NASCAR, the National Association for Auto Stock Car Racing, the world’s largest motor sports association, is trying to green its image. Under chairman and CEO, Brian France, NASCAR is seeking to become a true environmental leader. This may seem like a paradox for a sport where the goal is to drive the fastest and thus burn more fossil fuels. However, the league has taken some big steps to green their image in the last few years, which deserve to be acknowledged.

Auto racing would be the last industry — and an industry, it is — to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Races can be up to 500 miles long and involve fifty vehicles driving at extremely fast speeds. Each track is different, but the fastest is the Talledega Superspeedway with an average speed of 188 miles per hour (303 km/hr)! These racecars are not exactly fuel-sipping either; the average fuel economy is a dismal five miles per gallon! Do the math: fifty cars, 500 miles each at five mpg.

That is just one race. There are three major racing series: Sprint, Nationwide, and Camping World Truck. Each racing series has between 25 and 36 races each. Altogether, there are 95 races scheduled for 2011, and that does not include time trials, all-star races, duels, showdowns, and the many smaller racing series which the league sanctions. Then of course, there are the millions of fans who travel to the races in their cars, trucks, and RVs.

NASCAR is a sport that certainly burns a lot of fuel. Realizing this, management of the association, under France, is making efforts to offset their carbon emissions. They have joined forces with sponsors to set up the world’s largest recycling program. They maintain the world’s largest solar-powered sports facility at the Pocono Raceway. They have also done a massive tree-planting which NASCAR claims neutralized all carbon emissions produced by the Sprint Cup Series racecars.

Their most recent step is to change the fuel used in all three major national series to Sunoco Green E15, a 15 percent ethanol blend made from domestic corn. While the benefits of corn-based ethanol are debatable, they will help NASCAR lower carbon emissions while not affecting engine performance, the sport’s biggest concern.

One of the biggest concerns for the fans will be that the new fuel will decrease vehicle’s miles per gallon, leading to more frequent pit stops. However, after extensive testing, the new fuel has no measurable impacts on NASCAR’s high performance engines. If this is the case, it will be a significant net reduction of 15 percent for fossil fuel consumption (not counting fuel required for ethanol production).

NASCAR is not exactly a model for environmental friendliness, but the new fuel is a significant step in the right direction. The next move which the league is considering is the introduction of electronic fuel-injection which could greatly improve miles per gallon. Hopefully they will continually adopt new fuel-efficiency technologies as they emerge. In the grand scheme of things, it is interesting to know that even a sport as gas-guzzling as NASCAR is trying to green their image. Just another sign of the times.

Click here for more information.

Article by David A Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Greening the Supply Chain
• Investing in Greener Economy Could Spur Growth: U.N.
• Greening Our Capital Cities
• OPEN Forum ‘09: Winning Tomorrow
• Summer Reading for Green Building

In 2009, Baltimore passed an amendment to its building code requiring public and private buildings above 10,000 gross square feet to "be equivalent to a LEED “Silver” level."  Obviously, the goal was to get buildings in Baltimore to be more environmentally friendly. Fast forward a year, and a controversy is brewing over whether a proposed Big Box project, including a Lowe’s and a Walmart is actually green.  There is some rumbling that the project was not green because it was not being certified by the USGBC, and may not be properly managing its wastewater.  According to Baltidome:
 

During community testimony at the hearing, the Planning Commission was presented with concern that the developers were not applying for LEED “Silver” certification for the project and that the proposed development appears to be failing in its method for waste water management of the site. Despite the developer’s assertions, the project may, in fact, be ineligible for LEED “Silver” standards set by the city.

Without deeply analyzing the nicities of wastewater management, the resistance to the 25th street station project appears to be mainly one of local vs. chain.  But I am wrestling with the more basic regulatory concept of incentivizing inner city development because it is green, even if it does not embrace green building practices.

Work with me here.  Cities are inherently green.  One of my favorite New Yorker articles of all time was David Owen’s 2004  piece on why New York City is sustainable.  The argument for 25th Street Station’s green cred goes like this "If the 25th Street Walmart project comes to fruition, your average Baltimorean will have greater access to retail within walking or short driving distance.  No need to go to the suburbs to shop, wasting fossil fuel and requiring expensive additional infrastructure.  In addition, it provides an amenity which makes inner city living more attractive."  Weighed against that, of course, is the long distance shipping of goods to Walmart, and potentially the non-green siting and construction practices. But the non-green practices and the long distance shipping would exist wherever Walmart built, in downtown Baltimore or in an exurban location. 

Baltidome is rightly concerned that Baltimore’s green building regulations are not being enforced, and there is currently considerable stress on municipal budgets which are leading to green building programs being scaled back.  Are we better off, in an era of severely constrained municipal finances, focusing on incentivizing urban development and renewal than specifying (and enforcing) green building practices?  

Related posts:

• Religion. Politics. LEED.
• Building Partnerships, Conserving Lands
• Oh Right! Enforcement! We Forgot
• Maryland Rejects Smart Meters Due to Concerns
• CSR Origins: The Quakers?

The Sierra Club has ranked the most environmentally friendly colleges and universities in the United States, with tiny Green Mountain College in Vermont heading the list because it produces much of its electricity from burning biomass and cow manure. Other schools in the top ten include Stanford University, which has launched a $225 million Global Climate and Energy Project to develop new renewable energy technologies, and the University of Washington, which hosts an annual Environmental Innovations Challenge designed to foster interdisciplinary solutions to environmental problems.

The Sierra Club came up with its list after sending an 11-page questionnaire to 900 colleges and universities, 162 of which responded to the survey. Some of the criteria used in picking the greenest colleges included energy supply and efficiency, food procurement, academic programs, transportation, and green investments. The top ten colleges, after Green Mountain College, were Dickinson College in Pennsylvania; Evergreen State College in Washington; the University of Washington; Stanford; the University of California, Irvine; Northland College in Wisconsin; Harvard University; the College of the Atlantic in Maine; and Hampshire College in Massachusetts.

Related posts:

• EPA Challenges College Football to Green Their Stadiums
• Growth of Geothermal Power Helping Colleges to Cut Energy Costs
• Which is the Greenest Car of Them All?
• Colleges Going Green Despite Falling Endowments, Study Says
• Singapore is Greenest City in Asia, According to New Survey

The average American produces three times the amount of CO2 emissions as a person in France. A U.S. journalist now living in Europe explains how she learned to love her clothesline and sweating in summer.

It was late and raining this summer when I approached the information desk at Stockholm’s Arlanda airport to inquire about how best to get into the city center. “The fastest is the train, but there are also busses,” the guide said.

“Are there taxis?” I inquired, trying hard to forget the reminders on the Arlanda website that trains are “the most environmentally friendly” form of transport, referring to taxis as “alternative transportation” for those “unable to take public transport.”

“Yes, I guess you could take one,” he said, dripping with disdain as he peered over the edge of the counter at my single piece of luggage.

I slunk into the cab, paid about $60 and spent the 45-minute ride feeling as guilty as if I’d built a coal-fired plant in my back yard. (Note: The cabs at Arlanda are hybrids.) Two days later, although my flight left at 7 a.m., I took the Arlanda Express. It cost half as much and took 15 minutes to the terminal.

Europe, particularly northern Europe, is more environmentally conscious than the United States, despite Americans’ sincere and passionate resolution to be green. Per capita CO2 emissions in the U.S. were 19.78 tons according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which used 2006 data, compared to 9.6 tons in the U.K., 8.05 tons in Italy, and 6.6 tons in France.

Europe is constructed in a way that makes it pretty easy to live green.

Why have Americans made so little headway on an issue that so many of us feel so strongly about? As a U.S. journalist traveling around Europe for the last few years reporting on the environment, I’ve thought a lot about this paradox.

There is a fair bit of social pressure to behave in an environmentally responsible manner in places like Sweden, where such behavior is now simply part of the social contract, like stopping at a stop sign or standing in line to buy a ticket. But more important, perhaps, Europe is constructed in a way that it’s pretty easy to live green. You have to be rich and self-absorbed, as well as environmentally reckless and impervious to social pressure, not to take the Arlanda Express.

In Europe it is far easier to channel your good intentions into action. And you feel far worse if you don’t. If nearly everyone is carrying a plastic bag (as in New York City) you don’t feel so bad. But if no one does (as in Dublin) you feel pretty irresponsible.

Part of the problem is that the U.S. has had the good fortune of developing as an expansive, rich country, with plenty of extra space and cheap energy. Yes, we Americans love our national parks. But we live in a country with big houses. Big cars. Big commutes. Central Air. Big fridges and separate freezers. Clothes dryers. Disposable razors.

That culture — more than Americans’ callousness about the planet — has led to a lifestyle that generates the highest per capita emissions in the world by far. Per capita personal emissions in the U.S. are three times as high as in Denmark.

But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets. It’s not that the Italians care more about the environment; I’d say they don’t. But the normal posh apartment in Rome doesn’t have a clothes dryer or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat doesn’t turn on each fall until you’ve spent a couple of chilly weeks living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it’s not considered suffering. It’s living the dolce vita.

Europe’s environmental consciousness certainly has its own blind spots.

My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate advantage. To live without a clothes dryer or AC in the United States is considered tough and feels like a sacrifice. To do so in Rome — where apartments all include a clothes-drying balcony or indoor rack, and where buildings have thick walls and shutters to help you cope with the heat — is the norm.

In many European countries, space has always been something of a premium, forcing Europeans early on to live with greater awareness of humans’ negative effects on the planet. In small countries like the Netherlands, it’s hard to put garbage in distant landfills because you tend to run into another city. In the U.S., open space is abundant and often regarded as something to be developed. In Europe you cohabit with it.

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

Still, I still marvel at some of the environmental strategies I’ve witnessed in Europe.

In old Zurich, for example, to discourage waste and reduce trash, garbage collection has long been limited to once a week (as opposed to three times a week in much of New York); recyclables like cardboard and plastic are collected once a month in the Swiss city. Since Zurich residents live with their trash for days and weeks at a time, they naturally try to generate less of it — food comes with no packaging, televisions leave naked from the store.

As I nosed around the apartment of a Swiss financial planner, she showed me the closet for trash. A whole week of her life created the same amount as the detritus of one New York takeout Chinese meal.

Likewise, in Germany, I’ve seen blocks of townhouses that are “passive” houses — homes so efficient they do not need to be heated. And an upscale suburb that had banned cars from its streets; you could own a car, but it had to be kept in a garage at the edge of town where parking spaces cost over $30,000 a year, meaning that few people owned cars and those who did rarely used them for small daily tasks like shopping.

Both were upper-middle-class neighborhoods, but I was struck by how different these German suburbs felt compared to their U.S. socioeconomic counterparts. Houses are smaller, and few are detached. A passive house has to be under 2,000 square feet and basically box-like in order to make it energy efficient. “If someone feels like they need more than 2,000 square feet to be happy, well, that’s a different discussion,” a passive-house architect said.

Many Americans regard these kinds of approaches as alien, feeling we could never go there. I’m not sure. The Europeans I meet in these places are pretty much just like me, inclined to do the right thing for the environment, but insistent on a comfortable life.

There is nothing innately superior about Europe’s environmental consciousness, which certainly has its own blind spots. In Italy, where people rail against genetically modified food, people routinely throw litter out of cars. In Germany, where residents are comfortable in smaller energy efficient homes, there is still a penchant for cars with gas-guzzling engines and for driving fast on the autobahn.

I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving up comfort or convenience. Though I initially railed about the hassle of living without a dryer or air conditioning in Rome, I now enjoy the ritual of putting laundry on the line, expect to sweat in summer, and look forward to the cool of autumn.

Author Elisabeth Rosenthal has covered international environmental issues for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune for the last three years, traveling extensively to report on environmental projects. Before that, she was a correspondent in the Times’ Beijing bureau for six years. She has a MD from Harvard Medical School.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo: Grant MacDonald]

Related posts:

• Are Women Greener Than Men?
• Hybrid Cars Are Cleaner Than Joggers
• Carbon Footprint: Climate Treaty Should Target The World’s Rich
• Chile Launches Initiative to Measure Water Footprint of Companies
• Voluntary Carbon Footprint Labels to Come in UK

Dow Chemical Company, a worldwide leader in the global chemical industry, and sponsor of the 2010 Dow Live Earth Run for Water, has entered into agreements with the new Saudi Arabian King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)  for developing cleaner, new routes for producing chemical derivatives.

The two are also looking into ways for carbon capture –a method which proposes to suck up and store greenhouse gas emissions.

Although many of the chemicals produced by the American chemical giant are used in the petroleum distilling and petrochemical industries, with much of the company’s “raw material” is coming from Saudi Arabia.

Both Dow executives and the Saudi Arabian government know they need to become involved in projects that are  more environmentally friendly; especially in the energy market.

KAUST is a new graduate level academic institution that just opened its doors in September, and whose campus has been designed to be more eco-sustainable and better adapted to being located in the harsh, hot climate of the Arabia Peninsula.

Read a previous Green Prophet article about its unique architectural and environmentally friendly designs.

In addition to the joint chemical derivatives projects, Dow also plans to explore being involved in ecological projects which will be carried out at KAUST’s Research Park and Innovations Cluster. Some of these projects include CO2 capture, enhanced oil recovery, water desalination, solar energy and wind energy.

CO2 capture and storage or CCS, sequesters carbon dioxide gas that is present during the petroleum distillation process to prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

Dow for its part, appears to be getting more involved in areas dealing with the environment and the company’s social responsibility towards helping the planet after so many years of being heavily connected with the petroleum industry and its effect on the world environment.

Trying to find solutions to the water resource problems that many countries face, including Saudi Arabia, is now an important part of Dow’s environmental responsibility goals. Dow was part of August’s World Water Week, held in Stockholm, where delegates from nations all over the world met to explore ways in which  countries can work together to find solutions to preserving present fresh water resources, recycling waste water, and producing fresh water from desalination and other means.

For its part, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia now has what is said to be the world’s largest desalination plant and is now able to produce 70% of its fresh water from reverse osmosis and other methods of desalination.

These will be some of the projects that both Dow and KAUST research teams will be jointly involved in within the framework of this agreement, as well as the chemical derivatives research, which hopefully will not be dedicated to the long term continuation and dependence on fossil fuels.

Article by Maurice Picow appearing courtesy of Green Prophet

Related posts:

• Green University: Saudi Arabia’s KAUST With Eco-friendly Environment
• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows
• Gulf Nations’ Social Policies Playing Role in Oil Price Rises, Report Says
• Michigan, the Saudi Arabia of Wind Energy?
• Shipping Industry Agrees to CO2 Emissions Standards

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may still be considered as one of the most conservative from a religious standpoint. But with the opening of the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, otherwise known as KAUST, a new era in academic learning, combined with new innovations in ecological architecture and design, has begun in which both men and women students will benefit jointly.

The new campus opened its doors in September, in the Red Sea city of Thuwal,  80 km north of Jeddah. It is considered to be  the most environmentally innovative  campus of its kind in the Kingdom. Constructed in a manner to utilize the maximum benefit of sea breezes for cooling, the buildings themselves have been constructed in order to screen out a good deal of the heat that is generated by the hot Arabian sun; making the internal environment  more sustainable for the students.

Built close together, the buildings themselves are designed to shade each other, making the internal temperatures much cooler.

From an academic standpoint, the university will offer degrees in 11 fields of study, including Environmental Science and Energy Development, Biosciences and Bioengineering, Industrial and Chemical Engineering, Applied Mathematics, and Computer Science. One of the most innovative aspects to the new KAUST campus, for Saudi Arabia anyway, is that both male and female students will study together in the same classrooms; something that has not been common in other Saudi campuses.

Mr. Bill Odell, of HOK Architects, and one of the two principal designers of the project, noted that the design of the campus, in which the buildings were built close together to provide natural shading for each other, was taken from traditional forms of

Middle Eastern architecture in which buildings are built close together to lessen the heat of the sun’s rays.

This concept, together with using modern concepts of air conditioning, as well as utilizing the effect of the Red Sea breezes, will make the climatic environment within more comfortable while reducing energy costs.

Building designs from universities all over the world were studied, especially ones in hot climates, in order to find the right kind of architectural “model” that will accommodate the students in both classroom and research environments, as well as in residential ones. Each building incorporates a “solar tower” (another “innovation” used in early Islamic architecture) that heats the air, causing it to rise and pull in the sea breezes from the outside.

The residential part of the campus provides environmentally friendly living accommodations for both students and faculty members, and includes plenty of green spaces, shopping, health and recreational facilities. Special electric shuttle buses and other vehicles, including golf carts and two wheeled “Segways” will ferry students and instructors to and from classroom and residential facilities.

Being situated in a country where Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam is a way of life, women students still have adhere to all aspects of attire and other requirements for living in the Kingdom, even while being on campus. But being able to study and conduct research together with male students is at least a small beginning in a country where women are usually completely separated from men; even in an academic study environment.

We suppose it will be interesting to see a woman student, dressed in full Wahhabi dress, tooling along on her Segway on the way to class.

Article by Maurice Picow appearing courtesy of Green Prophet

Related posts:

• Dow Chemical and Saudi Arabia’s KAUST University Vow To Clean Up Environment
• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows
• Gulf Nations’ Social Policies Playing Role in Oil Price Rises, Report Says
• Policy Efficacy: Feed-in Tariff vs. Competitive Bidding
• Shipping Industry Agrees to CO2 Emissions Standards