Green Daily

While we often hear a lot of talk about public transportation, replacing cars with bikes, getting rid of surface traffic, and so on, how many of us have ever actually imagined what it would be like to live in a world where cars, trucks, and bicycles co-existed safely and peacefully? More to the point, how could we design streets, intersections, pathways and neighborhoods that would make this sort of coexistence possible?

Last week, Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based advocacy group for non-automotive transportation, opened that very question up to public debate. They announced that they are holding a competition for the best post-automotive street design. The contest, "Designing the 21st Century Street," asks competitors to redesign the intersection of Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street in Brooklyn. This intersection is a dangerous, neighborhood-disrupting mess, and represents exactly the sort of challenge that Transportation Alternatives hopes can be overcome through intelligent planning and a more effective use of resources.

The competition is open to any and all interested parties, and the top prize is $6,000. Participants must enter by July 18, and all submissions must by received by August 18. If you have a plan for the future, this might be the perfect way to get it out there!

Obviously drugs -- even the legal ones -- aren't very good for you, and most will get you arrested (or worse), but rumor has it that some people still take them anyway. So, with that in mind, the least you can do is work towards a more sustainable habit. To see all the substances we've covered in this series, see our Guide to Green Green Drug Use.

Nitrous oxide, AKA "hippie crack," has the distinction of being one of the few legally-available drugs that almost everyone has consumed. If your dentist has ever strapped a mask on your face, chances are that you've sucked down a little bit of laughing gas. For most people, nitrous causes giggling, a strong anaesthetic effect and, if consumed in sufficient quantities, a repetitive "wah-wah" sound in the ears that is strangely reminiscent of a 1950's flying saucer movie.

At least, that's what I've been told.

Although it is generated by many natural processes, man-made nitrous, unfortunately, leaves a pretty huge carbon footprint. First off, it's the product of a fairly complex chemical process involving the heating of ammonium nitrate. Second, much of the recreationally abused nitrous is packaged in little metal canisters, few of which are recycled. Finally, it's a greenhouse gas. Although human processes are only responsible for between 10 and 15% of the nitrous released into the atmosphere, that is still a pretty impressive amount of gas. Therefore, as much as it pains me to say it, nitrous is definitely not sustainable! Green Grade: F; D if you purchase carbon offsets.

Obviously drugs -- even the legal ones -- aren't very good for you, and most will get you arrested (or worse), but rumor has it that some people still take them anyway. So, with that in mind, the least you can do is work towards a more sustainable habit. To see all the substances we've covered in this series, see our Guide to Green Green Drug Use.

In Getting Stoned with Savages, J. Maarten Troost writes about his discovery of Kava-kava, a mildly psychotropic beverage that South Pacific islanders regularly drink. Basically, it's prepared by chewing up pieces of Kava-kava root, spitting them into a bucket, and mixing them with water and coconut oil. One then drinks the resulting solution, after which, supposedly, he or she feels a sense of clarity and peacefulness for a couple of hours. Depending on the amount drunk, Kava can sometimes inspire hallucinations, amazing dreams, and up to a couple of days of lassitude.

In the industrialized world, Kava is available from many gourmet grocery stores and health food shops, either in pill, powder, or alcohol-tincture form. Depending on the form, its effectiveness (and impact upon the environment) varies greatly. Kava pills, for example, are often produced with acetone and ethanol. While ethanol, or grain alcohol, is a renewable resource, acetone is not. For that matter, both substances produce VOCs, which have a somewhat negative effect on the environment. Similarly, the tincture form of Kava also contains ethyl alcohol, although the fact that the ethanol isn't allowed to evaporate mitigates the VOC downside.

Beyond that, the only real environmental impact of Kava is in the machinery used to powder it and the gas used to transport it. Since most Kava is grown in the South Pacific, the distance it must travel is pretty impressive, but it is very low weight in powder form. In other words, if you aren't using Kava pills, I'd say that you shouldn't feel too guilty about the pleasure that you reap from this amazing "supplement." Green Grade: A-; B if used in pill form.

Obviously drugs -- even the legal ones -- aren't very good for you, and most will get you arrested (or worse), but rumor has it that some people still take them anyway. So, with that in mind, the least you can do is work towards a more sustainable habit. To see all the substances we've covered in this series, see our Guide to Green Green Drug Use.

Years ago, one of my college pals used to rave about the amazing effects of Morning Glory seeds, claiming that their effects were comparable to LSD. Others have since told me that Morning Glory's primary effects are nausea and a nasty taste. Never having consumed the seeds myself, I can't make a claim one way or another.

That having been said, I understand that a lot depends on the preparation of the seeds. Some sites, in fact, advocate mixing powdered seeds with petroleum ether and then combining the residue with ethanol. Not only is this technique potentially explosive and VOC-laden, but ether, as a petroleum distillate, is non-renewable.

Morning Glory seeds, if taken by themselves, represent a minimal environmental impact; basically, their only carbon cost lies in their production and distribution. The same goes for Damiana, Jimson Weed, Sweet Flag, Thorn Apple, Wild Lettuce, Wormwood, or most of the other naturally-growing hallucinogens that you can find in your local health-food store or plant nursery. In other words, the "green-ness" of your buzz depends on the sustainability of your practices! Green Grade: A/A-; D if prepared with volatile, non-renewable petroleum compounds.

It's been almost two decades since the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska. In the intervening years, the spill has become synonymous with corporate negligence and failed stewardship. It stands as one of the worst environmental disasters in history.

As we near the special day, don't feel like you have to bake a cake for Exxon. The U.S. Supreme Court has already beaten you to the punch.

In the original judgment on the case, which came five years after the actual spill, an Anchorage jury awarded the plaintiffs $287 million in actual damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. At the time, the punitive judgment was equal to one year's profits for the company. Predictably, Exxon repeatedly appealed the judgment, which was reduced to $4 billion, then increased to $4.5 billion, then reduced to $2.5 billion. Last week, the Supreme Court (minus justice Alito, who owns over $100,000 worth of Exxon stock, and recused himself from the case), ruled on the original judgment. In a 5-3 decision, the Supremes determined that the damages were excessive in light of maritime law and ruled that Exxon owes $507 million. With interest, that would come to roughly $1 billion, but it seems likely that Exxon will appeal the interest.

The $507 million represents approximately $15,000 each for the 34,000 fishermen who have had their livelihoods ruined by Exxon. It also represents approximately one week's profits for the company. For a ruling that is supposed to punish Exxon's corporate mistakes -- errors that the Supremes themselves called "more than negligent, but less than malicious" -- this seems like a joke. However, with extremely deep pockets and an apparent willingness to litigate until the end of eternity, I can't help but wonder if Exxon is done. Given a little more time and a consistently tractable Supreme Court, is it hard to imagine a day in which Exxon demands payment for the high-octane shoreline that it so generously donated to Alaska?

It's been over fifteen years since the Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janiero. In that time, scientists, analysts, pundits and politicians have spent millions of man-hours discussing the agricultural, biological and economic effects of global warming. In spite of all that, however, there seems to have been precious little analysis of the geopolitical security implications of climate change. After all, rising sea levels, decreased access to water, and reduced agricultural output will undoubtedly have a major effect on the stability and might of many countries. Weak governments may fall, strong governments will have to adjust, and people around the globe will find themselves living in a very different world.

The National Intelligence Council recently compiled a report on this very topic. The document, titled The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change Through 2030, is 58 pages long, and has been stamped "confidential," which means that it is a low-level classified document. In spite of this, most analysts assume that the majority of the material contained in the report will be released in a public hearing in Congress that is being held today.

The first part of the Ivanhoe reservoir's problem was the bromides. Naturally occurring chemical compounds, bromides often show up in seawater and groundwater. In and of themselves, they aren't dangerous. The 10-acre, 58-million gallon Los Angeles reservoir had a noticeable amount of these compounds.

The next step was man-made. Ivanhoe, like many reservoirs, adds chlorine to its water in order to fight against bacteria. Again, this is not really a problem, as chlorine is an efficient and, by most accounts, safe chemical for water purification. What's more, chlorine and bromide can exist side by side, happily ignoring each other.

The trouble came when sunlight showed up. The combination of bromide, chlorine and sunlight produces bromates, which are carcinogens. Unfortunately, this happened in the reservoir, threatening the water and the 600,000 Angelenos who rely on it for their daily water supply.

Los Angeles' solution? The city deployed 400,000 little black plastic balls. The balls float on the surface of the water, blocking the sunlight, short-circuiting the dangerous chemical reaction and saving the people of Los Angeles. In the process, they make the reservoir look like a huge pot of caviar.

Is this a green solution? Maybe, maybe not; on the one hand, it uses a hell of a lot of plastic. On the other hand, it saves the city from having to employ costlier, more drastic options, including shipping in bottled water, which would be really carbon-negative. Regardless of its sustainability, though, Los Angeles' answer is certainly elegantly simple!

A few weeks ago, one of my fellow Green Daily bloggers wrote a post about sustainable pet ownership. In the piece, she suggested that people who are concerned about their environmental impact could recycle some components from their dog collars. This was a fairly innocuous piece of advice, so I was surprised when some of our readers responded with scorn and anger, arguing that there was a limit to the things that we should recycle, and that the author was wasting time and watering down the green effort.

I thought about this for a while. To a certain extent, the commenters had a point. After all, there are only so many hours in the day, and we can only use a few of them in our pursuit of sustainability and green activities. When it comes to the best usage of time, scavenging parts of pet collars ranks well below cleaning up a vacant lot, taking the time to walk to and from work, bottle-raising a polar bear cub, or hundreds of other green activities.

There are lots of reasons to explore New York from the seat of a bike. First off, there's the cheapness factor, which is pretty huge now that gasoline is rivaling saffron in terms of price. And, of course, there's the fact that waiting at a traffic light with an idling engine seems like an ideal way to help destroy the planet.

Beyond that, though, there's a lot to be said for getting out of the protective carapace of the automobile. It's nice to wander around, talk to people, get to know an area. In a car, you carry your own little biosphere with you wherever you go. While it may be a little safer, it's also a little cooler, a little emptier, a little less friendly. And let's not forget the fact that finding a parking place in Manhattan requires time, diligence, and begging.

When I first heard a green activist talking about "Blackwater," I had to wonder why George Bush's Gulf War subcontractors were getting involved in sustainability issues. I soon realized, however, that "blackwater" is one of those words that conveys a pretty solid mental picture of what it is. Blackwater, also known as "brown water," "foul water," or "sewage" is water that contains human excreta. This definition sets it apart from "gray water" or "sullage," which is the product of washing. In day-to-day life, however, this differentiation is somewhat unnecessary, as many areas combine their black and gray waters.

In recent years, some builders and developers have begun integrating blackwater treatment facilities into their building plans. This enables the new buildings to consume much less water, greatly reducing both their water bills and their effect on the environment. To learn more about this process, I talked to Elias Dagher. The Senior Principal of Dagher Engineering, Elias is a LEED Accredited Professional and licensed Professional Engineer. He has worked on projects around the world, ranging from the Aga Khan University in Karachi, Pakistan to the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As an expert on sustainable water systems, he had a great deal to say about the values of blackwater treatment and reuse.

Recently, as I've been hanging out with an ever-growing collection of green people, I've had to develop a pretty impressive collection of buzzwords. While things like "blackwater," "sludge," "waste vegetable oil" and "sustainability" are pretty easy to define, some of the terms that I've had to absorb are fairly complicated.

One of the worst buzzwords is volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. The trouble is that there seems to be some major disagreement about what, exactly, VOCs are. Wikipedia, for example, defines them as "organic chemical compounds that have high enough vapor pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize and enter the atmosphere."

Well, I'm glad that we've cleared that up!

The EPA's definition is far broader, but isn't much more helpful. According to them, "Volatile chemicals produce vapors readily; at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure, vapors escape easily from volatile liquid chemicals." They later go on to note that "VOCs are emitted as gasses from certain solids or liquids."

Looking at the most widely-recognized and highly-touted "green" buildings, one thing quickly becomes clear: regardless of the reality, for most designers and architects, "green" means glass, and green buildings generally feature a lot of the stuff. From 7 World Trade Center, New York's first "green" office tower, to San Francisco's 555 Market Street, to the Affinity Medical Group building in Brillon, Wisconsin, regardless of the location, many of the architects who want to convey their environmental street cred do so with rows upon rows of glistening glass windows.

It's not hard to understand why green buildings often feature glass. After all, glass looks futuristic and sleek, gives the impression of clarity and environmental awareness, and seems to suggest cleanliness. More importantly, it lets in plenty of natural light, which (with the proper controls) could save on the electricity that would be required to illuminate these buildings. However, this reliance on glass sometimes seems to obscure the greater point of green architecture: these buildings are intended to promote energy conservation and resource maximization. While glass walls enable a building's occupant to maximize his or her use of the natural light in an area, they aren't necessarily as effective at conserving other forms of energy.

When I look back on my childhood memories, many of them are suffused in a hazy glow. Lights are surrounded by halos, everything seems softer, and the soundtrack is muted. These recollections look much like a close-up in a Barbra Streisand movie or any other flick in which the director feels inclined to smear half a pound of Vaseline on the camera lens.

While I tend to remember my childhood fondly, that isn't the reason for the super-soft focus. Rather, I blame the blurred edges on the fact that I spend a lot of my childhood in swimming pools. From June through August, my weekends were filled with watery frolics in various hyper-chlorinated bodies of water. In fact, I think my eyes were generally bloodshot for most of my summer vacations. While red goes well with my light green eyes, I still have to wonder if the insane amount of chlorine that I absorbed might have had some negative effect on my later development, apart from the fact that the smell of bleach still makes me think of bathing suits, sunburns, and soggy french fries.

If you've been watching the fuel-cell news lately, you might have noticed that General Motors has been making quite a big deal about their fuel-cell car. Boasting a 300-mile range and snappy acceleration, GM's Sequel will, supposedly, be on the road in 2010. Hopefully, there will be enough hydrogen fueling stations to make the car a feasible reality!

Other car manufacturers are also working on getting their fuel-cell cars up and running. DaimlerChrysler, for example, has the B-class fuel cell car, a nifty little subcompact with a range of 250 miles. It's easy to see why fuel cell-propelled automobiles are one of the major goals that manufacturers are pursuing. In addition to producing almost no noise, the exhaust from these cars consists of distilled water. If a fuel cell infrastructure can be developed, and if hydrogen can be produced in scalable quantities, then this may be the salvation of the auto industry.

In the meantime, Honda has begun producing the FCX Clarity, a fuel cell-propelled car with a range of 270 miles and a top speed of 100 mph. Beginning in the summer of 2008, Honda will be releasing the Clarity in the Torrance, Santa Monica, and Irvine areas of Southern California. They are offering a three-year lease that covers all maintenance at a cost of $600 per month. Given the current price of gasoline, that might be a great deal!

2009 will mark the 130th anniversary of Thomas Edison's lightbulb; ironically enough, it will also be one of the last years in which incandescent lighbulbs will be sold in the United States. By 2014, the U.S. government hopes to completely remove incandescents from store shelves. Instead, most people will be using CF, or compact fluorescent, bulbs. Basically a small fluorescent tube that has been wrapped in a tight spiral, CFs are far more efficient than traditional bulbs. They last for over six times as long and use about a quarter of the electricity of incandescents. Yet, amid complaints about their potentially hazardous components, I began to wonder if CFs really are the best lighting choice.

To get a better feeling for CFs, incandescents, and other lighting options, I talked to Susan Aiello. The President of Interior Design Solutions and author of a Sustainable Design blog, Susan is a certified interior designer, and a LEED Accredited Professional. She has designed for Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, and The Apprentice: Martha Stewart. As a specialist in sustainable, green interior design, Susan had a lot to say about the relative benefits of various lighting solutions.