Posts by author:

Kevin Kanarek

Over the past year we’ve had the opportunities to speak with many inspiring people in the sustainability movement.  One thing that emerged from these talks is that storytelling is indeed part of the solution.

Speakers:
Kari Fulton, Brower Youth Award Winner, on the power of one person to inspire change
Zenobia Barlow, Executive Director of the Center for Ecoliteracy, on the challenge of understanding the scale of climate change
Lewis Perkins, Co-author of Green Heroes, on creating optimism and reducing fear
Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director, Global Footprint Network, on how we need to position ourselves
Boyd Cohen, President,  3rd Whale, on the power of mobile to influence decision making
Tod Argbogast, Board Member National Recycling Coalition, on the hope for the future

And special thanks to the Global Oneness Project which has kindly allowed us to include some of their footage.
Stay tuned as the Green21 pilot episode about water — “Got H20?” — goes into production this summer.

Produced by Green21.
Some rights reserved.

Creative Commons License

{ 2 comments }

Every year, the Goldman Environmental Prize is awarded to grassroots environmental heroes who work to protect the world’s natural resources. Green21 Cinematographer Vicente Franco went to Suriname to film the story of 2009 award recipients Wanze Eduards and S. Hugo Jabini. Members of a Maroon community originally established by freed African slaves in the 1700s, Eduards and Jabini successfully organized their communities against logging on their traditional lands. (learn more)

Vicente Franco also filmed and co-directed Daughter from Danang and Summer of Love, and shot  Thirst, The Judge and the General, and many other documentary films. He was also Director of Photography for a documentary which was recently broadcast on PBS, based on Michael Pollan’s book The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World.

{ 0 comments }

“River of Renewal” is an award winning documentary that will air on PBS stations beginning October 25. Produced by Stephen Most, Jack Kohler and Steve Michelson, “River of Renewal” won Best Documentary Award at the American Indian Film Festival.

Conflict over water & wildlife in the Klamath Basin turned farmers and ranchers against American Indians and salmon fishermen in Oregon and California. But after lawsuits and winner-take-all politics brought disaster to the farms, the fish, and the fisheries, these stakeholders came together to forge a consensus for the common good. Will the future witness the extinction of salmon in what was once North America’s third greatest salmon-producing river? Or the restoration of the Klamath as a home for life?

“River of Renewal” is scheduled to air on KQED in San Francisco 11/15 at 6 pm (check PBS Air Dates for other stations and locations). Writer and producer Stephen Most is also a member of the Green21 team, and he’ll be blogging at this spot next week (Nov 10).  Check back then, or subscribe to green21.org on your RSS feed reader!

{ 1 comment }

cgc-389745489-cropped-web

At the West Coast Green conference earlier this month, Ray Anderson told the story of Interface Carpet: how a small manufacturer in Atlanta Georgia became a market leader while reducing the enormous waste of energy and materials inherent in commercial carpeting by completely rethinking the process. I’d heard the story many times before — beginning with the 1999 book “Natural Capitalism” by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins — but this was the first time I’d seen Anderson speak. I appreciated his graceful demeanor, somewhere between a wise and humble Sunday School teacher and an inspiring captain of industry.

At the same time, I was wondering:  aren’t there any new stories on the feasibility of large-scale greening? As if in answer to my question, keynote speaker Andrew Winston followed with a presentation that was uplifting, intelligent and often humorous. He described some excellent case studies, of which I’ve summarized a few below.

Drive smarter:
Con-Way freight estimates that their lowering the maximum speed of its truck fleet from 65 to 62 mph will save the company 3.2 million gallons of gas. At peak 2008 prices, that’s $15 million, or over 20% of Con-Way’s net income that year. And they found that the fewer stops to refill the tank equalled out the time loss in driving slower.

And my favorite: UPS redesigned its routes to eliminate left turns, since waiting to cross traffic wastes time, energy and fuel. The savings on “No Left Turn”? $3 million per year.

Turn the lights off:
Disney has started turning the lights off at night, on its theme park icons such as the Tree of Life, the castles, the big ball at Epcot. In addition to saving millions of kilowatt hours, it will also send a strong signal to guests as they see the park shutting down for the night. “Hmm, honey, maybe we should have turned the lights off at the motel…”

Open the door:
We think of computers as somehow being much less energy intensive than industrial machinery, but data centers are emerging as a major energy sink. As Winston says, “there’s a persistent (and believable) rumor that Google is the largest single energy user in the state of California.” Yet less than 4 percent of the energy use of a modern server farm is actual processing — the rest is cooling and keeping idle machines running. (This is reminiscent of Amory Lovins’ calculation that only 1% of a car’s energy use actually goes toward propelling the driver.)

Solutions? ”Outside air economization” or letting some of the hot air out instead of relying entirely on cooling systems. Also, “add the power bill to the CIO’s budget” — basically letting major energy users know just how much energy they’re using, and giving them an incentive to do something about it.

For more detail on these, and other case studies and insights, check out Andrew Winston’s new book Green Recovery, from Harvard Business Press, or the 30 page excerpt Green Cost Cutting which is available as a free download on his website.

Winston’s message is a powerful one: going green can be an investment, not a cost, and in many cases the pay back comes within one or two years. And if they choose not to invest in sustainable solutions, especially with respect to energy, companies are putting themselves as well as the planet at risk. Just compare Toyota today with their competition in Detroit.

Still, sifting through these examples, I had to wonder: the more sustainable course of action is not always the more profitable one, especially in the short term. Hopefully these stories are all part of a large scale shift in thinking, that will enable us to choose sustainable solutions even when there isn’t an immediate profit incentive to do so.

Photo Credit:Chris Campbell
under a Creative Commons License

{ 1 comment }

(left to right) Ken Eklund, Denise Zmekhol, Kevin Kanarek, Jennifer Thompson

(left to right) Ken Eklund, Denise Zmekhol, Kevin Kanarek, Jennifer Thompson

Green21 was featured at the Green Software Unconference at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA on Wednesday, August 19th.  A special thank you to Mary Vincent of Green Star Solution for bringing together an amazing group of green software developers, engineers, entrepreneurs and social media producers. The event’s major sponsor was CSRware, makers of carbon and sustainability management programs.

The Green21 team included  Jennifer Thompson (Executive Producer), Denise Zmekhol (Producer/Director), Ken Eklund (Director of Game Design), Michael Gelobter (Board of Advisors) and myself.

Jennifer  delivered the keynote address.  She described how social attitudes have changed radically over the past 50 years, and she named two key factors in that change: 1) media, which offers new paradigms, and 2) peer influences, in other words modeling our behavior on those around us.  In the case of climate change and sustainability, however, we don’t have 50 years.  By combining elements of both the media and peer influence models, we hope that social media can facilitate even faster change in the near future.  Jennifer then cited the work of Paul Hawken, showing how many disparate groups working toward sustainability and social justice can be seen as  different facets of a single movement. She concluded by paraphrasing one of Hawken’s more inspiring points:

If you look at the scientific data you can’t help but be pessimistic, otherwise  you don’t understand the data; but if you meet the people who are working to create real change, you can’t help but be optimistic.

After this speech, Green21 Director/Producer Denise Zmekhol screened the video she created with Google Earth Outreach “Trading Bows and Arrows for Laptops” which explores how the internet and GPS technology is being used by indigenous peoples to monitor the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest.  The audience had many questions, including the implications of a society moving from the stone age to the internet age in the space of 40 years, and work of the Surui leaders to gain access to the carbon offset market.

Green21’s Director of Game Design Ken Eklund, creator of the groundbreaking massively collaborative game “World Without Oil,” led a session on alternate reality games and social issues. Ken is developing the Green21 game “Lifeboat,” an alternate reality game that encourages participants to contribute their own experiences and discoveries, opening new paths to consensus and action. Ken and Jennifer were then briefly interviewed on the topic by Dee McCorey.  On another short video, I discuss how Green21’s  online ecosystem will bridge diverse communities that don’t often get to communicate directly over the critical issues of sustainability and climate change.

All in all, the unconference format allowed for spontaneous discussions and workshops at a manageable scale.  This event offered the ideal forum for connecting with people who are working at the intersection of technology, sustainability and social change.

{ 0 comments }

russian-river-sonoma-california-web

The Russian River watershed, just north of San Francisco, is surely one of the more progressive and resource-conscious areas of the country. I was staying in Guerneville on the river for a few days, about midway between Santa Rosa and the coast, and I got into a conversation with a local couple about the river and related water issues. They were in their sixties. They had lived in Guerneville over 30 years, raised their kids there and remained involved in the community.

When the topic of water use came up, the man spoke with deep resentment. I’ll paraphrase:

Santa Rosa just keeps dumping on us. Literally! This has been going on for decades. They take the water out of the river for development, always more development. The more water they use, the more waste they’ll wind up flushing downstream.

Once we proposed that they put their own intake pipes downstream from their effluent, so they’d need to use the same water we do. They looked at us like we were crazy. “Why would anyone want to do that?” they asked.

I asked him if there was any solution that might work. He smiled.

Well, we had a farmer around here who once drove up to Santa Rosa City Hall and dumped a truckload of manure on the steps. I think that got their attention.

His wife added that another step, at least as effective, had been the construction of a pipeline that ships treated wastewater to the Gysers steam fields – over 10 million gallons per day – where it helps produce enough electricity to power all of San Francisco.

Since then I’ve been intrigued by the question of water use along the Russian River. One important pitfall which that conversation highlighted: the temptation to frame a resource crisis as a conflict between two opposing groups, in this case the city upstream and the town downstream. Here’s what I’ve learned so far, and some big questions that remain unanswered.

Competing Interests:

  1. Downstream Residents: the river provides most of their water supply; sufficient water quality and flow is also needed for tourism and recreation (swimming, canoeing, fishing) which is vital to the local economy
  2. Fish: Endangered species such as the Coho and Chinook salmon need unpolluted rivers for spawning with sufficient forest cover to provide shade and erosion control along the riverbank. However, apparently they also require LOW overall flow rates on the lower river near the estuary.
  3. Agriculture: Sonoma county vineyards and other agriculture use the lion’s share of water. But extractive industries, including logging and gravel mining, also require water for their operations.
  4. Urban Residents and Development: Earlier this year, water contractors representing Santa Rosa water users successfully fought a proposed 30% increase in water rates. Meanwhile, the Sonoma County Water Agency continues to try to increase the amount of water it draws from the river from 76,000 to 101,000 Acre Feet/Year (over 30 billion gallons).

Of course there are many more groups and subsets of groups at work, and agencies that represent different interests and mandates. Brenda Adelman at the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee has been reporting on these issue now for some time: see www.rrwpc.org/articles.html

Questions:

Are there any solutions on the table that would balance the needs of all the impacted groups fairly> Could pricing water use in accordance with its scarcity and high environmental impact not only curb unsustainable development in urban/suburban areas like Santa Rosa (by reducing the economic incentives for developers) but also reduce waste discharges downstream. Less water used equals less wastewater discharged.

My biggest question is this: if Guerneville and Santa Rosa can’t make peace over the Russian River, what are the chances for India and Pakistan over the Indus?

(Photo Credit: brian-m under a Creative Commons Attribution License)

{ 1 comment }

A little while ago I was in a grocery store with a friend, standing at the checkout line around lunchtime. We had put together the ingredients for a simple lunch that could be assembled at a picnic table using just a pocket knife: tomatoes, cucumbers, salad greens, a packet of dressing. We were feeling very virtuous, but then at the checkout line, there was the enticement of the small chocolates rack: the ultimate impulse purchase.

She said, “Keep moving.” I said, “Hang on a second.” Which side won out? Virtue, frugality, and a healthy diet on the one hand, or the irresistible pull of cocoa and sugar?

I’ll tell you in a minute, but first, a little known fact: did you know that chocolate used to be money?

coco3-small

There was a presentation on sustainable economics at the Green Festival. The speaker was Daniel Pinchbeck and he was talking about Ithaca Hours, a local currency in Ithaca NY which encourages people to spend their earnings within their community. Afterwards someone asked what happens when this currency pools — when one business is stuck holding alot of the Ithaca dollars but needs to pay suppliers that don’t participate in the program. After looking at different mechanisms for dealing with this scenario, Pinchbeck took a longer view of the issue.

Our current economic system encourages investments that will yield the highest short-term return regardless of the long-term consequences. But what if we could measure and reward investments according their ability to sustain community? Currency only has value as long as it’s in play. Pinchbeck mentioned the work of Bernard Lietaer, architect of the Euro, and alternative systems that Lietaer had proposed including currency that would depreciate over time — a kind of negative interest.

The Ancient Aztecs, Pinchbeck noted, traded in cocoa beans. The actual unit of currency decayed over time and lost value. The point was to spend wisely and invest, not hoard the wealth.

After my friend and I finished our vegetable lunch, just so you know, there was a chocolate bar to look forward to. But I let go of any impulse I might have had to hold onto the chocolate bar, to use it as a hedge against an uncertain future. Instead, I broke off a small piece for my friend. Before we knew it, the whole thing was gone.

(Photo Credit: davitydave under Creative Commons Attribution license)

{ 0 comments }

critical-mass-sf2

It’s like a full moon or a really low tide. It comes once a month and often catches me by surprise: on a Friday night I’ll be heading through the Mission or Market street and see a mass of cyclists and the flashing bike lights. Critical Mass always feels a little like mardigras or the circus passing through town. But even if I’m riding my bike when I see them, it seems I always have somewhere else to go. Or I decide that the crowd looks a little too raucous. And being all raucous like that really doesn’t further a serious cause like transportation alternatives now, does it…

Maybe under that judgment is the wistfulness of the kid with too much homework who wishes he could join in the fun. If I can’t have fun, then having fun must be wrong. Right?

Tonight I landed right in the middle of the surging crowd of cyclists riding up Division St. and just fell in without giving it too much thought. We rode up Valencia to 22nd, then to Mission St., looped back to Valencia and up Market toward the Castro. There must have been 1000 cyclists in a sprawling caravan of tinkling bike bells and blinking red tail lights as far ahead as I could see.

It was an unexpected feeling of solidarity and closeness. There were a few DJ’s with huge speakers on bike trailers booming and I’d find one I liked the sound of and keep pace with it pedaling in time to the beat. When you’re a driver among other drivers, you’re alone in your cacoon of music or silence or your cell phone conversation. If you interact with other drivers it’s often out of anger and righteousness. They disobeyed some rule or did something stupid, so you become irritated and honk at them.

Well, obviously, being in the middle of critical mass feels different from being in a car in a traffic jam. But it’s also different from riding to work on the Folsom St. bike lane from the mission to downtown, which I used to do on a daily basis. I mentioned that to my neighbor and she agreed, then added how when you go a distance along a bike lane, it’s like these little families or tribes that spontaneously cluster then disperse. “You ever notice,” she said, “how there will be like a mom and a dad and then a sister and a little brother, and you’ll be riding along together and it’s like this little family that just assembled itself on the fly. You can imagine everyone’s personality and the role they’d play. And then you get to 4th street and — Woosh! sister goes off to college and then at 2nd St. — Whoosh! mom leaves home without saying goodbye.”

In the transition from small virtual family to large mobile village comes not just stability, but safety. I guess that’s why they call it Critical Mass. I’d never realized that constant note of fear that plays in the background every time I ride my bike on a road shared with cars, fear that a car might run a stop sign or make a turn, the uneven stakes in terms of what it would mean for the car and what it would mean for me. And now that note of fear is gone, and that absence is the most unexpected and exhilarating aspect of the experience.

Most of the people in the cars were smiling or tapping on their horns or waving out the window. But at a few intersections I’d see drivers leaning on the horn, or screaming through their windshield at the cyclists who just kept coming like a parade, regardless of the traffic lights. One well-dressed driver stepped out of a sports car and was ranting at the bikes in front of him. “Look at the light! It’s my light! It’s a green light!”

It was my first ever night of riding with Critical Mass, and already I wanted to stop and and give him a helpful lecture: “Every night of the month, it goes by those rules, except once a month, on the last Friday, the rules change, like carnaval. you know, just to remind us that all invented systems can be changed if we decide to change them.”

Instead of delivering this speech, I kept on going, and saw other riders who seemed more familiar with the sort of thing just surround his car with their bikes and quietly calm him down. That seemed like a better way of diffusing the situation, but as I rode on, I continued my imaginary conversation with the angry driver:

We get to feeling that a car is an essential tool, or even an inalienable right. Anyone who interferes with your car is disrespecting you as well as the rules. But who invented those rules? Who benefits by them? Do cars have rights?

Once in I remember a cab driver complaining to me about the foot traffic in American cities, all the jaywalkers. In his country, he told me in heavily accented English, the cars get more respect. The pedestrians know that if they don’t jump out of the way, they will be killed by the cars.

In your country, he said, there are too many laws against killing the people.

Well, we choose to have a system where hitting people with cars is not cool. We could also have a system where it was easier and safer for people to ride bikes. It’s up to us.

As I put my bike in the garage and walked up the steps of my house, I had a lingering image of the angry drivers, who were kept from their plans by some random, unfair event. I imagined their reaction: “If it’s not a construction crew or an accident, it’s a bunch of freaks on bicycles.”

Maybe in regards to them, Critical Mass doesn’t measure up. To those who are already bicycle believers, it’s an affirming experience. But for those who are dependent on their cars, or who just believe that they are, we probably hadn’t opened their mind to other points of view. More likely that they felt confirmed their sense of their own righteousness — and victimization — in the face of irresponsible and raucous people who had nothing better to do on a Friday night than ride their bikes around, having way too much fun.

Article republished with permission from Sustainable Social Media

Photo Credit: luxomedia via Creative Commons Attribution/Remix license.

{ 0 comments }

This speech was Obama’s first statement on climate change since the election, delivered on November 18, 2008. President-elect Obama unequivocably acknowledges the scientific consensus on climate change, stresses the need for the U.S. to begin working with the world community on these issues, and commits to concrete goals for action.

I first heard about this speech while listening to This American Life episode #372 “The Inauguration Show,” which described the overwhelming response of the audience — delegates from over 50 states, provinces and countries. For those who had been frustrated by the denial and inaction of the previous administration, and also the lack of specifics during Obama’s campaign, these statements were a welcome change:

  • We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050.
  • We will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private-sector efforts to build a clean energy future.

Below is the complete transcript of the speech:

Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting. Few challenges facing America — and the world — are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security. I know many of you are working to confront this challenge. In particular, I want to commend Governor Sebelius, Governor Doyle, Governor Crist, Governor Blagojevich and your host, Governor Schwarzenegger — all of you have shown true leadership in the fight to combat global warming. And we’ve also seen a number of businesses doing their part by investing in clean energy technologies.

But too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private-sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power and next-generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

But the truth is, the United States cannot meet this challenge alone. Solving this problem will require all of us working together. I understand that your meeting is being attended by government officials from over a dozen countries, including the U.K., Canada and Mexico, Brazil and Chile, Poland and Australia, India and Indonesia. And I look forward to working with all nations to meet this challenge in the coming years.

Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather at Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be president at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one president at a time, I’ve asked members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there.

And once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.

Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.

Stopping climate change won’t be easy. It won’t happen overnight. But I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America. Thank you.

On 18 November 2008, US President-elect Barack Obama sent this video message to a summit on global warming hosted in Los Angeles by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

{ 2 comments }