Carsharing comes to Denver

(from www.greenprintdenver.org)

Ready to Go Multi-Modal?

A new travel option is coming to Denver. Carsharing is currently available in more than 40 US cities, and beginning this spring, Denver will join that list. This alternative to personal car ownership provides members hourly use of vehicles—without the costs of insurance, maintenance or even gas. Not a new concept, carsharing organizations (not carpooling) have operated for more than 20 years worldwide.

Photo of key fob

Carsharing provides a perfect supplement to transit, cycling and walking, for those times when you just need a car, whether at work or at home. It’s a good reason to downsize from two cars to one (or even none) if you want to save money, live or work in an area with parking challenges, or if you want to make more green-living choices. With options, it’s easier to think twice about the appropriate transportation mode for each trip and drive less. This helps create places that are more people oriented, economically vibrant, eco-friendly and easier and more efficient to travel to and through.

Now, a local nonprofit with over eight years’ experience as a successful carshare organization in Boulder, eGo CarShare, is expanding to provide service in the metro Denver area. Members pay a small fee to join and monthly (with a good driving record) and then reserve cars online as needed for a low hourly rate (currently $4), to use any of their fleet of new, fuel-efficient vehicles parked in convenient, nearby locations and accessed with a special key “fob.” Cars should be available in Denver in the next month. For more information, visit www.carshare.org.

Technorati Tags: Denver,Carsharing,car,transit,cycling,walking,green,nonprofit,Boulder,fuel-efficient,carbon footprint,ecological footprint,ecosystem,environment,petroleum,progressive,sustainability

The Cost of Building Green

(Source: AIA - American Institute of Architects, March 31, 2009)

When "Green Construction" is discussed the focus inevitably turns to cost. How much additional will the green project cost? Some organizations are opposed to any additional first costs while others have some tolerance for additional expenditures.

The most prominent standard for green buildings is the USGBC (US Green Building Council). The USGBC LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program has four levels of green certification: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. These levels represent increasing levels of sustainability. There have been numerous studies aimed at comparing the cost of a USGBC LEED certified building to traditional designs. The average additional cost quoted is in the range of 2% to 5%. Based upon commercial building costs of $150/sq.ft. to $250/sq.ft., this is equivalent to a $7.50 to $12.50/sq.ft. premium for building green. The majority of this cost is due to the increased architectural and engineering design time necessary to integrate sustainable building practices into the projects. Another additional cost is for commissioning. Commissioning is the process of ensuring that the systems are designed, installed, functionally tested and capable of being operated and maintained to conform to the design intent. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory commissioning can save as much as 40% of the buildings utility bills for HVAC.

As more buildings are being designed to address the green initiatives the additional design as well as construction cost is decreasing.

Now let's examine the advantages of owning a "green" building. The obvious advantage is the reduced impact on the environment through waste recycling, reduced water and energy consumption, and better indoor air quality by reducing VOCs. In addition to these environmental advantages there are marketing and tenant retention benefits to owning a green building. Organizations want to locate and stay in a healthy building. Finally there is a productivity and health value associated with "green" buildings. Greg Kats of Capital E published an analysis that projects the 20 year NPV (net present value) savings of a Certified or Silver building. The cost savings are attributable to reduced water, energy, waste plus commissioning O&M and productivity and health value. Savings of $52.87/square foot for Certified or Silver buildings and $71.31/square foot for a Gold or Platinum buildings are projected. Of these amounts $36.89/square foot and $55.33 respectively are attributable to productivity and health value. Even if the productivity and health value is reduced or eliminated the 20 year NPV savings ($52.87 - $36.89 = $15.89) exceeds the cost premium stated above.

In light of the above who can afford not to build green?

Technorati Tags: AIA,green,construction,USGBC,LEED,sustainability,building,cost,design,HVAC,environment,recycling,consumption,health

Super Bowl 2009 - The "green" game?

Super Bowl 2009 is almost here, and the NFL Environmental Program, in partnership with the Tampa Bay host committee, is taking steps to make the game more Eco-friendly this year. Some of these initiatives include:

- Recovery of prepared food from events

- Solid waste recycling

- Donation of all leftover building and decorative materials to local nonprofits

- Use of renewable energy to power the NFL Experience Football Theme Park and the stadium on game day

- Collection of used books and sports equipment for local schools and youth agencies

- Travel offsets for the teams and NFL officials traveling to Super Bowl XLIII

For the game in Tampa Bay, there will also be thousands of trees planted to reduce the carbon footprint of the game. This is the fifth year that the NFL has incorporated tree planting projects in the host city, typically in association with the US Forest Service.

While it is commendable that the NFL is taking these steps, I still feel like more could be done to not only "green" the Super Bowl, but the NFL in general. Many of these initiatives could be applied to all of the regular and post-season games as well. The NFL has the resources to expand this program to include more creative ways to make the league environmentally sustainable. It is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to make the game of football truly "green."

Fountain of Youth

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that science has come a long way, and still making significant discoveries and advances. One particular area I would like to discuss is the realm of human health and biology. Two hundred years ago, one was considered a senior citizen at the age of 35. In today’s standards, this is merely middle age. At best, humans today are living to be a little over a hundred years old. Recent scientific advances have proposed that humans have the possibility of doubling, even tripling this incredible life span. This arises certain questions, particularly, health, environmental and social impacts, psychology, and finances, to name a few. These issues will be reviewed in the context of this article.

Firstly, when one considers the idea of living to be, for example, 200 years old, in what physical condition will this person be? Wheelchair bound, in a nursing home, nearly deaf and blind, or full of life and energy, like a twenty year old? I suppose that as long as the important biological functions are in tact (heart, lungs, digestive and nervous systems), then one is technically alive. The definition of alive then becomes too subjective. That is to say, at what point is one living or thriving? I would prefer to thrive.

Secondly, a question of environmental impact is considered. A human consumes a lot in one lifetime. How much would a person consume in two or even three lifetimes worth? By humans living longer, there will also be a peak point as birth rate continues to rise while the death rate does not decrease. This phenomenon will push the earth over its carrying capacity for too long, and the results will be disastrous. At this point, I envision that human life will become a commodity, with marketable birth rights, and taxation for living past a certain age.

There will also be great social impacts with this. With the increased amount of senior citizens, welfare, social security, and healthcare programs will all need massive restructuring. The US will become one big “Sun City”. Golf carts and Rascals will have their own lane. The national curfew will be five p.m... These are extreme examples, but not entirely improbable.

Human psychology will also be affected. The longer living individuals will have to cope with the stresses of their age, mobility, roles in society, etc, that will all be affected by being older. One has to consider how aging affects an individuals psyche. Will there be such thing as a “post-natural mid-life crisis” at 125 years of age? This has never happened before on a large scale, so it will unfold a whole new area of psychological research.

Finally, as worldly as it sounds, finances must be considered. In today’s society, most are living paycheck to paycheck. Very few have enough to live on after retirement, and those who do, really only have about 20-30 years worth of retirement living funds. How does one plan to pay the bills for 250 years? Can a 150 year old person work to earn a living? Will social security last for two hundred years? Or, on the other hand, will anyone that invested in their thirties and forties be the richest in the world, due to their very long standing rates of return on their investments?

The idea that I could live to be 200-300 years old, if not more, is very appealing to me, given a few conditions. It would require financial stability, good strong health, and a supportive social system in place. Imagine how much intelligence one could acquire in 250 years. It would be nothing less than amazing to say the least. The technology exists to make all of this happen, but what it is worth is up to us.

Technorati Tags: biology,social,environment,consumption,psychology,fountain of youth,healthcare,health,resources,wealth,social security,welfare,birth rate,lifestyle,death rate,science,life span