11.19.2009 4:32PM
| permalink
As the days tick off to the United Nations summit on global warming next month (the COP15 in Copenhagen), environmentalists all over the world hope real action will get done. Be there in the flesh by going for Huffington Post and Hopenhagen.org's citizen journalism position.
The winner gets a trip to Copenhagen from December 12-19th, including airfare, accommodation, press accreditation, media training with HuffPost Citizen journalism editor Matt Palevsky, HuffPost blogging privileges, and a flip camera to record events. Anyone over 18 can enter the contest -- you just need to upload a one-minute campaign video for why you should elected ambassador.
Get the details.
Posted By: Brian Clark Howard
11.19.2009 4:17PM
| permalink

The view from the cockpit: The Aptera 2e. (Aptera photo)
It's great to dream big. I have driven in the Aptera 2e, which looks like a Blade Runner car that lost its ability to fly. It's an airplane, but with lithium-ion batteries instead of wings. But the company's founders, and its hired-gun professional CEO from the auto industry, swore that it would be on the road in 2009. Some 4,000 people believed enough to put down deposits.
The Aptera is fanciful indeed, but the company claimed down-to-earth numbers for it. It can supposedly cruise 100 miles between charges and reach 60 mph in under 10 seconds. I can't confirm the performance because, in my one up-close meeting, CEO Paul Wilbur made me ride shotgun because the prototype on hand "is not the latest model." He gave my somewhat reluctant daughter (pictured) a ride, too.
But now Aptera appears to be imploding, and largely because of money woes and the production timetable. Both founders have left (including the one who sketched the car on a napkin) and the schedule has been pushed back to sometime in 2010. The confrontation between Wilbur and founders Steve Fambro and Chris Anthony reportedly ended in a confrontation at the board level that the practical Wilbur--who insists the car isn't ready, and needs such basic amenities as wind-down windows in its cool fold-up doors--apparently won. At least he's still there and they aren't.
Is the Aptera 2e practical for mass production? I have doubts in its current form. The car is just too quirky--I left the company out of my list of "eight EV startups likely to make it" for just that reason.
Wilbur knows this and will probably introduce new improvements before launch that will make the car more mainstream. The pod body is incredibly aerodynamic and lightweight, but that's not enough of an advantage if people don't buy it.
Posted By: Jim Motavalli
11.19.2009 2:13PM
| permalink
"We tell our kids, clean up the living room, but we haven't left them a cleaner Earth," Mario Van Peebles tells the audience in his television show Mario's Green House, now airing on the cable/satellite channel TV One. The lively, educational reality show follows the gradual, step-by-step greening of Van Peebles and his large family -- including his famous father Melvin Van Peebles -- as they renovate their home into a green dream, learn to eat healthier and make many other small changes in their lives.
Mario's Green House is a lot of fun, with a witty eponymous character and supporting family members who each have their own personalities and goals. The elder Van Peebles, for example, is a bit of a ladies' man, and would like his own space within the household to entertain guests. Melvin Van Peebles is a veteran actor, filmmaker and composer perhaps most famous for making 1971's Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. His son Mario is also an actor and filmmaker, having directed television (Law & Order, Lost, 21 Jump Street) and movies (New Jack City, Panther and Posse). Mario's wife is into yoga, spirituality and learning about natural living, while their five kids have interests that range from technology to dating, sports, academics and more.
The core of the show is the process of expanding and greening the Van Peebles household, which the gang agreed to do after meeting Lance Williams of the U.S. Green Building Council and Grandma's hero, the dark-green Ed Begley, Jr. (and his adorable daughter). "Build green, it's the smartest way to go," Begley tells them. "Every decision you make will affect your kids tomorrow," Mario agrees, before he has one of the scariest environmental dreams we've every seen.
"What kind of future we build for our kids tomorrow has something to do with the housing we build for them today, it's all connected," Mario explains. So in addition to learning about energy efficiency and green certification, the Van Peebles try natural cleaning products, visit the farmers' market and meet with eco-chef Bryant Terry (who is aiming his work at showing minorities how to eat better and greener). "I don't see any bacon, or a
BBQ. What are you doing?" Melvin teases his son when he catches him trying to cook up some healthy veggies.
Mario's Green House excels in showing how anyone can learn to live smarter, and greener, regardless of where they start from. Airing on a black TV network and starring primarily people of color, there's no doubt that it has the potential to reach new audiences who haven't necessarily felt as included in the green living movement.
I talked with Mario Van Peebles via phone to find out more:
URTH Guy: How did you come up with the idea for Mario's Green House?
Mario Van Peebles: The birth of it was after my kids and I went to see An Inconvenient Truth, and one of my sons turned to me and said: "The world is coming to an end and I haven't even had a cocktail yet." My other son said, "You asked me to clean up my room but you haven't left me a clean planet." I thought of the effect the movie had on them, and asked, what if we put it in a pop framework, see how it applies in our everyday lives, see how we can have fun with it?
Posted By: Brian Clark Howard
11.19.2009 11:16AM
| permalink
In New York's City of Poughkeepsie -- headquarters of Scenic Hudson, the organization I head -- a former department store that sat empty for decades recently was transformed into apartments and offices. A dozen miles down the Hudson River, in the City of Beacon, the thrilling art museum Dia:Beacon, which wows visitors from around the world, fills a former Nabisco box-printing factory.
Luckey Platt building, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. / Wikimedia Commons
Why am I writing about old buildings? Because they're excellent examples of adaptive reuse -- rejuvenating existing structures for new purposes -- and in addition to revitalizing downtowns, such projects benefit the environment. They relieve development pressure on forests that offer recreation and sequester carbon, and on working farms supplying fresh local produce. They also lower the natural resources consumed by construction -- 35 billion board feet of lumber annually alone.
Studies show there's a pressing environmental need to concentrate growth in municipalities. The National Wildlife Federation has estimated that sprawling development imperils one out of every three rare or endangered species in the U.S. Data also indicate people solidly support such "smart growth." According to a National Association of Realtors survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored funding improvements in communities over new development in outlying countryside.
Why are so many empty buildings languishing, while new construction goes on apace? ...
Posted By: Ned Sullivan
11.19.2009 11:08AM
| permalink
I'm thinking about starting a movement to decriminalize drunk driving, reinstate smoking in all public places, and repeal laws that require parents to use child safety seats for their toddlers in the car.
After all, if it's still legal in most states to operate a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone, shouldn't we have a "fair is fair" policy when it comes to allowing people to do stupid things that endanger the health and wellbeing of others? Maybe we could have a cap and trade system for jackass behavior. For example, if you don't talk on the phone while you drive, then you'd have the choice of either driving drunk or smoking in hospitals, day care centers and other public spaces.
With all of the public concern and ongoing scientific debate over the possibly harmful effects of cell phone radiation, why isn't there more public outrage over the documented public safety hazard of cell use while driving? Even here at The Daily Green, I've counted at least a dozen recent articles about the yet-to-be-proven harmful effects of cell phone radiation, but not a single article (up until now) about the more than 2,500 deaths and 330,000+ injuries every year in the U.S. attributed to the use of cell phones will driving (according to the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis).
Could it be that it's easier for people to get up in arms about forcing cell phone companies to take responsibility for producing radiation-free devices than it is for us to take responsibility for our own actions and hang up the *@^ cell phone when we drive?
Numerous studies have shown that cell phone use (including hands-free phones) seriously impede our ability to drive safely. Several studies, including a 2006 study by the University of Utah, show that use of both hand held and hands free cell phones while driving is considerably more dangerous than driving while intoxicated, making it roughly four times more likely that we'll be involved in a crash. It's also widely accepted that the role cell phones play in causing auto accidents is grossly under reported. Up until just recently, police in most states were not even required to ask about or investigate cell phone usage in connection with auto accidents.
And yet, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, only six states totally prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, and that's only for hand-held phones (no state currently prohibits the use of hands-free phones). Ironically, six other states have "preemption laws," prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting their own restrictions limiting cell phone use by drivers. Man, my cap and trade system for jackasses is looking more reasonable all the time.
Posted By: Jeff Yeager