If you think the energy/food potential for hemp is underutilized, wait’ll you get a gander at algae. This little microorganism really packs a punch.

According to The Book of General Ignorance: Everything You Think You Know is Wrong (2006, Harmony Books) (I highly recommend it, by the way — it’s packed with fascinating information and weird insights), algae breathes out more oxygen than all the world’s land-based plants and trees combined. Certain types of algae also deliver a whopping amount of protein and nutrients per farmed acre (20 times more than soy beans, in the case of spirulina).

It’s the energy potential, minus the downsides of corn-based ethanol, though, that’s currently got many projects going full-steam ahead. San Diego-based Sapphire Energy, for example, recently announced it had successfully produced a 91 octane fuel using only carbon dioxide, sunlight and algae. And the Cambridge, Massachusetts firm GreenFuel Technologies Corp. expects to achieve commercially viable production of algae-based biofuel (at least 247 acres’ worth) in the “next few years.” It’s already set up pilot operations at six locations in Massachusetts, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and New York.

Less than two months ago, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin announced they had created a new “super” variety of fuel-producing algae by inserting the cellulose-making genes of a non-photosynthesizing bacteria into cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae.

Where will it all lead? While commercial production of algae-based fuel isn’t upon us yet, a new research-trade organization, the Algal Biomass Organization, recently went into full swing. It’s planning its second-ever Algae Biomass Summit this coming October in Seattle.

First up was Simran Sethi of Sundance’s The Green, who’s become a passionate advocate for Greensburg’s resurgence. In introducing the first five episodes of The Good Fight (which all focus on Greensburg), she not only lauded the people who she’s come to know in making the “webisodes,” but also noted that the town is hardly a hotbed of radical environmentalism: Greensburg was a town of 1400 people when the tornado struck, and, like many mid-American small communities, had been in decline for several decades. The population had shrunk, the per capita income was below the Kansas average, and young Greensburgians were generally looking for a way out. She heard plenty of disdainful comments about “treehuggers,” and several people had told her that they just didn’t believe global warming is a reality.

Despite a conservative outlook, though, the people of Greensburg recognized the value the could create for their community by embracing sustainable thinking. Sethi also noted that stories such as these point to the need for more depth in coverage of sustainability: not just showing people how to change their lightbulbs, but also addressing the systemic changes necessary to ensure both environmental preservation and social equity.

The webisodes themselves provided a inspiring look at the people of Greensburg and the choices they’ve made since the tornado. Like victims of southern Louisiana’s hurricanes in 2005, Greensburg residents were living in trailers provided by FEMA after the tornado, and desperate to get back to “normal.” The choice to rebuild green meant extending the period of transition for many people… yet the residents in the videos all expressed hope and optimism about their community’s future. Young people were excited about the greening of Greensburg, and economic possibilities looked bright with new wind turbines, a biodiesel plant, and the promise of twenty different manufacturing facilities interested in joining the GreenTown redevelopment project. (A side note: our own Adam Bowman was involved in the production of The Good Fight)

That sense of hope continued as Sethi moderated the discussion with Wallach and Hardy. Wallach (who also appeared in the webisodes) was effusive in his praise for the residents of Greensburg, noting that most people, after suffering the trauma of losing everything, just want to find comfort… quickly. The people of this town, despite their loss, chose to take a “different turn,” and put off that immediate need for comfort in favor of a brighter future. Hardy, in looking at the physical rebuilding of the town, noted that the planners and architects involved in the project weren’t implementing any new ideas in terms of building practices, but the concept of a greener community had taken hold firmly in Greensburg. Not only did the town decide to rebuild to LEED Platinum standards, but also passed a net metering ordinance, making Greensburg the only town in Kansas to offer this incentive for shifting to renewable energy sources. This “community without a town” (Hardy’s phrase) may not be completely rebuilt yet, but was already a very different place.

It was a privilege to both hear the stories that have come out of this little town’s disaster, and to talk with some of the residents themselves prior to the formal program. Dealing with these ideas day in and day out, it’s easy to get caught up in the concepts themselves. Greensburg is just one community showing that a more sustainable way of life isn’t just a pipe dream of the environmental community, though: it’s a practical alternative to “business as usual” that can create real viability for communities struggling with economic stagnation, a shrinking population, and even a life-changing disaster.

You can assist Greensburg’s efforts to rebuild green by contributing to Greensburg GreenTown. The Good Fight will air on the Sundance Channel’s web site beginning on Tuesday, April 22. Many thanks to the Kansas City chapter of AIGA, and other event sponsors, for their contributions.

Image credit: soldiersmediacenter at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Simran Sethi, host of the Sundance Channel’s The Green will moderate a panel on the green redesign of tornado devastated Greensburg, KS. The green salon will feature BNIM Architects’ urban planner, Stephen Hardy and Greentown director, Daniel Wallach. The Sundance Channel will screen segments from The Good Fight Series.

Tickets are only $15, are no one will be turned away for lack of funds… The cocktail reception preceding the forum will feature food and drink from Blue Bird Bistro (and I’ve eaten there… it’s really good!), Eden Alley Cafe, Local Burger, Benzinger Family Estates winery, and New Belgium Brewery. The fun begins at 5:30 pm on April 17th at the Scarritt Building Ballroom in Kansas City. All funds raised will go to Greensburg GreenTown.

I’m heading over to cover the event, so please say “Hi!” if you’re decide to come…

Image source: Kansas City chapter, AIGA

Starting on Earth Day (Tuesday, April 22), Sundance will present a new Web series called The Good Fight. Hosted by Indian-born activist, author and TV producer Simran Sethi, the online series is aimed at building awareness of the environmental justice movement and at highlighting local heroes in various environmental causes.

Sethi and her team plan to visit the Los Angeles area soon to find people and groups to feature on The Good Fight. Don’t worry if you’re not close to L.A., though: eco-activists elsewhere can get the word out on their actions by posting their pet cause on Sundance’s Eco-Mmunity map of green goings-on around the U.S.

Early episodes of The Good Fight will feature interviews with Robert Bullard, director of Clark Atlanta University’s Environmental Justice Resource Center; Omar Freilla, who established The Green Worker Cooperative in the Bronx; and Clayton Thomas Muller, the oil campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network. Sethi will also profile the tornado-devastated town of Greensburg, Kansas, which residents are working to rebuild as a green community.

On Monday, I took a broad look at America’s shoe problem.

Now I’d like to take things down a notch and look at the shoe bid’ness on the local level.

Arensberg’s Shoes has been operating in Lawrence since 1956. The family-owned store sells about 8,000 shoes a year.

I worked as a sales associate at Arensberg’s for 11 months. I have the utmost respect for the store and the management. They are the only shoe store that I have ever been to where the employees genuinely care about the health, comfort and satisfaction of their customers. However, I think the business could make simple changes that would significantly alter their environmental impact.

Reduce

Almost all purchases are placed in yellow plastic bags. In the olden days, the sales associates at Arensberg’s used to tie boxes with string so that the customer could simply carry the boxes out holding the string. A spool still sits on the front desk in case their is a shortage of bags, but it is rarely used.

Towards the end of my shoe selling career, I started asking customers if they would prefer their boxes tied. To my surprise, many opted out of using a plastic bag. They were fascinated by this archaic technique and appreciated the extra effort.

If employees began asking customers if they would prefer a bag or a tie, I think the store would use far fewer bags - helping the environment and their expenses.

Resole

I was baffeled by the amount of people who asked me to throw away perfectly good shoes. They would come in to buy new shoes because their sole had worn down, or worse - because a lace had snapped in two. Lordy Mae!

I think the Arensberg’s, as well as all Lawrence shoe stores, should put a highly visible sign at the front desk that advertises BKB leather (a local shoe repair shop) and be more open to letting people know that they can easily and inexpensively repair most worn down shoes.

Recycle

Each pair of shoes are shipped to Arensberg’s in large cardboard boxes. Each individual shoe box is filled with oodles of packaging and mutltiple wads of paper are stuffed into each shoe to maintain the shape. There’s also usually a cardboard divider between the two shoes and tissue paper wrapped around each shoe. Almost all of this packaging will be taken out of the box and thrown away

This store could greatly lower their impact by recycling the packaging that comes from each opened shoe box.

Revamp

I must give kudos to Arensberg’s for selling Timberland and Simple brand shoes - two companies that are use eco-friendly and recycled materials, and are working to change the sustainability of the shoe industry.

I think they could expand their eco-friendly shoe selection and make a special section of the store dedicated to lower impact shoes. In addition to providing customers with the option of going green, it would also raise awareness about the environmental impact of the shoe industry and what to look for when trying to avoid shoes with a large carbon footprint.

P.S. Here’s a fun tip: The inside of a banana peal is a great non-toxic alternative to shoe polish.

We’ve all heard of the organic craze. People are switching their diets to “organic” foods. This is all supposed to be healthier and better for the environment, right? Organic food sales are on the up-and-up, increasing 22 percent in 2006 to a $17 billion industry (for the full article, read here). A lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon—with reasons of personal and planetary health—but how do we know exactly what we’re getting?

What does organic even mean? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations.” Also, products that come from animals aren’t given any antibiotics or growth hormones (see The Meatrix if you’re unsure about the standard practices of processed meat companies). Ding, ding, ding! We have a solution. Go out and buy all the organic food you can.

Wrong. There’s a lot more to “buying organic” to save the planet than just looking for that USDA Organic label. Yeah, maybe if your food is organic, it’s probably going to have a better taste and more nutrients (read more reasons to eat organic food in this Prevention magazine article), but you’ve got to read a little closer into those organic labels. Say you want to buy some organic honey. Sure, they probably carry it at your favorite mainstream grocery store—and you’re probably patting yourself on the back for a totally organic purchase. But, take a look at the label. Many honey packages, even organic ones, are produced across oceans from us. Try Hawaii (Volcano Island Honey) and Africa (Zambezi Organic Forest Honey). Even if it doesn’t come from far away lands, it may even be in Illinois (Y.S. Organic Bee Farm) or Pennsylvania (Dutch Gold Honey). Some may even contain labels including multiple countries, such as Full Circle Farm Organic Honey, which can be bought at Hy-Vee, but is made in Mexico and Brazil.

So is it really that good to buy organic, especially if it travels hundreds of miles in a gas-guzzling truck expending harmful gases into the ozone? It’s still good. But, there’s something better and even cooler you can do for the environment.

Go Local. Did you know there’s locally-made organic food? Alisa Smith and James Mackinnon began something called the 100-Mile Diet, a movement to get others eating local, organic food. They were dissatisfied with the idea that when an average North American sits down to eat, each ingredient has typically traveled at least 1,500 miles—which Alisa and James call “the SUV diet.” The 100-Mile Diet, which is an eating lifestyle that requires you only to eat foods produced within 100 miles of your home, isn’t supposed to be easy—but it’s a way to connect you with your food, your local farmers, the seasons, and the landscape you live in.

Some reasons to go local, instead of just organic:

Eating local means more for the local economy. According to a study by the New Economics Foundation in London, a dollar spent locally generates twice as much income for the local economy. When businesses are not owned locally, money leaves the community at every transaction.

Locally grown produce is fresher. While produce that is purchased in the supermarket or a big-box store has been in transit or cold-stored for days or weeks, produce that you purchase at your local farmer’s market has often been picked within 24 hours of your purchase. This freshness not only affects the taste of your food, but the nutritional value which declines with time.

Eating local is better for air quality and pollution than eating organic. In a March 2005 study by the journal Food Policy, it was found that the miles organic food often travels to our plate creates environmental damage that outweighs the benefit of buying organic.

Local food translates to more variety. When a farmer is producing food that will not travel a long distance, will have a shorter shelf life, and does not have a high-yield demand, the farmer is free to try small crops of various fruits and vegetables that would probably never make it to a large supermarket. Supermarkets are interested in selling “Name brand” fruit: Romaine Lettuce, Red Delicious Apples, Russet Potatoes. Local producers often play with their crops from year to year, trying out Little Gem Lettuce, Senshu Apples, and Chieftain Potatoes.

Supporting local providers supports responsible land development. When you buy local, you give those with local open space - farms and pastures - an economic reason to stay open and undeveloped. (excerpted from “10 Reasons to Go Local” from Life Begins at 30 weblog.)

Lucky for us Lawrencians, we have a vast arena for local food choices. Here are some ideas of where to go:

• The popular Local Burger restaurant, owned by Hilary Brown, endorses the idea of local food made fast.
• Homespun Hill Farms provides quality grass-fed meat.
• For local meats, vegetables and fruits, try the weekly Farmers’ Market in downtown Lawrence.
• For organic soy beans and tofu, check out Central Soy Foods.
• The only certified organic produce section in Lawrence is available at The Merc, a store dedicated to providing organic and local foods.

Organic is great, but local is better. Eating organic may be better for you, and of course the planet, but eating local can help inch the environmental movement forward a little more.

Post inspired by Lawrence Sustainability Network’s article, “Local eating for global change,” covering information on the 100-Mile Diet.

Editor’s note: Welcome to “Tangled Up in Green,” Red, Green and Blue’s weekly debate over the hot issues in environmental politics. Each week, writers Ranjit Arab and Adam Bowman will “throw down the glove” on current events involving environmental policy, legislation and citizen action. Adam and Ranjit are both graduate students in journalism at the University of Kansas, and currently enrolled in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course.

In Holcomb, Kansas, there rages a battle over energy, jobs, and economy.

The Sunflower Electric Company has a plan to build two coal-fired power plants that would produce 1400 megawatts of power. And until the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Roderick L. Bremby, denied the application for an air quality permit, they probably would be breaking ground right now.

People in the more populated Eastern part of Kansas, (which is pretty much all powered by coal), want to abandon the coal for sustainable wind energy. For Kansas, wind makes a lot of sense. Wind maps show that we are sitting in a very productive wind energy area. Basically any state in the Great Plains has an abundance of wind at their disposal. And the good news is, there isn’t any waste emissions or land ruining strip mining to harvest this energy.

But what about Eastern and Western States that aren’t sitting on a wind gold mine?

Kenneth Defeyes writes in his book, Beyond Oil, that coal, “is the best of fuels; it is the worst of fuels.”

Coal is cheap. (Not including the environmental costs.) And more importantly, we have the largest reserve in the world. Which means that we aren’t in conflict with foreign countries for our energy. We can dictate the costs.

Coal is the dirtiest of dirty energies. From excavation to consumption, it pollutes. There have been many advances in reducing the amount of mercury and sulfur dioxide emitted by coal plants. But they still contribute to the majority of green house gas emissions in the world. In 2004, 10 billion tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get rid of the best of fuels worst byproducts?

There has been a buzzword in fossil fuels lately, clean coal.

At the National Governor’s Association annual winter meeting, energy was at the heart of the event. Governors from coal-rich states say it is irresponsible not to have coal in the energy debate. They put a lot of stock in new technologies to curb the emissions from coal. There is a lot of skepticism however, from Governors of renewable energy rich states, and environmentalists.

One clean coal technology already in use is coal gasification. It basically boils the coal into gaseous elements. These can then easily be separated and used for other purposes. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of uses for CO2. However, Basin Electric in North Dakota has found a buyer for their waste.

PanCanadian Petroleum is pumping the gas into porous rock about a mile underground. This forces oil out of the rock. Pumping CO2 into the ground is called carbon dioxide sequestering. Essentially, in this case, it takes a fossil fuel, uses its energy, and then puts back into the ground the useless parts for more fossil fuels. It also extends the life of the oil well.

And if we are ever fortunate enough to wean our selves off of oil, it is estimated that there is enough porous rock not containing oil underground to sequester every bit of CO2 emissions for centuries.

Another new discovery is using re-engineered simple organisms to feed on CO2 and emit methane that can then be used for fuel. Scientists expect this technology to be up and working in about 18 months. However, this may cause more problems than it solves. There is little known about the side effects of genetic engineering. The point is that people are working on the problem because coal may need to be in our future.

In the larger picture of energy, there is no one answer, or even two answers. Wind is a fantastic option, but it won’t work for everywhere. Reducing energy consumption is part of the solution, but in a consumer society, it is a hard sell. Nuclear is potentially catastrophic, plus there isn’t a useful thing to do with the waste. Solar is expensive and not as efficient as we need it to be yet. Coal is cheap, it’s here, and we control it. With new technologies, we may be able to truly clean coal consumption.

The exciting thing is that all these options come with a ton of jobs, and economic growth. So at least that part of the puzzle can be answered. It just comes down to: what do we want to invest in for the future, and what do we have to invest in for the present?

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

This decision immediately caused outrage amongst Republicans who cried that by rejecting the plant it would stop the creation of jobs, and strip the area of needed energy that would help keep electricity rates in check.

The bill passed through the Kansas House with a 77-45 margin, which thankfully at least falls short of it being veto proof.

Sunflower Electric Power Corp wants to add two 700 megawatt units to their existing facility in western Kansas. Their decision to do this, followed by Bremby’s decision to overrule their ability, pushed Kansas to the forefront of a national discussion on coal-fired power plants and their impact upon the environment.

Environmental groups hoped that the decision would influence further states to follow in their steps. They are thus, naturally disappointed with the recent decision, though they hold on to hope that the bill will still be vetoed when it comes back out of committee. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, has pledged to veto the bill, but Republicans are hoping to rally enough votes to make the bill veto proof.

“It is very unfortunate that legislation like this was pushed through so quickly,” said Chris Cardinal, spokesman for Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy. “We need to sit down and have a proper discussion about our energy policy in Kansas, and not be engaging in all this gamesmanship and political maneuvering.”

Photo Courtesy of Mikko Itälahti via Flickr

The city of Greensburg KS was nearly obliterated by an F5 tornado in May 2007. But turning the devestation into an opportunity, the city is looking to make its mark by rebuilding as a green community. The city has mandated that all city buildings larger than 4,000 sq. ft. must be built to LEED-Platinum level and must have an energy performance level at least 42% better than current building code requirements.

“The city of Greensburg has taken the extraordinary step of committing to rebuild their community to a new vision, not settling for simply recreating what had gone before,” said Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO & Founding Chair, U.S. Green Building Council. “By committing to a recovery plan based on green building, the community’s leadership has set a path that will result in a healthier, more livable city for its citizens, turning a crisis into an opportunity that is an example for us all.”

After a disaster, it is difficult to take the time and effort to try to build something better than what had been present before. This mandate only applies to city buildings. But hopefully, the wider city itself will embrace this direction, and not only will city buildings, but the stores, offices, homes, and other buildings will likewise be built better, and greener, than what they are replacing.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The plants would have cost about $3.6 billion and spewed 11 million tons of CO2 into the air each year. That’s almost the same amount of CO2 that the Northeastern states planned to have saved by 2020 with their cap-and-trade program. The attorneys general of those states had petitioned Kansas officials to deny the coal plants that would have effectively negated their efforts.

Interestingly, while the KDHE staff recommended that the plants be permitted, state law also allows the KDHE secretary to deny a permit if there is an unregulated emission that threatens public health or the environment. And that's what happened here: Secretary Roderick L. Bremby disagreed with his staff because of the unregulated CO2 emissions that pose a threat to global warming. He wrote in his news release: "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."