Karaokeblogs.comBeta

Enjoying a Green 4th of July

2007-07-01T14:43:00-07:00

Here is an article from The Green Office Blog on trying to make your 4th of July a Green one:

With a globally warm summer already upon us and Independence Day just around the corner, the question on a lot of people’s minds is: how in the world am I going to have a “sustainable” Fourth of July? For a holiday steeped in the traditions of grilled meat and over-the-top pyrotechnic displays, is such a thing even possible?

We think it is, and to that end we’ve compiled a list of five easy steps you can take to make your red, white, and blue just a little bit greener.

Step 1 : Eat sustainably

What is sustainable eating? It’s a combination of a lot of things, but from an environmental perspective, the idea is to avoid foods that have been:

Raised on factory farms, with highly toxic chemical and waste runoff;
Transported hundreds of miles to get to your table; and
Manufactured or distributed by environmentally irresponsible companies.

There are, of course, a host of other factors to consider on your next trip to the grocery store, many of which are covered in depth at websites like Food First and The Center For Informed Food Choices, but these are the big environmental ones.

Step 2 : Green your barbecue

As a sometime backyard griller, I’ve always wondered about the relative environmental impact of charcoal vs. propane. Now I know.
In order of greenness, your best bets are:

Sustainably forested or produced charcoal, like Wicked Good Charcoal, which is made from “reclaimed” industrial woodscraps, or Kingsford Charwood, which is initially charred using the heat from a cogeneration turbine;
Propane, which is a distant second because of its oilfield origins, but nevertheless has ~1/3 the emissions of charcoal per BTU at time of burning;
Non-sustainably produced briquettes, which are often held together with petroleum-based adhesives.

Step 3 : Use biodegradable picnicware

This is a shameless plug for our petroleum-free, biodegradable picnicware, but it’s shameless because this stuff is so amazingly good for the environment. When going reusable just isn’t feasible, there’s a whole new generation of plates, bowls, cups, and utensils that are made entirely out of vegetable starch and 100% compostable, and they’re affordable enough to fit even the tiniest entertainment budget. These things seriously blow my mind every time I see them.

Step 4 : Cut back on the fireworks

Fireworks are a conundrum, because they’re such an integral part of the July 4th holiday, yet they’re really just inexcusably awful for the environment.

Our advice is to leave the backyard explosives at the supermarket and get your high-decibel jollies at something far less toxic, like one of the many concerts surely happening in your town.

As for the big aerial shows that happen no matter what, it’s too late for 2007, but you can still talk to whoever’s in charge of planning next year’s display and encourage them to pick a vendor using Sekon biodegradable fireworks and (no joke) Walt Disney gunpowder-free “air launch” technology. You’d be surprised how receptive event organizers can be.

Step 5 : Celebrate your Independence!

At the end of the day, July 4th is about celebrating American independence. And it can be easy to forget that independence isn’t an event, so much as an ongoing process. America remains the land of the free, but if you look closely, there’s a surprising number of shackles we the people still need to shake off, chief among them energy dependency.

There’s a new energy bill coming together in Congress, and our lawmakers need to hear from all of us.

Take ten minutes to familiarize yourself with the issues here, here, and here, then another ten minutes to send your representative a quick email of support, condemnation, motivational pictures of singing cat-loaves, or whatever, just to let them know that their constituents are alive and well and counting on them to vote responsibly.

For extra credit, you can jump on this project over at The Oil Drum.

We hope you found this helpful, and would love to know if you have any other tips or ideas for a green Fourth of July. Happy Independence Day from TheGreenOffice.com!

Better Daylighting

2007-06-20T08:15:12-07:00

By Philip Proefrock
Source: GreenOptions.com

Lighting for buildings is a major part of their energy use. Increasingly, green building design is recognizing the importance of providing natural daylight as a means of lighting the building and reducing energy use. Not only does natural daylight reduce the building's energy use, but it also increases comfort for the people in the building. The LEED system includes credit for providing at least 75% of the spaces in the building with natural lighting and views, and the credit is increased if 90% of the spaces are naturally lit.

Windows are good for providing views to the exterior. Skylights can be used to bring in more daylight, but they are not without issues. The problem with skylights is that they tend to create glare. The high contrast between areas where the daylight is streaming through the windows and other parts of the space that are not directly lit is visually (and sometimes even literally) uncomfortable. There's either too much light or too little. Diffuse light is more even and comfortable, and avoids areas of deep shadow and sharp glare. This is why so many older buildings had north oriented skylights or clerestory windows (or south-oriented in the southern hemisphere), and why those spaces were so well thought of as artists' spaces and galleries. The light quality is much better when it is from an indirect source.

Most diffuser options do little to spread the light around. Typical etched or frosted glass has little effect. The light patterns are a little bit softer edged from frosted glass than they are from clear glass, but when it is directly lit, it is little better than clear glass. Advanced Glazings, Ltd. offers much better performance for incorporating daylighting into buildings with a line of insulated glazing called Solera. Architects have known of Kalwall, another company that has been making translucent panels for many years. Kalwall is a panel of polyester and fiberglass that offers translucency and some insulation.

Like Kalwall, Solera is principally a commercial product. However, it is designed for use in standard 1" aluminum window frames (what you find in many offices, stores, and other commercial locations). High end home projects and experimental uses in residential uses are sure to follow. Since there are many manufacturers of aluminum window frames, it is easy for an architect to incorporate Solera into a project without creating complexity for the builder to have to deal with. Contractors like to use standard products that they are familiar with. Solera is also appealing because it uses glass, rather than plastic, which tends to yellow over time.

Even more exciting than the daylighting aspect alone, a new Solera unit is coming out that incorporates nanogel insulation. The 3" thick glazing unit has a specially shaped edge that allows it to be installed in a standard 1" frame. But the window will have an R value of around 20! A standard double glazed window typically has an R value around 1. And a typical insulated 2 x 4 stud wall has an R value of around 15. (Kalwall also offers a nanogel unit.) For most buildings, the windows are the weakest part of the energy envelope, where the greatest amount of energy was lost. Incorporating well insulated diffusing windows and skylights into a high performance building would provide exceptional energy performance in addition to daylighting.

What to Do With Tech Trash?

2007-06-20T07:37:00-07:00

by Lizette Wilson
Source: Green Home Inc.

With more than 10 million computers dumped in landfills each year, officials worry over mounting trash and toxicity. Massachusetts recently joined more than a dozen European countries in banning computers and TVs from landfills and throwing down the green gauntlet for the feds to follow suit.

Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and West Virginia are also considering electronic dumping bans similar to that in Massachusetts.

Current federal rules prohibit large-scale electronic dumping (groups that toss more than 220 pounds of electronic waste a month must recycle), but residents and small businesses can, and do, pile old computers into landfills. According to the National Safety Council, only 11 percent of computers get recycled, and small-time consumers alone add 10 million computers to landfills every year.

Besides taking up space and wasting copper, gold and other resources that could be recycled, mounting piles of tech trash pose an additional problem: toxicity.

More than 700 chemicals are used to manufacture computers, and their internal hardware is packed with cadmium, chromium, mercury and other heavy metals. But cathode ray tubes in monitors are the biggest problem.

The tubes contain lead, which protects viewers from radiation. When the tubes are pulverized, the lead - between 2.5 and 8 pounds of it per monitor - can seep through the landfill and into groundwater.

"When it reacts with acid in the landfill, the metals dissolve," says Environmental Protection Agency spokesman David Jones. Jones adds that those reactions only occur when the material is in a powder state. "A cathode tube sitting there is not going to pose a problem," he says.

Officials with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection disagree, saying that throwing electronic equipment in landfills is not only hazardous, but also poor business and an unwise resource use.

"We wanted to set up a working infrastructure which was capable of capturing TVs and computers. With high-definition TV coming, it will put out a lot of older TVs and we wanted to prepare," says Robin Ingenthron, strategic planner for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. "We've reduced hazardous-waste handling restrictions on private enterprises and opened the door for traditional repairs to play a stronger role."

The new law does a couple of things. By changing the classification of computers from hazardous to recyclable, it makes it easier for consumers to bring in the equipment to be recycled and reused. The law also tags money - about $500,000 this year - and support for the existing recycling network.

John Powers, general manager of the International Association of Electronics Recyclers Inc., hails the Massachusetts move as a victory.

"In the past, consumer recycling has been relatively expensive and inefficient. Hopefully, this will change that," he says.

Still, the United States as a whole has some catching up to do. Other countries have been treating tech trash as a top priority for nearly a decade.

Germany galvanized its European counterparts when it passed a 1991 ordinance that made manufacturers responsible for the packaging waste they create during production. The ordinance was later amended to add electronic scrap. Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Great Britain and Canada, as well as numerous regional governments also expanded the "take back" requirements to include electronic scrap.

In 1994, the European Union introduced legislation to coordinate member countries' takeback laws and make producers and manufacturers responsible for recycling their products. The law, Waste From Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), also prohibits the use of mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and brominated flame retardants in all electrical goods by 2004. WEEE puts full financial responsibility on producers to set up collection systems and requires distributors, when supplying a new product, to offer to take back old electrical and electronic equipment from private households.

While WEEE details are still being hashed out - U.S. manufacturers argue that it will cost too much and violates free trade - collection targets are slated to be set in 2006.

SIDEBAR: PC WAY TO "TOSS" YOUR PC

If you're looking to get rid of your computer without harming the Earth, your options are expanding:
Check with the product manufacturer. Hewlett-Packard accepts obsolete H-P printers and computers at its Roseville, Calif., facility and even covers the mailing costs. Apple takes back computer batteries and toner cartridges and, for a fee, IBM now collects any old PC! Other computer manufacturers are beginning to follow suit.
Consider "recycling" your computer by donating it to a needy school or organization. Many computers can be revamped for new uses. Even computers that don't work can have salvageable components such as modems and power supplies that can be used to refurbish other computers. Check with your local schools and organizations or check out one of the many Web sites (below) to find a good match for your old equipment.
Still can't find anyone to take your old machine? Bring it to a computer recycling center, which will melt down the copper, gold and other precious metals.

Source: Green Home Inc.

Go Green or Go Solar?

2007-06-19T20:56:41-07:00

by David Wortman
Source: National Geographics The Green Guide May/June 2007

Green roofs are all the rage, and for good reason—they trap and filter storm water, provide habitat for birds, insects and small animals and bring color to urban neighborhoods. Covered with vibrant grasses and plants, green roofs provide insulation in winter and reduce heat during warm summer days. Chicago has ambitious goals to cover over 2.5 million square feet with greenery on over 200 rooftops; in Germany, they account for an estimated 10 percent of all flat roofs.

Installation varies from laying out simple pre-planted modules to setting up more elaborate multi-layered systems. While it can be twice as expensive as a conventional roof, a green roof is cheap to maintain. Homeowners may even be eligible for utility rebates and state- or city-government incentives. What's more, they may double your roof's lifespan by shielding it from sunlight, wind and extreme temperatures. A quick note: Your roof will need to be able to support at least 30 pounds per square foot, depending on the system used, and have a slope of no less than one percent and no greater than seven percent.

"From the perspective of increasing biodiversity, green roofs are a success," says Amy Lesen, assistant professor of biology at New York's Pratt Institute. But if it's measurable energy savings you're after, you might consider solar panels. "Studies show that payback [from a green roof] in terms of energy savings can take up to 200 years," notes Chris Benedict, an architect specializing in energy-efficient design.

Electricity-generating photovoltaic (PV) solar roofs significantly reduce household carbon-dioxide emissions, and typical systems can last up to 30 years, adding to your home's value. Installation is easiest when putting on a new roof and should be done by a licensed electrician with experience putting in solar panels. Your service provider can help set you up with "net metering" to offset any energy you buy with that you produce.

PV roof panels are sold in "per kilowatt" increments, with four to five kilowatts covering about half the average home's energy needs. While installations run from $8 to $10 per watt, costs and payback time will depend on electric rates, state incentives and climate. Federal tax credits of up to $2,000 are now available, along with a variety of local credits; to find out what's available in your area, see www.dsireusa.org. However, breakthroughs in panel efficiency that promise to reduce costs aren't yet available to consumers, and, given the current high prices, you may want to concentrate on personal energy conservation before investing in photovoltaics.

But if you do have the resources, consider combining PV panels with a green roof. According to the Scandinavian Green Roof Institute, shade provided by the panels can even encourage more biodiversity. You and the environment just may find yourselves in a win-win situation.

Resources: Solar Living Institute, Solar Estimator, www.Greenroofs.com

The Latest in Green Burial

2007-06-19T12:04:00-07:00

Sources: The Green Burial Council, People Magazine

The following quote is an excerpt of an interview with Joe Sehee, Executive Director, The Green Burial Council.

"Green burial is a way of caring for our dead without the use of toxins or materials that are not biodegradable, which essentially means no formaldehyde (a major ingredient in embalming fluid), no metal caskets and no concrete vaults. It also requires that markers, if used at all, must be living (i.e. trees, wildflowers) or ecologically functional (i.e. boulders, field stones) and appropriate for the surroundings. Green burial is not a new idea. It's the way much of humanity has handled its end-of-life rituals for several thousand years until the advent of the modern cemetery/funeral industry."

In the June 25, 2007 issue of People Magazine, the story "Dust to Dust" goes into how Green Burials are increasing just outside of Westminister, S.C., and the benefits they provide to the environment.

For more information on Green Burials, visit The Green Burial Council.

U.S. Must Help Protect Tropical Forests to Lead on Climate Change Solutions

2007-06-18T10:26:00-07:00

By Peter A. Seligmann, Chairman and CEO
Conservation International
June 18, 2007

President Bush has proclaimed he would convince the world that the United States is a leader in finding solutions to climate change. Ironically, he said that in a recent speech at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), while at the same time his administration is slashing USAID support to reducing tropical forest deforestation, the second leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions.

Globally, tropical deforestation contributes at least 20 percent of global greenhouse gases – more than the entire transportation sector. Proposed USAID cuts will sabotage emerging efforts to protect forests in developing countries, particularly in Africa, Asia and South America, where USAID programs support the emergence of community management of natural resources.

The proposed budget cuts also undermine these regions’ efforts to develop their economies and strengthen their democracies. Poverty, political instability, and conflicts are often driven by unsustainable exploitation of timber, diamonds, wildlife, and other natural resources. Through its conservation programs, USAID has been instrumental in strengthening democratic governance and fighting poverty in Brazil, Liberia, Indonesia, and many other countries.

Once the leader in support to governments and communities in equitable management of natural resources, the U.S. Administration now risks losing that position, and at a very critical juncture. Other leaders of industrialized nations have indicated they will advocate tropical forest conservation as a key means to help battle climate change by linking reduced tropical forest deforestation to global markets for carbon credits.

The world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States is also the richest nation. Through an investment-led approach, we have a unique opportunity to help developing countries benefit from good forest (and therefore carbon) management. These countries need financial assistance to foster civil society and governmental institutions capable of protecting and managing forests. Planned USAID budget cuts will eliminate programs that help developing countries stop illegal logging, build national park systems, and provide poor people economic alternatives to cutting down their forests. Tapping the emerging carbon markets can be one of those alternatives.

Two specific and embarrassing ironies in the administration’s planned cuts are the impacts they will have on the Congo Basin and Madagascar. President Bush is proposing a one-third reduction of funding for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership. The USAID contribution to that Partnership, the Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), would be slashed, undermining U.S. commitments negotiated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. CARPE has achieved great advances in protecting forests and threatened species, expanding parks, and building ecotourism and other income sources for the region’s desperately poor communities. If the cuts are enacted, the program will not provide enough support to help the people of the region stop the devastation of this huge tropical forest.

In Madagascar, USAID funding is being targeted for a 60 percent reduction, which will put the brakes on the work by Madagascar’s government to help its struggling population protect its rare and species-rich tropical forests. Again, the U.S. cuts could end promising but nascent progress supported by a pro-environment and pro-American government.

For tropical forests to play their role in preventing catastrophic climate change, we need more forest protection funding for developing nations, not less. A good example is with Indonesia, where Germany and Australia aim to provide well over $100 million to develop financial markets, improve law enforcement, manage parks and reserves, and reduce poverty in order to slow and eventually reverse deforestation.

Here we also find a positive move from the U.S. Administration. It is currently working with Congress on a debt-for-nature swap under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. If this goes forward, at least $20 million of debt owed by the Indonesians to the U.S. government will be forgiven to generate funding that could help save Indonesia’s forests and the carbon they contain. Conservation International and many other partners stand ready to help make this happen.

President Bush has made a statement about U.S. leadership on climate change, and now he has the chance to turn that rhetoric into real action that is readily obtainable. The United States must step forward and join other nations to support efforts to help developing countries save their forests through better governance and market-driven economic growth. A concrete first step would be to protect and further the progress already under way in Africa and elsewhere through USAID assistance.

It is not too late for President Bush to be remembered for being a leader who makes a wise decision for the United States, as well as for the world’s climate, poor communities, and threatened forests.

Source: Conservation International

Conservation and the Economics of Solar Heating

2007-06-05T10:39:00-07:00

By Bob Ramlow and Benjamin Nusz
Source: Green Living Journal

WHATEVER BROUGHT YOU to this point, whether it was the realization that we are trashing our environment or the simple need to lower your living expenses, now you are here and you want to do something. But what to do first? The answer is simple: start by conserving the energy you use to heat water. Three general principles that are easy to follow will also save you money: reduce losses, increase efficiency, and reduce consumption.

To start, examine your heating system from top to bottom and look for places where heat might leak out. Heat losses in the system end up wasting the energy you just used to heat your water. Many can be reduced by just a little bit of cheap insulation. For instance, insulate all of your hot pipes. If you are working on a new construction, insulating the hot pipes is easy. Even if you don't have access to all your pipes, insulating the ones you can get at will make a noticeable difference. You should also insulate your water heater. A tank- type water heater heats a whole batch of water. As this water sits there waiting for use, it slowly cools down. The more you insulate it, the better it will retain its heat. Heat losses can also come from leaks. A faucet that leaks 30 drops of water a minute will waste almost 100 gallons a month. Fix leaky faucets promptly.

Next, try to increase the efficiency of everything in your home that uses hot water, for instance, the washing machine and the dishwasher. Upgrading these appliances to more energy efficient models will significantly reduce the amount of energy consumed. A front-loading washing machine uses half the hot water of a standard top- loading model. This results in around 10 20 gallons of hot water saved in each load you do. You can save thousands of gallons of hot water a year.

Finally, you can conserve energy by simply using less. Much can be done without a significant change in your daily habits. For instance, when washing dishes in the sink by hand, don't let the water run while rinsing. Fill one sink with wash water and the other with rinse water. Soak pots and pans instead of letting the water run while you scrape them clean, and if you are using a dishwasher, only wash full loads. Use cold water with the garbage disposal. Cold water solidifies grease, allowing the disposal to get rid of it more effectively. You can take short showers instead of baths. You should first install a low-flow shower-head. Most standard showerheads use three to four gallons per minute. Even if you take a relatively brief 5 minute shower, you can end up consuming 20 gallons of hot water. Low-flow showerheads will use half of that. A family of four can save well over 1,000 gallons a month. If you are particularly attached to your showerhead, your can install a flow restrictor that will reduce the number of gallons per minute that it uses. For only a couple of dollars, you can reduce your load substantially.

Reducing losses, increasing efficiency, and reducing consumption: these are the first steps. What should be stressed more than quick fixes, though, is the notion of conscious consumption. We have forgotten the financial and environmental costs of hot water. If everyone recognized that whenever they turned on the hot water faucet they were using up energy produced by non-renewable sources, this would reduce energy consumption more than any other measure.

People often say to me, "Bob, I have done a lot of energy conservation and now I am ready to invest in a renewable energy system. What should I do next?"

Today, homeowners and business people can choose from a wide range of renewable energy technologies. Popular options include photovoltaic (solar electric) systems, wind electric systems, and solar water heaters. In almost every case, a solar water heating system is the best place to start. It provides a higher return on your investment than any other renewable energy system. A solar water heater works 12 months a year providing hot water to your home or business with little or no additional costs, thus offsetting your previous bill for heating water with conventional energy sources. Depending on your particular situation, the savings in conventional fuel can pay for the cost of the solar water heating system in as little as three years. Most often the payback is around five to ten years still a great investment, even without taking into account the ecological benefits of not burning all that fossil fuel.

In fact, I think its time to let you in on a little secret. Solar water heaters don't cost anything. They're FREE! I know it may sound absurd, but it's true. Now I'm not recommending that you run over to the nearest solar distributor and just take a system. Don't do that. I'm just asking you to take a step back and think about solar in a different way. With a little change in perspective, you will see that in the end solar water heaters have a net cost of zero dollars.

There are two ways to take this in. The first one is easy: when you install a solar water heater you are increasing your home's value. You gain in equity what you spent on the cost of installation. Solar water heaters typically have a life span of at least 30 40 years. In most cases, the solar collectors will outlast your roof. So if you decide to sell your home, you should get back most of what you paid for the cost of installation. I said this was easily understood, I didn't say it would be convincing. Just because something retains its value over time isn't usually reason enough to go out and buy it.

The second part of this shift in perspective takes a bit more explanation, but I assure you it is even more convincing.

The True Cost of Fossil Fuel
We'll start by comparing solar with the alternatives. Unless you are reading this to find out how to fix your existing system, you probably heat your water with some type of fossil fuel like natural gas, propane, or electricity.

When you purchase fossil fuels you do not pay anywhere near their whole cost. Because our taxes subsidize the oil companies, for instance, the true cost of gas is not reflected in the price we pay at the pump. Let me say it again: oil companies don't pay taxes on all the money they earn so you and I must pay higher taxes to make up for it! It goes without saying that if they paid their fair share of taxes, our tax rates would be lower and the price we pay for fossil fuels would be higher. The same scenario holds true for electricity and all other fossil fuels.

How can this be? First, the fossil fuel companies are among the richest corporations in the world, with tremendous influence in politics. For nearly a century they have manipulated the government into granting them numerous tax breaks and outright payments that are not enjoyed by any other class of corporation. The end result is that they pay little if any taxes themselves, but significantly influence how our tax dollars are spent. They have managed to get the government to pay for lots of expensive research for their industry.

The costs to the environment of using fossil fuels are also hidden. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the atmosphere, leading to global climate changes that will disrupt life as we know it on every corner of the Earth. The costs of dealing with these changes will be astronomical, and are directly linked to burning fossil fuels. When we burn fossil fuels, especially coal, chemicals are released into the atmosphere that cause acid rain, polluting our rivers, lakes, and soil. Acid rain kills wildlife, trees, and vegetation, and degrades our buildings, roads, and anything else exposed to it. Although we are already paying some of the costs to fix these problems, we are not paying them all. Eventually, someone will have to pay them.

Then there are health-related costs. Whenever we burn any fossil fuel, pollutants are released into the air that harm our health. Our health insurance costs go up to help pay for the care required by those most affected. Our taxes are increased to help pay for those who cannot afford their own care, and our general health care costs go up for the same reason. Again, we do not pay these costs at the pump or with our utility bill.

Some of our electricity is generated in nuclear power plants. The waste generated by these plants is one of the most toxic substances known to science.

Bob Ramlow is the solar thermal consultant for the Wisconsin Focus on Energy Program. The owner of a renewable energy company, he has over 30 years experience with solar energy systems and is a founder and a director of the Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA). Benjamin Nusz currently works as a solar water heating consultant and site assessor in Wisconsin.

Source: Green Living Journal

Eco-Friendly Cleaning Gets the Green Light

2007-06-03T11:04:00-07:00

By Kristine Hansen, Trade Press
Source: EcoMall.com

When asked why on earth a company would switch to using “green” cleaning chemicals, Barry Dimson, co-owner of Philadelphia’s Sheraton Rittenhouse, pulls out the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a window cleaner used at most hotels. Reading from it, he cringes at the words butoxyethanol and propanol and quotes a sentence about health hazards such as corneal eye damage and lung damage — possible if the product penetrates the skin, or is inhaled. The problem is that hoteliers buy into its rock-bottom price and don’t read the MSDS, Dimson says.

As the nation’s first environmentally smart hotel, Sheraton Rittenhouse is setting a precedent, and is part of an industry keen on cleaning for health, and for the environment. The hotel uses 100 percent organic cotton bed-sheets, chemical-free laundry cycles, energy-efficient light bulbs, and palm trees in the lobby with a superb oxygenation rate. The lobby’s reception desk is made from recycled soda bottles. Cleaning chemicals are all non-toxic, water-based, hypoallergenic and biodegradable.

The Sheraton also is a member of the Green Hotels Association, which lists approximately 200 hotels as members. A campaign that put cards in hotel rooms, urging the reuse of towels, put the association on the map in 1993. The concept reportedly saves a hotel $.50 per day per occupied room.

The exception or the rule?

Is green cleaning gaining in popularity, and reshaping business plans?

“Absolutely. The momentum continues to grow. There’s so much inertia to overcome and build awareness. But now the ball is definitely rolling and at increasing speed,” says Stephen Ashkin, president of Healthy Housekeeping Solutions, and an industry consultant who has been involved with the green cleaning movement for quite some time.

Hotel guests’ needs — which include avoiding allergic reactions to chemicals, and an interest in an environmentally friendly lifestyle — are what convinced hoteliers to plunge into green cleaning. “We hear more and more from chemically sensitive people. But the things that they need are the things we all need, which is basically cleaner air,” says Patricia Griffin, Green Hotels Association president and founder.

The No. 1 reason for green cleaning is for health. It’s not to save money or anything else, she says. Though managers have found some changes can cut costs.

Also, eco-friendly cleaning helps preserve employee health, which is why many facility and housekeeping managers are urging a switch to green-cleaning concepts. They want to put a stop to employee complaints of nausea, headaches, eye troubles or skin troubles; often a result of long hours spent spraying and wiping chemicals, loading clothes into the laundry, or performing other housekeeping tasks. Reportedly, the average amount of time lost when a janitor suffers an injury is 18 hours and such incidents cost the employer an average of $615.

Green-cleaning products also lead to lower regulatory costs, because managers have fewer toxic chemicals to track and fewer chemical-related injuries, says Ashkin.

Multiple markets sign on

The hotel industry isn’t the only business group buying into the green-cleaning trend; add medical, educational and government-operated facilities to the list.

The cities of Santa Monica, Calif.; Seattle; and St. Paul, Minn., have green-cleaning programs in place. Santa Monica’s Sustainable City Program was unveiled in September 1994 after custodians tested non-toxic cleaning products. Fifteen cleaning products were substituted with environmentally friendly ones, saving the city 5 percent of supply costs annually.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hired Green Seal last summer to write a green-cleaning manual which it is testing in select government buildings during 2002. Green Seal is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit environmental group in its 13th year of testing and recommending environmentally friendly consumer products. It looks at areas such as packaging, transportation, extraction and ingredients before awarding a Green Seal of Approval.

The state of Minnesota’s Office of Environmental Assistance also launched an eight-month pilot project to test cleaning products for efficiency through the past winter.

And, the federal government has followed suit. The Department of Interior (DOI) awarded a $6.258 million green cleaning contract for its combined 1 million square feet in two buildings in August of 1999.

In the healthcare sector, Hospitals for a Healthier Environment (H2E) was started voluntarily in 1998 by four associations — the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Hospitals Association, the American Nursing Association, and Healthcare Without Harm. Hospitals are the fourth largest producer of mercury-releasing agents, and produce 1 percent of the country’s solid waste, says Chen Wen, EPA’s H2E coordinator.

“The big picture of H2E is to help hospitals become better environmental standards,” says Wen, adding that two goals include using environmentally preferable products and reducing mercury waste by 2005.

Weston Thiss, president of the American Society for Healthcare Environmental Services, says green cleaning is fast becoming popular in the healthcare industry. “There’s a real focus on reducing the water-stream. I think the next step after that is what green chemicals we’re using,” he says.

In some cases using less chemicals is just as important as changing which kinds are used. Three hospitals in Northern California — Mercy Hospital, UC Davis Medical Center and Eaton Medical Center — were picked for an EPA pilot project using microfiber mopping techniques that promote the use of less chemicals

The hospitals liked the mopping systems because they involved less liquid and less lifting, and after the pilot project, two adopted the equipment into their operations, says Eileen Sheehan, pollution prevention coordinator in EPA’s San Francisco office.

“It seems to be a win-win for everyone, not to mention patients who aren’t exposed to as many chemicals,” she adds.

Sheraton Rittenhouse has eliminated laundry detergent use by switching to a unique ozonization process to clean linens. Now oxygenated cold water and a 22-minute wash cycle clean laundry.

“It pays itself back in the savings of water, energy and detergent,” says Dimson, adding that the equipment is not cheap but can be leased.

“You can be Hilton and be environmentally committed. You can be Wal-Mart or Jiffy Lube and be environmentally committed. It doesn’t matter who you are,” says Tony Schifano, president and founder of Wasteworks, an environmental consulting company that works with hospitals.

Among Shifano’s 300 clients are Yale New Haven Hospital, New York University Medical Center, The Med in Memphis, Mainline Health, and Naples Community Health Care.

And it doesn’t matter where managers start their environmentally friendly efforts, he adds. There are many areas where progress can be made in any organization.

Recycling paper — the most common environmental move in commercial office buildings — is just the tip of the iceberg regarding ways companies can make a difference, says Shifano. His company helps analyze an organization to see what they buy and what they utilize to find the most effective changes it can make.

“Here we’re looking at an initiative that can really raise up the image of janitors, get them out of the basement and make them a champion,” says Schifano. “Anybody who doesn’t look at this as a golden opportunity is really asleep. [They] have a small miracle right in their lap that they’re not completely aware of.”

Wasteworks carefully consulted Cooley Dickerson, a small community hospital in Massachusetts, into becoming a green hospital. By changing its purchasing mentality, it garnered community appreciation and became a leader in environmental awareness, says Schifano.

Some of Wasteworks environmental initiatives include composting, using less Styrofoam and more recycled materials, looking at mercury-free thermometers and lighting, and considering environmentally friendly formaldahydes and paint thinners.

Schifano says he regularly talks with large product manufacturers about creating and using more sensitive cleaning products for the environment, and most have been receptive.

Making the transition

But how do you know if a product is truly green? The fear of latching on to a product that’s mistakenly thought to be green bugs the minds of housekeeping decision makers.

“There are so many cleaning products on the market that are just terrifically unhealthy to use, and to breathe,” says Griffin.

“If someone comes in and says they’ve got a miracle cleaning product, they should be suspicious,” Ashkin advises.

First, product decision-makers must realize that when harmful chemicals “off-gas” or “bleed” into the air, they spread rapidly, says Dimson, who founded EcoSmart Healthy Properties LLC in 1995 in New York. While the Federal Drug Administration does not label cleaning chemicals as harmful, no research exists about what happens to chemicals when they hit the air and are inhaled, he says.

“No company tests for somebody who uses cleaning chemicals that much,” says Griffin, referring to room attendants or housekeepers tasked with using the products. She advocates using the least possible amount of the cleaning product.

The city of Seattle used to focus on the lowest price when addressing cleaning, but now managers look at the total picture and incorporate more environmental values, says Ulla Johnson, Copernicus project lead for the city of Seattle. (Copernicus is a program advocating green-cleaning products in all city buildings and departments.) Ozone-depleting compounds; toxic bio-cumulative chemicals; carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens; low-volatile organic compounds; and hazardous waste all are avoided.

Johnson estimates that a move to green chemicals costs the city of Seattle 60 percent less per usable gallon.

The EPA offers a guide called “Greening Your Purchase of Cleaning Products” — which can be downloaded from the EPA’s Web site. The agency also offers an interactive tool on its Web site, where housekeeping decision makers can sort environmentally preferable cleaning products based on the government’s ranking of various environmentally pertinent attributes such as VOC content, packaging and potential for skin irritation.

The European Union offers similar purchasing advice at its Web site

But a local effort in Santa Clara County, Calif. seems to have the most hands-on information for cleaning managers to review. The government-funded Janitorial Products—Pollution Prevention Project compiled lists of cleaning chemicals and their ingredients a few years ago to determine which were most harmful to workers and building occupants. The project’s results are available for review as well as tip sheets regarding correct cleaning procedures to help reduce the risk of chemical misuse. Information regarding the best way to analyze, purchase and handle cleaning chemicals also is available.

Educating housekeeping personnel about using new green cleaning products, and abandoning the ones they’ve been accustomed to, is a slight transition. But with time, it can work. Dimson suggests a manager explain why the products are considered healthier.

“They think a room should be left smelling like lemon or pine,” he says. “Late-night cleaning employees don’t even know what they’re using and they’re using it at a time when there’s no circulation of air.”

Tedd Saunders, of Boston-based Saunders Hotel Group, owner of three green hotels in Boston, agrees. “The biggest challenge is changing perceptions,” he says, especially room attendants who have worked at the hotel for 20 years or more.

The hotel group started riding the green-cleaning wave after Green Seal and the Toxic Use Reduction Institute used its hotels for a field test. They tried using 100 percent organic cotton towels and tested green-cleaning chemicals.

Fifty-seven housekeepers in the Saunders Hotel Group now clean daily as part of a “Green Team.” The hotels strive to eliminate portion-control packaging, and instead buy concentrates in bulk, which they prepare at a mixing station. The chemical is then poured into refillable spray bottles and placed on hotel cleaning carts. Also gone are the days of trial-sized beauty products for guests to take home after their hotel stay: Saunders Hotel Group is the first hotel in the world to design and install wall-mounted shampoo and soap dispensers, says Saunders.

There was a lot of employee skepticism at first, Saunders says, because the cleaning chemicals were lighter in color, leading some to believe that they weren’t as strong. He says a moment of success was reached when managers realized that the most effective way to educate staff was to have them use the products in their own homes, which helped cause a ripple effect of interest in the new items.

When planning a green-cleaning program, Saunders suggests polling several departments in an organization.

“There’s a lot of good stories about hotels where the engineer is just really passionate about reducing an impact on the environment,” he says. Likewise, a purchasing employee might know where to get good prices on recycled packaging or bulk containers.

Justifying the investment

Cost savings for implementing a green-cleaning program can vary, and are hard to calculate when factoring in issues like recycling and water conservation. Griffin advises hoteliers to do a complete inventory of all cleaning products, and figure how much each costs per ounce to use. The Green Hotels Association guarantees its members will save more money than the membership cost which ranges from $50 to $500 depending on the size of the hotel.

Managers also should factor into their savings the reduced cost of recyclable products or chemical containers, says Schifano, of Wasteworks. “There’s enormous value,” he says. “You don’t pay for what you throw away.”

Yellowstone National Park is one green-cleaning financial success story. About 130 different cleaning products were replaced with nine when the park’s management decided to follow green-cleaning guidelines. Yellowstone now spends a third less than it used to on cleaning products, and often buys in bulk and in concentrate. Lincoln, Neb.-based The Clean Environment Co.’s products are used at Yellowstone. A list of the cleaning chemicals Yellowstone advises other companies to avoid is published online.

While some people believe green products cost more than other cleaning options, the Saunders Hotel Group found that the eco-friendly products they use cost the same as traditional cleaners.

Ashkin, of Healthy Housekeeping Solutions, adds that facilities that are on the verge of placing occupants at risk (due to not spending enough on cleaning needs) can only save money by adopting green-cleaning initiatives.

“Doing good cleaning requires them to invest more in good equipment, repairs and maybe good personnel,” says Ashkin. “But these days, green cleaning programs really are cost neutral.”

Source: EcoMall.com

Green Architecture in the New California Academy of Arts and Sciences

2005-06-19T11:15:00-07:00

Source: The California Academy of Sciences

The California Academy of Sciences is building a dynamic new facility that will transform the museum into one of the world's leading scientific and cultural institutions. The new design, which features a living roof, will integrate the Academy more sensitively into Golden Gate Park and make nature a part of the building's structure. With its environmentally-sensitive design, the new building will be an expression of the Academy's mission to explore, explain, and protect the natural world.

There are varying shades of green as measured by the U.S. Green Building Council through its LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system. Through all aspects of design and construction, the Academy will strive to achieve the highest rating: LEED platinum. When it opens in 2008, the Academy expects to be the largest public LEED platinum building in the world.

The new Academy is one of ten pilot "green building" projects of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, part of a vanguard initiative to develop models for workable, sustainable public architecture and will consume 30-35% less energy than required by code.

Get more details at The California Academy of Sciences Web-site.

Source: The California Academy of Sciences