Environmental topics are at the forefront of the news these days, from the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to the specter of global warming, to the climate change bills currently under discussion in the Senate (such as the American Power Act).  There are a lot of different voices out there in the media, arguing whether or not there is actually a problem, and if so, what should be done about it.

In this article, I will attempt to distill some of the more important of these complex issues as a guideline.

What is the climate, and is it really changing?

Simply put, climate is the weather patterns measured for a region over a long period of time.  Here is a basic definition of climate change.

Is the climate actually changing?  For an increasing number of experts, the answer is yes.  Check out the slideshow on Climate Change Indicators from the EPA.  Even David Attenborough, famed naturalist and admitted skeptic, has changed his tune in the last few years. 

A decade ago, NASA revealed that small particle pollution from smokestacks affects even day-to-day weather.  And of course, from 2006, the movie ”An Inconvenient Truth” presented a startling picture of accelerating climate change, and garnered 2 Academy awards, and the Nobel Prize for former Vice President Al Gore along the way.

Dissenters these days are getting increasingly lost in the clamor, but Warren Meyer at climate-skeptic.com has some good points the impending “CO2 Climate Catastrophe” may not be as dire as predicted.

So what is actually happening to the climate? This is a good question, and hard to answer definitively.  The greenhouse effect, while currently topical, may or may not be the bugaboo it currently seems.  Time will tell whether humans actually affect the cycle, and if we can reverse any changes by applying technology and adopting alternative energy sources.  However, local climates are certainly affected by deforestation, urban sprawl, industry, and a myriad of other human factors.  These factors can be controlled, and arguably should be.

If the climate is changing, how do we fix it?

There is no simple solution.  Alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear power, solar energy, wind or water power, among others, could be used to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, thereby reducing emissions of CO₂. 

Conservation efforts to preserve and restore forests and waterways could help stabilize and reverse climate change.

Individual and community education  and recycling efforts could reduce energy consumption, reduce landfills, and help reduce climate-altering emissions.

It is likely that a combination of legislation, conservation, alternative energy sources and individual education will be required for any lasting change.

What would the ideal legislation look like?

In a perfect world, it would be possible to draft a comprehensive policy that would have the aim of halting the ongoing degradation of the environment, provide guidelines and requirement for restoration of damaged areas, identify and preserve critical wildlife habitats and wilderness areas, and  provide guidelines for responsible development of natural resources.  Such policy would encompass not only global warming legislation, but also overarching wildlife regulation, wilderness area preservation, environmental remediation, green building practices, and applications of environmentally sensitive techniques to harvesting of natural resources, such as mining, oil drilling, or timber harvesting.

It is highly unlikely that such a broad-reaching policy could ever be agreed upon by any legislative body, much less reach planet-wide acceptance.  Most likely an evolving patchwork of laws, policies, and treaties will be required to manage not only the planetary climate, but our evolving expectations and responsibilities.  Instead, let’s take a look at current or pending legislation that have a real chance of making a difference to the environment.  There are a number of legislative items pending or in place here in the US that deal with the regulation of the environment, and could positively impact climate change:

The US could ratify the UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), which would help to protect mineral and fishing rights, set limits on pollution, and navigational rights.

The US could reconsider the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty of 37 countries who have committed to reduce greenhouse gas emission below 1990 levels, or a successor treaty, utilizing a “cap-and-trade” strategy.

The American Power Act aims to reduce CO2 emissions by instituting a “cap-and-trade” policy, ideally reducing the dependence on foreign oil, creating green jobs, and slowing the rate of global warming.

The Clean Air Act, instituted in 1970, has enabled the EPA to progressively tighten restrictions on air pollutants.  In 2009, six greenhouse gases were added to the list of restricted emissions.  Various legislations pending before Congress threaten to weaken this bill by blocking the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Of the choices above, consensus seems to be that the most value to be had is in 1) protecting the Clean Air Act, and 2) Institute some additional “cap-and-trade” policy, such as the America Power Act.

Is it even possible to legislate a fix for the climate?

Presuming that some or any of these laws go into effect, will they do any real good?  Well, from historical evidence, we can show that legislation can positively affect the environment, such as the reduction of acid rain in the US due to the Clean Air Act.  Legislation such as the Clean Air Act could also provide real benefit.

So, what happens if the US leads, and no one follows?

This question has been posed by many opponents of climate and environmental legislation.  What difference does it make if the US becomes a global good citizen, if other established and developing nations continue pouring pollution and greenhouse gases into the environment?  This is the semantic equivalent of “If all your friends jump of a bridge, would you follow?” (here is a more scholarly refutation)

Nevertheless, it has become a common refrain, to which another answer is obvious: The US is already a follower on this issue, not a leader—the rest of the world has already outpaced us!  The majority of European and Asian countries have already ratified International treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the UNCLOS (see above).

By enacting tougher legislation, the US can join the growing community of nations who are working to control the climate, and assist in bringing diplomatic and economic pressure on the dwindling number of non-conforming nations.

So what can one person do about climate change, anyway?

To reiterate a tired phrase: One person can make a difference. 

Educate yourself.  Learn about pending legislation in your area, and make your voice heard.  Learn more about climate change and the environment, so that you can make informed decisions.  Vote.

Learn to recycle.  It’s easier than you think! Encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Get involved.  Environmental groups abound, with local and internet chapters everywhere for practically any level of involvement (Google: environmental organizations). 

It’s everyone’s planet, let’s take care of it!

The debate over whether or not PVC (polyvinyl chloride)-based  building materials can be considered green has been ongoing for more than 10 years.  In 2002 the USGBC created a task force to study the effects of using PVC in the built environment.  A final report was issued in 2007 which was inconclusive – however when only human health was taken into account the PVC materials were consistently worse than other alternative materials. Websites such as Healthy Building Network (www.healthybuilding.net) and Healthcare Without Harm (www.noharm.org) are very clear on where they stand on this issue.

According to the Healthy Building Network’s website, PVC is the worst plastic from an environmental health perspective and it poses major hazards in its manufacture, product life, and disposal. So is the answer to the question “Should Green Interiors be PVC-Free?” yes? Nothing relating to green building products is that simple.  As a healthcare interior designer I have specified my share of PVC-based interior products throughout my 18 year career.  These products include resilient flooring, carpet tile, wallcoverings and upholstery.  And I have to admit I have been slow to jump on the PVC-free bandwagon.   I meet with manufacturers sales reps regularly to discuss their latest introductions and innovative green products.  In the last 5-7 years almost every manufacturer has brought out at least one PVC-free alternative in their product line.  I always ask the same questions:  How does it perform?  How much more does it cost?  and How is it maintained?  Up until recently the answers to these questions left me concerned that the PVC-free products were not always the right choice for my clients.  They usually cost more, they didn’t perform as well and they were difficult to maintain.  In a hospital, for example, it would not be a sustainable solution to specify flooring and wallcovering in a patient wing that would only last 3-5 years instead of the standard 10-12 years.

The newer generation of PVC-free alternative products are finally starting to address all of these concerns.  The Healthy Building Network’s website offers a PDF for download of the latest green alternatives to PVC. I continue to research for the best PVC-free alternatives for my clients and I have become much more confident that these products are the right choice for a green interior.

I recently read an article in the May 2010 edition of Food Manufacturing magazine.  The article by Krystal Gabert was titled “A Chance to LEED the GREEN Revolution”.  Check out the article at http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/Article-A-Chance-To-LEED-The-Green-Revolution.asp

The article has a brief description of the LEED program, the USGBC, and GBCI.  It has some information on how to get started with LEED, food industry strategies for LEED, and examples of LEED in the industry.  The article states that only 39 of the 4,286 LEED certified projects were in food manufacturing facilities.

In my opinion, there are at least 3 main reasons for the lack of LEED projects in food manufacturing facilities:

Health and Food Safety – Driven by consumer demand, making food products healthier and safer have taken priority over making the manufacturing facilities more environmentally friendly.

Product Labeling – Buildings are LEED certified, but the products manufactured in the building are not labeled LEED certified.  Consumers generally don’t know what facility their food was manufactured in, so it’s difficult for consumers to demand LEED certification with their buying habits.

The Economy – Since the economy fell into a recession, many food manufacturing companies have tightened the reins on capital spending.  Many companies have shortened the ROI payback requirements for releasing capital and LEED certification just can’t be justified.  While LEED is usually justified by reducing the building operation costs over time, companies are identifying process related cost reductions that have much shorter ROI payback periods and LEED certification gets pushed down the priority list.

Although they are not obtaining LEED certification, many food manufacturing facilities are already practicing sustainability, at least in their process, to reduce the costs of making their products.

I’m sure there are more reasons for the lack of LEED certified food manufacturing facilities.  Maybe there aren’t enough LEED APs involved with the food industry.  Maybe LEED certification is too facility focused and the industry is too production focused.  Why do you think the food industry hasn’t embraced LEED?