Banning the Bottle

Last night I attended the first meeting of a new landscape design group, and on my way I stopped at a supermarket to buy goodies to bring to the meeting. The woman at the checkout immediately put my one item in a plastic grocery bag, and I found myself cringing yet again over the plastic bag issue.
"I don't need a bag, thanks. I don't want to throw away the plastic." I say as nicely as I can muster.
She says to me, a little defensively, "I know what you mean. But they're great for lining small garbage cans. "
"Unfortunately, they're also great for lining the streets," I say, wishing that all cities everywhere would ban the plastic and follow San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome's lead.
I'm please to say that Newsome is at it again, and this time it's single serving bottled water.
I hear a lot lately about the folly of bottled water. I once drank Calistoga by the case, reassuring myself that I was doing the right thing by sticking with a California-based water company. Less transport, local, and staying away from a large soda manufacturing company, all the warm fuzzies. But then I read the label carefully and did a little research, and found that Calistoga is nothing more than tap water.
It turns out many of our bottled water is merely tap water with minerals and bubbles added. Did you know there is a serious water shortage in FIJI? Then where did that water come from? And San Pelligrino sparkling has the gas added.
There's all that plastic for the bottles, and questions about whether or not that PET plastic is safe for consumption. Now think of all that tap water being trucked all over the world, and the amount of energy that must take. Why not just drink water from the tap?
I know it's a hard sell for those of you who love the taste of your favorite brand, but the cons are stacking up.
Mayor Gavin Newsome has an interview in Newsweek from last week outlining his new plan to ban the bottle, and why. Love him!
And when you're finished reading that, check out another article I serendipitously received ten minutes ago from a friend on the dirty secrets of bottled water.
Newsweek and Newsome
Message in a Bottle with Fast Company .com

Wind Power Law Undermines Individual's Rights to Operate Turbines

According to a post in Green Options blog, there's a new bill in Congress called the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act "The bill, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, promotes alternative energy and efficiency, including a green building program that would require all major new facility construction projects funded in whole or in part through the Department of the Interior, National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Forest Service to meet or exceed silver level LEED standards."
But a provision in the bill, the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, has some clean power officials worried.
The law will require the registration of all turbines, no matter how old, to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and gives them the right to inspection without notice. Penalties would be stiff for failure to comply, up to $50,000 per citing. Some opponents say this would create difficulties for individuals wishing to put up turbines on their homes and lands. They maintain that a separate group, Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee, will be better able to regulate turbine use in the states.
for full posting on Green Options

Jennifer Berry, Eco-Defender

Ok, so I talk a big talk sometimes, but that's what you all like, right? Here I go again.

A friend of mine tipped me off to some recent permitting issues in his neighborhood, where a grove of trees and building are set to be torn down so a bigger building can occupy its space. I puffed myself up for a professional letter to the City of Mill Valley, and this is what I wrote.

"I'm writing this in concern to the oak grove on Forrest Street that is threatened by development.

I am an ecological consultant who assists in sustainable building and design projects, my scope of work ranging from single residences all the way to college campuses. I am currently working on a green SPCA facility in Monterey County, two LEED buildings at a community college in Tuolomne County, and a LEED boy-scout camp in El Cerrito. A large part of my work involves using natural habitat to enhance a building and its surroundings. The design professionals I work with seek ways to increase the aesthetic quality, efficiency and health of their buildings while having little negative impact on the surrounding ecology of a site. Preserving trees are a large part of this process. I lived at two houses on Forrest over the years, giving me an intimate view of the ecology for this neighborhood.

When considering the ecology of a small site such as this one, it is necessary to look at a larger picture and determine how a building effects the surrounding lots, the block, and then the neighborhood as a whole. On Forrest Way, houses and gardens have been built with the miccroclimate provided by the trees that make up the forest that incorporates surrounding streets. The appeal of living on Forrest for me was that it was a quiet oasis just a block away from downtown Mill Valley. Over the years the large trees have been leaving, one by one, slowly bringing the sound from downtown into the neighborhood.
Also, the temperature of the neighborhood has increased in the summers. Little by little, the fan usage has increased, air-conditioners have been purchased, increasing the power use in this area and in turn putting a greater demand on utilities. Carbon emissions increase as each tree is no longer present to pull CO2 from the atmosphere and as people use more energy to cool their homes.
Flooding is always an issue in the winter months on Forrest. Large trees help reduce the saturation of soils by soaking up all that rainwater and releasing back into the atmosphere. Permeable landscape reduces the demand on waste water systems by allowing storm water to percolate into the water table rather than traveling across pavement and into the sewers.

This isn't just a case of one group of trees and one lot in consideration. This is taking a step back and looking at the picture as it should be viewed- as a whole. I assure you that cutting down this group of native trees at the fore-mentioned site will have a significantly negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and alternatives must be sought.

I work with a group of specialists we affectionately refer to as the Green Team, which includes architects, hydrologists, engineers, planners, and ecologists. We put on eco-charettes with design groups to help them make their projects more sustainable. As an integrated team, we solve problems and find ways to build without cutting down trees and damaging the ecology of a site. It is possible and very necessary to encourage economic growth and increase housing without having a negative impact on the environment. I urge the City of mill Valley to take a step up and find ways to do so, by starting with this project."

Pretty cool, huh? This is one of the many things I do for a living, and its great to be able to lend my professional knowledge to a friend, especially one as dear as my good friend Jimo Thomas.

Want to get involved with saving the grove at 78 Forrest? Drop me a line at:
jennie1234 at mac dot com
(I wrote it out so the spam-bots leave me alone, but you'll figure it out)

Know of the propsal and want to get involved?
let the Ciy of Mill Valley know
rwalsh at cityofmillvalley dot org
(once again written out to keep away those pesky spam-bots)

Corporations and the Hijacking of the Environmental Movement

"If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
These days, nearly everyone agrees about one thing, Global Warming is here, and we humans are indeed the cause. So now what?
Big business got years of foot-dragging out of early studies that served to undermine scientific evidence that the planet was warming. Energy moguls such as Exxon and the American Petroleum Industry, who once funded "uncertainty" research against conventional wisdom are now calling for emissions regulations in the form of Cap and Trade. With Cap and Trade, companies must reduce their carbon emissions to certain levels (as yet to be determined), and if unable to do so, can buy rights from other companies who have met their cap and have reduced their pollution to lower levels, allowing them to sell the surplus.
Some of the big debates right now are just what levels of reductions companies face in the future, and how will the determinations be made. For example, if a company has already reduced its carbon by 10% in the last year, will they be forced to further cut emissions?
Environmentalists watching the rush are voicing fears that all this sudden "green-flag waving" is merely a new tactic for companies to protect themselves rather than saving the planet.
Critics of Cap and Trade argue that these measures would do little to reduce the actual amount of pollution, since smaller companies would be selling credits they would otherwise not produce in carbon in the first place. They argue that the only way to stop the greenhouse effect is by reducing carbon, and that means cutting pollution by more than 50%. Even setting standards lower than levels produced just ten years ago would still add to Global Warming.

full Business Week article

once again, Wikipedia has it all- Find out more about Carbon Cap and Trade

EPA vs. the Endangered Species Act

Two cases that may redefine the Endangered Species Act are set to be decided in the Supreme Court- National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, and Defenders of Wildlife v. Environmental Protection Agency. The cases go back to 2002, when the EPA gave Arizona the power to legislate its own water permits for housing developments. As a direct result the San Pedro River, a sensitive wildflife corridor and home to such endangered species as the southwestern willow flycatcher, went dry in 2005.
How could the EPA turn its back on endangered species? Studies were conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, who expressed concerns about threats to species, but they went ahead and approved Arizona's independant rights because they had met all of the requirements set by the Clean Water Act. In court, the EPA attested that they met all of the federal requirements under the Endangered Species Act when they enlisted the Fish and Wildlife Service, but the Court of Appeals agreed that the EPA shirked its duties.
I found this report while sitting in the dentist's office last week. The headline reads "Is the Endangered Species Act in Danger?"
I think the U.S. News and World Report has it all wrong. While the court cases may set to define the battle, when the water runs out, there clearly are no winners. If Arizona met its criteria for the Clean Water Act but then drained its rivers dry, then some serious revision needs to go into how the laws are being legislated.

Wind Power and its Effect on Humans and the Environment

Wind power has been hailed as an alternative to oil, and a big push is being felt in Capitol Hill to fund these power sources that produce no carbon in their energy production. Little has been done to research the impacts wind turbines will have on the environment, until the White House Council on Environmental Quality began requesting more information from several agencies. A report released on Thursday suggests windmills aren't terrible bird killers, despite the common misconception held by many people. The report was released by by the Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, after concerns that wind generators would disrupt migration patterns and put many threatened species of birds at greater risk. The report found that a negligible number of migratory birds are effected by turbines, and in fact the greatest risk to bird populations are cats, windows and powerlines which when combined account for nearly three billion deaths a year. However, localized raptor populations were impacted by windmills due to their tendency to seek out windy sites from which to hunt for prey.
The scientists on the research team expressed the most concern over bats, since their analysis revealed more bat deaths than expected. Initial studies suggest that the electromagnetic fields created by turbines lure the bats to wind fields and into the spinning blades of turbines, but there are many other hypotheses as well. Compounded by unrelated declines in many species of bats on the east coast, this is bad news for the elusive night creatures. The study reported up to 41 bats killed for every megawatt of power from forested ridge tops on the east coast, while in the Midwest the numbers fall to less than 9 deaths per megawatt.
Another subject of debate with turbines is their impact on the aesthetics of the hillsides they populate. There have been suggestions that uniformity will call less attention to them.
I myself wonder why all this hub-ub about aesthetics. We live with power lines, pavement, pollution, and people are concerned that hillsides filled with turbines will create an eyesore? Get real- just adjust your paradigm of what defines beauty! The real question is, how will wind power scale if our power needs continue to grow? How will wind power effect the necessary winds of local climates?
The NAS study points out the necessity for further research to weed out the real cause of turbine-generated bat deaths and raptor habitat, as well as further development of turbine blades that will be more appealing to the American public. Improvements have already been made over the years resulting in higher efficiency, less unwanted noise, and less risk to animals, and we've only just begun.
NAS report
for related article at SF Chronical
for a comprehensive article on wind turbines

A Case for Grey Water

For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, grey water is classified in Wikipedia as water that has passed through the home and down the drain, minus the toilet water.
New Mexico and Arizona are among the states who have welcomed the use of grey water for landscape irrigation, so long as participants register their systems and agree to follow guidelines. New Mexico lead the way after a ten year study of illegal systems by a grassroots group seeking to gain GW's legal approval. The study found no serious health risks to humans when GW was used properly.
Never seen a grey water system? Well, neither have I. Many municipalities and even states have bans on using greywater, some of these bans date back to when sanitation issues were of the most concern. With modern technology, these greywater systems are completely safe, but it takes time to change the laws. I hope that will all change soon, as landscapes account for 70-80% of residential water used. It makes sense to recycle our water, and so far the biggest obstacle seems to be the cost to get all the proper permits.


for a database of Greywater safety, guidelines and legislation by state and regions
check out Rana Creek, a company who uses grey water on many projects

States seek permits to kill sea lions off Pacific coast

It seems the struggle over depleted salmon has some people pointing their fingers at other animals who enjoy this ocean treat. Three states, Washington, Oregon and Idaho are asking Congress for permission to kill 80 sea lions a year. Since sea lions have been protected starting the 1970's their population has gone up, and they now inhabit the mouth of the Columbia river where they threaten the salmon populations there. Efforts to keep them away with non-lethal rubber bullets and such have not kept the sea lions away, and at their peak popluation they can number as many as 85 adults. The battle is on for who has the most claim to the salmon- humans or wildlife.
My question is: What were the estimated sea lion population levels before human impact?

original story at the News Tribune

AIA Angle: Clinton Introduces Zero Emissions Building Legislation

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) with AIA Federal Affairs Senior Director Tom Wolfe.

On March 29th, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) introduced S. 1059, the “Zero Emissions Building act of 2007.” The bill tracks closely the AIA’s model legislation for federal buildings that served as the Institute’s principal “ask” during February’s Grassroots Capitol Hill Day.

The bill requires that all new and renovated buildings owned or leased by the federal government reduce fossil fuel energy usage by 50 percent as compared to a 2003 baseline. In 2010, the requirement would increase to a 60 percent reduction and increase by 10 percent every five years until carbon neutrality is reached in 2030.

The AIA worked closely with Clinton’s staff on the bill. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has already agreed to cosponsor the legislation, and the AIA is actively seeking additional support. The AIA’s next goal is to have the provision included in the omnibus energy efficiency bill that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is preparing for hearings and consideration later this spring. The AIA is seeking House introduction as well.

for original article click here