break). The government also foots the bill for sprawl by paying for infrastructure.
Anti-sprawl measures like California's will actually save us money.Sadly, even some of the government's ostensibly green incentives are, well, red (the opposite of green and, probably not coincidentally, the sign for danger). The Environmental Working Group released a report last week showing that of all federal renewable energy tax credits for 2007, a whopping three-quarters went to ethanol. (Behind the times? Ethanol is fossil fuel in another form.)
I blogged before that in 2004 the federal government spent $670 million on "research and development" of fossil fuels. All renewable technologies combined got $440 million. If the same ratios hold, true renewables—not ethanol—are now getting just a fifth of the government help that fossil fuels are.
Do you know of other perverse incentives the government creates? It's wonky, but it's also basically finding free money for environmental policies—and free money is fun!
| Jan 12 at 12:20 PM
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Great Green Reading: New Yorker on Van Jones
This week's New Yorker has a profile of Van Jones written by Elizabeth Kolbert.
I've blogged before about how inspirational Van Jones is, and the article captures that. It also suggests, without quite saying, that the green jobs juggernaut of 2008 is the result of Jones' work.
| Jan 10 at 10:28 AM
Friday, January 09, 2009
Another Coal Ash Spill: Get The Scoop
As Congress begins debating whether coal ash, a byproduct of coal-fired power plants, should be regulated as a hazardous materials, word comes from TVA that the group has suffered another spill at another of its facilities. (Its recent spill in Tennessee is pictured above.)
Two SFGreen bloggers, who also happen to be on the short list of movers and shakers in the anti-coal movement, have blogged on the news. Read their posts here and here.
| Jan 09 at 02:53 PM
DTV Transition A Disaster
In a recent New Yorker profile of Naomi Klein, an anti-globalization writer and activist, Klein describes her Canadian upbringing:
"Both of my parents lived through a honeymoon period in the public sector," she says. "My mother and [the government-run feminist film studio] Studio D were always furious because they weren't getting the resources they thought they deserved, but from the outside perspective it was, like, Oh, my God. You were allowed to have a women's studio making films about social change within a huge public institution! And my father was able to do something similar within the health-care system, starting the birthing room at the hospital"—he admitted midwives and alternative medicine, and waged a campaign against unnecessary surgical interventions in childbirth. "It's easy to deride the idea of government in America, where people's association with the public sphere is the post office."
This quote seems particularly illuminating in these tough economic times: A crisis whose wheels were greased by government, and in which 1.5 million Americans are losing their homes every year as a result of unmanageable health care costs.
Our government tends to put the interests of business ahead of those of average citizens. And so it has been with the FCC-mandated changeover to digital TV scheduled for February 17. As Barbara Kyle of the Electronics Take Back coalition told The Thin Green Line in September, the government seems not to have considered the fates of the many analogue TVs that will likely be thrown out as a result of its actions. (E-waste is toxic, and many so-called recycling programs just send the toxic junk to Asia.) And I find it a little cheesy that the government is only willing to pay about half the cost of the converter box required as the cheapest, and greenest, response to the changeover.
But now it's run out of money even to pay that much. Millions of Americans are now on a wait list for a coupon, which will only become available if somebody else fails to use theirs within the 90-day active period. Coupons that expire cannot be renewed. The government alloted to the coupon program just $1.34 billion dollars of the $19 billion it made by auctioning off the old analog bandwidth. The program seems designed to leave citizens holding the bag, while the FCC and its corporate buddies get rich.
In fact, many Americans will find that, even with a converter box, they will no longer get reception unless they also buy a $75-100 antenna that may require rooftop installation. (Digital signals will be marginally weaker, and don't allow for partial reception.) There are also concerns that many Americans aren't aware that on Feb. 17 channels will also change, leading them to falsely conclude that their converter boxes don't work.
This last point raises an important issue, that echoes Naomi Klein's assessment of the American public sector:
Does the U.S. government even have a reliable, straightforward, inclusive way of communicating with its citizens? One that would be approached without the skepticism consumers know to bring to advertising?
Have political advertisements and governmental statements filled with blatant mistruths made it impossible for the government to convey basic messages to its citizens?
The Obama team is calling for the FCC to delay the changeover. The FCC and the television industry claim that that will create more uncertainty. What do you think should be done?
| Jan 09 at 12:24 PM
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Adventures In Green: What Is Boric Acid?
I'm a big fan of green cleaning products. They're basically free; they work every bit as well as any of the toxic chemicals filling aisle after aisle at the grocery store; and they're better for the planet and your lungs.
(I don't know of studies tracing lung problems to cleansers, but I do know that the American Lung Association puts out a helpful set of green cleanser recipes [pdf], and that the last time I used the antibacterial Lysol kitchen cleanser that a former housemate left under the sink, I found myself wheezing.)
I use white vinegar for floors and windows and a citrus or Trader Joe's pine spray for counters. I'm going to try vinegar from a spray bottle on the counters to see if I can save even more money.
I've had a harder time finding something abrasive to use on the tub: Baking soda is a common suggestion, but in my experience, it isn't quite up to the task of soap scum. Enter Bon Ami. They sell it at Rainbow Grocery, so it has to be good, right?
When I started seeing green tips suggesting boric acid—also called borax—as a green cleaner, somehow I thought that's what Bon Ami was. Last time I went to Rainbow, I saw boric acid in the bulk aisle. But I was baffled to see its suggested use was as an insecticide and antiseptic.
No, it turns out, it's not what's in Bon Ami: The website says the white, unscented Comet alternative "is made from calcite & feldspar mineral abrasives, and a biodegradable detergent."
Boric acid's suggested uses are as a green insecticide and as a spot cleaner.
I'm going to stick to Bon Ami for the tub because it works so well, but if you want to forge farther into green cleaning, you can also try table salt and white vinegar: The salt scours, and the vinegar breaks down the soap scum.
Share your own green cleaning experiences in the comments. What works, and what doesn't? And what's just plain confusing?
| Jan 08 at 12:37 PM
