Emissions · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with emissions

The World is My Playground: The Summit of the G8

G8 Protesters

Over the last year, people in Rostock, Germany have been preparing for the coming week as though there’s a hurricane brewing off the coast of the Baltic – boarding up windows and building fences and booking tickets to get out of town. And though hurricanes are a relatively new occurrence here on the Continent (the first struck Europe just last year, and this winter Germany has seen two winter storms with hurricane-strength winds), a natural disaster is indeed whipping through the country as the tiny resort town of Heiligendamm plays host to the 2007 G8 summit this week.

Protesters have been organizing and making preparations for the last year, and police have been responding with some less than stellar techniques. A tremendously violent riot on Saturday, unfortunately, detracted from the real issues at hand. One of these issues is climate change. Germany’s Chancellor and hostess to the G8 summit, Angela Merkel, has serious proposals to counter climate change on the agenda for this year’s meeting. From Der Spiegel:

Merkel wants a commitment from the world’s richest nations to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century and to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The irony of this is that some policy experts here feel that Merkel is “as green as a chameleon” (one of her ideas for reducing the country’s oil dependency for energy is to burn more coal). But that’s another story.

Chancellor Merkel

Merkel’s also heralded here as a friend of George W. Bush, but it looks like she’s not too happy with the US’s stance on climate change policy. Some changes to the agenda that were required by the White House went unheeded, leading to Bush’s circuitous speech last week. Again from Der Spiegel:

“It’s important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country’s performance,” Bush said. “This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture.”

The media here has suggested that Bush’s speech, while saying nothing groundbreaking nor proposing anything that reflects the immediate necessity of action against climate change, has “torpedoed” the dialogue about global warming. I’m interested to see what becomes of this summit. Will Merkel and Bush remain cozy bedfellows? Will anything actually come of this multi-million dollar meeting?

If you’re as interested as I am in this soap opera of the wealthy and powerful nations and want to see more information about the G8 from the German perspective, two websites in English are devoting extensive coverage: Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle.

And stay tuned for next week’s installment of “The World is My Playground: The Summit of the G8.”

agriculture, book, Bush, climate change, coal, emissions, Energy, epa, Europe, farm, gas, Germany, Global Warming, media, oil, soap, spa, sustainable, white house

Affordable housing development recently completed with solar power offset.

1 Comment

by Jennifer Veilleux · 06/01/07

I hope we see more stories such as this one in the news! A housing company in California (of course!), Satellite Housing, has just completed a 17 unit development for affordable housing that includes solar panels. The solar installation will offset Carbon emissions the equivalent of planting 20 acres of trees or removing 9 average cars from the road, according to the Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. website. It will also offset the amount of money spent on electricity (4200 kWh/month).

There is economic, social, and environmental incentive to alternative energy sources. In one step this company has made steps toward saving money, saving the planet, and saving the residents’ pocketbooks. The ownership group of the development can also take advantage of tax credits.

book, books, car, carbon, cars, electric, electricity, emissions, Energy, farm, News, trees

Why is Europe greener (really)?

2 Comments

by Courtney Tenz · 05/25/07

In case you missed it, The New York Times Magazine was devoted to green architecture on Sunday. It printed several articles, including a piece by the Times’ chief architecture critic, Nicolai Ourousoff, that I found especially interesting. In it, he asks, not entirely rhetorically, Why Are They (Europe) Greener Than We (The US) Are?

The article gives a nice overview of recent architectural history:

Americans did not always lag so far behind; much of our most celebrated architecture has had a green strain. Frank Lloyd Wright, Rudolf Schindler and Richard Neutra all sought to create a more fluid relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces, man and nature. At the height of the cold war, architect-engineers like Buckminster Fuller envisioned marshaling the immense resources of the American military-industrial complex to create a more ecologically balanced world. Fuller’s geodesic domes, which he hoped would one day house all humanity, were cheap and lightweight yet held up in extreme weather. They could also be erected in a matter of hours. In the late 1960s and ’70s, the Whole Earth Catalogue, with its D.I.Y. ethic and living-off-the-land know-how, encouraged a whole generation to dream of dropping off the grid.
By the ’80s the green dream had faded somewhat. Faced with corporate and governmental clients who saw little financial benefit in investing in sustainable design, American architects often ignored ecological questions. The few who didn’t tended to focus on small-scale projects that could serve local populations: mud-brick construction in Arizona or rural shacks made of recycled materials in Alabama.
In Europe, by contrast, where the E.U. and national governments often play a greater role in planning and regulating building, the effort to develop sustainable architecture gathered momentum. By the mid-90s, all new construction in Europe had to meet basic requirements in energy consumption, and many European architects began to make sustainability a central theme in their work. This was true of established architects like Norman Foster, whose 1997 Commerzbank in Frankfurt was conceived as a soaring high-tech glass-and-steel tower punctuated by open-air gardens. But it was especially true of younger European architects who were just beginning to practice their craft at that time and saw sustainability as a basic moral responsibility.

I’m not sure, though, that the two locales can so easily be compared based only on the last forty years. In most European countries, but especially in Germany and the former East, people remember a time when they had nothing … no bread, no water, no housing … and many conserve because they recognize the recentness of that history. In Spain and Portugal, still struggling out of the economic hardships brought on by dictatorships, indoor heating and air conditioning is considered a luxury; in the heat of those countries, energy efficiency in buildings is a must. Electricity in Andalusia remains sporadic enough that using a dishwasher and microwave at the same time can cause power failures for an entire neighborhood. For both of those reasons, both architecture and people’s lifestyles have to be “green”.

Population density here also demands a greater attention to resources and community-minded housing projects. Germany, as an example, has to fit 80 people in the same area that the US has to fit 3. One of the reasons people here tend to live in more eco-friendly multi-family homes instead of McMansions is simply a lack of space.

Environmentalism here is a necessity, more than just a zeitgeist issue. In The Netherlands, where finances are better, the country’s future depends on people being green – built on a complex dyke system, much of the country could be underwater soon if oceans keep rising.

This is not to disparage Europe’s green-ness (one of the reasons I live here!) or to counter what the Timeshad to say. But maybe comparing it with the US is more like looking at apples and pears. There are a lot of lessons the US can take from Europe (including, but not limited to, realigning our federal policy to cap emissions and provide more incentives for greening). Still, based on this country’s history of innovation, Americans should be teaching Europeans a few things about being eco-friendly.

architecture, community, consumption, design, eating, electric, electricity, emissions, Energy, Europe, fur, garden, gardens, Germany, Home, local, magazine, military, mom, New York Times, NYTimes, oceans, recycle, recycled, resources, spa, style, sustainability, sustainable, Tea, teaching, Vote, water, weather

What's the point?

5 Comments

by Katie Kish · 05/21/07

The particular question that I’m proposing to all of you seems to be so simple, but is loaded with consequences, philosophies and ideas. People have examined the data around global warming and have concluded that we’re in a tight spot for the very near future. How do these people continue to rationalize getting into a car? Flying? Keeping lights on? Using cell phones? Living in a consumer driven society?

At first the answer is simple – because every little bit helps. But then after some consideration it occurs to the thinker that they may just really be a low lying nobody. No one is going to follow their example and they’re just living their life more simply and less comfortably for no reason what-so-ever. The problem is not that I, Katie Kish, fly. It’s that millions of other people in the world fly. So why should I discontinue my travelling wants when the rest of Canada, America, Europe… etc. is still hopping on and off planes at will?

On top of that – the Earth has been through some pretty horrific events in the past. There have been mass extinctions, floods, droughts, ancient cities taken right out… and the Earth has “replenished” (or at least done alright) and moved on. What is so different about the impact that humans are making? Give the Earth it’s time and it will turn back into a lush place again. That sort of thought doesn’t work if you’re concerned about humans continuing to thrive.

These questions and comments are products of the idea brought up recently in a post at The Intersection with one comment that attempts to answer the question:

Given that the vast majority of the population is unwilling to make dramatic lifestyle changes right now (ie. abandoning air travel, scrapping their car, etc…. ), imagine the social response to two courses of action. Were you to abandon all carbon-emitting activities, those who disagree are much more likely to dismiss you as radical and extreme (think: dirty hippie). However, by taking bold strong steps toward a limited impact lifestyle in a rational way, you stand a much stronger chance of persuading others to follow suit.
The real solution to carbon emissions (not to be confused with solving the problem of global warming) lies in substituting non-sustainable technological systems for sustainable ones.

Is the point of living the movement to try and inspire others? To continue to convince yourself? To have a certain peace of mind? Is the point of living moderately to save human generations of the future? Are we just a part of nature that should be left to our mess ups as nature has been left in the past?

I’m curious.

What’s your point?

car, carbon, cities, emissions, Europe, Events, Global Warming, Lush, style, sustainable, travel, treehugger

A Green Tax for 'Binge' Flyers

1 Comment

by Starre Vartan · 05/09/07

By guest-blogger C. Tenz

When the publisher of a guidebook series says people fly too much, we know we’re in deep CO2 trouble. But that’s exactly what Mark Ellingham, the founder of the Rough Guides, said in an interview recently in The Observer. In an article celebrating the guidebook series’ 25th anniversary, Ellingham rails against the travel development he refers to as “binge flying” – hopping a flight for a quick weekend in a distant locale. To counter this trend, he calls for a £100 (~ $ 210) green tax on all flights from Britain to Europe and Africa and a £250 (~ $520) green tax to flights elsewhere.

As a poor eco-lover who lives far from her close friends and family, I initially balked at the idea. I can’t imagine affording my annual flight from Germany to the US if the price doubled. As a citizen of Cologne, a city that often hosts these binge flyers, however, I might be swayed. It would be nice, after all, if our local environment was compensated for the damage done by holiday shoppers and stag party revelers who fly in for the weekend because the beer is cheaper here.

Perhaps, however, the answer shouldn’t rest on finances. Considering that flights are reaching record levels – with 2.51 million take-offs planned for May 2007 – this fee could quickly increase the amount of money diverted toward environmental interests. But which eco-developments would benefit? At this point, there’s still not much conclusive research on the best way to remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere, so the money wouldn’t directly undo the damage caused by air travel. And Ellingham acknowledges that the plan could backfire. With a reduction in air travel, he says, the economies of many nations that currently benefit from tourism may be devastated. Should some of this green tax go to those nations?

Germany, for one, is trying to avoid this green tax argument altogether with an appeal to its citizens to stay home on their next holiday. In marketing their country as the best travel destination, they are using not only the “better for the environment” argument. They’re also playing up the low costs of using the rail system to move around the diverse landscape, which includes both beaches and mountain ranges. And with the nation still reeling from the hottest April temperatures on record, it’s got a climate to rival Spain’s. That, combined with the German eco-consciousness, will hopefully work better than a tax to keep the world’s holidaymakers at home a bit longer.