It seems I had a bit of misinformation regarding the SF solar loan program. Evidently, it’s been implemented already, and it’s nothing like a regular loan (sorry guys!). Instead of a traditional loan, SF chose to follow in the footsteps of Berkeley, having the loans financed via property taxes. This method solves a few problems, one of which was how to transfer the loan to a new owner when the property exchanged hands. The loan now stays with the house and is the responsibility of whoever owns the property to pay, via property taxes.

The loans are financed by banks and backed by property tax revenues. According to GreenTech Media, this “allows home and business owners to pay the city back through property taxes over 20 years, including interest at rates locked in through a special tax district created for the program.”

However, unlike Berkeley, the loan program will be usable for range of home energy projects, including replacing outdated energy guzzlers like boilers. This aligns with the city’s plan to incentivize retrofitting existing buildings to increase energy efficiency.

It sounds like a great program that will make solar power more readily available. I haven’t been able to locate much on the San Francisco program, but here is information on Berkeley’s: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580

The Solar City?

I’m vacationing in San Francisco for the week, one of the greenest cities in the country. I’ve decided to do a series while I’m traversing the city by the bay, showcasing it’s finer points. The series needs a name, so suggestions are welcome.

Fact: San Francisco boasts more solar panels installed per-capita than any other city in America. Coming from longtime green-city juggernaut in one of the greenest states in the country, this news isn’t particularly shocking. However, the fact that the number of applications for solar installations in San Francisco has skyrocketed 450% in the last year is an attention grabber – this coming from a city that has been hit remarkably hard by the downturn due to its venture capital backed economy, in a bankrupt state. So just what is going on in the city by the bay?

Workers Install Solar Panels in SF

They’ve incentivized solar power. The idea isn’t revolutionary; California has had an incentive program in place for over a decade – the California Solar Initiative, which offers state solar rebates. However, the state incentives aren’t enough to make solar power an affordable option for everyone. They’re performance based, so they don’t help with the upfront costs of installation and implementation. San Francisco aimed to tackle that hurdle and make solar power more accessible, taking solar incentives to a new level last year. With the goal of making solar power more the rule than the exception, San Francisco launched the first local solar energy incentive program in the nation. The program, GoSolarSF, targets the upfront costs associated with solar installation, cutting the cost of installation in half for the average residential home. That percentage jumps up to 70% for non-profits. In fact, the program announced last month that two public housing projects in SF, Hayes Valley North and South, and Plaza East, are going to be the first in the nation to receive solar panels. Of the 850 solar installation applications submitted over the last year, 56 of them qualified as low-income.

However, half of the average $25,000 residential installation cost is still $12,500 – a substantial enough sum to deter would-be converts (including me). The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, hopes to implement a loan program over the next year that would make the solar option even more attractive. Additionally, there is the potential for state and federal rebates, and the energy cost savings, to cancel out interest payments on a loan.

How does a bankrupt state continue to innovate in the clean energy space? Surprisingly, the state and city level rebates aren’t using taxpayers money so they’re not subject to the state-wide budget cuts that other programs fear. Utility ratepayers, not taxpayers, underwrite the subsidies for the state incentive. Additionally, San Francisco uses funds from the Public Utility Commission for its rebates.

While it may be a while before the technology is cheap enough for the majority of bay area buildings to be solar powered, it’s encouraging to see such a large group willing to invest in the technology for their own homes. It seems within the first year of Go Solar SF, San Francisco has proven that there is demand for clean energy alternatives, as long as the price is right.

Trash or Treasure?

At first, the Cash for Clunkers program conjured visions of perfectly good cars rotting in, what I imagined to be, large metal graveyards – vehicles emitting toxins as they waited their turn to be crushed into twisted metal cubes. Upon further investigation, it turns out the Cash for Clunkers initiative isn’t as bad as I thought, however, it might not be as good as I’d hoped either.

According to CCNMoney.com, almost 100% of car parts today are recycled. Sandy Blalock, former president of the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), was quoted for the article saying, “The automobile is the most recycled component in the world. Almost 100% of a car is recycled, except for the fluff, which is going to the landfill.” In fact, there is an entire economy surrounding the recycling of scrapped car parts. UncommonGoods, a Brooklyn-based online retailer sells glassware made of recycled windshield glass. If this is the fate of Cash for Clunkers vehicles, I’d feel pretty good about the whole endeavor.

However, upon further investigation I found that there are pitfalls within the Cash for Clunkers model that make recycling difficult. First, the program requires dealers to dismantle the vehicle’s engines by replacing the clunker’s oil with a solution that causes the engine’s parts to freeze, so that it will never run again. According to the current executive VP of the ARA, Michael Wilson, functioning engines are the most valuable part of a scrapped car, so dismantling them cancels out the programs greatest environmental benefit. CNNMoney.com quoted Wilson, “We think that [the program] is going to have a minimal environmental benefit, if any.”

Ok, so the engine isn’t usable, but what about all of the other parts – like the glass, plastic and metal? Cash for Clunkers puts a kink in that as well. The program demands that clunkers are shredded within 180 days, which causes a large portion of perfectly recyclable vehicles to be shredded before the parts can be gotten to.

The real impact of this program, both economically and environmentally, won’t be known for a while. There’s still data to be gathered and statistics to be made before any real understanding of its implications can be known. I can only hope that the emissions saved by replacing cars rated 18 mpg’s or less with cars that have upwards of 25 mpg’s will offset any negative byproducts.

Is the Kindle really greener?

“Paper or plastic?” is not a question you expect to apply to how you consume reading material. It is a question generally reserved for the grocery store – determining which material will best serve for carrying the bounty of dishwasher detergent and cereal from one place to another. However, with the mass availability of e-readers rivaling the printed word, like Amazon’s Kindle, the paper or plastic dichotomy moves into an entirely new realm. E-readers are marketed as “green”, but are e-readers really better for the environment? What is the right answer to “paper or plastic?”

The best way to answer that question is by conducting a dust-to-dust comparison, or life-cycle assessment (LCA). LCA’s investigate the full environmental impact from production to disposal, and all resources used in-between. One such study says plastic beats paper, hands-down. Erika Engelhaupt, of Environmental Science & Technology, did a study in June of 2008 where she estimated that by reading 20 e-books a year, plus 2 newspapers as e-book subscriptions, she’d save approximately 700lbs of paper in newspapers and 20-40 lbs in books. This equated to saving about one tree per year, according to her calculations.

To assist her with the life-cycle assessment she turned to Greg Kozak, who had conducted an LCA for his senior thesis at the University of Michigan in 2003 comparing e-readers and college textbooks. According to Kozak’s study, the reason e-readers win isn’t just about the trees. “There’s a lot you should look at in terms of the natural resources needed to produce a book, but there’s also the physical storage of those books, shipping books, and consumers driving to the bookstore,” he told Engelhaupt, “with an e-reader, you eliminate those.” When looking at greenhouse gasses, his study found that paper textbooks produced 4 times more greenhouse gasses than an e-book reader did, and conventional books required over 3 times the raw materials and 78 times more water than e-books. The Kindle in particular is greener than most e-readers, requiring only a fraction of the energy resources per hour than most of its competitors, due to its non-backlit screen. Amazon also offers a recycling program for unwanted Kindles.

Personally, I’ve always been a bit skeptical of new technology that claims to be “greener” than the old stuff. I’m still not sold on the hybrid car argument because I wonder if the resources used for the extra components (such as batteries) actually use more petroleum in their manufacturing and distribution than the vehicle will conserve over its lifetime. I felt the same about the e-readers when they first came out. However, it’s hard to ignore the evidence that the Kindle just might be a step in the right direction.

I’d be curious to see what others think, and hear from any Kindle owners who wish to share their experiences.

To read the full study by Engelhaupt: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es087144e

For Greg Kozak’s senior thesis: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdf

I’m curious to see what you think. Take my poll:

Nike isn’t just using eco-friendly materials (though they are – the sole of the Air Jordan is completely comprised of bits of old Nike sneakers), but they’re implementing company-wide measures to decrease their waste by 17%, and increase their use of eco-friendly materials by 20%, over the next decade. In 1990, Nike also implemented this amazing program called “Reuse-A-Shoe“, which encourages people to drop off their used sneakers at Nike stores around the world to be ground up and used for playgrounds, tracks and other athletic surfaces. Going even further, their latest Air Jordan is made of interlocking pieces that eliminate the need for excess plastics and hazardous adhesives. In order to make this possible, Nike had to design new machines to produce this new Air Jordan, which means they’re willing to spend green to go green. Nike’s VP of Innovation Design even goes as far as to say that they expect it to become a trend in the industry, stating, “Within six months, you’ll see other [basketball shoe] companies following our lead.”

So why would Nike want to keep their trend-setting technology and environmental good-deeds out of the public eye? They think it’s bad for their image. Back in 2005 Nike attempted the environmental frontier with a $110 hemp fiber walking boot in the “Considered” line. Unfortunately, the shoe’s lack of design appeal earned it the name “Air Hobbit”, and the shoes didn’t sell. In large part due to this, Nike feels that recycled rubber and organic cotton don’t fit with their culture of winning. While I understand the need to protect their image as the lean, mean brand that makes people run faster and jump higher, I don’t agree that performance and sustainability are mutually exclusive. Through this mentality, they’re effectively saying that, although they’re creating better products more efficiently and environmentally sound, they don’t believe in the message that sends.

They have more to gain by letting the cat out of the organic cotton bag than by keeping mum. Even if they increased awareness of just their Reuse-A-Shoe program, they’d see increased benefit. As an avid Nike detester, I ordinarily avoid their stores like the plague. However, I will stop by to drop off my demolished pair of Mizuno’s rather than throw them away. Thus, the program is a way to get me into their stores, where I’m more likely to browse their wares and possibly purchase. Additionally, in our increasingly environmentally aware society, more people will identify with their newfound principals than ever before. If Nike really does want to start an eco-lution, they’d better speak up. Change won’t create itself.

Douglass Rushkoff, a writer for The Daily Beast, recently described it as “the greatest territory dash since the Oklahoma Territory’s land run of 1889, albeit with fewer shotgun injuries.” As someone who recently registered meghancartwright.com (and .net, .biz and .info), for as of yet undetermined use, I will probably join the hordes, clamoring for my slice of Facebook intellectual property – hate myself for it as I may. Though there is part of me that worries once the dust settles I’ll be staring at my expanse of dust bowl, wondering why the heck I bothered in the first place. In fact, this kind of “property” might not be a move in the right direction at all.

With this move, Facebook is hoping to become an end user’s “true home page”. However, they risk jeopardizing one of Facebook’s key selling points; that it is more closed-off and private than the Internet as a whole. Many users enjoy Facebook frequently and liberally with the feeling that any unsavory information posted on Facebook for the entertainment of friends and family, won’t fall into the wrong hands. As a result, Facebook may lose its hold on users who, while they may gain added utility from their widely accessible home page, still seek a safe haven for their personal life online. Just as AOL reduced itself to an ISP when it released its users into the World Wide Web, Facebook may become just another domain host.

Though not mandatory, the website will pester you to switch to the new naming conventions, so you’ll probably eventually have to cave. Regardless of the implications, until the situation unfolds, it’s impossible to know the wisdom of this move. In the mean time, though my Facebook usage has declined dramatically as I march toward more mature relationships, I have nothing to lose by registering my namesake on Facebook – other than a few hours of sleep, and maybe a bit of profile clean up.

Thoughts? Post a comment and get a dialogue going!

The sad part about this is that Nobu isn’t breaking the law by selling the fish. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (lccat) has kept the total allowable catch (Tac) at 22,000 tons, about 7,000 tons above the 15,000 ton level recommended by the WWF to keep the Atlantic Bluefin population stable. In addition to those numbers caught to satisfy quotas, vast amounts of bluefin are poached through closed-season fishing and massive over-quota catches.

So why should Nobu care? They’re not breaking the law, and well within their rights to deny the WWF and Greenpeace the time of day. I’d like to say they should care because protecting an endangered species is the right thing to do. However, they may want to consider a more sustainable approach because they’re facing bad press and demonization in a documentary, celebrity boycotts of their establishments, and activist “sit-ins” at several of their restaurants where Greenpeace diners pass out mock menus, take up table space, and demand to speak to the manager regarding Nobu’s practices. If none of that works, Nobu will eventually exhaust the supply of Bluefin and be forced to change their menu anyway, so why not just change it now?

In the end, I no longer desire Nobu. Nobu is an influential trendsetter, and the message they send to the sushi community, and the restaurant community as a whole, is a very powerful one. I wish they’d use those powers for good, not evil.

I’m inclined to say no. For one, it wasn’t actually Twitter saying these things.  Views expressed by users, under any name, are in no way associated with the views of the company or its owners. Had these tweets been posted under any other username, I’m sure the user would have gone without confrontation. Sure, some of the tweets may qualify as slander, though I think it’s worth noting that they weren’t entirely untrue. The Cardinals, including La Russa, have had some serious issues with drunk driving. So all of that being said, the real issue is with Twitter hosting the false account.

Tweep identity issues aren’t new to Twitter – or to the discussions on this blog for that matter. Last month, I blogged about the issues rap star Kanye West had with an impostor abusing his namesake on Twitter (post: Tweep Crackdown?). I would by no means ordinarily refer to West as a rational being, but compared to La Russa, West has perspective. Rather than suing Twitter, West made a big fuss about the charlatan on his blog, prompting Twitter to shut the impostor down. In La Russa’s case, the fake wasn’t hiding the fact that they weren’t the real La Russa. Easily visible in the counterfeit La Russa’s account description, the impostor gave a disclaimer stating, “Bio Parodies are fun for everyone.”

So what does Twitter do about tweep identity? While I think La Russa is way off base, the issue of tweep identity is a real one. How much right does someone have over a name, or more importantly, an identity? These are two separate issues. Conducting a search on Facebook rendered four other girls owning accounts with my name. They’re not claiming to be “me”, but if my name were my brand, I may want sole ownership of that account name, and I’d pay to do it. Capitalizing on this could be a potential revenue stream for Twitter.  Then there is the issue of identity. I don’t think it’s Facebook’s responsibility (or Twitter’s for that matter) to crack down on users claiming to be “me”. That is my responsibility as a user. La Russa was right to point out the impostor to Twitter, and Twitter was right to shut them down, but that is the extent of their responsibility. Without seriously imposing upon user’s personal information, Twitter will have a hard time verifying each user’s identity. Speaking for myself, I’m not ok with giving Twitter my personal information so Brittney Spears can sleep at night.

Their big idea? Micropayments. They want to nickel and dime (well, penny actually) readers for access to content. This doesn’t make sense for a number of reasons, but I’ll focus on one main idea; competition.

The micropayment model assumes that all newspapers are going to follow this model – it has to. Otherwise, why would I pay the Times 1/2 a cent to read a particular story when I can get it from the Guardian for 1/4 of a cent, or from the Huffington Post for free? And what about bloggers? Let’s pretend for a second that the micropayment scheme works, and a significant amount of subscribers pay for the Times content. The problem is they have no control over access to their content second-hand. Any number of what would be potential subscribers can now get that content from several subscribers’ blogs or tweets even. Any blogger would be crazy not to take advantage of the opportunity to increase readership by posting their own version of paid content – for free.

As Marshall W. Van Alstyne said in a recent NYT opinion piece (oh the irony), “the trick is not to add new types of costs, but to add new types of value.” Now, there’s a thought.