SanJoseGreenHome.com

Guests: Paul Hawken, Author, Blessed Unrest and Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org.  Both these authors are well-established environmental activists. The presentation was conducted as a panel discussion with the moderator posing questions to the two. At the end there was audience participation. I thought it was a very interesting discussion on climate issues – both the politics and the science. Here is what I captured. In parenthesis I have introduced some of my own thinking:

• “Problem is that government policy has artificially increased consumption. There have been tax incentives for home ownership and government subsidies for freeways to get to all the homes. Thus, we have created a housing/work transportation design, which is very carbon-intensive (driving long distances) and now that carbon based fuels are expensive, it is an expensive design. Nevertheless, studies show people in cities have twice as many close friends as those in suburbia.
• Financial meltdown will take 10-12 years. (I have heard this before. It is not clear to me that without substantial changes to our economy that simply waiting will relieve our problems. The Great Depression was not relieved for 12 years until (more…)

We all love a good myth. “Goldfish have a memory of only three seconds”, “Water drains backwards in the Southern Hemisphere due to the Earth’s rotation”, or maybe “A dog’s mouth is cleaner than a human’s”.  It’s all fun stuff until we actually spend cash on things that we thought will do us good but end up to be a complete waste of money.  This may come us no surprise but some very commonly believed energy upgrades seem to be just that – myths.

Rob Moddy is a fellow USGBC member who often whips out a masterful blog entry.  It’s just so hard not to share this one with you.  Here he highlights a talk given by building scientist Michael Blasnik at the Department of Energy’s National Weatherization Training Conference, particularly the problems with inaccurate computer models in determining weatherization strategies and effective home energy improvement measures. 

As originally posted on GreenBuildingAdvisor.com, this is a list of common strategies for home weatherization that don’t save much energy. If you don’t want to waste your time and money, these are the strategies to avoid or closely evaluate: (more…)

This is first net-zero carbon house in UK that reaches the highest level of sustainability. Dubbed the Lighthouse, the highly eco-friendly house was designed to “encourage a way of living that is inherently ‘light’ on the world’s resources whilst combining the practicalities of today’s average homeowner.

Almost all of us use the words green and sustainable interchangeably as if they have the same meaning.  But the more one delves deeper into the nuances, the more this funny little feeling starts creeping in that there seems to be some interesting differences there in these two noble concepts.  Why does it even matter?  Simply because by being able to separate the two we can make better decisions as consumers and become more mindful and equitable participants in our society.   

The product manufacturers, as well as building industry would certainly benefit by embracing “Sustainable” vs simply “Green” practices. Whereas green addresses mostly environmental elements, sustainable takes a more comprehensive view, including environmental, economic, social, and cultural elements. 

For example, a more sustainable and socially responsible approach to manufacturing would entail a fair and humane treatment of overseas workers, while the building community would certainly include a standard of quality well in excess of mere code compliance for “green” construction”. 

You see, building a house out of vastly renewable wood from a thousand miles away or engineered lumber, installing solar panels and solar water heater to satisfy the energy needs of the building would be enough to deem it “green”.  However, if the construction quality is poor and not much effort was invested into longevity of the structure (more…)

A scam?  A rip-off? A deal of the century?  Ready or not folks, it’s here!  A solution that gives access to solar power even to the most cash strapped green minded suburbanites and….… it’s brought to you by the very people who delivered us the sub-rime mortgage debacle.  It’s called a “residential solar lease” which is a “no money down” program that can get you electricity cheaper than what you cash out to PG&E on monthly basis.  Sounds familiar?

The idea is simple; instead of buying your panels by dishing out thousands of dollars upfront, you lease them for “one low monthly fee.”  You win, the solar company wins, environment is happy.   So what’s not to love?  How about a 15 year contract, a 3.9% increased payment every year and our Wall Street friends who have their fingers all over this sweet deal!? 

Let’s start from square one. On the surface, this sounds like a viable option for many home owners.  It solves an expensive problem of purchasing the panels outright for around 27,000 dollars (average 1,700 sq. foot home).  It works a bit like a car lease where home owners sign a deal that locks them in for 15 years with the option of extending their lease or buying the panels at the end of the contract.  With a solar lease, your monthly payments can be around $110 which, according to the service providers, will normally be around 15% less than your PG&E bill.  Are you sold yet?

After all, the way these companies and even our media like to paint it – it’s a no brainer deal.  SolarCity, which is based right here in our backyard of Silicon Valley, is one of the very well financed operations that is the first to start aggressively market this contract for home owners all over Bay Area and western states.  SunRun is another similar co. based in San Francisco.

Who really finances these deals?  (more…)

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the greenest of them all…?  As if we didn’t already have hundreds of eco labels to worry about every time we visit a store, now there are green home certifications that are mushrooming up all over the Bay Area and the country.  Understanding these new ways of classifying quality and operation costs is becoming a must, especially when you build, remodel or in the market for a home.  Yet another chief reason for being able to decipher these new terms is to avoid growing generalizations or greenwashing. 

Frankly, most folks could careless about “green” homes. Very few want to pay extra for labels they don’t understand.  And why should they?! Price and quality are and should be the two high priority areas of concern.  However, if you remember from a previous post called “What’s a Green Home and Why Do We Care?“, green homes address much more than just fancy “eco-friendly” building materials.  They also encompass elements like energy efficiency, indoor air quality, water efficiency, materials use (recycled, reclaimed, sustainable), community and environmental impacts.   

Third party sources play an important role in verifying that green homes are truly are as they are cracked up to be in their marketing.  Here are the three most prevalent green home titles you are most likely to see in our Bay Area neighborhoods:  (more…)

Synthetic turf can look just as real grass from a few feet away but does it hold water with its new eco claims?

Installing synthetic turf has become all the rage recently. It was even featured on some Bay Area local channels. Commonly known in the past as astro turf, it has been reinvented, repacked and now called ‘eco turf.’ It is being touted as the latest in green landscaping. There is even a striking list of ecological “solutions” that this product addresses. Those include no mowing, no watering or expensive irrigation systems, no weed control, and no other maintenance headaches like fertilizing and hauling away grass clippings.

The latest synthetic turf is even manufactured from recycled plastic and is recycable at the end of its life. Your kids can play on it in the rain and won’t get muddy. It is wheel chair accessible. So it seems like we have solved a horde of environmental issues with one product, so what’s not to love?

Stepford Lawns

Do you recall the part in the movie, The Stepford Wives where one of the Stepford wives gets stabbed and it messes with her wiring and she starts repeating “ I thought we were friends, I thought we were friends? That’s what I imagine synthetic turf is saying when I stab it with my accusations of it being a pseudo green product. Like my friend Owen Dell would say, it’s kind of like organic heroin, organic or not it is still fundamentally a bad idea.

Aromatherapy it’s not

I’ll begin with the deceptively simple argument that my primary distrust of synthetic turf is based on the fact that it is not alive. It does not breathe and therefore it offers no oxygen as a byproduct. On a warm day the entire area around a synthetic playing field reeks of melting off-gassing plastic, not an enjoyable smell. It certainly is not aromatherapy. Again because the stuff is not living and breathing the cooling effect is absent and thus the heat island affect is increased. The ‘heat island’ refers to the phenomena in which urban air and surfaces sustain higher temperatures than nearby rural areas.

The images below comparing air, water, bermudagrass, sand, asphalt, and synthetic turf surface temperatures illustrate how (more…)

Sometimes weapons are our only hope for peace.

As the talks in Copenhagen are picking up momentum and the “Climate-Gate” scandal is unfolding, more and more people get perplexed and raise good questions.  Is this thing real?  Why would the scientists try to hide something or mislead us?  

In situations like these our human nature and its subtle expressions become very obvious.  It’s fascinating to observe two sets of beliefs and convictions.  One group says Yeh!, the other group says Nae!, and then there is a silent majority who are waiting to be nudged in the right direction.  

Why the mainstream media is over-inflating the climate scandal instead of focusing on real scientific numbers is probably beyond all of us but a one thing is certain: we’ll see some very positive and some very negative outcomes of this “Climate-Gate” fiasco. 

Some immediate effects are obvious – scientists will have to be more transparent, disclose sources of data and be able to back up their finding with sound and undisputable reasons.  Climate change and data that supports it ought to be visible and open to our scrutiny, it’s that simple.  There is no doubt that when all dust settles, we will still have an overwhelming amount of research showing the planet is indeed warming and we are unequivocally contributing to it more than ever. 

At the same time, doubts in the process and questionable ethics of the science community only fueled the skeptics and fed more excuses to folks who never cared about the issue in the first place.  The creepy part is that people like Sarah Palin will latch on to this piece of news like a bulldog and will keep mauling it on the media, further spreading doubt and apathy among those who don’t lack it already.  You know what separates Sarah Palin from a Pit-bull?  Nope not lipstick (more…)

You’ve seen it on TV, you’ve heard it on the radio, you’ve read it in the papers – PG&E wants you to conserve energy and save the planet.  They’ll even send you rather substantial rebates in the mail if you are willing to upgrade some systems in your home or purchase new appliances.  

Now all of this is enormously helpful and commendable but I couldn’t rid myself of that nagging question…  How does all this make financial sense for our friends at PG&E?    Never before had I seen in our capitalistic society a company encouraging its customer to consume less of its product.  Can you imagine McDonalds saying – “Eat less hamburgers!  There are no happy meals here… they will all make you fat!”  

So what’s going on with PG&E?  Is this truly enlightened business that wants to save the environment or does it all in some convoluted way actually make business sense?  I set out to find the answers at the last West Coast Green Show in San Francisco where I interviewed lovely Katie Romans, an Environmental Communications representative from PG&E.  (The video is about 3 minutes.) 

So now you know.  The answer is “Decoupling”  – a novel approach towards utility pricing that separates a utility’s ability to make money from the amount of electricity that it sells.  So while PG&S forest conservation and methane capture efforts appear genuine, it was nothing but a California Decoupling law, enacted in 1982, that effectively disincentivized PG&E to sell more energy for profit.  

No need to worry about them though; they have other ways to make the bank.  In fact, last year the utility filed for, and received shareholder earnings based upon energy savings they delivered to customers, and the program costs were already recovered in their rates.  Besides that, the utility company also benefits from increased customer satisfaction, a boost in its “environmental” image and gets a lot of community and political support.  

You have got to love the business model.  The company is required to sell less of its product and help its customers save money.  And in return, it makes more and appears as an environmental hero.  Not bad at all, is it?  Go PG&E, or to be more accurate – go California!

The big companies like Whole Foods, Safeway and even out own Trader’s Joe’s would never skew the truth… or would they?  When we are purchasing organic foods, green clothing, and dealing with green businesses, it’s imperative to do research into the suppliers of these items to ensure we’re getting the environmentally friendly products that we think we are. 

Advertisers are in the business to do one thing –  sell us a product.  And sell they do in a variety of ways, including tricking the consumer – entirely legally.  It all comes down to words. 

Advertisers have a blast with the organic food market. For example, did you know that the phrase “all natural ingredients” has no legal meaning? (more…)

Did you know that millions and millions of dollars are spent each week on advertising campaigns to give us the perception that bottled water comes from some pristine mountain spring or magical underground aquifer, assuring purity and quality?  So I decided to put a couple of our local delivery services to the test and… it seems like the two services available in San Jose area like Alhambra and Arrowhead Water are not all what they are cracked up to be.

This time I was only concerned with the PH levels of the water and not the impurities or the taste.  There is a growing awareness that our bodies are way too acidic because of our life style, pollutants in the environment and our diets.  Human body’s normal PH levels are about 7.4 and we have a “perfect” PH balance when we’re born.  But after we’re able to visit the potty room on our own and independently reach into the cookie cupboard we start exploring foods that are much less friendly than our moms would put in our mouths when we were babies.  We then start eating what “tastes good” instead of what really is “good” for us.  Then come the pizzas, fried foods, coca colas, burgers, steaks, beer, and of course… fried calamari.  Combine all this with an acid pumping stress day at work and we are now bathing our cells in acid bath.  The body’s natural defence system kicks in and it does everything it possibly can to compensate for the acid by introducing alkalinity back into the blood stream and try to pump the acid out with liquids – water.  But where does the body store the alkaline substances to compensate for this acid influx of acid?  Well, most proponents of this theory say that it comes from our cell tissue and our bones.  Our body borrows it from our flesh and bones.  And what happens when it can no longer do that? (more…)