E-NEWS
Save the
Planet
Nokia’s Got the Greenest
Cell PhoneSeptember 20, 2008
Reporting by Roddy
Scheer
 |
| Nokia topped
Greenpeace’s annual Guide to Greener
Electronics | If your cell phone is made by Nokia and you care about the
environment, pat yourself on the back. Of the eighteen companies compared
in the new version of Greenpeace’s annual Guide to Greener Electronics,
released last week, the Finnish cell phone giant scored highest with a 7
out of 10 possible points on the basis of its responsible management of
chemicals, use of renewable energy and the energy efficiency of its newer
models. Samsung, FSC, Sony Ericcson and Sony held their own in the 5.5/10
range, while Nintendo, Microsoft, Sharp and Motorola brought up the rear,
scoring less than 4/10 each.
Greenpeace scores electronics brands based on
three primary interrelated criteria: toxic and hazardous waste generated
during production and distribution, take-back/recycling at the end of a
product’s useful lifecycle, and overall responsiveness to new
climate-related challenges. The guide is available for free on the
Greenpeace website, and anyone contemplating buying a new computer, cell
phone or television should check it out before making a purchase.
Source: Greenpeace
|
No Go
for Yellowstone SnowmobilingSeptember 20, 2008
Reporting
by Roddy Scheer
 |
| Snowmobile
tours were once a common site at Yellowstone National
Park. | Last week,
a federal court overturned the Bush administration’s recent authorization
of snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. In the ruling, Judge
Emmett Sullivan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said
that allowing snowmobiles in America’s first national park violates the
“fundamental purpose of the national park system…to conserve park
resources and values.” He added that the White House “failed to articulate
why a plan that will admittedly worsen air quality complies with the
conservation mandate….”
“This ruling reaffirms the idea at the heart of
our National Park System—that the duty of Yellowstone’s managers is to
preserve the Park for the sake of all visitors, and to place the highest
value on protection of Yellowstone’s unique natural treasures,” said Tim
Stevens, senior Yellowstone Program Manager for the National Parks
Conservation Association, one of several nonprofit environmental groups
that served as plaintiffs in the case. The other groups behind the
successful challenge were the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society and Winter
Wildlands Alliance.
“This ruling will ensure that visitors are not
disappointed by air and noise pollution when they make the one winter trip
to Yellowstone of their lives,” said Amy McNamara, National Parks Program
Director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. “We take our hats off to
the tour businesses that didn’t wait for this ruling. Their increasing
investments in modern snowcoaches are already making it possible for
winter visitors to access and enjoy Yellowstone while protecting it.”
Source: National
Parks Conservation Association |
COMMENTARY: The Port of Long
Beach Hoists the Green Flag
An
Environmental Turnover in One of the Dirtiest Industries. First in a
Two-Part Series.
By Mara Schechter
 |
| Shipping boats
usually idle for the three or more days it takes to unload, spewing
emissions. |
| © Photos: Port of Long
Beach | Do you
ever wonder how the TV you watch or computer you work on ended up at the
store where you bought them? Recently, I visited Long Beach, California to
check out and write about their port, which is the second busiest in the
country (just behind their neighboring port, that of Los Angeles) and is a
major hub for U.S.-Asian trade. Combined, the ports make up the San Pedro
Bay Port Complex, which is the fifth busiest port in the world, taking in
40% of the United States’ imports, half of which come from China. The Port
of Long Beach (POLB) alone transports over $100 billion ($140 billion in
2007) and 85 million metric tons worth of cargo each year. It imports
electronics, plastics, furniture, food, clothing, machinery and many other
items.
Why should you care? Well, for one thing, you may
be purchasing a lot of goods from these ports, especially if you are in
the Western region of this country. And while you may worry about your car
and its environmental impact, you’re less likely to think about how
imported cars come over on ships. For example, Toyota has a terminal at
the POLB, where it ships over Priuses. Ironically, Toyota has not yet
signed a Green Lease, an important aspect of the Port’s new environmental
policies.
DIRTY SHIPS
The shipping industry is a major contributor to
greenhouse gases. Out of all human-related emissions, ships produce 2.7%
of carbon dioxide, 15% of nitrogen oxide and 8% of sulfur dioxide.
According to recent articles in the L.A. Times, some ships emit
more exhaust than 12,000 cars each day. In Southern California, the San
Pedro Bay Ports are the single largest source of air pollution. This
includes the heavy- and light-duty trucks, locomotives, and other vehicles
operating in relation to shipping and cargo transport. Regarding vehicle
emissions for the POLB, ships make up 50%; trucks make up 25%; and small
boats, cargo-handling equipment, and trains make up the rest.
A study published by the Green Car Congress
reports that CO2 emissions from shipping will probably soon exceed those
of aviation. Ships, unlike airplanes, affect coasts, which is why public
concern initially motivated the Port of Long Beach to develop some of
their ecological initiatives. “The community has the power to change and
halt things,” says Richard Steinke, the Port’s Executive Director. Bob
Kanter, the Manager of Environmental Affairs and Planning for the Port,
cites a 2000 study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
whose data “painted a pretty grim picture and highlighted the negative
contribution of the goods movement.” That study “galvanized the public”
and “forced [the Port] to recognize” its responsibility to the community.
Since then they’ve increased their communications with the city, including
setting up real-time monitoring stations.
TRADE & GREEN COMMITMENTS
One particular point of contention between the
Port and the city is the rapidly increasing amount of trade, although it
is partly fueled by the region’s consumer demand. Trade has quadrupled in
the past 10-15 years, and is expected to double or even triple in the next
15 years. Creating new facilities and attempting to “grow green” (the buzz
phrase around the port) is a “huge technological challenge,” says Art
Wong, the Port’s Public Information Officer, since “gains could be wiped
out if cargo grows.”
 |
| The Port of
Long Beach transports over 85 million metric tons (and over $100
billion) worth of cargo each
year. | Bob
Foster, the Mayor of Long Beach, says, “I can’t in good conscience talk to
people about expanding the port unless it gets cleaner.” He believes
they’re moving in the right direction. The Port has said that it hopes to
lower emissions by 50% even while cargo doubles, which Foster calls “a
great start.” But he keeps thinking, “What would you tell families around
the Port with young children with asthma [and other diseases]? Is it worth
it? [We’re] not willing to tolerate growth at any price anymore.” In a
recent GreenXchange Global Marketplace Conference, Foster said, “My first
job as mayor of Long Beach is to protect the health and safety of my
citizens. In my city, families that live along the trade corridors have
two to three times the statewide average of asthma cases. That’s not an
accident… we are not going to allow kids in Long Beach to contract asthma
so someone in Kansas can get a cheaper television set. Those days are
over.”
Steinke explains that, after a “culture change” at
the Port in the late 1990s and early 2000s, he feels a similar
responsibility. “Now we need to be good environmental stewards when we
recognize that our growth has started to impact the city. We’re only
temporary stewards of this resource. I hope we have left the legacy of
good, responsible, and environmentally sensitive development.” Now they
have a “triple bottom line,” which is, according to a POLB mug on his
desk: “Economic Vitality, Environmental Health, Community Integrity.”
Another motto he keeps is, “we have an obligation to clean before we
grow.”
SHIPPING COMPANIES SLOW TO ACT
The Port’s tenants are following suit. According
to Anthony Otto, President of Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. (LBCTI),
“everyone now absolutely understands that if we want to be able to sustain
this industry, we have to be able to do it in an environmentally sensitive
manner.” Otto also sees that “some technologies make a lot of sense in
that they are good for the environment and the economy,” such as
innovations that lead to reductions in fuel. Certainly Otto, like other
terminal operators who live in or near Long Beach and either rent their
terminals to shipping lines or work for a specific shipping company, has a
good reason to care about the Port’s environmental efforts. “I’m sitting
in this building, I’m raising my kids not far from here,” he says.
But the shipping companies have no obligation to
follow the Port’s environmental lead. Since ships pass through
international waters, they are subject to little regulation. For example,
ports don’t have direct control over the shipping lines that come into
their port. However, since private companies lease terminals from landlord
ports like Long Beach, the port can control the terms of their leases and
require tenants to abide by certain rules when renewing or beginning
leases.
These new leases are referred to as “Green
Leases,” which include far stricter environmental regulations, including
shore-side electricity and cleaner equipment. Ships emit no pollutants by
plugging into shore-side electricity (also known as cold ironing) while at
berth, where they would normally idle for the three or more days it takes
to unload. The California Air Resources Board has noted that if ships who
make three or more trips to the Port per year plugged in while at berth,
nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions would be reduced by 70%
each day. Unfortunately, there is “not one universal system to plug in
every ship,” says Wong. “We’re trying to set international standards; it’s
hard if we’re the only port doing this.”
Wong explains that the POLB can “negotiate leases
and set terms,” but cannot pass laws, so the Green Leases (“environmental
covenants”) take advantage of their landlord status. These Green Leases
have only been used twice so far, for a shipping line whose lease expired
and another whose lease was renegotiated. More leases are set to expire in
the next few years, and the port intends to combine two old facilities to
create a larger, greener terminal, known as the Middle Harbor Project (a
site “designed to cut emissions in half while doubling trade volume,”
according to the Port’s media materials), which will also require a Green
Lease.
GREEN FLAGS
The Port can also ask for voluntary participation
in certain programs. This has worked very well with its Green Flag
program, which asks vessel operators to slow down to 12 knots within 20
miles of the port. This reduces fuel use and pollution, and has apparently
reduced air pollution by 600 tons per year since 2006. By reducing dockage
fees and awarding green flags to shippers who comply, the Port saw a jump
to 95% compliance. Mainly, shipping lines wanted to show the public what
they were doing for the environment. Without those incentives, they may
not have made an effort. Wong admits that, “These companies don’t care
much about the Long Beach community.”
 |
| CO2 emissions
from shipping will probably soon exceed those of
aviation. | Steinke thinks that shippers, “left to their own devices,
wouldn’t be doing this [environmental protection] without us, but they
understand why we’re doing what we’re doing and want to grow green with
us.” Thanks to the Port, says Foster, shippers and terminal operators are
beginning to “understand that they have to not only do business here, but
also do good here.” Lots of them are demonstrating this by donating the
money they make through the Green Flag Program’s reduced fees back to Long
Beach.
On July 1, the Port started the new voluntary
Vessel Main Engine Fuel Incentive Program, encouraging shippers to use
low-sulfur fuel within 40 miles of the San Pedro Bay. The Port will be
“subsidizing the higher fuel costs for companies” for the first year, says
Wong. This “will cost us $10 million,” he says, and “yield incredible
benefits.” According to Wong, it costs $14,000 to lower a ton of emissions
from a truck, but only $3,000 to lower a ton of emissions from a ship; so
reducing a ship’s emissions is four times as effective. The Port is also
“expecting state regulations and funds to kick in within the next few
years,” says Wong.
Yes, the POLB is ahead of the state of California
(notably, a very progressive state), “doing things above and beyond
compliance with existing laws,” says Kanter. “Because we started doing
this, California got interested,” confirms Wong, who notes that, unlike
the Port, which generates revenue by leasing properties to private
companies, the “state doesn’t have a big funding mechanism.” Foster thinks
that the state is “a great backstop” (i.e., reactive rather than
proactive) that has been “pretty supportive” of the Port of Long Beach. Of
course, CA’s environmental regulations are even stricter than national
regulations. “The federal government has largely abdicated its
responsibility,” says Foster, who believes that each community must work
to solve problems independently.
BETTER MODELS
He takes a similar stance regarding the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), the only authority over
international shipping. Along with Harbor Commissioners and Steinke,
Foster has met with the IMO to encourage them to adopt stricter standards.
However, they have not signed on to the IMO because they are so far ahead
of its loose regulations that doing so would bring them backwards. He
explains, “Other ports don’t have the wherewithal, but that doesn’t mean
that we should be limited. We’re well beyond where they [the IMO] want to
go. You’re not gonna impose the same standard right now. You should push
that a little bit but can’t expect [other ports worldwide with fewer
resources] to meet that. I want to be able to protect our flexibility in
dealing with our problem as we see fit.”
Indeed, that attitude has helped the POLB pass a
lot of its new requirements. While it works on many projects in
conjunction with the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), “we have such a
compressed hierarchy here. We make such quick decisions here and other
ports don’t do that,” says Kanter. They have a smaller staff and a “more
hands-off philosophy” than the POLA, which meets only twice a month and
needs the city council to approve its projects. The POLB’s approach
contributed to its adoption of the Green Port Policy, which integrates
environmental protection into all of the Port’s activities, and which will
be covered in the 2nd part of my commentary.
CONTACT: Port of Long Beach
MARA SCHECHTER is a former E
editorial intern and student at Georgetown University.
|
Welcome to Neutral
TownBy Drew Pogge
 |
| The village of
Ashton Hayes, England, has committed to going carbon
neutral. |
| © Creative
Photography | Can an entire town turn carbon neutral? The village of
Ashton Hayes, England (population 1,000), thinks so, and is in the process
of becoming the first town in the world with zero net carbon emissions.
“As a community we felt that it was important to
set off on the journey towards carbon neutrality, because so many people
are talking and not doing anything,” says Ashton Hayes resident and
project originator Garry Charnock. He hatched the idea in November 2005,
and received such strong community support that he took the idea to the
parish council as a formal proposal. When 75% of adult residents attended
the first meeting, the Going Carbon Neutral Project was born.
First, students of the University of Cheshire
conducted a survey to measure the village’s total annual emissions. Some
residents installed solar panels and more energy-efficient appliances, but
most took less drastic steps. “We have seen a drop in the number of
flights, more walking and cycling and increased recycling,” Charnock says.
“Most people have saved money on fuel bills, and it has definitely brought
the community together.” The result is a 20% reduction in total emissions
since last year, with more progress on the way.
Other communities are following suit, although not all with
such lofty goals. In the U.S., the town of Greensburg, Kansas, which was
obliterated by a tornado on May 4, 2007 (95% of homes and businesses
destroyed), is rebuilding as a model of sustainability, including highly
efficient Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum
designation for all city buildings, significant walkability and the use of
wind energy and solar panels. This past summer, the small town of Rock
Port, Missouri (population 1,300), became the first in the nation to
operate solely on wind power, harvesting wind from 75 turbines across
three counties.
The Going Carbon Neutral Project has produced
literature and videos for interested communities to help them begin a
carbon neutral commitment. “So far we have spoken to over 100 communities
who have asked us to visit them,” says Charnock. “We now have friends
doing the same thing in Canada, Australia, Norway, Romania and Mauritius.
Sadly, the U.S. seems to be a few years behind us all.”
CONTACT: The Going
Carbon Neutral Project
|
The
Big, Bulky Truth About Beds
Recycling
Mattresses and Going Organic
By John M.
Guilfoil
They usually end up stacked
in landfills, where they hog space and leach chemicals, and many landfills
have refused to accept them in response.
 |
| With Lifekind’s
organic mattresses, buyers can customize layers. |
| ©
Lifekind | This
problem attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), which offered a $10,000 grant to anyone
who could solve the mattress-recycling conun- drum. In 2002, Framingham,
Mas-sachusetts-based Conigliaro Indus-tries answered the call and became
the first commercial mattress recycler in the U.S.
“Mattresses are pro- bably the single most
difficult thing to recycle,” says Greg Conigli-aro, the company’s founder
and president.
The Big Rip
Using a process they developed, the company takes
what is basically a giant paper shredder and rips apart unwanted
mattresses, box springs and upholstered furniture. They are then able to
separate the product into its basic parts—polyurethane foam, wood, steel,
cotton and other fabrics—and sort them for easy recycling or purchasing by
raw materials companies.
“We can process in excess of six million pounds of
this material per year. That’s enough mattresses to fill 900 tractor
trailers,” reports the business’ website.
Why are mattresses so difficult to break down? All
of those springs and padding and metal wires are sealed tightly. The
better the mattress quality, the harder it is to recycle.
At Conigliaro, it takes a minute and a half to
completely break down an average mattress. The majority of the company’s
clients are businesses that have a large number of items to dispose of,
and they pay $8-$30 per mattress plus the cost of transportation.
In some places, landfills and trash disposal are
still cheaper alternatives for companies with a ton of mattresses to
unload. Others, especially stores that offer to remove used mattresses for
free, cart the old beds to rebuilders who refurbish and repackage the
mattresses for resale.
Organic Options
There are other ways to be eco-conscious when it
comes to one’s bed. A variety of companies now make natural and organic
mattresses from sustainable wools and cottons. This removes the
petroleum-based polyurethane foam additive, which fire officials have
classified as a hazardous substance, and vinyl-based waterproofing
materials, which release toxic phthalates.
California-based Keetsa offers mattresses made
with natural green tea, which is said to provide long-lasting odor
control, embedded into recyclable memory foam. Swedish furniture giant
Ikea also makes a very affordable mattress that is free of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers, a chemical fire retardant that scientists have linked to
health and environmental problems.
Another California company, Lifekind, produces
mattresses under strict environmental specifications. The company received
certification from the nonprofit GREENGUARD Environmental Institute for
their efforts, and reports that it even uses a chemical-free sanitation
process on its organic rubber and cotton mattresses.
The CozyPure mattresses available at Tomorrow’s
World, a Virginia-based environmental catalog company, are made with
natural latex (a hypo-allergenic alternative to the synthetic variety),
wool and organic cotton. Their OrganicPedic sleep system allows buyers to
customize the organic mattress with layers of different firmness levels.
Considering that you’ll spend a third of your life
on a mattress, the health benefits matter—and at the end of the mattress’
lifespan, the environmental ones do, too.
JOHN GUILFOIL is a Boston-based
freelance writer and the editor of Blast
Magazine.com. |
|
|
