Green Think

Does voting make you feel charged up: full of civic pride? It does me.

Why not use that energy and, after voting, stop by the Plattsburgh Green Committee meeting, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 6 p.m. at the Plattsburgh Public Library, 2nd floor conference room.

Posted by Jack Downs at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was inspired and uplifted, and then my hopes were dashed.

Last month, hundreds of thousands of people across the globe gathered for an International Day of Climate Change. They marched, turned down thermostats, hung banners, recycled and took pictures of themselves doing these and hundreds of other things to support the 350.org cause.

More than 5,200 gatherings across 181 countries marked the event the weekend of Oct. 24. The 350 movement is the brainchild of author and activist Bill McKibben. That's 350 as in 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, the level above which significant climate change becomes more likely.

Honestly, the 350 number is symbolic, and the symbolism may be unreachable for a long, long time. We're at about 387 and climbing right now. Experts involved in climate-change public policy in the United States, United Nations and Europe realize that getting back to 350 isn't the immediate goal. Slowing the increase is the first step. Still, it is heartening to see the energy and interest behind the idea.

Or at least it was heartening, until I read the new poll by the Pew Research Center.

Just as the evidence for global warming has grown to become irrefutable, just as the poles are seeing measurable and dangerous climate-related changes, the American public is less interested and less convinced.

Why? You can blame the national obsession with the health-care debate, the cooler-than-usual summer weather, the recession, the rise of the "Tea Party" movement. Whatever the reason, the decline is alarming. The poll found that: "57% of Americans think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures."

There is a bit of good news within the poll. Although the trend is still down, more than half of our population believes we should join in international efforts to control greenhouse gas emission. Let's hope that provides enough political will to keep the US in a leadership role, or at least a constructive role, as the world gathers in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference next month.

Posted by Jack Downs at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to admit, I was fooled.

A news release arrived in my inbox from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday trumpeting an about face in the important business group's position toward climate-change legislation.

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is throwing its weight behind strong climate legislation, a spokesman for Chamber President Tom J. Donahue announced today at the National Press Club."

Wow, I said to myself. It's about time. The Chamber has taken a reactionary position on environmental issues; I was glad to see them finally come around.

It was a hoax.

As it turns out, a "Chamber spokesperson" did make the announcement at the National Press Club in Washington. He was an imposter, a member of the Yes Men. In their own words, the hoax was designed to "draw attention to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 'troglodytic' fight against climate change legislation."

You see, the real chamber seems to believe it is their business to oppose anything that might have any negative impact on any of their members -- or at least on those influential members who happen to be oil and coal companies. What made the hoax easy to believe is the fact that the business group has taken a pounding lately from within and without on their stand. Many business see profit in climate-change policies, many see the Chamber's position as bad public relations. Some high profile companies -- Apple, Levi Strauss -- have left the chamber as a result.

For more about the hoax, its impact on the media and the real Chamber of Commerce's reaction, check out this Washington Post story: Pranksters stage Chamber of Commerce climate change event.

Here's hoping that someday this won't be a hoax.

Posted by Jack Downs at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In my house, fall is like that Caribbean dance, the limbo: How low can we go?

But in our case, we're not sipping rum, waiting for our turn to shuffle through the tropical sand and arch under the dropping bar. In our case, we're shivering and shaking, challenging each other to see how low we can allow the temperature to go before turning on the electric heaters.

If you burn wood and you've got a huge pile in the back yard, you've probably been relishing the cooler weather. Heck, you probably were cranking up the wood stove on cool evenings in August.

But if you rely on oil, gas or electricity on a limited budget, chances are you look at autumn as an annual challenge. Even here in the city, where we're known for low electric rates, turning up the thermostat is painful. Why the hesitation? Once I give in and turn it on, it will be difficult to turn it off again till May.

This is were being cheap meets being green. I have to admit I'm thrifty first and green second.

But this same impulse — putting off expense — is sometimes at odds with green motives.

For example: I need a new front door. I've needed one for years. I know it is going to be expensive and I know it is going to be a mess to install. The pain of the expense and the pain of the installation has so far loomed larger than the comfort and savings that the new door will bring.

But there is something that could change this.

What if the state loaned me the money for the door, certified how much I would save on my home heating, and then let me pay it back through my utility bill? It would be like getting a new door and using the energy savings to pay for it.

That's the best new idea in the New York Green Jobs/Green Homes bill. The program would make loans of up to $13,000 to homeowners, $26,000 to businesses, for energy retrofits and other energy-saving work. The money would be paid back through utility bills. Gov. David Paterson is expected to sign the bill during the week of Oct. 12.

The Green Jobs bill is not perfect. And in the rambunctious N.Y. Senate, which recently passed the bill, a North Country lawmaker's "no" vote led to an attack from the Senate majority. Here' the a news-release statement from Shams M. Tarek, communications director for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee:

"There can't be any reason other than the worst kind of partisanship that Senator (Betty) Little and a few of her colleagues would vote against a bill that creates thousands of jobs, helps the environment and lowers energy costs for more than half the homes in her district. Along with also voting to kill an ethics reform bill last week, this shows Senator Little not responding to what most New Yorkers want out of their government right now."

And here's Little's response, through Daniel E. Mac Entee, her director of communications:

"Betty has been a proponent, as I think most elected officials are, of weatherization and energy efficiency programs. Her objection to the initiative is that we already have in place energy efficiency programs. Her preference would be to add money directly to those programs, including expanding eligibility to middle-income homeowners who currently don't qualify. She doesn't see the point in putting funding into the creation and administration of a new program. Whatever additional funding is available should go directly to help the consumer. Also, the bill did not define how the savings would be tracked and seemed to lack accountability. I spoke with Betty a lot about this bill leading up to the vote and can assure you it had nothing to do with partisanship as the spokesman presumes."

Yes, the Green Jobs bill does duplicate efforts of some existing programs. Yes, there is a hint of partisanship — and maybe a bit of Tea Party fear — in Little's no vote. And yes, there is some partisanship in Tarek's attack.

But putting politics aside, I applaud that the creative new element in this bill: Borrow from the state and pay back through utility bills.

Could make my limbo dance obsolete.

Posted by Jack Downs at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The Plattsburgh Green Committee's great strength, and weakness, is the group's broad scope.

From transportation to heating, park cleanups to political campaigns -- the Green Committee covers a wide range of interests and has an all-embracing interpretation of the label "green."

On the plus side, this brings lots of people into the process. But the danger comes when the group focuses on a specific action: does their focus fail, does their effort fracture?

The committee's new Web site may help.

With forums, blogs, a calendar and more, the new site looks like a good venue for wide-ranging discussions and a useful channel for dispensing specific information.

For wide-ranging discussion, visit Doug Butdorf's blog.

Right now, Doug is writing about the environmental impact of fishing tournaments and the green issues in the local Congressional election.

For specific action, visit the calendar. There you'll find the Green Committee next meets Tuesday, Oct. 6.

The site is not perfect: content is a bit slim and some outdated postings haven't been monitored. But it looks like a good place for green thinking.

Posted by Jack Downs at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Spinning flywheels may be one of the solutions to a green-energy problem: How to temporarily but efficiently store energy while the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to meet demand when these green sources aren't as active.

As explained in this Associated Press article, flywheels are an old idea that has been re-thought on massive scale.

A Massachusetts company, Beacon Power, has received federal loan guarantees to build a 20-megawatt flywheel plant in Stephentown, N.Y., which is west of Albany near the N.Y./Mass. line.

Would Edison be spinning in his grave? No, he knew the value of flywheels and used them in some of his inventions. It's great to see today's innovators reaching from the past into the future.

Posted by Jack Downs at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My wife says I've been resting on my laurels.

You see, "GreenThink" won an Associated Press award a few weeks ago. You can read about it in our story "Press-Republican wins seven awards." It is very gratifying to receive this recognition, especially for a blog that really only got going last year.

But what are laurels anyways?

Whatever they are, they don't feel too comfortable. As soon as I won the award, I was overwhelmed with other jobs and obligations.

Don't get me wrong, I like being busy. And my challenges are good challenges: a surprise class at Plattsburgh State, a roofing job, a rush of work here at the P-R, an over-active water heater, a burgeoning community-garden plot and a strong desire to do a bit of kayaking before the snow flies.

But my blog and readers have suffered, I know. I apologize. I'll try to get back on track.

Coincidentally, it seems that our nation has also had trouble keeping track of green issues. We've been swept up in a whirlwind health care, health care, health care. Again, don't get me wrong, I think reforming our health-care system is critical. I'm very disappointed that a single-payer proposal never made it onto President Obama's agenda. I just hope health care doesn't push Obama's green initiatives onto the back burner.

In the meantime, what green issues are catching your attention? Drop me a note or a comment.

Posted by Jack Downs at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(Here's a guest blog from my wife, Gerianne Wright, who pays the bills in the family. Her commentary is in response to the P-R story: City residents can pay bills online now. Check the details at the City of Plattsburgh and the city's Pay Online Site.)

I can’t tell you how thrilled I was to learn that the Plattsburgh Municipal Lighting Department was finally joining the rest of the world by equipping itself to accept on-line bill payment options.

I was quick to sign up.

What I wasn’t thrilled about was the discovery that this so-called convenience was going to cost me nearly $15 in fees each month if I pay online with a credit or debit card or $2.40 each month if I pay by e-check.

If you venture onto the site, you’ll see it’s managed by a third-party collection agency, which makes its money by charging the fees.

Jack and I have three accounts with MLD – two electric and one water/sewer. Because the system is not set up to pay them collectively, I have to pay each separately, thereby being assessed a separate fee for each bill. Each credit or debit card transaction is $4.95; each e-check transaction is 80 cents.

I’ve always lobbied for on-line payment options with MLD, or, at the very least, pay-by-phone methods that would allow you to pay by card. My objection to the outdated paper method of payment was that you were essentially assessed a tax to mail your bill. Even though it’s only the price of a postage stamp, those “Forever Stamps” will forever go up in price. Right now they’re 44 cents. That comes to $5.28 a year to mail your bills each month, provided the cost of a postage stamp remains forever at 44 cents, and that’s unlikely to happen.

However, I can write one check and put all three bills in the MLD envelope and mail it for that one postage stamp, as opposed to paying 80 cents per electronic check – or, in my case, $2.40 – every month. That’s nearly $29 a year.

The MLD office does have the option of paying your bill in person, whether you go inside the building or through the drive-up window or drop the bill in the payment slot. But that trip takes time and gas. I have no idea how much gas, but I certainly know how much time.

To its credit, MLD is now offering clients the opportunity to go paperless for the first time, giving those of us who are taking care of our responsibilities electronically the option to save a few trees and some carbon emissions. However, if I have to pay a fee to respond to the electronic reminder that my bill is ready to pay online, I’d rather get the hard copy to mail and save myself a few bucks.

Most MLD customers have an electric bill and a water/sewer bill – two accounts that will cost you $9.90 a month for credit; $1.60 a month for e-check. If you don’t mind the fee for convenience’s sake, God bless you. I can think of other things to do with my $178.20 a year, like maybe pay one month’s MLD bills?

Posted by Jack Downs at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hope your summer has been as lazy as mine -- and from the lack of blog posts, you can tell it has been real lazy.

Still, I've felt the green shadow of environmental issues over my shoulder. Or maybe that's the green shadow of responsibility for this blog.

My week in Cape Cod was great: sun, surf and seafood. Still, it might have been a bit more satisfying if, floating on my boogie board, I could have seen a distant line of offshore wind turbines.

You see, Cape Cod is the land of the big NIMBY. A liberal, wealthy, wonderful place that continues to resist attempts to build offshore wind farms.

My next week, spent at Chateaugay Lake, was also great: swimming, kayaking and horseback riding. And it was gratifying to know that the region was doing its share in the move toward alternative power. In the Northern Adirondacks it is easy to see turbine towers on the horizen. Just a short trip down Route 374 takes you into a turbine forest.

And, in my laziness, I came across a fascinating television documentary that speaks to green issues: Wide Angle's "Burning Season." I don't think the episode is being rebroadcast locally, but you can view it the whole series online. In "Burning Season" the filmakers take what is a lofty and complex problem -- the links between climate change and deforestation -- and unravel it to the level of the individual palm-oil farmer in Indonesia.

Of course, I have to admit that I didn't spend all my TV viewing time on such informative fare. I'm rewatching "Star Trek: The Next Generaltion," hoping to assimilate the kids into the Trekie culture. They already think Data is hilarious. Is it easier sometimes to just think about leaving Earth behind?

Posted by Jack Downs at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The G-8 Summit has come and gone. Did you miss it?

I'm not surprised. It has been hard to process international diplomacy through the haze of stories about Michael Jackson's legacy; Jon and Kate's divorce and, almost as frivolous, Judge Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark.

Hey, the new Harry Potter movie is coming out, who want's to talk about global warming?

I know how you feel.

But let's take a look back at what some will call a turning point in the fight against global warming. The hard part is figuring out which way we're turning.

Those who think we are turning the right way can point to the fact that, with American leadership, the influential international group agreed to significant, if far-off, reductions in carbon output. The developed nations agreed to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050 saying the world overall should cut carbon output 50 percent in the same time frame. Perhaps more important, the agreement brings India and China into the framework.

Those who were disappointed by the summit point to the fact that vague language and distant goals will make it easy for the big polluters -- especially the United States -- to slip out of their obligations. Hopefully some of these errors can be mended when climate-change discussions resume in Denmark in December.

The BBC has done a good job covering this. You can go to their site and read the full text of the Energy and Climate Declaration, read about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's surprisingly undiplomatic reaction, or review James Robbins' brief analysis.

Here's my analysis.

Until now, the industrialized nations have been like a bunch of boys, standing around a pond, peeing into the water. It's rude. It's dirty. But they don't care. After a while, the big developing nations -- China and India in particular -- show up. And they're peeing into the pond too. Why? Well, everybody else is doing it.

Then we realized that all this carbon -- or pee, if you want to continue with the potty-mouth metaphor -- is causing a global calamity. The industrialized nations turn to the developing nations and say, "Wow, we've got to do something about all this pee. Let's slow this down." China and India say, "Hey, you've been peeing here for decades and now you want us to stop? That's not fair."

Carbon-reduction agreements have been bedeviled by this, "You can't make us stop when we're just getting started" roadblock. The G-8 Summit made some progress on this front, bringing China and India into the discussions in a positive way.

But an even more positive development is China's self-interested move into green technologies. As the always inciteful Thomas Friedman writes in his New York Times column:

"Yes, you might think that China is only interested in polluting its way to prosperity. That was once true, but it isn’t anymore. China is increasingly finding that it has to go green out of necessity because in too many places, its people can’t breathe, fish, swim, drive or even see because of pollution and climate change."

China's challenge to us in green technology is a very positive development in the fight against climate change. Now we need to respond.

Posted by Jack Downs at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)