We don’t usually think that hard about what that means. Calories, yes; occasionally we consider the carbon footprint of our meal in terms of how far it had to travel to us, if it came packaged in plastic or cardboard, etc. But a recent New York Times article brings to light the truly dark side of our eating habits in America: industrial meat production. Mark Bittman begins his article with a shocker, comparing meat to oil:

He goes on to explain the meat production industry, and there are some great accompanying infographics. It is in fact just as scary and bad as college groups chaining themselves to fences have led us to believe for years. And then some. It hasn’t stopped the industry, if you’ve noticed. So why does Bittman think it will start to change any time soon? He suggests, in part, a PR approach not unlike the anti-smoking campaign. We’re also, as a nation, more aware of conservationism and the need for sustainable energy sources; the incredible waste of energy involved in our current system of meat production is just as unsustainable as 30mpg cars. Also, this is an era in which people are thinking more about what they eat than they have in a while (hello, organic and locovore movements), so perhaps this is time to hope something could change.

Yet Bittman suggests some things in his article which make me leery of his thought process. For instance, he says rather casually, “Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income.” Okay, great. Why do they account for such a huge chunk of change? Could it be due to the fact that industrial agriculture (a) has tons of money, making possible (b) tons of lobbyists? As backwards as it is, they are supporting a giant slice of the American fiscal pie. You can’t just eliminate subsidies. There has to be something to take their place. According to some, we’re already teetering on the edge of a recession; pulling the rug out from industrial agriculture would–and I might be exaggerating here, but I don’t think so–give us a big shove over that edge.

Bittman goes on to say, “Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of ‘meat without feet’ – meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.” He offers no sources for this to help explain why it’s more feasible now than ever before. It kinda still sounds like lunacy to me. New Harvest, a consortium for “meat alternatives” (namely, in vitro), makes the same claim, but similarly fails to give grounds for believing this could become a reality in the near future–though they do say the technology does not yet exist to produce unprocessed meat, like steaks or porkchops, so it will be at least a decade until such things are possible. And America ain’t giving up steak.

I’m hardly a vegetarian but I don’t like the meat industry. I don’t like industrial crop farming, either, for that matter; it’s just not quite as alarming to think of millions of acres of threshed grain as it is to think of billions of sick and mistreated animals. So for my personal inclinations, as well as in the interests of moving towards a sustainable way of life, yes, I want to see this industry change. But just wishing won’t make it so.

For starters, Americans need to be reeducated about the role meat plays in our lives nutritionally. I agree with Bittman there. We need far, far less of it than “Beef: It’s What for Dinner” ads have led us to believe. We also need to be educated, period, about how meat gets from calf to table, and that includes the cost (dollar and carbon) of shipping, feed, the impact of bovine antibiotics on human medical antibiotics, the environmental impact of the gigantic swaths of land devoted to animal feed grains…well, there’s a lot we have to learn.

Getting your kids to eat their broccoli? I’ll leave that to the professionals.

As much as they may frustrate or infuriate us, traffic lights are an indispensable part of urban, and even suburban, transportation. Over the past few weeks, South Africa’s regular blackouts-and incapacitated traffic lights-have tormented motorists: in Johannesburg, for example, they have often prolonged daily commutes to up to three times their normal length. Byproducts of the country’s overstrained grid, these power outages have become so frequent and so prevalent that officials have declared them a “national emergency.”

In response, South African officials have unveiled a plan to convert all traffic and public lights in the country to solar power (with battery backup), removing them from the grid . While the idea isn’t new-India implemented a similar program over a year ago, albeit on a far smaller scale-the project is noteworthy for its magnitude and for its scope. Part of the Electricity Regulation Act, a larger, nationwide effort to reduce energy wastage and to provide for emergency electricity rationing, the solar traffic light conversion is but one of many initiatives aimed at energy efficiency. The traffic light project alone is projected to cost about R400 million (roughly $55.6 million US). Still, public support is fairly high: public and private sector stakeholders have already pledged R40 million ($5.6 million US), with possibly more to come. The Electricity Regulation Act is a striking example of what good can emerge from a desperate situation-it would be fascinating to see what South Africa will look like a decade from now.

Although a similar project is unlikely to gain momentum in the States anytime soon, the South African energy initiatives certainly merit some attention, and could inspire developments more suited to American infrastructures. Unlike in South Africa, solar-powered traffic lights may not drastically reduce gridlock here, and the conversion would carry a significantly higher price tag. Still, we shouldn’t rule out the idea of solar traffic lights in only major cities, or solar billboards. Any ideas?

What is just another typical week for us average world citizens is, for some 2,000 policymakers, academics, celebrities and religious leaders, an exclusive working vacation in the Swiss Alps. The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum began on Wednesday and runs through the weekend. To be invited, you have to be (1) very rich, (2) very powerful, (3) very smart, (4) very famous, or (5) have a voice that can make a grown man weep (e.g., Bono). I, unfortunately, fall pretty far short in all five categories (though I am working on my rendition of “Sunday, Bloody Sunday”). As much as I’d like to hop a north-bound train and try to smooth talk my way into the crowd of fawning bloggers and reporters, I have a feeling security is pretty tight. So, I’ll just settle for a few observations offered from boring old Geneva.

What caught my eye over lunch was this and this: Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, calling for a “World Bank for the environment.” In his address, he stressed that our current international organizations – namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – “were built for problems of the 1940s and can’t deal with the new problems we have in 2008.” On this point, I have to say I agree. The IMF has proven itself increasingly ineffective at identifying/preventing financial contagion and is continually losing credibility for its overt lack of representativeness. And with the World Bank, well, for an organization that works to combat corruption in the developing world, let’s just say that they may at times be perceived as being a little hypocritical. (If you’re interested in reading more seriously about the WB’s trials and tribulations, and the challenges of development work in general, check out this 2006 book from ex-World Banker William Easterly.) So, to sum up: I agree with Brown that our institutions aren’t up to snuff. The question is, what makes him think that a “green” World Bank would function any better?

On this, the Prime Minister offered few details. Granted, he’s at Davos to inspire, which naturally means to speak about big ideas and avoid getting bogged down in boring details. And granted, it would be heartless to refute Brown’s statement that the developing world will be hardest hit by the effects of climate change. And granted (my last “granted”), I think more money for the environment is almost always a good thing, especially when such funds would be used to finance alternative energy projects in the developing world. But, as I understand it, the devil is in the details. Why not strengthen the role of the Global Environment Facility and make them more accountable? What about increasing the “green role” of regional development banks? What about micro-loans at the local level? What about social entrepreneurship? In the end, I remain unconvinced that consolidating funding for the environment at the World Bank would be the most effective solution. Such an arrangement would surely not be free of the bureaucratic inefficiencies and contentious political debate (between the North and South) that so often gum up other centralized organizations. I look forward to Mr. Brown and the rest of the WEF attendees wowing us on this average, humdrum week in late January.

Who would have guessed that a Montana superintendent’s decision to cancel a high-school talk on climate change would have attracted such media attention? Kevin St. John, the superintendent of the Choteau, MT school system, didn’t when he nixed an in-school talk that Steven W. Running, a Nobel laureate and professor of ecology at the University of Montana, was to have given to students on January 10. According to both the NYT and the AP, St. John acted under pressure from local citizens, who claimed that Dr. Running-an author of a global warming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-would bring a “one-sided” message, as no one would be providing an opposing viewpoint. They also labeled Running’s message “anti-agriculture.”

What’s a conflicted superintendent to do? The safe thing: cancel. Later that evening, Running did give a speech on climate change, to an audience consisting mainly of adults, as a high school basketball game was going on at the same time. Students, however, were the ones most likely to benefit from the presentation, seeing as they’re the ones who will inherit the earth in the upcoming decades. A few furious and frustrated letters written to the local newspaper suggested that some Choteau residents agreed with this notion.
This event brings me to a topic that I believe is just as important as the debate over climate change science: the polarizing nature of this debate itself. Choteau is a predominantly farming and ranching town, with a population of roughly 1,800. As the NYT reports, its people have long been wary of environmentalism, and have viewed global warming as a subject strongly affiliated with liberal politics. Push the subject too hard, and you could be dismissed as alarmist. Push it too weakly, and progress might be slower than necessary, or you could simply be ignored. There are a lot of other things wrong with the world right now, after all.

Despite the difficulties of such a balancing act, significant efforts have been made to educate people on the magnitude of global warming without inspiring backlash or encouraging complacency. I’m not talking about the environmental terrorists’ global warming, or the Heartland Institute’s global warming (or lack thereof)-I’m referring to the hard facts that most scientists can acknowledge, regardless of their viewpoints on this hot-button issue. Journalist Andrew Revkin offers a comprehensive list of these facts on the blog he manages for the NYT, Dot Earth. The list is a great primer for the uninitiated or for the open-minded disbeliever. In a 2005 essay he addresses why people are becoming increasingly skeptical of environmental reporting, especially where it concerns climate change. He argues that much of this cynicism has been exacerbated by the media, who emphasize the ‘this-but-that’, ‘yay-but-nay’ angle. This makes better news, but ultimately confuses the reader. How do I figure out the trade-off between doing A today and receiving B tomorrow, when I’ve realized that there is so much uncertainty in the future? Delayed gratification-as Freud told us in Psych 101-is something we have a hard time understanding. So, Getsolar readers, what do you think are some ways to handle the debate within the debate? If you used to be skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, and are no longer, what changed your mind?

Case in point: one of my close friends has long refused to acknowledge climate change as anything more than paranoia fueled by politicized ideologues (yet can we discuss efforts to mediate its effects without bringing politics into it?), an attitude cemented over the years by the attention surrounding the subject. I think she’s slowly coming around, though…as long as I don’t link her to every article I find about drowning polar bears.

Define “foodie”, if you can. It’s a nebulous word, one that seems to have come into being around the same time as cooking shows made the leap from daytime telly to primetime. Does it mean someone who loves cooking, or just eating? We already have perfectly good words for those, like chef, epicure, gourmand. The reason “foodie” is set apart is because these days, it has taken on a greenish tinge. It’s rare to talk to someone who thinks seriously about climate change issues or renewable energy solutions who is not also at least curious about organic food and sustainable argriculture.

Being a foodie in America is pretty special. We live in a land of plenty: we have a vast array of ingredients available and the means to buy them. We used to define a gourmand by the variety and quality of food she chose. Delicacies from every cuisine were her provenance. But Sushi bars, French bistros, Italian trattorias, and Ethiopian restaurants began sneaking around every corner. TV cooking show hosts convinced a large part of their audience to try things like tripe and sweetbreads. You can pick up quail at any halfway decent supermarket. Nothing was sacred anymore! So foodies popped up, with parameters for the new elite: How far did that grass fed beef travel? Are the eggs from free range hens? Is this bread made with wild yeast? Is this milk from a local dairy?

Organic food has been a big deal for a long time. Not necessarily with that label, of course, but before the supremacy of the supermarket, even Americans preferred food from their garden or from local farmers. Small farmers can still use pesticides…but it’s just hard to achieve quite the same level of sprayed-on waxy kill-all that the big guys can. When “slow food” kicked off in the 1960s, spurred on by people like Alice Waters of Chez Panisse and Nancy Silverton of La Brea Bakery, it was a revolution. This was barely two generations after WWII, and already we had become a country so addicted to fast food, huge markets, TV dinners, and one-stop shopping that it required a revolution to even lay the stage for foodies.

The extent to which foodies lust after organic and local foods is clear in the number of concessions even standard chain grocery stores have made in that direction. And why? I think that rising consciousness of climate change has encouraged discussion of the cost of everyday living. The carbon cost. The answer to that question about how far your beef had to travel has two layers of meaning: one, foodies know that in general, the less time food has to spend on a truck or ship to reach your plate, the better for your taste buds; and two, the longer the travel time, the higher the carbon cost of your meal.

It doesn’t stop there: organic food companies tout their sustainability, leading food retailers to do so as well. Image is essential. Whole Foods markets, not wasting a moment of impulse buying time, even have carbon offsets for sale next to the cash registers. Much of this advertising is opaque or misleading, and the organic food industry seems to have most people convinced that giant industrial monoculture farms that refrain from the use of certain chemicals are somehow blessings for the environment, when in reality they’re not so different from their conventional brethren. (This is partly why foodies are into the locally-grown thing.)

I think why this interests me so much is that we’ve got this elite class of people, the real foodies, pushing for sustainable practices, taking into account the carbon impact of the whole process of producing, distributing, and consuming food. And they’re elite. They’re not supposed to do that! Elite classes are all…you know…elitist. But this movement is populist in the extreme. If we make our food practices truly sustainable, it would fundamentally change the way distribution systems work in the US. It would drastically affect trade; taxes; farming subsidies; the kinds of lightbulbs used in supermarket aisles; the kind of fuel used to power farm equipment; the imagination runs wild. Well, mine does, anyway.

I can hardly begin to get into a well-rounded discussion here of the pros and cons of this vision of the future. The biggest question is whether or not organic agriculture is sustainable in the long term, taking into account diminished yields (ie, profitability) and the vast, deeply ingrained existing system. I don’t know. But I sure hope so.

When news broke earlier this month about Paris’ carbon zero office block, it wasn’t the first project of its kind that architectural firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill had undertaken. It was, rather, part of a trend they had emphasized in their advertising and marketing: sustainable design.
Among their 25 explicitly “sustainable” projects will be the new 7 World Trade Center, and SOM is also responsible for the Freedom Tower design that will (eventually) occupy New York’s skyline. That makes the block particularly interesting – the offices in Paris, for SOM, are part publicity move, part high-profile challenge, and part opportunity.

And this is the case over and over with high-profile, solar-integrated architectural projects. Solar is a means towards headlines throughout the process – just look at Google and its own solar example for confirmation. It’s a way to lend some spice to architectural decisions, to position the building on the side of the “new” and the “modern,” and to add some civic benefit to help clear the horrors of city building negotiations. Increasingly, it’s hard for solar not to seem like an easy win for companies that want to add renown and attention to their city projects.

Where this trend will really start to get interesting is if using solar for press and credibility becomes more and more normal in new architectural developments. If the media stops paying attention to projects on the basis of their solar innovations, what will happen? Architectural companies are always going to tailor their projects to public reaction on some level, and some of them could decide that “solar” and “green” labels are a ready to be tossed away. Or they could become an ingrained part of the landscape, requiring companies to go further to get the headlines – whether in going more green, or in some other direction entirely.

For now, kudos to SOM. Looks like a wonderful project, and I can’t wait untill it’s a part of the Paris suburbs.

Remember the good old days of sci-fi, when our hero would come home to a house that knew exactly how warm to be, and would have dinner ready in the oven? Well, the powers that be are working on a vision for a responsive, smarter national electric grid that would deliver greater efficiency and reliability than the current system–no casseroles yet, but give ‘em time.

A recent Business Week article discussed the details of an experiment conducted in 2006 in Washington, in which over 100 homes were outfitted with “smart” technology that knew when energy was at highest demand, and would adjust accordingly. Automatic lowering of the thermostat, for instance, or the dryer providing a gentle suggestion to perhaps come back and try again later. The idea is to relieve stress from the grid at peak demands times. It saves money for the consumer and smoothes out the peaks and troughs that have wreaked so much havoc in times of great energy usage (need we remind anyone of the California rolling blackouts or the Northeast shutdown?).

Funded primarily by the Department of Energy with help from local utilities and donated technology, the project was successful on numerous fronts. Energy supply was smoothed out over the trial period, ensuring no interruption of service during peak times, and consumers seemed happy with the energy supply and with their savings.

Here are the pros to participating in an a national version of this grid: (1) you save money; (2) you save energy; (3) you can remote control your house from the internet, which, let’s face it, is awesome; (4) you feel pretty confident you won’t have to deal with power outages. Here are the cons: (1) you’re not entirely sure that no one else can control your house from the internet; (2) you are confident that integrating a massive amount of new technology on a national scale will cause hiccups, like, oh, say, a six month wait for equipment (just a guess); (3) you’re concerned about where the money for revamping our entire national grid is going to come from.

That last point must be balanced by the fact that our national grid is in dire need of some kind of rehab, regardless of whether this is the route that’s taken. What I think would be best is if renewable energies were pulled into the system revamp at the same time: wind and solar power will provide cheaper electricity over time, and the sooner those technologies are implemented, the sooner they start paying for themselves. And once we have the responsive home energy technology out of the way, the sooner we set our sights on the next level of convenience and innovation. I pretty much just want to be able to walk up to my fridge and say, “Earl Grey tea, hot.” Is that so much to ask?

Over the weekend, I got into a discussion with a good friend of mine about climate change. What began as a friendly, casual interchange soon developed into one of those exaggerated conversations. You know the kind: where each person temporarily adopts extreme and opposing views, simply the hopes of spicing up an otherwise tepid chat. (Editor’s note: no punches were thrown, but tears were definitely shed.)

Anyway, here’s the gist of our discussion: The 1990s (as I remember it) was a time when individuals were encouraged to become more aware of their consumption habits. Remember the three “Rs”: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Remember the UN Earth Summit of 1992, and the resulting Rio Declaration? Remember Jessie Spano launching her “No Oil at Bayside” campaign? (Please excuse the “Saved by the Bell” reference – it is the work of the author and may not represent the views and opinions of GetSolar.) The point is that, back then, we were encouraged to make small personal sacrifices in the name of the environment, often by agreeing to consume less “stuff.”

Fast forward a dozen years and the opposite seems to be true: we’re not called on to consume less, we’re just encouraged to consume differently. From the “Red Campaign” and carbon offsets to organic food and the Prius, there are an increasing number of ways to “vote with your dollars.” People aren’t consuming any less, which makes this approach economically viable. And, since a cup of organic coffee is still a cup of coffee, individuals don’t have to make any major lifestyle adjustments in order to lead a “greener” existence.

Ultimately, my friend and I disagreed (or at least pretended to disagree) on whether this new paradigm – which requires no personal sacrifice and does little to reduce consumption – was a “good” thing or “bad” thing. This is, admittedly, the debate that lies at the core of sustainable development. And while I’d love to continue on this topic for several more paragraphs, the responsible blogger in me thinks it’s better to stop here and invite others to add to the discussion.

The iPhone dominated tech headlines last year, and with good reason. While it’s not a perfect device, it is a sleek gadget that works well and packages together an awful lot of attractive features. It’s not economical compared to some competitors, but it has the Apple brand name and, many would say, a priceless “cool” factor. I don’t have one, but I can understand why people want them.

Coming into 2008, there are already articles popping up that speculate about what gadget will take the throne this year. And something will, of course. Consumers, commentators, and producers all love buzz.

It’s not going to happen in 2008, but I wonder when we’ll first see a gadget-of-the-year that’s either entirely or partially solar-powered, and, more importantly, advertised that way. Portable solar technology is already a reality. With strides in reducing size and increasing efficiency, it’s conceivable that solar power could start powering powerful handheld gadgets in unobtrusive ways within five years. Everyone knows about solar calculators already, one of the most ubiquitous and highly-used solar applications on the market today. But no one really cares about calculators, either. Solar, if it’s going to break into the mass consciousness, needs its iPhone.
I don’t mean literally, of course; something will have replaced the iPhone, or it will have evolved beyond recognition, within a few years. The change will in all likelihood come from Apple.

But when I say solar needs an iPhone, I mean something with an equivalent amount of (a) obvious excellence and (b) overwhelming buzz. A solar-powered cell phone that would barely ever need charging. An all-in-one video/digital camera/phone/music player that doubles as a fold-out video game system, sporting a powerful solar panel on its back. A movie player that projects to your eyes with lasers, all courtesy of energy from the sun. There are lots of possibilities. But what’s needed is something that’s cool, interesting, has cachet, and, most importantly, adopts solar without a second thought. The message will be clear: solar is cool, interesting, has cachet, and should be adopted without a second thought. It won’t make the whole country go out and buy roof panels, but it will help to associate solar with all of the positive images that it needs to break out into the mainstream. An “iPhone” equivalent for solar could be just the thing the industry needs to continue fueling its growth.

Feel free to post your own suggestions for gadgets, real or imagined, that might feasibly be able to integrate with solar power.

It’s a new year, with a new blog. We at getsolar.com are hoping to see some trends continue in 2008, and some new ones begin. Talking about climate change, energy independence, and renewable energy options is now so commonplace that it is more conspicuous for its absence than its occurrence.

We can see this trend reflected in the blogosphere as well as in the way the media is beginning to treat topics that were considered controversial not long ago. Evidence of the move into the media mainstream is the popularity of Dot Earth, The New York Times blog which is dedicated solely to climate change and energy-related topics, and the fact that all the major Presidential candidates consider these issues important enough to include them in debates even when the mediators neglect to bring them up (as happened this past weekend to the Republicans). The shift isn’t total; note, to take the same topic, the lack of “Energy” or “Climate Change” among CNN’s list of critical issues in the race for President.

So what’s our role in effecting a complete change? To not only join in the remarkably well-informed discourse on renewable energy, but to enrich it. And we need your help for that: a one-sided discussion is no discussion at all.