Tag Archives: California
States Move on Labeling of Genetically Modified Food
Posted on 22. Jul, 2011 by Michael Chapdelaine.
Wait! Can you say if what you’re eating has been “engineered?” Not sure? Expectedly, you probably don’t know and you’re not alone.
Continue Reading
Top Ten Green News Stories of May 2011
Posted on 01. Jun, 2011 by Liz Holland.
OG|10: Green News Monthly Roundup featuring the top ten green news stories from May 2011 as followed and covered by Opportunity Green.
Continue Reading
Thought the 8-track Would Never Make a Comeback? E-Waste: How Markets Are Solving Environmental Challenges
Posted on 12. Apr, 2011 by Patrick Haase.
You probably thought the Walkman, fan-like floppy disks, and VCRs were gone for good, but they’re coming back—as pollutants. Electronic devices contain harmful toxins such as mercury, cadmium, and lead that can leach into soil, enter groundwater systems, and endanger local communities. Long after the last spin of a cassette tape or the last call-received from a Zack Morris cellular phone, electronic devices can cause long-term risks to human health and the environment.
Electronic waste (“e-waste”) recycling has been gaining steam throughout the past decade. Unfortunately, e-waste recycling without a government created market is unprofitable in the United States. Further, many “recyclers” simply send electronics to be disassembled in developing countries, usually by children with little protection or training. E-waste is a global environmental, health and social justice issue that’s finally receiving meaningful attention in the United States, the world’s leader in e-waste.
Since 2003, 24 states have enacted some form of e-waste statute to regulate the disposal and recycling of electronic waste and reduce its export oversees. These statutes have significantly reduced the amount of e-waste entering landfills and exiting through ports (though more needs to be done). What’s most remarkable is how states are solving the challenge of e-waste by tapping into the power of the private market.
Two very different approaches are being used to reign in e-waste pollution. California imposes a tax on consumer purchases of electronics. Retailers collect a fee at the register and the State uses this money to reimburse recyclers for collection and processing. California has witnessed the emergence of a robust, innovative e-waste recycling industry. With millions of dollars collected from electronics sales yearly, there’s a race for e-waste in California. Private businesses are innovating new ways to collect old electronics, including door-to-door pickup and weekend collection drives. The aim is to make e-waste recycling easier and more convenient for consumers. However, California has unintentionally created a recycling industry dependent on wasteful, toxic electronics, with no regulatory mechanism to reduce the amount of e-waste entering the waste stream.
Washington State is looking to reduce the amount of e-waste that enters the market by requiring manufacturers to bear the entire costs of e-waste recycling. Forcing manufacturers to internalize waste disposal costs puts market efficiency, innovation, and competition to work creating more sustainable, environmentally safe consumer electronics. Manufacturers now have an incentive to make less wasteful products to lower their disposal costs. Rather than simply becoming efficient e-waste collectors, Washington is poised to turn private industry into efficient e-waste eliminators. After five years on the books, it remains to be seen whether Washington’s statute will lead to long-term, systemic changes to manufacturing. So far the program has been extremely effective at reducing the amount of e-waste entering landfills or being shipped oversees.
E-waste statutes are an example of how market principles are being used to solve our environmental challenges. How a state imposes environmental costs dictates how the market will emerge to solve the problem. California treats e-waste as a consumer problem and imposes a tax on electronics. The result has been the emergence of an efficient e-waste harvesting culture that competes for State funds. Washington State, on the other hand, treats e-waste as a manufacturing and design problem, imposing e-waste costs directly on manufacturers.
The hope is that manufacturers will create more competitive electronics by reducing waste and toxicity. Both California and Washington are using the power of the market to reduce the environmental impacts of e-waste. E-waste statutes throughout the country are leading to greater e-waste recycling every year, demonstrating that environmental protection is compatible with business objectives. The secret is orienting the market to solve our environmental problems, not create them.
Article by Opportunity Green Insights contributor, Patrick Haase.
Continue Reading
Opportunity Green at Dwell on Design
Posted on 02. Jul, 2010 by BenjiRosen.
Dwell Magazine hosted its annual exposition, “Dwell on Design,” this past weekend at the LA Convention Center beginning on Friday, June 25th, and lasting through Sunday, June 27th. The coordinators at Dwell applied the same inventive approach they practice in their publication as they showcased one of the most dynamic and creative ideas in modern aesthetic and architecture. Although building and design were the centerpieces of this three-day event, Dwell-on-Design attendees (which included architects, professionals and environmental enthusiasts) were also exposed to countless innovative eco-products and a collection of captivating speakers.
Dwell focuses on modern architecture and design in their magazine, so it follows that development in building and design should be a focus of the exposition too. To the delight of the conference attendees, the Dwell team made sure to shy away from anything ordinary.
Opportunity Green Hosts Panel at Dwell on Design
The exhibition showcased furniture, building materials, outdoor accessories, and energy and resources that the general public has never seen before. And, in addition to “Asia Now” (which brought together the best contemporary design from Asia with an emphasis on saving energy) and “Modern Family Zone” (offering important lessons in improvement and sustainability for the whole family), “Dwell on Design” also had installations inside the convention center highlighting many unique home concepts.
The founder of ecofabulous and a good friend to Opportunity Green, Zem Joaquin, led the charge for innovative, energy-saving home ideas. Joaquin was the lead designer of the “Modern Living Showhouse,” assembled by Reclaimed Space in Austin, Texas, and built from 80-90% salvaged material. Merging style, function, and environmental ethos, the house was furnished by over twenty different eco-products. Ecofabulous advertised the showhouse project on their website, claiming the products utilized were “carefully selected for their superior sustainability standards and design aesthetic. From the lush living wall to the smart, energy-efficient kitchen and laundry appliances to the gorgeous vintage furniture from eBay.” To read Ecofabulous’s full narrative about the “Modern Living Showhouse,” view pictures, and learn about the show houses’ charity auctioning on eBay, visit here.
Actually, it seemed like Opportunity Green had members of our team all around the Convention Center on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We shared a corner space with Vapur, who designed and is selling a reusable water bottle that can be folded, rolled, flattened and frozen. While Vapur’s founder, Jason Carignan, were very busy selling out of Vapur’s innovative product, they also gave testimony on the OG Conference to all our booth visitors.
Carignan also hosted a panel on product design innovation with Nicole Landers, an OG board member and the founder of the sustainability firm, eConnect Group, and Peter Falt, the Director of Strategic Partnering for BMW Design Works. Our own dear Karen Solomon, co-founder and CEO of Opportunity Green and friend to all, was slated to anchor this panel but unfortunately lost her voice and could not participate. Landers came in as a last minute, and remarkable replacement. When thinking about his experience this weekend, Carignan admitted he “was really inspired by all of the great questions Peter Falt and [he] got from the attendees during our panel on an Insiders’ Look at a New Era of Design. Many of entrepreneurs and design professionals seeking ways to ensure their business are as sustainable as their products. I’m glad we were able to offer some practical guidance to realizing their vision.”
In fact, Nicole did a fantastic job stressing how important partnerships are in innovation and sustainability. Especially in design technology products, partnerships between the designers and their business-partners are what drive new ideas for better sustainability.
Events like Dwell on Design highlight the idea of collaboration and cooperation – ideas that Opportunity Green continues to champion. When we asked Nicole Landers what she came away with after hosting the panel, she discussed this theme of inter-connectedness, reiterating how in any smart technologies, along with having an innovative workable “public relations” are the stimulating feature. It is what steers the “three-way triangle” of people, profit, and planet onto a sustainable course.
As we come away from the conference of inspired designers and business professionals, it seems even more apparent that in order to create and maintain a market that supports both environmental incentive as well as bottom line, we have to come together. Opportunity Green 2010 has been built directly around the idea that only through partnerships and relationships can we truly make a difference. Please join us, September 22-24th at LA Center Studios for Opportunity Green: INTER 2010
Continue Reading
TED from Palm Springs
Posted on 11. Feb, 2010 by tinochow.
Greetings from Palm Springs. Having been to Long Beach for TED 2009, I return to California to TED Active in Palm Springs for 2010. I am here with about 500 other TEDsters rocking it in the mountains. It is a very intimate setting here, trading the traditional conference seating arrangements in the theater for bean bag chairs and PJs.
This is still TED! People are amazing. Ideas, ideas, ideas are everywhere. I am already loosing my voice talking to TEDster. You’ll hear about the things that are happen here soon.
- Tino Chow (blog)
Continue Reading
Understanding Trends in Solar Development: An Interview with Beautiful Earth Group
Posted on 05. Feb, 2010 by opportunity.
I asked Lex Heslin, CEO and Founder of Beautiful Earth Group, a company in the process of developing Photovoltaic Installations in the Mojave Desert: “What are the most interesting trends in the adoption of renewable energy, specifically solar?” He identified three interesting trends affecting solar energy:
- RPS (Renewable [energy] Portfolio standard)
- Feed-in Tariffs
- Government Support
- 1) Let’s talk about RPS First.
Recently, half of the states in the Union have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards which require utilities to generate or purchase 20% of their energy produced through renewable energy; from solar, wind, geo-thermal, biomass, biogas, and hydro power. A lot of states haven’t jumped on board yet. But, there are many calls from environmental groups and clean energy developers to make sure the RPS’s have the teeth to get it done. It may take a couple of years, but states might be penalized if they don’t follow through with a renewable portfolio standards.
2) Feed-in Tariffs
If you look at other countries around the world, they are working on putting legislative systems in place to make sure renewable energy is a focus. Feed-in tariffs have been an effective method by governments and a reason why Spain and Germany* have the largest solar markets in terms of installed capacity in the world. Government sets industrial policy by agreeing to pay a high price to encourage solar development. These tariffs guarantee payment over a certain period of time. In some cases the government agrees to purchase energy at rates as high as 60 cents per KiloWatt Hour. It’s a high price in large part because pollutive energy doesn’t have to pay for the pollution generated, and most costs for solar are up front and then amortized. However, a big benefit of this growth in renewable energy development is the creation of whole new industries with their necessary service providers, e.g. companies to move the solar panels, provide financing, etc., which tend to ramp up over night once these large incentives are put in place and developers go into production.
(*It should be noted that two weeks ago on January 21st, Germany announced it was lowering the feed-in tariff, following suit with Spain, because people contended the price was too high.)
Here in America we are looking for an effective model for how to price renewable energy. The first place to adopt a feed-in system was in Gainesville, Florida. They issued a Request For Proposal that was instantly oversubscribed due to limited MW capacity. In Sacramento, California the municipal utilities department introduced 100 MW of capacity and it was oversubscribed immediately. This a big movement that happens through feed-in tariffs and its happening in a big way.
OG: So why are utilities purchasing these renewable energy contracts if they are currently more expensive than “fossil-fuel energy”?
Utilities are engaging in renewable energy contracts to meet RPS requirements, and also to lock in prices that are maybe just a little above traditional prices. However, it is more stable and potentially cheaper in the long run.
Here’s some background on costs of energy: When coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear is blended, its on average around 12-15cents per kW/hr in California. Contracts can be made for so-called peak delivery, during the hours of 2pm to 8pm when the sun is at its highest and hottest. Solar is a good resource in hot places where people use a lot of A/C. In some contracts, you can get 28-29cents per KW/hour. Ultimately, you gotta remember that solar is an intermittent resource.
3) The final leg of what’s big for solar is government support (in large part a recent result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)
Previously for renewable energy development we had an investment tax credit (for 30% of investment cost). You would build your project and the equity investors would receive a 30% tax write-off. But, this only works if the investors have a large profit margin in a given year (enough to use the tax write-off to offset taxes on those profits). As corporate profits dried up over the last 2 years, the government had to create something different. So the government created the cash grant in lieu of the Investor Tax Credit.
Now, after project is completed, instead of going after credits, you just get a check for 30% of the cost of the project (typically in 30-60 days). This is a huge improvement over previous credit programs in which it could take much longer to collect the credit. All this said, that program requires that you have shovels in the ground by Dec 31st 2010. Developers are racing to do so in order to receive the credit.
There’s one other pertinent program: the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. This “1705″ loan guarantee allocated 7 billion dollars in loan guarantees and up to 80% of the total project cost. The banks fund the project and only risk 20% of their funds, making it far easier to get the loan.
In 2009, the DOE budget was approx $30 billion for energy projects. Of that $30 billion, $23 billion went to nuclear and clean coal, which kills me, and only $7 billion was left for all of renewables (including. wind, hydro. etc.). This program opened at the end of summer ’09 and about half has been non-committed. The program ends in July, 2011.
OG: As we closed out the interview we asked “what some other cool trends that are emerging?”
Within solar there is cool stuff in new technology and new materials. The radical technology breakthroughs won’t be in Photo Voltaic but rather in the Solar Thermal plants. In California, there are some plants called SEGS (Solar Energy Generating Systems).
The first one is up in Barstow, using parabolic troughs, the C shaped mirrors you may have seen. These Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) plants have been running for 25-30 years. They focus heat on a synthetic material such as a sodium based liquid, which is then pumped through to heat up water, producing steam and generating energy through a traditional steam turbine.What’s exciting about the CSTs is the ability to store heat–up to 6 hrs after the sun goes down!
The other big movement in technology is towards new applications of solar thermal (power towers). These new materials have a base PV that is organic PV, which grows material during the photovoltaic process and it can eventually replace silicon.
Finally, another emerging trend is smart grid technology. Imagine if all your appliances ran from 2am-6am in the morning to get all the cooling it needed. Now think about that with electric cars–you can shift the supply and demand balance. At the highest level, all of these appliances can start talking to the grid and say when it needs electricity. This allows us to use energy more efficiently as it creates a better awareness of how to use it.
Continue Reading
Interview with Real Food Daily’s Catering Director, Elisha Valdez
Posted on 26. Jan, 2010 by Brady Gibson.
The Clean Energy Economy is emerging. Jobs are being created across the spectrum and industries are going through fundamental shifts to adapt to an ever-changing world. Whether business strategies evolve out of necessity to government policy or wanting to both improve and incorporate the Triple Bottom Line, sustainability is creating jobs, expanding the market, and promoting economies of scale.
Opportunity Green strives to recognize leaders in sustainability and the green movement. Whether you are Proctor&Gamble or Ecovative Design, the OG team recognizes green greatness through green living–the difference between those who “say” it and those who “do” it. Furthermore, these companies and individuals create an impact bigger than their immediate size. They collaborate with business leaders, companies, and customers that value sustainable operations, community development, and a clean energy economy. Community-based and intrinsically tied between People, Planet, and Profit, sustainability is an emerging cultural ideology that requires innovation, integrity, and perseverance. One way to live green is to eat green. Restaurant sustainability is on the rise, yet there are a limited number of leaders and pioneers in the Green Restaurant Industry. As one of the most wasteful and rigid industries in the United States, the restaurant industry represents a major opportunity to find successful models, tools, ideas, and management systems for other industries and the wider Clean Energy Economy as a whole. Opportunity Green took the time to look within their green community for a leader in this category and all signs pointed to Real Food Daily. Starting out as a catering company for Hollywood moguls and superstars in the 1980′s, Real Food Daily opened its first restaurant in 1993 in Santa Monica, California, under owner Ann Gentry. Since then, it has emerged as the only restaurant in Los Angeles to serve a 100% vegan menu with foods grown solely from organic farming methods. According to Elisha Valdez, Catering Director at RFD, “the goal [...] is to introduce the Real Food Daily menu to as wide an audience as possible. We want to break the misconception that vegan food is bland, boring, and unappealing.” (If you don’t believe her, go try the nachos!) 
In addition to their delicious food, RFD is both a leader and pioneer in the green restaurant industry and had centered their operations on sustainable design long before “organic” became the buzz-word du jour. According to Elisha, RFD has bought organic for 17 years and has been a “pioneer in the efforts to advance awareness of the organic food segment of the market.” Did you know the carbon footprint of a non-meat eater is 1/7th the size of a meat eater, according to the U.N.I.P.C.C? That is a snippet of information that Elisha and others at RFD incorporate into their ideology and they live it daily. Furthermore, they influence the community by providing “people with a delicious opportunity to embrace a vegetarian diet–even it’s not everyday–[as] one of the best ways to support sustainable initiatives in the community”. Ultimately, RFD is about “the balance for both the environment and the body, [coming] from a Macrobiotic foundation [that] incorporate[s] the yin and yang of not only food, but life”.
Although RFD makes it look easy to both maintain and grow a sustainable restaurant industry, Elisha told us they still face daily challenges. ”One of our biggest struggles is communicating to the full extent of our commitment to organic foods and sustainability.” Indeed, one of the biggest struggles in the restaurant industry and sustainable operations is finding a way to transition the restaurant into green operations–a goal that starts at the fundamental operations and costs of the business. ”We see a lot of companies say ‘organic whenever possible’, but what they mean is ‘organic unless it’s too expensive or difficult to procure”. These words ring so true to Opportunity Green and other genuine companies in the clean green economy.
“The triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits, has always been at the core of what we do at RFD. Before there was even a term for it, we just felt that it was right for our business because it was the right thing to do. For us, its not a triple bottom line–it’s one bottom line that is inextricably connected between those three elements.” As we move into the future, Opportunity Green hopes to observe green methods in the restaurant industry and the positive impact of sustainable systems on business scalability.
Continue Reading
Interview with David Martinon, French Consul General, Part 2
Posted on 05. Nov, 2009 by Susanna Schick.
David Martinon is the Consul General at the Los Angeles French Consulate. In this role, he is responsible for promoting French culture and arts, science, and business, as well as caring for French citizens in the US. Prior to joining the Los Angeles Consulate in 2008, Mr. Martinon was a spokesperson for the French President, before which he was chief of staff for President Sarkozy’s presidential campaign. And before that, he worked as a diplomatic advisor for four years. In this two-part interview we continue by discussing David’s experience as President Sarkozy’s campaign manager, and France’s position on the Copenhagen Agreement.
OG: As chief of staff of President Sarkozy’s Presidential campaign, what did you think of President Obama’s campaign strategies? They were considered quite innovative.
David: Every new campaign brings new tools, new methods. I’m actually quite proud of Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign. In that campaign, we created a few of those tools. We took ideas from previous American campaigns, two ideas specifically. From the 2004 Dean campaign, we adopted his use of social networks, and from the 2004 Bush campaign, we took the idea of the volunteer program. In the last 72 hours before election day, Bush sent volunteers door to door to get people out to vote.
From that we made a few programs- recruiting volunteers by internet, and we also enabled them to see other volunteers in their area on our website, thus combining the two tools. Another good idea the Obama campaign picked up from us was the use of web TV. We created it, and a few observers from the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns came to observe us in 2007. Obama also used web TV, but much bigger and more sophisticated. This was even more crucial in the US than in France. In France we can’t broadcast political ads on TV, here it’s OK, but so very costly. What’s interesting here in the US is that web TV placement costs nothing, and people online pay attention longer and show better retention than TV viewers. I think it will be used even more in the future.
Obama was extremely efficient with fundraising. The main difference with our campaign is that we recruited a lot of volunteers online, but didn’t get as many boots on the ground as Obama did. During the primaries, I visited Obama’s headquarters and McCain’s headquarters as well. There were not many differences, but what they really succeeded in doing was to convert internet volunteers into active volunteers, and Obama’s volunteers were very disciplined.
The McCain campaign was not bad either, he’d only just obtained the nomination, and was still broadening his foundation. Putting aside characters, the machinery of the Republican party was very efficient. One thing I’m very proud of- When we visited the US in 2006, I told Sarkozy he had to meet two Congressmen- McCain and Obama, when most people in the US didn’t even realize who Obama was.
OG: Tell me where the French government stands on Copenhagen.
David: We’re preparing for Copenhagen, we know perfectly well the few principles that must guide Copenhagen, and what will make it successful or not. Recent EU decisions were extremely ambitious, like a 20% reduction in GHG by 2020. The EU also decided that if a global agreement were reached, we would reduce GHG to 30% by 2020. Global emissions need to be 50% lower by 2050, which means developed countries will need to reduce GHG by by 80%! We’re ready, but we need to engage with emerging countries, and we need to help them both financially and technically. We also need to assist the small Pacific Islands, as they are so vulnerable to being completely submerged.
Sarkozy said we have to ensure that the possible success, the agreements, in Copenhagen are actually implemented. A number of organizations are in charge of dealing with this, but I think there should be a global organization devoted to regulating this. We are the first generation (by this he means everyone living today, not just those in our age group) that is clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt aware of the gravity of the situation, and also the last generation that can actually do something about it. The cost of acting is 1% of global GDP, vs. the cost of not acting being as high as 20% of global GDP.* The other interesting aspect of the problem today is that we don’t only have to make decisions for our own countries, but for the whole planet. This introduces a few very interesting global challenges.
*According to The Stern Review, if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
OG: It’s great the Sarkozy and Obama are on the same page about Copenhagen.
David: Yes it is, but it’s true that President Obama will be in a better position to negotiate if the ACES bill passes Senate before Copenhagen.
OG: Well, thank you so much for your time, David. I’m looking forward to seeing you again at the conference.
