World Water Day 2010

March 22nd, 2010

campaigntopleft5Today is World Water Day, which is an initiative that grew out of a 1992 UN conference to bring attention to water issues around the world. The UN uses the day to focus attention to specific issues around fresh water. This year’s campaign called “Clean Water for a Healthy World” focuses attention on the need “around the world to actively engage in proactively addressing water quality e.g. in pollution prevention, clean up and restoration” Here in the US on Tuesday, March 23 advocates for water will go to Washington to have the US show greater support for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programs. These programs are meant to help developing countries manage their water resources in cost effective ways.

 Lack of access to clean drinking water is an issue that affects millions of people all over the world. Water quality has been impacted as populations and industries grow. Waste water, chemical discharges from industry and changing ecosystems all have devastating impacts on clean water. For example population growth will lead to waste water that overwhelms antiquated water sewage systems. Industry also plays a role in polluting water, as lack of regulations allow them to discharge chemicals into the environment that eventually find their way to drinking water. “According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 4 billion cases of diarrhea each year in addition to millions of other cases of illness are associated with lack of access to water that is safe for human consumption. Per year 2.2 million people die as a result of diarrhea most of them are children under the age of five.” The IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre says “80 percent of all waste is being discharged untreated, because of lack of regulations and resources”

 For more information please visit the official website for World Water Day at http://www.unwater.org/worldwaterday/flashindex.html

 In addition a great little video about bottled water has come out called “The Story of Bottled Water” at http://www.storyofstuff.com/bottledwater/ . The video is from Annie Leonard who is famous for her 20 minute video called “The Story of Stuff”; an animated video that explains sustainability and how our consumer choices impact the environment and society.

 

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Reduce Building Emissions With The Right Information and Proper Financing

March 15th, 2010

slice-of-new-yorkCompetition and other market forces can accelerate the adoption of energy efficiency in buildings. NYC is attempting to use these forces to make its buildings more energy efficient through its new building-benchmarking legislation (click here for more info), one of four new laws that recently passed in NYC. The requirement will have buildings first measure and then publicly report their energy and water use. In conjunction with benchmarking two things must be done to spur building efficiency: more information must be shared on business benefits and the ability to finance retrofits and clean technology projects must be obtained.

As building owners receive information on comparative efforts to reduce energy they will begin to have a greater understanding of the business case (i.e. financial benefits, competitive advantages) for energy efficiency. Yet, data alone may not be enough to spur investments and management attention to energy efficiency; building owners may be constrained by finances to capitalize energy improvements. That is why for benchmarking to work; financing may be the most important element in promoting measures to reduce emissions. A new concept called PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy- click here for more info) financing may be an answer to this need.

PACE is essentially a city loan used for clean energy or energy efficiency (i.e. retrofits, solar energy, etc.) that is paid back through taxes. It’s a very attractive way to finance retrofits because upfront money must not be secured. PACE also ties its benefit to the property, so when the property is sold so does the tax liability. To make PACE attractive taxes must be lower than the expected energy savings, so that building can realize a positive cash flow.

Benchmarking is a way of establishing a building’s energy and water efficiency rank against other buildings that have similar characteristics, such as age, size etc. To do the ranking the legislation requires the use of a computer tool from the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) called Portfolio Manager. The EPA has been using this tool for several years in its Energy Star program for buildings(see here), a program that uses benchmarking at its core.  Once information on a building’s energy is entered a percentile ranking from 1 to 100 is given to the building.  So for example a ranking of 40 indicates that a building’s energy performs is better than 40 percent of all similar buildings. In the Energy Star program a high ranking (75th percentile or higher) can lead to an Energy Star recognition and a plaque.

By using Energy Star’s computer tool, the legislation will bring more attention to this EPA program that has been overshadowed by LEED certification. Beyond the actual tool, which is essential and often used with LEED, EPA has gathered analysis and best practices from around the country (see here) to help other building owners realize energy reductions. The EPA also shares competitive advantages of energy efficiency including higher occupancy rates, increased building value, and savings in operations and maintenance costs.

Benchmarking answers the need to improve the efficiency of existing buildings. NYC’s large real estate market and prominence will allow benchmarking to travel beyond New York into other cities and municipalities. For example, organizations that have benchmarked their buildings in New York City may be inclined to benchmark their building portfolios around the country. In many ways NYC and its building are in forefront of trying to use the market to spur energy efficiency. It will need to carefully study the data buildings submit in their benchmarking to see if training or other measures must be taken to ensure better results. Along with the EPA this legislation will offer NYC on opportunity to share the business case for energy efficiency with building owners. If this benchmarking can lead to new building efficiency knowledge and then have that accompanied by an innovative financing tool like PACE, NYC will be an example to the rest of the country on how to achieve energy reduction in a built environment.

Sources:Naomi Millán, “National Significance Of NYC Benchmarking Legislation“, http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/National-Significance-of-NYC-Benchmarking-Legislation–11552, accessed on March 15, 2010.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in David D | No Comments »

Talking to Scientists at NASA

February 6th, 2010

climatetimemachineIn the beginning of 2010, I attended the annual winter Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) conference as part of a media team. ESIP is a consortium of over 100 organizations that provide information about Earth observations. This includes information on air and water quality, climate and its observed impacts. Our media team consisted of college and graduate students and other young professionals. We were there to share our experiences, of meeting and interviewing scientists and officials from organizations like NASA, with other young students.

Doug Cohen, who put the team together for the Climate Literacy Network, a member of ESIP, explained that ESIP was dedicated among other things, to giving young people (including K through 12) climate literacy.  The idea of the media team was to see if we could enhance student participation in ESIP. This would be done by documenting and sharing our interactions, both in written format and on video, with the people we met at the conference.

One of my lasting impressions from the conference was an earnest angst by scientists on how to effectively communicate. This was significant in light of current events, such as the Copenhagen conference or the Climategate story (see Real Climate here or see NYT  here for opinions on alleged misconduct by scientists). Scientists at ESIP were grappling with concerns over public opinion. They explained, that very often they are compelled by their training and curiosity to grapple with the unknown; to highlight what they do not know. This can lead to explanations to the public that that can be misinterpreted, sometimes irresponsibly, to question climate science.

Scientists, very often, have not been trained to communicate to a public that increasingly looks for messages that are short and quickly digested. Some are overwhelmed by the politics inherent in their findings and the vested interests out to discredit them. One speaker talked about how scientists will need to learn to be more media savvy, especially with the decline of professional journalists dedicated to science. If they want to be effective, the speaker told the audience, scientists themselves will have to manage the messages on their findings and trends more effectively.

Building on this communication message, I learned that scientists and their agencies dedicate considerable time and resources to sharing information and data. Many participants in the ESIP conference were there to discuss how they want, or are prepared to share data on air, water or weather patterns, to name a few. In fact, some of the conference is dedicated to new applications, most of which are on the Internet, that will make this sharing easier.

Those with a computer or data background would have been comforted to hear familiar terms when talking about data i.e. metadata, XML and web services. I come from a computer background, having worked in the IT/Financial Services industry for over 20 years. So this talk about data issues, like comparing or merging different sets of data, was for me strangely comforting – I was not totally out of my element. Agencies like NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), NSF (National Science Foundation) and others have on some level the same “data” issues that banks and other financial service companies have. How do we share data? How do we do it efficiently? How do we use other data to augment our own services? How do we keep it safe? In retrospect, I should not have been surprised, the Internet was first created by scientists in the US so that they could share data from around the world.

The time at the ESIP conference was for me immensely valuable. I heard and met people who were deeply committed to sharing science with the public and especially with our young students. Most Americans have not met or know any scientist; I certainly had not before this conference. Their image of a scientist is shaped by movies that usually portray them as somewhat crazy; think “Back to the Future”. If people could have more access to scientists they may understand them better and even have more trust in them especially, if they meet the scientists that I met, which were funny, intelligent and accessible. I would also like to commend the Climate Literacy Network and Doug Cohen’s other work through www.uspartnership.org for their advocacy for climate literacy among our youth.  Using video was an inspired way to bring scientists closer to our youth; it will go a long way to humanizing them and allow students to aspire to careers in science and technology. In a world that is increasing competitive, attracting more young people to science will help the US meet the challenges that await us.

Tags: ,
Posted in David D | No Comments »

A Move in the Right Direction

December 24th, 2009

obama_china

The climate conference ended in Copenhagen on Saturday December 19, 2009 and there is considerable debate on what was accomplished. Going in much was expected from the face-to-face negotiations and its ability to make progress. Nevertheless with 193 countries being represented perhaps this was never really possible. In truth much of the work that would have made this conference a success should have occurred over the last 2 years. In that time the concerns of many countries have not been satisfied. This is especially true of the US and China, who have very significant roles in this climate debate as the historically largest emitter and the current largest emitter of greenhouse gases respectively. Given these political realities the “Copenhagen Accord” is a significant step forward in the right direction.

The US has until recently not actively participated in a leadership role when it comes to climate change.  This has largely changed with the Obama Administration, which among other things has imposed higher emission restrictions on cars and through the EPA vowed to combat climate change, even if the US Congress fails to pass a comprehensive energy bill.   The previous administration may be faulted for not constructively engaging in the climate change debate but their concerns with previous accords in some ways is not that different from current concerns –namely how to address the emissions of developing countries.

Developing countries have important goals and chief among them is to lift their people from poverty through economic growth.  It is that very growth, if fueled by fossil fuels, which will contribute to dangerous carbon emissions. China is in many ways an economic powerhouse, yet on a per-capita basis it is still very poor. Their average citizens do not begin to have the same lifestyle that citizens in the west have. They may argue that greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere to this point are largely due to western economic activity and hence it is the west that should pay for any mitigation effort going forward. In addition they do not want their growth efforts to be hampered by carbon emission control.  For example, developing countries and even poor countries may look at efforts to control deforestation with scorn given the west’s own historical record in deforestation in the name of economic growth and prosperity.

This principle where the west is aware of its historical role and responsibility in climate change has been largely accepted by the west in previous agreements. Going forward it is important to note that developing and developed countries must work together. Even if the west brought their emissions to ZERO -unabated carbon based economic growth by developing countries would still lead to a catastrophic rise in the earth’s temperature.

Copenhagen was supposed to bridge this divide between developed and developing nations. Accordingly the expectation was that China and other growing developing countries like India would accept their obligations to achieve emissions reductions to limit temperature rise. The west was expected to give economic help and pursue a very aggressive carbon free economy. The Copenhagen Accord has made some progress towards having the countries work together, although it is not legally binding. This is the first time that developing countries have agreed to binding emission reductions in an international agreement. This represents a major shift from the past where this division between developed and developing countries blocked progress. The accord also says that the countries  must keep the earth’s temperature below two degrees to avoid dangerous climate change. In addition developed countries have pledged to finance developing country efforts to prevent climate change and support adaptation through a start-up fund that will eventually reach $100 billion a year by 2020. Please note Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change said that China, with a $2 trillion reserve and a strong economy, will not be a recipient,  “I don’t envision public funds, certainly not from the United States, going to China.” By the end of Jan 2010, rich nations will give their 2020 targets to cut emissions while the emerging countries, including China, India, and Brazil have agreed to list the voluntary measures to curb theirs.

Tags: ,
Posted in David D | No Comments »

Gas Drilling Near NYC Water Source

October 30th, 2009

The Ashokan Reservoir is part of the city's Catskill water supply system. (Credit: Jim McKnight/AP Photo)

The Ashokan Reservoir is part of the city's Catskill water supply system. (Credit: Jim McKnight/AP Photo)

NYC has a well deserved reputation for the quality of its drinking water. It has been an unappreciated affordable, healthy part of New Yorkers daily lives. That water  may be threatened by gas drilling near one of the sources of this water, the Marcellus Shale basin. The basin is a watershed that runs through Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York and supplies 15 million people, including 9 million New Yorkers.

The concern is that rules on drilling near water sources in NY set forth by Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) are not stringent enough. Environmentalists (see Riverkeeper website here) are concerned that gas drilling would affect this water. In the event the water were to get contaminated, it could involve millions of dollars to set up a processing center to filter the water so that it could be safe to drink. According to the Catskill Mountainkeeper blog:

New York is one of just four major cities in the United States with a special permit allowing its drinking water to go unfiltered, and that pristine water comes from a network of reservoirs and rivers in five upstate counties. If the special permit was revoked, the city would have to build a treatment facility that could cost nearly $10 billion, said Walter Mugden, a senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That’s roughly what the state estimated it would earn from gas development over the next decade.

What is particularly interesting about this issue is that natural, domestic gas has very positive aspects to it. Environmentally it is cleaner than coal and has been seen as a “bridge” fuel until renewable forms of energy are more efficient and economically feasible.

There will be public hearing on this matter as a response to public concern  on Nov 10 at Stuyvesant High School at 7pm. For more information visit the DEC website (click here).

Tags: ,
Posted in David D | No Comments »

Here Comes the Sun

October 14th, 2009

solarJust because NYC  is not in California or Arizona does not mean we can’t use solar to meet a significant portion of our energy needs. Are you surprised? I was, and was even more so when I found out that some parts of Queens may actually be ideal for solar.

At a recent presentation made at the NYC Solar Summit (click here for all the presentations made that day) Richard Perez, Senior Research Associate from the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University of Albany made it clear why solar energy is possible in NYC. When Richard looks at all those NYC roofs he sees potential areas to generate solar or PV (photovoltaic) electricity. According to him, NYC could generate more than twice the energy Con Ed sells today. He went on to explain that solar would be a very reliable source of energy since NYC’s high energy needs are often tied to the sun and the heat it produces -that is energy demands (think air conditioners cranking away) are often at its peak when the sun is strongest and shining over us. For those critics who say solar can’t stand on its own merit and needs to be massively subsidized, he explained that the economics of solar energy works out favorably even before incentives. He arrived at this conclusion by calculating the costs and benefits of PV from generating and transmitting the energy to the jobs the solar industry generates.

NYC faces challenges if it is to implement solar, besides money there are technical and bureaucratic hurdles. NYC’s electrical grid was designed to flow in one direction and this is a problem for solar.  Ideally when solar installations produce more energy than needed,  the excess energy should be sent back to the energy grid. The problem is that Con Ed’s NYC electric grid was not designed to operate in a bi-directional fashion.  Along with this issue there are some bureaucratic issues that need to be worked out, including increasing the limit on how much energy can be generated by solar installations.

To tackle these concerns a policy coined  “Solar Empowerment Zone” by councilman Dan Garodnick recently received a financial boost from a grant from the DOE (yes our stimulus money working for us).  Under the Solar America Cities program CUNY will be working with Con Edison and other solar stakeholders to develop these zones.  The program will help identify zone areas in NYC and assist in solving the technical, bureaucratic and cost problems. According to a post (click here) this summer Councilman Garodnick said that to find the most conducive areas for solar installation you need to look away from densely populated Manhattan and focus on New York City’s industrial areas where “low-rise, flat-roofed buildings exist”. Those of you familiar with Queens, my life-long neighborhood, would recognize that certainly parts of Astoria and LIC could be potential locations. Councilman Garodnick continued.

By tackling large, high-potential areas, we can create economies of scale and convert to alternative energy at an exponential rather than an incremental rate…And by creating a market for solar where it will be most effective, solar empowerment zones can help drive down the cost of installing photovoltaic panels and performing infrastructure upgrades, helping to spur its growth beyond the industrial sector.

According to CUNY they are concluding a study with Con Ed and the National Renewable Energy Lab that will help them make a decision on these zones. The process of designating the zones is still very early in the process but I am hoping that parts of Queens are selected into these solar empowerment zones. Certainly there are still many challenges but I can already see myself  singing:

Here comes the sun, here comes the sun and I say it’s all right
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes…
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes…
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes…
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes…
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes…

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in David D | 3 Comments »

“Growing Up Green” in NYC

October 2nd, 2009

A new school called Growing Up Green Charter School (GUGCS) (click here for school website) opened in Queens. This year the school is only teaching Kindergarten and 1st grade and plans to reach up to 5th grade. Recently I had the opportunity to sit with its school Leader and founder, Mr. Matthew Greenberg to learn more about the school. GUGCS  combines teaching directly to kids with exploration based projects that they call “ED” or explore and discover time. The “green” in this school extends beyond just the environment. In its website the school says:

First and foremost, ‘green’ is a mindset. It is an internalization of sustainability, where people are responsible for what they consume and the waste produced. It is an awareness of where goods and products come from, with an emphasis on local, organic production. These principles guide the social curriculum of GUGCS. Morning meeting, snack, class meetings, school wide functions, and ‘ED’ time will all demonstrate a ‘green,’ holistic approach to living.

Mr. Greenberg says, that more than anything, his relationship to the environment was forged in Cape Cod through a home he has had there for over 19 years. There he was lucky enough to get close to and experience the beauty of nature. He also became very attuned to the damages that were being wrought on nature by our collective actions and inactions. About 4 or 5 years ago Mr. Greenberg was inspired by a close friend’s work at a non-profit in Boston that supports public schools by helping “green” them up. When looking to NY for similar offerings he found an opportunity to bring his passion for the environment to a school setting. To develop and integrate sustainability into the classroom he worked with Solar One a New York based non-profit which among many endeavors promotes sustainable education.

He decided that a charter school would give him more flexibility to be innovative in the classroom. At the same time he understood that Albany awards charters based on how students reach a certain level of skills. The GUGCS received its charter because Mr. Greenberg was successful in showing how he could meet the city and state standards. Education at GUGCS is based on an EIC (Environment as an Integrated Context for Learning) model where problem solving skills, hands-on learning, community and a “green” culture are integrated seamlessly with teaching reading, writing and math.  Since it is situated in Queens, it is only one of 6 charter schools in that borough. He says, “I am not sure why more charter schools don’t open up in Queens” adding that its cultural and economic diversity is a great source of richness for any school.

Kindergarten student excited about planting his flower.

Kindergarten student excited about planting his flower.

GUGCS has many plans going forward including building an eco-friendly playground. Nevertheless it is its current execution of teaching that are particularly revealing. In the first couple of weeks of school the children have planted flowers and learned about the main parts of a tree partly by “exploring” the neighborhood and “discovering” its trees. The schools location in a densely populated area will not prevent them from experiencing nature. They intend to use the local parks and have trips planned to Forest Park in Queens which has 538 acres of trees and fields.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/09/29/2009-09-29_lic_students_are_growing_up_green.html#ixzz0SnmbllPj

Tags: ,
Posted in David D | 1 Comment »

Can I believe the science of climate change?

September 7th, 2009

I hope readers of this blog had a great summer. I enjoyed barbecues and beach outings with family and friends and was mercilessly needled by Yankee fans for the early season demise of the Mets.  Well at least the Mets didn’t wait till the last day of the season to disappoint me.  Invariably due to my avowed interests, some of the conversations turned to the environment and what people thought about climate change. I was struck by the fact that one of the main arguments with climate change from many of my most thoughtful, well educated friends was:

Even if you accept that the world is warming it is folly and almost presumptuous of us to say man is having this effect. The world is changing all the time due to natural causes. Why does it have to be man-made? What about  volcanoes? They are a natural part of the environment and certainly disruptive. How can you be so sure we are causing this? We can’t even predict when it is going to rain accurately? Isn’t the weather naturally variable?

Most of these questions have been answered before and I will attempt to give you a very brief synopsis of some of the science behind climate change. At the end of this post you can find additional references. Let’s start with what some of you have probably heard before:

There is a consensus from the majority of the climate scientist that agree that the earth is warming and it is connected to the emission of greenhouse gases by man.

Well what does that consensus actually mean? The consensus refers to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A consensus exists because the IPCC’s evaluates climate science from around the world on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. This fact alone gives the IPCC legitimacy and breadth. The IPCC issues reports that synthesizes current climate change science. In addition national and international science organization have endorsed the IPCC. According to Wiki (see here) since 2007, “no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion although a few organizations hold non-committal positions.” In the US the EPA has said that scientists know with virtual certainty that:

  • Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
  • The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
  • An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

Furthermore other US scientific organizations have endorsed the IPCC findings including:

Peer Review

So what does peer-review mean? Peer-reviewed research means it “has been published by one or more scientists in a scholarly scientific journal after review by one or more experts in the scientists’ same field (’peers’) for accuracy and validity” according to RealClimate.org. Christopher Cole Mooney a US journalist who focuses on science in politics says:

[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they’re willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal.

The Media and a “Balanced” View

Even with all this scientific evidence some of public questions climate change (certainly some of my friends do). Why? It may be due to the reporting of the issue by the media. In reporting on climate change the media tries to report on each side of the issue. What happens is that in this case both sides are not equal. Scientist may argue about the details, speed and effect of different phenomena but they largely agree that the earth is warming due to man’s use of fossil fuels which is contributing to a greenhouse effect. Furthermore  natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and other phenomena can not explain the observed climate change.

To be sure there are scientist that do not agree with the consensus. In a NYT article Freemon Dyson, a respected and celebrated scientist says that while there may be climate change the extent of it and its damage are hard to predict. He questions the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.” (NYT Dyson). He goes on to say that given the extent of known problems of poverty, war, and famine perhaps our resources would better be used there.

I am skeptical of some politicians who deny climate change or even man’s role in it. Some have presented incomplete information or even  false data. For example Senator James M. Inhofe’s list of 400+ prominent climate scientists who doubt global warming. That list is totally misleading and has names of people that are not climate scientist including TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries (see here).

Climate change will disrupt many existing industries. Deciding what to do about it has enormous economic implications. In an excellent post the Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc. Jeffrey Masters says that opposing views presented by the media sometimes come from fossil fuel funded ‘think tanks’ that distort and use misleading science to confuse the public. He concludes by saying:

In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from RealClimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.

The overwhelming scientific evidence convinces me that the only possible conclusion on climate change is that it is happening, man is responsible for it and hence we can control it going forward.  I have read many of the claims by deniers on blogs and feel comfortable with the answers that have been given in response. Sometimes selective data has been used by deniers in order to support a claim and other times facts have just been twisted. I  encourage you to follow some of the links below and come to your own conclusions.

References and resources:

  1. US EPA Website – has a lot of good info including the current state of knowledge on climate change http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
  2. Naomi Oreskes article BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
  3. RealClimate.org – has provided a one stop site for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
  4. Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp

GoodSearch for Community Links International

Several weeks ago I posted on my trip to Mexico.  My fellow Fordham MBA classmates and me met some wonderful people and shared some great experiences. There we learned what sustainable development meant to Mexico and in turn what it meant us in the US . The group that was responsible for coordinating our experiences there was Community Links International and besides their outreach work to the the US they promote dialogue and  solutions within Mexico. This organization has been accepted as a charity by GoodSearch.com!

GoodSearch.com is a new Yahoo-powered search engine that donates half its advertising revenue, about a penny per search, to the charities its users designate. Use it just as you would any search engine, get quality search results from Yahoo, and watch the donations add up!

All you need to do is:
1) go to www.goodsearch.com,
2) enter Community Links International (Of San Jose!) as your charity,
3) click Verify,
4) start searching, and
5) use GoodSearch/Community Links International for ALL your searches!

Tags: , ,
Posted in David D, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Studying Sustainability in Mexico

August 5th, 2009

In March of 2009, I and other students from the Graduate School of Business Administration (GBA) at Fordham went on a trip to Mexico to learn about sustainability. In many ways this blog’s mission -to learn about sustainable development and share it- has been a response that trip: what we learned in preparation, the experiences we had, the people we met and the friendships we forged.

The following post is a reprint of an online article that appeared on Fordham Online by Patrick Verel. The Fordham site contains more pictures from the trip and can be accessed directly by clicking here .

– David De Armas

Seventeen students from Fordham’s Graduate School of Business Administration (GBA) ventured far from their classroom this past March to learn about sustainability.

More than 2,000 miles, in fact.

The students and three faculty members spent a week in Puebla, Mexico, as part of a new course to increase awareness and promote action toward socially and environmentally responsible business practices.

Patricia de la Palma blesses MBA student Elena Tkachev during a Last Reflection and Ending Ceremony.

Patricia de la Palma blesses MBA student Elena Tkachev during a Last Reflection and Ending Ceremony.

The trip was the a result of a challenge made last fall by James A.F. Stoner, Ph.D., professor of management systems, to students in his GBA seminar “Making Global Sustainability Happen.” Stoner asked the class to develop an immersion course around the theme of sustainability.

Paul Francis, a GBA student and director of Fordham’s Global Outreach Program, came up with the idea of traveling to Mexico. He and other students, such as Heena Virani, Stoner’s graduate assistant, put together the trip and the curriculum.

That meant studying books and films to prepare themselves for the experience, as well as arranging the logistics of the trip, from visas and airfare to lodging and immunizations.

Stoner said that all of his seminars feature a team-building exercise; this one just happened to lead students to places like the Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla. He’s eager to replicate it next March.

“If we have that level of student talent over and over again, then it suggests we need to get out of the way of the students as they create their own learning experiences,” he said. “These are grad students; they’re smart people.”

A favorite part of the course was how the students watched documentaries, such as Flow, which is about water shortages, and then visited Puebla, where two showers a week are the norm.

While people are waiting for the shower to warm up, they catch water comes out in the meantime and use it to water plants and wash dishes. They wet themselves when the water is hot and then turn the faucet off again. They soap themselves and then turn the water back on to rinse off.

Sharon Livesey, Ph.D., associate professor of communication and media management, noted that although hey had the opportunity to travel to several countries, Mexico made the most sense because its economy is most directly affected by the United States. In fact, she said, Puebla has a direct link to New York City.

“Since I’ve been back, in every restaurant I’ve gone to, there have been at least one, and often four or five people, from Puebla. The people who pour your water? They’re from Puebla,” she said. “So there’s a big nexus between Puebla, Mexico, and New York City, which is something that we didn’t expect to uncover.”

Livesey said the course was a successful example of how to subvert the traditional pattern of a teacher producing the curriculum and texts for a course.

“The ball was thrown back to the students, and we said to them, ‘What do you think is relevant to learn? Go out and start learning, because the Web is a great resource, and then make some decisions, because this is a very complex topic,’” she said. “We believe it will be more meaningful to you if it’s something that you actively participate in.”

David DeArmas, FCLC’87, who is working toward an MBA with a concentration in finance and management, and who was the group’s unofficial photographer, said he was inspired by conversations with people directly affected by maquiladoras, the predominantly U.S.-owned factories on country’s northern border.

“An activist told us about water that escapes from a blue jeans factory that is high in chlorine, so the prevalence of disease has gone up since it opened,” he said. “This would never happen here, but it happens there because the Mexican government is complicit.”

In retrospect no country, not even the US is immune from the effects of environmental damage caused by corporations. Anyone who has seen the movie “Food Inc.” can testify to that.  Nevertheless, the US does have stricter environmental laws which can be avoided in other countries. Even when some laws are in place they have been declared null under the ‘trade illegal’ provisions of both NAFTA and CAFTA which declares that the right of the corporation cannot be superseded or infringed upon by laws or regulations that hinder the amount of profit they estimate can be attained (see here for more info).

De Armas said meeting indigenous people and seeing how they live under tough circumstances gave him a better appreciation for economic systems that are different from American-style capitalism.

“Looking at things there, where it’s based more on community and economic sufficiency, it’s not capitalistic, but it opened my eyes to other systems that work and why they can work,” he said.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in David D, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Changing Behavior With Communities

July 10th, 2009

This post is based on an article that appeared in the NYT Sunday Magazine written by Jon Gertner that describes climate change decision science.

A branch of behavioral research situated at the intersection of psychology and economics, decision science focuses on the mental proces­ses that shape our choices, behaviors and attitudes.

The consensus is that climate change is caused by human behavior and “if it’s caused by human behavior, then the solution lies in changing human behavior.” That is not going to be easy because most Americans view climate change as a distant problem. According to research being done at CRED (Center for Research on Environmental Decision) on decision science, communities and the way information is presented to them can help us change human behavior towards climate change.

Decision science  looks at the steps we take to choose between alternatives. It tells us that we are probably more afraid of losses than interested in gains and that our decisions can be affected by how we are asked questions. For example a positive framed question is more effective than a negative question; “if you come to my house there is a 5% chance you will get lost” as opposed to “if you come to my house there is a 95% that you will arrive.”

When reaching decisions humans are measuring risks. The risks are either measured analytically or emotionally. When measured analytically we carefully weight pros and cons and when measured emotionally we look at choices based on our own experiences. According to cognitive psychologists analytical risk management tends to be short-term and shows a dislike for future benefits (a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush). An obvious problem since short-term thinkers will not make behavior changes for future benefits to avert climate change. When risks are managed emotionally,  the more distant a risk is to our own experience the more optimistic one is to overcoming a risk(a New Yorker will certainly react differently to a tornado then a Midwesterner who has lived through one). If we underestimate the risks of a climate change that we have not experienced (out of sight and out of mind) how can we properly judge the effects that severe droughts, hurricanes, rising sea levels could have in our lives.

There are two ways that could go a long way to changing behaviors:

  1. Community Decision Making
  2. Order of choices

Communities often make decisions that take into account the collective good and are “more patient when considering delayed benefits” than individuals. Communities will make even better decisions if “information for decisions, especially environmental ones is first considered in a group setting before member take it up individually” the exact opposite of how most group decisions are made (usually we prepare individually). For example research by a CRED member, Ben Orlove, showed that poor farmers who listened to weather forecast together and then discussed their implications arrived at a consensus that led to better farming (i.e. decisions as when to plant, or what seeds to use).

Order of choices is important since it can affect the outcome of a decision. “Considering distant benefits before immediate costs can lead to a different decision if you consider - as is common- the costs first.” Using this framework allows us to reexamine the “carbon tax” as a vehicle to promote zero-emissions in the US.

Part of the reason that a cap and trade was heavily promoted over a “carbon tax” was that Republicans view taxes with disdain. Looking at research done at CRED allows us to understand this aversion a little better. When making a decision we do an internal informational search and come up with a quick list of choices. The earliest items on that list may have a higher influence on our decision then the other items on our list. So for Republicans early thoughts on a carbon tax were negative and led to negative opinions on the idea. Yet if you introduced the word “offset” into the equation that allowed Republicans to consider evidence that the “offset” could protect a forest or fund clean energy then the overall idea to an added fee was positive. In essence negative associations with taxes did not allow Republicans to consider the benefits of added fees.

The necessary behavior changes towards the environment can be achieved by strong communities and further helped by how they process information. It follows that building communities will be important to allow better decisions to be made. Thankfully building communities is not hard, since we are by nature cooperative. Corporations that allow community involvement will arrive at long term and environmentally sound decisions, which in the end may not only benefit the corporation but the world we live in.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in David D | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries