E-NEWS

Save the Planet

Nokia’s Got the Greenest Cell Phone September 20, 2008 Reporting by Roddy Scheer Nokia topped Greenpeace’s annual Guide to Greener Electronics If your cell phone is made by Nokia and you care about the environment, pat yourself on the back. Of the eighteen companies compared in the new version of Greenpeace’s annual Guide to Greener Electronics, released last week, the Finnish cell phone giant scored highest with a 7 out of 10 possible points on the basis of its responsible management of chemicals, use of renewable energy and the energy efficiency of its newer models. Samsung, FSC, Sony Ericcson and Sony held their own in the 5.5/10 range, while Nintendo, Microsoft, Sharp and Motorola brought up the rear, scoring less than 4/10 each.   Greenpeace scores electronics brands based on three primary interrelated criteria: toxic and hazardous waste generated during production and distribution, take-back/recycling at the end of a product’s useful lifecycle, and overall responsiveness to new climate-related challenges. The guide is available for free on the Greenpeace website, and anyone contemplating buying a new computer, cell phone or television should check it out before making a purchase. Source: Greenpeace

No Go for Yellowstone Snowmobiling September 20, 2008 Reporting by Roddy Scheer Snowmobile tours were once a common site at Yellowstone National Park. Last week, a federal court overturned the Bush administration’s recent authorization of snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. In the ruling, Judge Emmett Sullivan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said that allowing snowmobiles in America’s first national park violates the “fundamental purpose of the national park system…to conserve park resources and values.” He added that the White House “failed to articulate why a plan that will admittedly worsen air quality complies with the conservation mandate….”   “This ruling reaffirms the idea at the heart of our National Park System—that the duty of Yellowstone’s managers is to preserve the Park for the sake of all visitors, and to place the highest value on protection of Yellowstone’s unique natural treasures,” said Tim Stevens, senior Yellowstone Program Manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, one of several nonprofit environmental groups that served as plaintiffs in the case. The other groups behind the successful challenge were the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society and Winter Wildlands Alliance. “This ruling will ensure that visitors are not disappointed by air and noise pollution when they make the one winter trip to Yellowstone of their lives,” said Amy McNamara, National Parks Program Director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. “We take our hats off to the tour businesses that didn’t wait for this ruling. Their increasing investments in modern snowcoaches are already making it possible for winter visitors to access and enjoy Yellowstone while protecting it.” Source: National Parks Conservation Association

COMMENTARY: The Port of Long Beach Hoists the Green Flag An Environmental Turnover in One of the Dirtiest Industries. First in a Two-Part Series. By Mara Schechter Shipping boats usually idle for the three or more days it takes to unload, spewing emissions. © Photos: Port of Long Beach Do you ever wonder how the TV you watch or computer you work on ended up at the store where you bought them? Recently, I visited Long Beach, California to check out and write about their port, which is the second busiest in the country (just behind their neighboring port, that of Los Angeles) and is a major hub for U.S.-Asian trade. Combined, the ports make up the San Pedro Bay Port Complex, which is the fifth busiest port in the world, taking in 40% of the United States’ imports, half of which come from China. The Port of Long Beach (POLB) alone transports over $100 billion ($140 billion in 2007) and 85 million metric tons worth of cargo each year. It imports electronics, plastics, furniture, food, clothing, machinery and many other items.   Why should you care? Well, for one thing, you may be purchasing a lot of goods from these ports, especially if you are in the Western region of this country. And while you may worry about your car and its environmental impact, you’re less likely to think about how imported cars come over on ships. For example, Toyota has a terminal at the POLB, where it ships over Priuses. Ironically, Toyota has not yet signed a Green Lease, an important aspect of the Port’s new environmental policies. DIRTY SHIPS The shipping industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. Out of all human-related emissions, ships produce 2.7% of carbon dioxide, 15% of nitrogen oxide and 8% of sulfur dioxide. According to recent articles in the L.A. Times, some ships emit more exhaust than 12,000 cars each day. In Southern California, the San Pedro Bay Ports are the single largest source of air pollution. This includes the heavy- and light-duty trucks, locomotives, and other vehicles operating in relation to shipping and cargo transport. Regarding vehicle emissions for the POLB, ships make up 50%; trucks make up 25%; and small boats, cargo-handling equipment, and trains make up the rest. A study published by the Green Car Congress reports that CO2 emissions from shipping will probably soon exceed those of aviation. Ships, unlike airplanes, affect coasts, which is why public concern initially motivated the Port of Long Beach to develop some of their ecological initiatives. “The community has the power to change and halt things,” says Richard Steinke, the Port’s Executive Director. Bob Kanter, the Manager of Environmental Affairs and Planning for the Port, cites a 2000 study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District whose data “painted a pretty grim picture and highlighted the negative contribution of the goods movement.” That study “galvanized the public” and “forced [the Port] to recognize” its responsibility to the community. Since then they’ve increased their communications with the city, including setting up real-time monitoring stations. TRADE & GREEN COMMITMENTS One particular point of contention between the Port and the city is the rapidly increasing amount of trade, although it is partly fueled by the region’s consumer demand. Trade has quadrupled in the past 10-15 years, and is expected to double or even triple in the next 15 years. Creating new facilities and attempting to “grow green” (the buzz phrase around the port) is a “huge technological challenge,” says Art Wong, the Port’s Public Information Officer, since “gains could be wiped out if cargo grows.” The Port of Long Beach transports over 85 million metric tons (and over $100 billion) worth of cargo each year. Bob Foster, the Mayor of Long Beach, says, “I can’t in good conscience talk to people about expanding the port unless it gets cleaner.” He believes they’re moving in the right direction. The Port has said that it hopes to lower emissions by 50% even while cargo doubles, which Foster calls “a great start.” But he keeps thinking, “What would you tell families around the Port with young children with asthma [and other diseases]? Is it worth it? [We’re] not willing to tolerate growth at any price anymore.” In a recent GreenXchange Global Marketplace Conference, Foster said, “My first job as mayor of Long Beach is to protect the health and safety of my citizens. In my city, families that live along the trade corridors have two to three times the statewide average of asthma cases. That’s not an accident… we are not going to allow kids in Long Beach to contract asthma so someone in Kansas can get a cheaper television set. Those days are over.” Steinke explains that, after a “culture change” at the Port in the late 1990s and early 2000s, he feels a similar responsibility. “Now we need to be good environmental stewards when we recognize that our growth has started to impact the city. We’re only temporary stewards of this resource. I hope we have left the legacy of good, responsible, and environmentally sensitive development.” Now they have a “triple bottom line,” which is, according to a POLB mug on his desk: “Economic Vitality, Environmental Health, Community Integrity.” Another motto he keeps is, “we have an obligation to clean before we grow.” SHIPPING COMPANIES SLOW TO ACT The Port’s tenants are following suit. According to Anthony Otto, President of Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. (LBCTI), “everyone now absolutely understands that if we want to be able to sustain this industry, we have to be able to do it in an environmentally sensitive manner.” Otto also sees that “some technologies make a lot of sense in that they are good for the environment and the economy,” such as innovations that lead to reductions in fuel. Certainly Otto, like other terminal operators who live in or near Long Beach and either rent their terminals to shipping lines or work for a specific shipping company, has a good reason to care about the Port’s environmental efforts. “I’m sitting in this building, I’m raising my kids not far from here,” he says. But the shipping companies have no obligation to follow the Port’s environmental lead. Since ships pass through international waters, they are subject to little regulation. For example, ports don’t have direct control over the shipping lines that come into their port. However, since private companies lease terminals from landlord ports like Long Beach, the port can control the terms of their leases and require tenants to abide by certain rules when renewing or beginning leases. These new leases are referred to as “Green Leases,” which include far stricter environmental regulations, including shore-side electricity and cleaner equipment. Ships emit no pollutants by plugging into shore-side electricity (also known as cold ironing) while at berth, where they would normally idle for the three or more days it takes to unload. The California Air Resources Board has noted that if ships who make three or more trips to the Port per year plugged in while at berth, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions would be reduced by 70% each day. Unfortunately, there is “not one universal system to plug in every ship,” says Wong. “We’re trying to set international standards; it’s hard if we’re the only port doing this.” Wong explains that the POLB can “negotiate leases and set terms,” but cannot pass laws, so the Green Leases (“environmental covenants”) take advantage of their landlord status. These Green Leases have only been used twice so far, for a shipping line whose lease expired and another whose lease was renegotiated. More leases are set to expire in the next few years, and the port intends to combine two old facilities to create a larger, greener terminal, known as the Middle Harbor Project (a site “designed to cut emissions in half while doubling trade volume,” according to the Port’s media materials), which will also require a Green Lease. GREEN FLAGS The Port can also ask for voluntary participation in certain programs. This has worked very well with its Green Flag program, which asks vessel operators to slow down to 12 knots within 20 miles of the port. This reduces fuel use and pollution, and has apparently reduced air pollution by 600 tons per year since 2006. By reducing dockage fees and awarding green flags to shippers who comply, the Port saw a jump to 95% compliance. Mainly, shipping lines wanted to show the public what they were doing for the environment. Without those incentives, they may not have made an effort. Wong admits that, “These companies don’t care much about the Long Beach community.” CO2 emissions from shipping will probably soon exceed those of aviation. Steinke thinks that shippers, “left to their own devices, wouldn’t be doing this [environmental protection] without us, but they understand why we’re doing what we’re doing and want to grow green with us.” Thanks to the Port, says Foster, shippers and terminal operators are beginning to “understand that they have to not only do business here, but also do good here.” Lots of them are demonstrating this by donating the money they make through the Green Flag Program’s reduced fees back to Long Beach. On July 1, the Port started the new voluntary Vessel Main Engine Fuel Incentive Program, encouraging shippers to use low-sulfur fuel within 40 miles of the San Pedro Bay. The Port will be “subsidizing the higher fuel costs for companies” for the first year, says Wong. This “will cost us $10 million,” he says, and “yield incredible benefits.” According to Wong, it costs $14,000 to lower a ton of emissions from a truck, but only $3,000 to lower a ton of emissions from a ship; so reducing a ship’s emissions is four times as effective. The Port is also “expecting state regulations and funds to kick in within the next few years,” says Wong. Yes, the POLB is ahead of the state of California (notably, a very progressive state), “doing things above and beyond compliance with existing laws,” says Kanter. “Because we started doing this, California got interested,” confirms Wong, who notes that, unlike the Port, which generates revenue by leasing properties to private companies, the “state doesn’t have a big funding mechanism.” Foster thinks that the state is “a great backstop” (i.e., reactive rather than proactive) that has been “pretty supportive” of the Port of Long Beach. Of course, CA’s environmental regulations are even stricter than national regulations. “The federal government has largely abdicated its responsibility,” says Foster, who believes that each community must work to solve problems independently. BETTER MODELS He takes a similar stance regarding the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the only authority over international shipping. Along with Harbor Commissioners and Steinke, Foster has met with the IMO to encourage them to adopt stricter standards. However, they have not signed on to the IMO because they are so far ahead of its loose regulations that doing so would bring them backwards. He explains, “Other ports don’t have the wherewithal, but that doesn’t mean that we should be limited. We’re well beyond where they [the IMO] want to go. You’re not gonna impose the same standard right now. You should push that a little bit but can’t expect [other ports worldwide with fewer resources] to meet that. I want to be able to protect our flexibility in dealing with our problem as we see fit.” Indeed, that attitude has helped the POLB pass a lot of its new requirements. While it works on many projects in conjunction with the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), “we have such a compressed hierarchy here. We make such quick decisions here and other ports don’t do that,” says Kanter. They have a smaller staff and a “more hands-off philosophy” than the POLA, which meets only twice a month and needs the city council to approve its projects. The POLB’s approach contributed to its adoption of the Green Port Policy, which integrates environmental protection into all of the Port’s activities, and which will be covered in the 2nd part of my commentary. CONTACT: Port of Long Beach MARA SCHECHTER is a former E editorial intern and student at Georgetown University.

Welcome to Neutral Town By Drew Pogge The village of Ashton Hayes, England, has committed to going carbon neutral. © Creative Photography Can an entire town turn carbon neutral? The village of Ashton Hayes, England (population 1,000), thinks so, and is in the process of becoming the first town in the world with zero net carbon emissions.   “As a community we felt that it was important to set off on the journey towards carbon neutrality, because so many people are talking and not doing anything,” says Ashton Hayes resident and project originator Garry Charnock. He hatched the idea in November 2005, and received such strong community support that he took the idea to the parish council as a formal proposal. When 75% of adult residents attended the first meeting, the Going Carbon Neutral Project was born. First, students of the University of Cheshire conducted a survey to measure the village’s total annual emissions. Some residents installed solar panels and more energy-efficient appliances, but most took less drastic steps. “We have seen a drop in the number of flights, more walking and cycling and increased recycling,” Charnock says. “Most people have saved money on fuel bills, and it has definitely brought the community together.” The result is a 20% reduction in total emissions since last year, with more progress on the way. Other communities are following suit, although not all with such lofty goals. In the U.S., the town of Greensburg, Kansas, which was obliterated by a tornado on May 4, 2007 (95% of homes and businesses destroyed), is rebuilding as a model of sustainability, including highly efficient Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum designation for all city buildings, significant walkability and the use of wind energy and solar panels. This past summer, the small town of Rock Port, Missouri (population 1,300), became the first in the nation to operate solely on wind power, harvesting wind from 75 turbines across three counties. The Going Carbon Neutral Project has produced literature and videos for interested communities to help them begin a carbon neutral commitment. “So far we have spoken to over 100 communities who have asked us to visit them,” says Charnock. “We now have friends doing the same thing in Canada, Australia, Norway, Romania and Mauritius. Sadly, the U.S. seems to be a few years behind us all.” CONTACT: The Going Carbon Neutral Project

The Big, Bulky Truth About Beds Recycling Mattresses and Going Organic By John M. Guilfoil They usually end up stacked in landfills, where they hog space and leach chemicals, and many landfills have refused to accept them in response.   With Lifekind’s organic mattresses, buyers can customize layers. © Lifekind This problem attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which offered a $10,000 grant to anyone who could solve the mattress-recycling conun- drum. In 2002, Framingham, Mas-sachusetts-based Conigliaro Indus-tries answered the call and became the first commercial mattress recycler in the U.S. “Mattresses are pro- bably the single most difficult thing to recycle,” says Greg Conigli-aro, the company’s founder and president. The Big Rip Using a process they developed, the company takes what is basically a giant paper shredder and rips apart unwanted mattresses, box springs and upholstered furniture. They are then able to separate the product into its basic parts—polyurethane foam, wood, steel, cotton and other fabrics—and sort them for easy recycling or purchasing by raw materials companies. “We can process in excess of six million pounds of this material per year. That’s enough mattresses to fill 900 tractor trailers,” reports the business’ website. Why are mattresses so difficult to break down? All of those springs and padding and metal wires are sealed tightly. The better the mattress quality, the harder it is to recycle. At Conigliaro, it takes a minute and a half to completely break down an average mattress. The majority of the company’s clients are businesses that have a large number of items to dispose of, and they pay $8-$30 per mattress plus the cost of transportation. In some places, landfills and trash disposal are still cheaper alternatives for companies with a ton of mattresses to unload. Others, especially stores that offer to remove used mattresses for free, cart the old beds to rebuilders who refurbish and repackage the mattresses for resale. Organic Options There are other ways to be eco-conscious when it comes to one’s bed. A variety of companies now make natural and organic mattresses from sustainable wools and cottons. This removes the petroleum-based polyurethane foam additive, which fire officials have classified as a hazardous substance, and vinyl-based waterproofing materials, which release toxic phthalates. California-based Keetsa offers mattresses made with natural green tea, which is said to provide long-lasting odor control, embedded into recyclable memory foam. Swedish furniture giant Ikea also makes a very affordable mattress that is free of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, a chemical fire retardant that scientists have linked to health and environmental problems. Another California company, Lifekind, produces mattresses under strict environmental specifications. The company received certification from the nonprofit GREENGUARD Environmental Institute for their efforts, and reports that it even uses a chemical-free sanitation process on its organic rubber and cotton mattresses. The CozyPure mattresses available at Tomorrow’s World, a Virginia-based environmental catalog company, are made with natural latex (a hypo-allergenic alternative to the synthetic variety), wool and organic cotton. Their OrganicPedic sleep system allows buyers to customize the organic mattress with layers of different firmness levels. Considering that you’ll spend a third of your life on a mattress, the health benefits matter—and at the end of the mattress’ lifespan, the environmental ones do, too. JOHN GUILFOIL is a Boston-based freelance writer and the editor of Blast Magazine.com.