Suddenly, we are having trouble finding the time to post as much as we would like on this blog.  This means two things: one, that The American Green brain-trust are suddenly finding ourselves absurdly busy with other projects, and two, that the promises that we have made in this space have gotten us in a little bit of trouble.

Remember when we said that we would do whatever the "We Can Change It" campaign asked?  Well, that's growing to be a bit of an issue.  We've written two more letters, placed another phone call, and attended that Green Jobs Now thing.  But here's the real problem: the We camp asked us to sign up for the Green-for-all campaign.  We were already on their mailing lists, but because We sent us, (good lord its hard to write in the Royal We like this about We) we felt obligated to start including the Green-for-all requests on the list of things we have to do.

This, in turn, became a problem because they just asked us to buy a book.

It's a book we are excited to have.  Really.  It's the first from The American Green's main squeeze, Van Jones, and its called The Green Collar Economy.  Totally right up our ally, we realize.  But now we have to READ the damn thing.  And its not like we had a lot of free time kicking around BEFORE.  Jeez.

To be serious for a moment: there are suddenly a huge number of people weighing in on the Green Economy.  Thomas Freidman is in on the action, and if Amazon.com is to be believed, the market is rife with "other things I might like".   (The American Green institute will never be caught dead promising to do whatever Amazon.com recommends.  Good lord.)  To our shock and chagrin, however, publishing a book on a subject has yet to be linked to creating any sort of success!!

So, we realize that there are starting to be more and more books trying to capitalize on being green.  But this book needs to succeed to be taken seriously, and to succeed it has to be read, and it has to be handed around.  We don't know about the preponderance of other Green Job texts, and we don't know much about Van Jones as a writer... but we do know that there is no one out there right now that we respect more for a balance of Environmentalism, Secular humanism, Anti-poverty work and general personal charisma.

Review to come.

It's easy to mock little efforts to save the environment: reusing grocery bags, buying a Prius, putting an energy-efficient refrigerator in an energy-eating mansion. The big gains to curb greenhouse emissions, the argument goes, will come from controlling big industrial companies that spew millions of tons of heat-trapping gases every year.  But consumers -- especially American consumers -- have more influence over climate change than they might think.  U.S. consumers have direct or indirect control over 65% of the country's greenhouse-gas emissions, according to new statistics tallied by consultant McKinsey & Co. Link

Obviously fighting carbon emissions must be a partnership between consumers and industry - but one of the most powerful votes we have is the vote we make with our money.  Look at the surge in the use of the term "Green" in marketing recently - companies recognize a buzzword when they see it and are stretching the limits of greenwashing to appeal to consumers with "environmentally friendly" products.  It's worth it to research what really is more earth-friendly or uses less energy.  And when you reduce, it has a real, significant impact.  Visit the Minnesota Energy Challenge to find out no-and-low cost ways to reduce your costs and carbon footprint through easy, efficient actions.

:: Wall Street Journal

Here's a great article from Condé Nast Portfolio that highlights greenwashing in the fashion industry:

"Cloaked in Green" by Dana Thomas

Dabei heißt es stolz in der heutigen Presseinformation:

"... Vattenfall ist damit weltweit das erste Energieunternehmen, das einen konkreten Plan zur vollständig CO₂-neutralen Stromerzeugung vorweisen kann."

Dass das zeitliche Zusammentreffen der Moorburg-Entscheidung und die Bekanntgabe dieses Ziels kaum ein Zufall sein dürfte, liegt auf der Hand. Im Prinzip eine typische Taktik, in der Krise (echtes oder vermeintliches) Entgegenkommen zu zeigen, um die Polarisierung in einem Konflikt etwas abzumildern. Das Kalkül solcher Maßnahmen sind Medienberichte, die neben dem Thema, das im Mittelpunkt des Interesses steht (also Moorburg), noch andere, möglichst positive Botschaften vermitteln. Es ist also der Versuch eines Themenmanagements, wie es in der Krisen-PR immer wieder versucht wird. Auffällig finde ich, dass dies bisher (so zumindest meine Recherche in Google News, Stand: 30.9., 18.00) überhaupt nicht verfangen hat: Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt hat noch kein Medium die frohe Kunde von Vattenfall verbreitet, obwohl die Presseinfo schon ein paar Stunden online ist und sogar von der Startseite der Corporate Website aus verlinkt ist.

Die Ursachen dafür dürften vielfältig sein: Zunächst steht natürlich die Nachricht der Genehmigung im Vordergrund des Interesses von Journalisten. Dann wird nach den politischen Folgen gefragt, es geht ja immerhin um eine ungewöhnliche und labile Koalition in Hamburg. Erst im nächsten Schritt dürfte dann das Unternehmen um Stellungnahmen gebeten werden. Vermutlich versucht dann das Unternehmen seine CO2-Botschaft zu vermitteln. Ich bin gespannt, wie diese eingeordnet und bewertet wird.

Ehrlich gesagt bezweifle ich, dass die ganze Sache so geschickt angefangen wurde.  Denn die Reduktionsmeldung ist gleich mit einer so genannten "Klimainitiative" ("Verbraucher gegen Klimawandel") verbunden. Und hier gibt es Formulierungen, die mich eher an Lobbying erinnern: Bürger sollen für drei Ziele unterschreiben, die nicht nur dem Klimaschutz, sondern wohl auch Vattenfall gelegen kämen:

"1. Ein weltweit gültiger Preis für die Belastung mit CO₂-Emissionen. Reduzierte Emissionen müssen von konkretem Nutzen sein.
2. Mehr Förderung für klimafreundliche Technologien. Ein Technologie-Vorstoß kann den Unterschied ausmachen.
3. Klimaschutzstandards für Produkte. Mit ausführlichen Informationen und höheren Produkt-standards können die Kunden entlastet werden."

Die frohe Botschaft der CO2-Neutralität (die ich fachlich nicht bewerten kann) ist also mit Forderungen verknüpft. Der Schluß- und Höhepunkt der Pressemeldung:

"Für die ersten 100.000 Unterschriften wird jeweils eine recyclingfähige Figur hergestellt, die die Zustimmung jeder einzelnen Person repräsentiert. All diese Figuren werden dann zu Orten reisen, an denen sich Entscheidungsträger treffen – die letzte Station wird der UN-Klimagipfel in Poznan Ende 2008 sein. Die Figuren werden auf ihrer Reise auch Deutschland, Belgien, Dänemark und Schweden ansteuern."

Da höre ich schon jetzt den Vorwurf des Greenwashings. Und ich bin erstaunt über die Idee, dass Bürger sich namentlich zu einem Vorschlag des Konzerns bekennen sollen - gerade jetzt, da Vattenfall mit Moorburg politisch heftig polarisiert hat und noch ein ramponiertes Image aus den Atompannen mit sich herumschleppt. Ich bin gespannt, wie Vattenfall in den nächsten Stunden und Tagen auf die Moorburg-Entscheidung kommunikativ reagiert...

Wie bewerten Sie die bisher sichtbare PR-Strategie?

(Hinweis via Mail)

Klarer Gewinner des in einer Online-Abstimmung ermittelten Anti-Preises ist übrigens CDU-Generalsekretär Ronald Pofalla für den Satz ""Kernkraft ist für die CDU Ökoenergie". Auf den Plätzen zwei und drei landeten Vattenfall für die Kampagne zum Kohlekraftwerk Moorburg sowie der Verband der deutschen Automobilhersteller (VDA) für deren Kampagne "Unsere Autos".

Schon länger habe ich den Eindruck, dass sich ad hoc-Gruppierungen im Social Web oft leichter tun als etablierte Organisationen. Vermutlich liegt das daran, dass dort die Mitarbeiter erst mühsam lernen, wie sich die öffentliche Kommunikation wandelt und welche Chancen und Risiken dies bietet. Und während sie feststellen, dass so vieles im Social Web gar nicht in die bisher geübtten Prozesse passt, nutzen die Netizens diese Möglichkeiten einfach. Wobei der Grünen Tomaten-Truppe IMO auch ein Lapsus passiert ist: Das nette Logo zur Aktion steht zwar auf Flickr, doch mit strengem Copyright ("All rights reserved"). Das ist natürlich Unfug, denn wenn ich eine Kampagne starte, möchte ich ja, dass sich ihr Logo einfach verbreiten lässt. Und ehrlich gesagt hätte ich in diesen Beitrag schon ein Bildchen eingebaut...

Update, 30.9., 21.30: Fein, ich darf das Logo hier verwenden; es soll generell unter CC-Lizenz stehen.

[Ergänzung, 30.9.,14.30: Passend zum Thema finde ich bei netzpolitik eben einen Hinweis auf das Projekt „Protest- und Medienkulturen im Umbruch. Transnationale Corporate Campaigns im Zeichen digitaler Kommunikation“, ein Sonderforschungsbereich der Uni Siegen. Die Website ist übrigens eine Fundgrube - und am 7./8. November gibt's die Tagung “Social Web - Towards Networked Protest Politics?” (PDF)]

Senator Inhofe seems to forget the basic fundamentals of non-profit organizations.  They support the politicians that believe in their cause.  Just as the NRA mostly supports Republicans, the environmental groups will largely favor Democrats because these are the people who attempt to further environmental goals.  I realize in the current political landscape with more and more people  becoming concerned about climate change, many Republicans are changing their tune (but beware of greenwashing).  However, the Republicans have never been noted for their eco-friendly policies and thus there is no reason that environmental organizations should support most of them.  Environmental organizations will support those that consistently vote with the environment; for bills that improve it and against bills that contribute further to their degradation.

The other problem I have with Inhofe's argument is the suggestion that the connections between different environmental organizations further implicates them in a Democratic conspiracy.  Why wouldn't environmental organizations be allied and share resources?  This is a completely obvious way of running one's organization.  Inhofe exposes these things as though this is a ludicrous way of behaving.

Inhofe focuses on a collection of groups that want to improve society and the Earth's health just because they listed him as one of their "Dirty Dozen".  There's a more obvious conspiracy in politics today that doesn't aim to improve anything for the general public, just the pocketbooks of America's most powerful people and companies.  I'll leave you to decide which conspiracy you want to be a part of.

The greening of just about everything is inspiring a lot of interesting debate and discussion. After all, should one be allowed to arbitrarily refer to their product is green? Or should there be standards that can gage whether the product is in fact "green". Furthermore, what makes a product green? Is it the absence of an environmental impact or is it that it has less of an impact than the previous version of the same product?

With corporations clamoring to sell green products, and consumers rushing to buy green products, it is no surprise that:

according to a report commissioned by the UN Environment Programme under a joint Green Jobs Initiative with the International Labour Office (ILO), growing numbers of green jobs will be created as the move toward a low-carbon and more sustainable economy gathers momentum. Although winners are likely to far outnumber losers, some workers may be hurt in the economic restructuring toward sustainability.

I see these initiatives as part of an inevitable move towards a greener, more equitable world - poorer countries might have the opportunity here to engage in mass farming initiative accompanied with biofuel plants for processing. This would allow for a greater slice in the world market, and the jobs created would be astounding. The BBC reported on a similar development in India and it appeared to be very promising.

The UK aviation program, and I am sure many other similar military aircraft programs in Europe, are resisting, however, the agreement to have 20% of aircraft running on renewable resources by 2020. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) says it is pointless holding aviation to a legally binding target if there is so much uncertainty over biofuels for planes. BERR is also opposed to the similar goal for residential homes. I guess BERR is pro-pollution? because, according to the BBC, over the past 18 months BERR has also:

• Lobbied against the 20% renewables target, saying it is unachievable.
• Negotiated a reduction to 15% for the UK because past renewables performance was so poor.
• Tried to get carbon capture coal categorised as renewable energy.
• Argued that funding for renewable energy projects abroad should be able to count to the UK targets.

Others in the UK resist the move toward renewable resources because of their silly notion that poorer nations will starve because the land will be used for growing biofuels. I guess this person did not get the memo from the UN about green jobs.

Politicians are masters of whitewashing and it is telling that our national executive office is located in the appropriately named White House. Perhaps it should be constantly repainted to keep it pure white. Occasionally the whitening lies are brought to public attention when an attempt is made by the largely unaccountable public media, whose job it is to blackwash everything, to bring the politicians' little white lies to the public and their elected officials to account. When accused it is the time the best politicians show their true mettle and smile and smile without revealing any of their villainy and fill the naive world with hope for the future.

The Capitol building is normally a beautiful white building set prominently upon a hill for all to see its honor, power and majesty but with all of the politicians in this election suddenly having "profound and well thought out opinions" on pollution and ecology it appropriate that the dome should now be greenwashed.

The greenwashed dome color was a bit overdone and looks florescent in this picture but perhaps that is appropriate for this garish subject of coverup. The physical and intellectual substances which power our modern world are black—for example, oil as it is recovered from the ground has a tar black look as does coal, while uranium oxide and plutonium oxide are also quite dark. And all of these things are quite black when they escape back into the atmosphere after releasing their energy in the service of some particular person's needs. The problem is, as we all know, that the rest of us have to live with their polluting blackness. Not to worry ... our knights in shining armor, our cavalry in times of peril, our politicians are here to protect us.

A little bit of greenwashing looks rather attractive on the White House and conveys a hope-filled ecological message to those who choose to play visual wordgames.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Also see:  Health problems and wind turbines/

The Public Health Issue,    

John W. Adams, Q.C.

1. There is often marked disagreement between the degree of noise actually experienced by residents living in proximity to industrial wind-turbine plants and the predicted noise level. In Ontario, the predicted noise level is calculated by developers prior to construction, in accordance with guidelines established by the Ministry of the Environment (which specifically approves these installations). It is certain that the MOE guidelines result in calculations that substantially understate wind-turbine noise.

2. The noise experienced by such residents is a worldwide occurrence, as are the reported health effects caused by it. Usually, the noise described is of a low frequency beat or thump - sometimes referred to as a "swoosh". This beat appears to synchronize with the blades passing in front of the turbine tower; but there are undoubtedly other aspects of the turbine contributing to the noise. Low frequency noise can travel considerable distances and through barriers, like the walls of a house. It is invasive (we have all heard in our cars the thump of a bass coming from a passing one - with all windows up.) According to many recorded accounts and supporting studies, the evening and night-time are the worst for residents when noise can reach intolerable levels in the stiller night-time air. Residents have variously described the noise as being like: "a train continually passing through the room"; "a C130 Hercules flying outside the window"; "distant pile-driving"; "someone mixing concrete in the sky"; and "a jet engine revving-up for take-off" (this was the comment of a former Melancthon resident who stated that he and his wife were forced to give up their home of many years one year after construction of the 46 wind-turbine plant, because of the noise and the serious effect it was having on his wife's health - yet the siting of the wind turbines near their home complied with the MOE guidelines and had been approved by the ministry.) A paper presented by Julian and Jane Davis at the Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise (Lyon, 2007), gives a graphic account of the torment that can be inflicted when living 930 m from the closest of only eight 2-MW turbines (www.puketiro.org/UploadedDocuments/windfarm)[1].

3. The current MOE guidelines have permitted wind turbines to be sited as close as 350 m to surrounding homes. On Wolfe Island, the developer is proposing a minimum setback of 450 m, and the ministry thinks that this is fine. There is no evidence to support 450 m as a safe distance, only mathematical modeling based on the MOE guidelines. The Ministry's approval of 450 m setbacks seems oddly generous to the developers of industrial wind-turbine plants, when even the pro-industry, National Wind Coordinating Committee in the U.S., acknowledges that "those affected by the noise live within a few miles of a large wind power plant or within several thousand feet of a small plant or individual turbine. Although the noise at these distances is not great, it is nevertheless sufficient to be heard indoors and may be especially disturbing at night...." [emphasis added].

4. The reported effects of being subjected to long and frequent periods of pulsating low-frequency noise, particularly at night, are not difficult to imagine, they include: depression, chronic stress, migraines, nausea, exhaustion, anger, dizziness, memory loss and cognitive difficulties - children and the elderly are especially affected by the latter. This constellation of symptoms has been given the clinical term, "wind-turbine syndrome". Measured physiologic consequences of exposure to noise during sleep include cardiac arrhythmias, increased heart rate and blood pressure (WHO, 1999, Guidelines for Community Noise, pp 42-44). The WHO guidelines also note that noise with low-frequency components is particularly bothersome in areas with low background noise (p.46), i.e. the countryside, where large wind-turbine plants are multiplying in Ontario.

5. By far the most complete, accurate and sobering summary of the public-health concerns surrounding the negligent siting of wind turbines is contained in a report by Frey and Hadden - " Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed near Homes: Effects on Health" (Feb., 2007 - available at www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com), which should be mandatory reading for all involved in the regulation of wind turbines.

6. "The Darmstadt Manifesto" (1998), endorsed by over 100 German university professors, described the health concerns that were emerging with wind turbines in Germany ten years ago:

"More and more people are describing their lives as unbearable when they are directly exposed to the acoustic and optical effects of wind farms. There are reports of people being signed off sick and unfit for work, there are a growing number of complaints about symptoms such as pulse irregularities and states of anxiety which are known from the effects of infrasound."

7. The situation has not improved. Nina Pierpont, M.D, PhD, has studied the health effects of wind turbines and treated patients suffering from them in New York State, where she practices. In a letter to Kim Isles of Chatham, Ontario, dated February 16, 2008, Dr. Pierpont had this to say:

"Yes, there are indeed medical problems caused by noise and vibration from current, upwind, three-bladed industrial wind turbines. I am in the process of preparing a paper for publication in a medical journal documenting the consistency of these problems from family to family, the study subjects being a collection of families in several countries who have been driven from their homes by problems with sleep, headaches, tinnitus, equilibrium, concentration, memory, learning, mood, and child behavior - problems which started when the turbines went into operation and which resolved when the family is away from the turbines. These problems all occur in proximity to recently built industrial turbines, put into operation in 2005, 2006, and 2007......Based on my 3½ years of researching Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), including interviews with scores of people around the world who clearly suffer from WTS, it is my strong clinical recommendation (in line with the French National Academy of Medicine) that industrial wind turbines be sited a minimum of 1½ miles away from homes, schools, hospitals, places of business, and anywhere else people regularly congregate."

8. Professor Katz, Chair of the Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, New York University, has called for a two-year moratorium on locating wind turbines near dwellings, "to allow for a multi-disciplinary team of scientists to research all the health and environmental concerns."

9. The Frey and Hadden report, previously mentioned, calls for setbacks from homes of at least 2 km for wind turbines of less than 2 MW and greater distances for those above that rating. In March, 2006, France's National Academy of Medicine called on the French Government to impose an immediate moratorium on the placement of turbines within 1.5 km of homes while further research is conducted on the health effects of wind-turbine noise and infra-sound. It is to be noted that President Sarkosy recently announced a wind-turbine ban in rural France, directing development to brownfield areas. The UK Noise Association fully concurred with the National Academy of Medicine's call for a moratorium in an authoritative report entitled "Location, Location, Location" (July, 2006), in which the noise and health effects of wind turbines were reviewed. The Report's conclusion is of interest:

"Wind farms can play a role in reducing global warming emissions. But there is very real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside. There is no doubt that some existing wind farms are causing real noise problems. This report has stopped short of arguing that those turbines should be shut down, that possibility should never be ruled out. However, it would seem quite unacceptable to our fellow citizens for this situation to be replicated in other parts of the country as new turbines come on stream. But this does not have to be the case. The positive conclusion of this report is that there is a constructive forward. It simply requires sensible siting of the new wind farms. It's all about ‘location, location, location'. It is in the interests of the wind power industry, environmental groups and local communities for us to get that right." [http://www.countryguardian.net/location.pdf]

10. Obviously, the health and well-being of Ontarians are of concern here and yet matters are left to planners, acoustical engineers and the MOE to resolve. Not one of these entities is qualified to determine a medically safe distance for the siting of wind turbines. Expertise in medicine, the biologic sciences and epidemiology is required. Astonishingly, the MOE appears to have sought no qualified medical opinion whatsoever. In failing to have this public health issue addressed by competent medical authorities, the Ontario government is surely running a serious risk of substantial criticism and of having this failure cited as evidence of its willful negligence in the law suits that are almost certain to come. One thing is clear: the issue of wind turbines and their effect on the health and well-being of Ontarians will not go away.

The Serious Inadequacies of the MOE Noise Guidelines

11. The MOE guidelines have been used by virtually all local municipalities as the basis for determining noise setbacks for wind turbines in planning applications. In this they have the support of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held at the Kincardine hearings that if the developer's calculations show the guidelines will be met, then there is no further planning issue to consider regarding noise set-backs. Thus municipal planning has sought, most likely ineffectually, to avoid responsibility for the negligent and harmful siting of wind turbines by seeking the protection of the guidelines. In addition, the MOE has assumed, on its own account, responsibility for the placement of wind turbines by issuing certificates of approval, which are contingent on compliance with the guidelines. Consequently, the guidelines, which are at best an ill-considered guide to the placement of wind turbines, are given the full force of law and, unlike other laws, they are being written, amended and interpreted at the discretion of MOE bureaucrats. The Ontario Government should not consider this cause for optimism.

12. The MOE guidelines are designed and implemented to authorize excessive noise levels in the following ways:

a) Decibel levels used in the guidelines are expressed as dBA - the ‘A' refers to an A-weighted noise level that is used to measure the higher frequency sounds. This A-weighting significantly underestimates the presence of invasive low frequency noise (e.g., the "swoosh"), which is better measured by using a C-weighted noise level - expressed as dBC. The international standard IEC 61400 (Wind Turbine Generator Part 11) recommends the comparison of A and C weighting to assess the presence of low frequency noise, and Paul Schomer noted that "It [A-weighting] certainly cannot be used for room noise criteria", pointing out that at low frequencies about one third of people are "C-weighted listeners" - [Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2002, Nov; (5, pt 2: 2412]. The guidelines ignore this.

b) At wind-speeds up to 4 metres per second, the guidelines authorize a wind-turbine noise level of 40 dBA at a rural dwelling at any time of the day or night. This is a five-fold increase over the background noise level of a quiet country night that is typically around 25 dBA. It is to be remembered that decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale and that an increase of 6 dBA is heard as a doubling of the sound. This generous allowance for the intrusion of wind-turbine noise appears to have been a committee decision within the MOE which was not supported by any impact study or medical advice. The guidelines then proceed systematically to compound the generosity of this allowance.

c) Ontario, along with New Zealand, appear to be the only jurisdictions that permit the authorized wind-turbine noise level at a dwelling actually to increase with wind speed. This further and generous allowance is based on a false and facile assumption that the background noise will always increase with wind speed and satisfactorily mask the growing turbine noise as wind speed rises. At wind speeds of up to 4 metres per second the MOE authorizes wind-turbine noise level of 40 dBA at a rural dwelling; at 10 metres per second the authorized level rises to 51 dBA - this represents an astonishing twenty-fold increase in noise level over the 25 dBA background noise level of a normal country night. It is correct that turbulent air at ground level can increase the masking effect of background noise. However, for much of the time and particularly at night, the air is stable, the wind speed at ground level is much lower than at the height of the hub of the turbine and the masking noise is absent or much reduced. The MOE's approach is in obvious contrast to the criteria of ISO 1996 - 1971, Community Noise Limits (a 30 dBA indoor evening limit and a 25 dBA night limit in rural areas), and to the WHO which contends that sleep disturbance is encountered above 30 dBA and calls for that limit, regardless of wind speed.

d) (i) As the MOE has chosen the unorthodox regulatory method of authorizing greater wind-turbine noise with increasing wind speed, it is reasonable to expect that the MOE has actually measured and studied wind speeds at the operating height of these large turbines (80 m at the hub and 125 m at the high point of the blades), together with the noise they produce. Unfortunately, this is not the case, even though opportunities to do so have been readily available. The guidelines only require developers to obtain wind data at a height of 10 m (the proxy for ground level) and not at the operating height. To allow for this major discrepancy, the guidelines proclaim that the wind speed in the operating zone is deemed to be 1.4 times the wind speed at 10 m. Unfortunately, this allowance is not supported by the facts. The available evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the 1.4 allowance substantially understates wind speed, and therefore noise, at the operating height. Once more the industry is advantaged to the serious prejudice of residents.

d) (ii) The guidelines' substantial understatement of wind speed at operating height is demonstrated, for example, in a study by Dutch physicist G. P. van den Berg, who took noise and wind measurements over a four-month period at a small wind-turbine plant in Germany containing seventeen 1.8 MW turbines. Measurements at night showed that the average wind speed at hub height was up to 2.6 times higher than had been anticipated from an earlier noise assessment study for the site, based on a sound propagation model. This resulted in the periodic beat (or "swoosh") being up to 15 dBA louder at night. Noise at ground level caused annoyance to residents at 1900m - a distance at which, theoretically, they should have heard nothing. [The report was published in the Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, vol. 24, # 1, 2005; also available at www.ninapierpont.com]

(d) (iii) The work of van den Berg, is endorsed by the UK Noise Association and is otherwise well supported, for example: the analysis and conclusions of William Palmer, P. Eng., from Ontario, in a paper presented at the Second International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise (Lyon, 2007)[2]; together with Enbridge wind measurements presented at the OMB hearings in Kincardine, and the MNR's own wind speed data for Essex County, clearly support the conclusion that there are often significantly higher wind speeds at the operating height of these turbines than are to be found at ground level. Far greater, in fact, than a wind speed that the ministry decrees is 1.4 times the speed at ground level. On April 4th, 2008, the Dutch newspaper Noordhollands Dagblad reported that the Dutch authorities have accepted that van den Berg's conclusions are right and are now reviewing their rules for measuring wind-turbine noise.

e) The wind-turbine noise habitually complained about is a tormenting beat. The MOE noise guidelines allow this periodic noise to be averaged over time so that the noise peaks are lost for the purpose of compliance calculations! Julian and Jane Davis, in their paper mentioned above, describe how a commonplace event is affected by the tormenting beat that the guidelines average to insignificance: "the evening [for a BBQ] will be still with no wind at ground level and then - just as the food is ready comes the THUMP, THUMP, THUMP that indicates AM [ ‘Amplitude Modulation', or the beat] is back...and when that happens, it's really difficult to even find out if someone wants a sausage or a beef burger..."

f) The guidelines do provide for a 5 dBA penalty to be added where the noise is periodic. But the MOE does not enforce it! This penalty was not imposed in Kincardine, or on Wolfe Island.

g) The noise guidelines take no account of the combination of direct and reflected noise that reaches the ear from a turbine. For frequencies below 300 Hz, where much of the turbine noise is concentrated, this can increase the noise level by 50%. The manufacturers of wind turbines are aware of this effect; they deduct an allowance for reflected noise when establishing the published noise output of their wind-turbine models.

h) The noise from blade motion through turbulent air inflow is also ignored by the noise guidelines. This noise contribution has been measured, for example, at the Renewable Energy Laboratory research turbine in the U.S., and it can and should be estimated before wind-turbine locations are approved.

13. The critique above draws heavily on a technical analysis of the noise guidelines by physicist and acoustical expert, Professor John Harrison of Queen's University. A copy of his analysis was provided to the MOE in October, 2007.

14. In summary, the MOE:

- fails to address low-frequency C-weighted sound;

- sets too high a minimum noise level (5 times background);

- permits the authorized noise level to rise with wind speed, ignoring international standards;

- ignores true wind speeds at operating height;

- averages away the thump;

- ignores reflected noise;

- ignores the contribution of turbulent air-flow;

- does not enforce its own guidelines.

15. What is it about the MOE that produces noise guidelines which give advantages to the wind industry at every turn and demonstrate a cynical indifference to the health and well-being of Ontarians?

Does the ministry not have a collective conscience?

Does it not have any curiosity over the plethora of serious reports, studies and opinions that raise legitimate concerns for the public's health and well-being?

Does it know something, for example, that the French Academy of Medicine does not, when the latter calls for a moratorium on locating wind turbines closer than 1.5 km to dwellings?  What is certain is that the MOE has a statutory duty to protect the environment, which includes protecting the health of the public, and that it has given a woeful account of itself in discharging that solemn duty.

16. The MOE has been conducting an internal review of the guidelines for some time; but there is no evidence that the ministry has the fortitude to make the required major changes to the guidelines in the face of the Ontario government's very public commitment to wind-turbine initiatives. The proof of this assertion is to be found in the ministry's very recent acceptance of the developer's noise modeling for the eighty-six, 2.3 MW turbines proposed for Wolfe Island.

17. Wolfe Island will have 266 residences within 1 km of wind turbines. It is virtually certain that all of these residences will exceed the 40 dBA noise limit in reality, as they are at or very close to that limit when the noise levels are calculated under the MOE's seriously flawed guidelines. In fact, 238 of these residences would exceed even the calculated 40 dBA limit by just adding the 5 dBA penalty for periodic noise - had this not been ignored by the MOE. In addition, it must be assumed that there are many homes beyond 1 km that that will also feel the impact of this massive development. Consequently, many on the island may now look forward to a life of torment or worse, their future histories having already been written in other parts of the world. The actions of the MOE in creating this situation are far from reprehensible, they are scandalous and actionable.

Solutions

18. Protecting the public from wind-turbine noise is not complicated. First must come the recognition that any uncertainty will be resolved in favour of nearby residents and not the industry. No one should be stressed and depressed from the denial of a proper night's sleep and no child should be gratuitously presented with learning difficulties. The onus must be on the regulators to ensure that such things will not occur and that no harm be done. The solution is simply to place wind turbines at a distance where it will be known that they will not be heard inside a dwelling. Calculating that distance turbine by turbine with elaborate and inaccurate mathematical models is clearly not working, as a plethora of reports demonstrate.

19. At the present time, a minimum mandatory distance is needed and no further wind-turbine projects should be approved without it. From all the available evidence, land-based turbines, rated in excess of 2 MW, should be set back 2 to 3 km - probably 2.5 km is about right. Lower-rated turbines, excluding small ones used by the owner, would be at 1.5 km. [Off-shore turbines may well be a different matter and need to be carefully studied; in Europe, with its massive change to off-shore installations, the distances from shore are far greater than any setbacks encountered on land.] A committee of senior physicians recommended by the Ontario Medical Association, assisted by independent acoustical experts, should be appointed by the Minister of Health, to consider all health-related effects of wind turbines on local inhabitants (this should include sunlight flicker and infra-sound, which are not covered in this memorandum), and to make recommendations for their appropriate siting. It has become self-evident that these matters cannot be left solely to the MOE any longer.

April, 2008

Toronto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "If a body can't rest then a body can't work...or function properly - and that is what we found. A tired mind and body become more prone to accidents, not ideal in any circumstance but dangerous on a farm. The peculiar noises that wind turbines emit can not only be heard, they can also be felt by the body, and thus trying to rest becomes impossible. We tried: fans, white noise machines, sleeping tablets, red wine and ear plugs. The latter again masks background noise but allows the low frequency that we get to penetrate so that it feels part of your body and the beat - the pulsation - that is slightly faster than our human hearts beat, means that you feel as if you are constantly trying to get your heart to catch up with this external rhythm that is felt by the body rather than heard ... so rest is impossible." They were forced to rent an additional house as a place to sleep!

[2] Mr. Palmer stated: "In summary, the results for one wind farm, the Kingsbridge wind farm near Goderich, Ontario, which has the closest distance between the wind turbines and the Environment Canada weather office monitoring station, show that about 31% of the hours of the year show an unmasked noise output above the Ontario Standard (sic), and for nearly 10% of the hours of the year, the noise is significantly above the provincial standard (over 3 dBA), in many cases about 10 dBA above the background level produced by the wind at the receptor. In 6 months from October 2006 to March 2007, on 64% of the days, there were hours of unmasked noise. This demonstrated the problem to be chronic and significant in nature......For another Ontario wind farm, the results in the summer period between May 1st and August 31st, 2006 showed 59% of the days demonstrated the problem, with it occurring 48% of the nights, and 33% of the showing the condition sustained for 3 or more hours."

Ethos is indirectly the origin of the modern English word ethics and the definition of ethics (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is:

a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

The New Internationalist Magazine (NI) June 2008 issue brought to light "Bullshit in a Bottle". Just so happens, Ethos has a new definition. It's the name of a bottled water company with a slick website and "is a profit-making enterprise disguised as humanitarian relief".

There is a long list of what is wrong with the bottled water industry in general: Energy consumption, pollution concerns, health hazards, wasteful, expensive and unnecessary. And now add to the list "exploiting the plight of Africans to sell more bottled water."

Ethos Water is a company currently owned by Starbucks which uses PepsiCo to distribute its water to wholesalers and retailers across the country. According to their website,

five cents from each bottle purchased is donated to a foundation the gives grant commitments to humanitarian water programs that alleviate the world water crisis.

Ethos seems to really be in the "cause-related marketing" business who's goal is to ultimately bring more profits to Starbucks. I agree with the NI's analysis:

Given that the water retails at $1.80 per bottle and five cents represents just a three per cent donation, it would seem that ‘helping children get clean water' may not be quite as important as boosting company coffers... Critics say it is a profit-making enterprise disguised as humanitarian relief, that Ethos is exploiting the plight of Africans to sell more bottled water, and that donating directly to a reputable charity dedicated to water projects in Africa is a better way to address this serious problem.

Why don't you just purchase a reusable home water filtration device and donate the $1.80-a-day to that reputable charity.

For more on ethics and charitable gving:
Go Green by Doing Good
Just Add Eco-Friendly Detergent and Rinse
Sustainable Cuisine Greenwashing - Again

Now that “green” is all the rage, MTV launched this fabulous ad to remind people that, the same way that not everything that shines is gold, not everything labeled green is actually eco-friendly.

Although hilarious, the ad presses a very serious point, blowing the whistle on the green fad and the way it has been shamelessly exploited by all sorts of companies that are anything but ecological.

By looking at the latest communication campaigns by the oil companies, for instance, one might come to think that they were actually in the flower business, such is the profusion of “green” and “environmental friendly” images and claims. Just look at BP’s brilliant (but ultimately highly deceiving) rebranding from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum.

Of course all this green talk may cut it for a while, but not for long. As Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

So of lately a trend as been emerging of “greenwash aware” people that bother to scratch the thinly coated green paint that many brands are using to mask their true colors. And this spells trouble for those who allow themselves to be spotted at the fake green corner.

For the moment, this kind of illusionist’s tactic still pays off, as only the most environmental-conscious bother to look beyond the scenario. I mean, who’s going to blame you for preferring to fill your tank at a BP station just because it’s painted green? I myself feel tempted to give them preference, like this babies here:

However, the brand value that’s being grown on the back of “fake green” claims will sooner or later explode in their faces. And that’s because all fooled people have one thing in common: they get awfully upset when they find out (or can no longer ignore) they’ve been duped.

I mean, you go to all that trouble to separate your garbage, you buy the costlier low-consumption bulbs and you take a shower with two drops of water, all in the name of eco-friendliness. And then you happily give your money to people who are just pretending to go through the drills? It doesn’t seem quite right, does it?

So, as eco-friendly behavior sinks in and the ranks of the “greenwash aware” swallow, it will be less and less safe for brands to recur to this kind of deception.

That day is getting closer. When a massive player like MTV starts riding a wave, you should see it as a clear sign that the water is no longer shallow, and that the trend has reached critical mass - and it’s now about to explode.

MTV’s “Switch” campaign should get all the alarms ringing at the “fake greens” headquarters, and prompt them to do some switching themselves.

Deception may seem attractive today. But in the long run, authenticity always proves to be the better strategy.

In the near future, it would be better for brands to stay faithful to their true colors. If it’s green, all the better. If not, either really make it so, or stand up on other merits.

So, be green or be mean. But just don’t pretend. It will cost you.

As reported by the San Francisco Bay Guardian, journalists who were given a sneak peak of the tour were informed by Carol Tang, director of visitor interpretive programs, that the economy and entire way of life in California "will all be affected by climate change," adding, "the T. rex reminds us that mass extinctions have happened and we're in a mass extinction right now."

But alas, not is all well in the world of popular science education. In the build-up to the event, the Academy has been trumpeting the architectural and scientific achievements of the new building and feature exhibits. For environmentalists, however, it's a program underwritten by a patron with questionable intentions.  It seems that "when visitors show up for the opening weekend's festivities, they'll be told they have Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to thank for the museum's opening, which includes free admission on the first day." According to the media release posted on the utility's website, “[e]mpowering Californians with the tools and information to reduce their impact on climate change is critical to protecting California’s natural heritage. We’re honored by the opportunity to support the California Academy of Sciences as they take on the important mission of inspiring future leaders to create a more sustainable California.” Sounds like an act of nobility and corporate virtue. The news item advises that PG&E invested $1.5 million for the rights to co-sponsor, benefiting in return with post plenty of corporate signage, prominent mention in academy press releases, subtle plugs to journalists by museum staffers, and a spot on the five-person panel of academy leaders that addressed the assembled scribes at the pre-opening media tour.

These kinds of public-private partnerships in the arts are not new, as the cultural historian Neil Harris argues in his 1990 book Cultural Excursions: Marketing Appetites and Cultural Tastes in Modern America. Harris claims "the search for an enlightened American art patronage is as old as the republic itself," and shows several instances where art and corporate power intersect. He also has a fascinating chapter on the link between museums and issue advocacy, which would no doubt fit in relation to the global warming education initiative involved here. The point is that big business has long lined up behind the arts and for various reasons -- some of them noble and benevolent, and others quite deliberately self-serving. For the activist group Green Guerillas Against Greenwashing, PG&E falls squarely into the latter category. Noting the utility company's ongoing efforts to block current legislation (The Clean Energy Act) and its legacy of lobbying against high environmental standards for utilities companies, the group finds the organization's sudden support for public education about global warming a little too hot to handle. For PG&E and proponents of corporate social responsibility, the utility company's sponsorship of this initiative demonstrates not an attempt to deceive or manipulate, but to link science and climate change education and to show that there are times when industry can mobilize its significant capital advantages to demonstrate environmental leadership.

GoodGuide is an academic research based site that will help consumers find information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of products. It was started by Dara O’Rourke, professor at UC Berkeley, who gathered a team of researchers, technologists and scientists to pull together a "for benefit" online company of comprehensive, credible, and useful information on products and companies worldwide.  You can search, browse by topic, hear news of recalls, create a custom shopping list, or see a list of top rated products.

Wikia Green asks users to sign up and be a part of creating a green wiki guide. Created by Jimmy Wales, who co-founded both Wikia and Wikipedia, the goal is to to offer more lifestyle tips, product options, and how-to's.  There is a section called Wanted Articles if you are inspired to post something on a topic  (though I dont think it would count for tenure?)

Just found a new website: SUSTAIN LANE. It is a site dedicated to investigating and ranking the "green"-ness of products.

Right now, there is such a desire and demand for everything being eco friendly, that you need to be careful of "greenwashing": being misled by a company regarding the environmental practices of the company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.

This site helps solve that problem by doing the investigative work for you.

Today they also launched their rankings of the greenest cities in the United States. It saddens me that my home town is #28.

The photos are revealing in that they demonstrate the enormous number of transmission lines that have been added to these quiet country roads. The photo of the transformer station illustrates the huge footprint taken up by a wind turbine development on the landscape. With its interconnecting transmission lines, it fragments the natural habitat.

The photo from the screen door is taken at the house of a farmer who was forced to sell his farm at a considerable discount because of the arrival of the wind turbines. He feels fortunate, however, to have sold it at all. Many other houses in the district have been for sale without buyers for many months.

Another good example is the bp "energy independence" campaign, launched in 2004 to appeal to both rising public concern about environmental sustainability and national security. The Coca-Cola Company last year earned the dubious honour of winning the Polaris Institute's inaugural Greenwashing Award for working harder than any other multinational corporation "to present itself as socially and environmentally responsible while continuing to harm environments and communities through the production and distribution of its products."

Top marks for greenwashing have to go to the Ford Motor Company's re-appropriation of every kid's favourite Muppet, Kermit the Frog, portrayed in all his cool glory, mountain biking, kayaking and hiking through the rugged wilderness singing his trademark tune "it's not easy being green," then stumbling upon an Escape Hybrid and realizing it's easier than he thought. Props to the ad team for creativity, but the notion of one of the Big 3 passing itself off as a responsible steward of the environment is a little rich.

In all of these cases, the media and public debate about greenwashing tilts heavily toward concerns about unethical communication, deception, spin doctoring, and other nefarious efforts by corporations to hoodwink citizen-consumers into purchasing their products, aligning their personal values with the values of the brand, or at least forestalling negative reactions (e.g. boycotts).

All true, of course. Yet curiously missing from the debate about greenwashing are wider implications for public health. And we don't need to be talking about the big health issues associated with global climate change and the offensive activities of the auto and oil and gas sectors (although we should certainly do so). Even at the level of the mundane, the banal, in the minutiae of everyday life, greenwashing efforts are underway. When it comes to cleaning our homes the green way, there is a confusing array of labeling issues to contend with - from "non-toxic" glass cleaner to "biodegradable" detergent, "natural" grease remover  and "environmentally safe"  furniture polish. A recent news report in the Calgary Herald noted a survey of American big-box stores, which found that 99.9 per cent of products made false, misleading or unsubstantiated claims of eco-sustainability. TerraChoice, the firm that conducted the research, broke the results into six categories of "sins," including the Sin of the Hidden Trade-off (a chlorine-free bathroom cleaner that contains other toxic materials), the Sin of Vagueness (a product that claims to be chemical-free when all living things, including humans, are made of chemicals), and the Sin of No Proof (products that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification). 

All of this poses significant dilemmas for monitoring and regulation of promotional communication. Advertising Standards Canada, the nonprofit industry organization which encourages voluntary adherence to codes of conduct but has little power to enforce compliance, issued a heads-up notice to advertisers that they might expect unwanted attention if they start greenwashing. I'm sure the multinationals are worried. This is a case that illustrates the paradoxical effects of PR - while rising environmental awareness and concern from citizens has helped to generate the creative energy that underlies eco-marketing and corporate greenwashing, it has also created new market opportunities for PR professionals to provide rhetorical service to corporate actors that have been the targets of activist campaigns, thus affording them new opportunities to enhance their images and reputations. TerraChoice, after all, is not an environmental NGO but a "science-based marketing firm that helps its clients convert genuine environmental leadership into winning strategy, communications and positioning." 

There’s been a wave of green goods crashing over our heads in recent months. But how confident are you really that the eco-friendly toothpaste (shampoo, notebook, chair, etc.) you bought was green enough to justify that much more of your hard-earned wages? Turns out the green marketing noise level has gotten so high, it’s ticking people off. Earlier this year, for example, the UK's Advertising Standards Agency noted that in 2007 it received more than four times as many complaints about ads touting green claims than it did in 2006. So where can one find some green peace of mind? The web, of course. A growing number of web sites have started to emerge to help consumers sort through the (green) BS. Last week alone, both GoodGuide, an academic research-based site that rates how "good" products are based on 140 different criteria, and Green Wikia, a green section of the crowd-sourcing site Wikia, launched with the goal of shining a light on green goods.

The two sites take vastly different approaches. GoodGuide is the product of a decades' worth of investigation by professor Dara O’Rourke, first at MIT and then at UC Berkeley, into supply chains and the building blocks of consumer goods. The site, which O'Rourke says was inspired by a desire to know what, exactly, was in the suntan lotion he had been rubbing on his daughter's face, is meant to be an authoritative “top-down” approach to aiding in purchase decisions. It taps 200-plus private and public sources of information, among them government databases, non-profits, third-party research firms and the media. All that info culminates into one decisive rating that tells consumers where the product ranks, on a scale that ranges from bad to excellent, vs. its competitors.

Green Wikia, on the other hand, is all about letting the masses decide what the best green products and services are. Jimmy Wales, who co-founded both Wikia and Wikipedia, said he launched the green section of Wikia because he noticed a profound lack of quality information on green issues. And unlike the info on the green-focused pages of Wikipedia, Wales said he wants Green Wikia to offer more lifestyle tips, product options and how-to’s. Of course, relying on the wisdom of the crowd is nothing new, and a study in the journal Nature found that Wikipedia is about as accurate Encyclopedia Britannica.

So when it comes to rating green goods and services, is one method superior to the other? They both have their advantages. The green characteristics of products -- reduced carbon footprint, long-term health benefits, lack of animal testing, etc. – do go largely unseen by the consumer. And there’s only so much that the average buyer of a green product can really add to a discussion on green goods, outside of a personal review. So GoodGuide will be able to inspire a lot more trust in the short term, especially as Green Wikia, which at this point is made up primarily of links to media reports and company web sits, gets built out.

On the other hand, over time, Green Wikia will have access to an unlimited amount of information -- everything on the web, with input from anyone who cares to weigh in -- which could theoretically lead to millions of contributors. GoodGuide, meanwhile, has 12 full-time and 12 part-time employees amassing information and rankings. Who would create better, more accurate or useful information, a group amassing select info from specific sources or millions with access to everything? At this point, we don’t know; the issue of how to mix user-generated content with professional content remains a central debate of Internet publishing. But we do know that with the level of green marketing growing by leaps and bounds, we’re going to need some smart green filters fast, from both the top down and the bottom up.

This article also appeared on BusinessWeek.com.

Write or email:

Sierra Club Canada
412-1 Nicholas Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7B7
Canada

Phone: (613) 241-4611
Fax: (613) 241-2292
Toll free: 1-888-810-4204
e-mail: info@sierraclub.ca
web site: www.sierraclub.ca

Contact Nature Canada

By mail:
Nature Canada
85 Albert St, Suite 900
Ottawa, ON K1P 6A4
Canada

By phone:
Phone: 613-562-3447
Phone toll free: 1-800-267-4088
Fax: 613-562-3371

By email:
info@naturecanada.ca

Heureka, Shell hat's drauf!

This problem is something that we will continue to see more and more of, the article goes on to say. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been working this past year to specify the distinction between actual environmental claims and greenwashing, but this has been a difficult task so far.

The article goes on to mention two interesting sites to check out. One of them is Green Washing Index. This site lets viewers post ads that they feel are examples of greenwashing "and rate them on a scale of 1 to 5--1 is a little green lie; 5 is an outright falsehood."

Another website is Terra Choice, which lists what they feel are the "six sins of greenwashing--six simple signs that should tip off consumers to a company that is more interested in selling the earth than saving it." Take a look at both and be on alert for the imposters.

Arnie puts his muscle behind eco-driving USA.

Eco-geeks guide to personalised wind turbines - one gets to save money, reduce ones carbon footprint and ask oneself 'what kind of wind turbine defines me as a person?'.

Also on EcoGeek, how to identify corporate greenwashing with a new start up called the Good Guide.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature is looking to broaden our understanding of conservation by asking "How do we devise strategies for society that will allow a peaceful, equitable, fulfilled human future: a humane future for a diverse earth?"

The Club of Pioneers have a great interview with 'Earth' (the feature from the makers of 'Planet Earth') producer Sophokles Tasioulis.

Bloomberg looks to drastically alter New York's skyline (in a good way) with the introduction of wind turbines 'on the city's bridges and skyscrapers and in its waters as part of a wide-ranging push to develop renewable energy'.

Global Warming and Global War - The Link Between Security, the Economy and the Environment

Something Americans dont seem to be concentrating on enough coming up to the election, $100bn could yield 2 million new jobs.

Something for the USI to take on board? UK students to be tested on their eco-friendliness.

"What's Your Crazy Green Idea?"

Superstar: A Mobile China Town is so crazy it could actually work. Check out the video below for more.