Search

In this interview, John Viera, the Global Director of Sustainability and Vehicle Environmental Matters at Ford Motor Company, describes the Company’s innovative Sustainable Materials Strategy. Viera explains that the Strategy is oriented toward vehicles having less of an impact on the planet. Among additional trajectories, the Sustainable Materials Strategy diverts and transforms post-consumer and post-industrial waste otherwise destined for the landfill into source materials for new vehicle components.

To illustrate, Viera explains that used carpet can be salvaged from buildings and reprocessed into new engine components. Waste denim can be transformed into new vehicle carpet padding for increased soundproofing and interior comfort. Viera suggests that it is highly profitable to implement Sustainable Materials Strategy innovations. Viera also asserts that the diversion of post-consumer and post-industrial waste is an important approach toward reducing the use of our world's limited natural resources. Overall, the Sustainable Materials Strategy sponsors innovation and sustainability, refines the manufacturing process and promotes new technologies.

John Viera is the Global Director, Sustainability and Vehicle Environmental Matters for Ford Motor Company, a position he has held since January 2007.

John Viera is responsible for developing global sustainable business plans and policies, interfacing with global regulatory bodies, reporting externally on the company's environmental and social performance, and leading the company's engagement and partnerships with non-government organizations (NGOs) and other key stakeholders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a0f4XsnmQ

____________________

Special thanks to Sustainable Brands http://SustainableBrands.com

Follow us Twitter.com/NobleProfit

Register at Noble Profit to gain valuable insights in related topics.

Noble Profit is brought to you by Creative Entity Org and Creative Entity Productions created by Amy Seidman.

With home energy efficiency retrofits still going strong and proving to be a lucrative business, opportunities for fraud arise as in any sector. And yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission fined a home insulation marketer $350,000 for making unsubstantiated claims about the products he and his companies had made to consumers. The U.S. Department of Justice won the order on the merit of the FTC’s case without having to to go to trial.

Edward Sumpolec of Palm Bay, FL, who conducted business under three different entities, was found in violation of an FTC rule that requires sellers to provide an accurate R-value, the measure of a material’s resistance to heat flow, on their products. According to the FTC, the R-value is supposed to give consumers accurate information about the correct level of insulation needed for their homes--the higher the R-value, the higher the insulating power. Sumpolec, however, had sold products such as “R-100 paint,” and other insulating products that promised to reduce roof temperatures by as much as 95 degrees and save up to 60 percent on energy bills.

According to the FTC, Sumpolec lacked any “reasonable basis” for such cost-saving claims, did not retain any material records for the required amount of time and sold products to customers without including accurate fact sheets about such products’ performance. A local commercial still posted on YouTube touts energy efficiency amongst the various products Sumpolec sold with a warning for customers “not to scrimp and save on energy and a buck here and there.” A quick point: a cursory search at a local Home Depot or on the retailer’s web site reveals that the most energy efficient insulation has an R-value between 49 and 60.

Sumpolec was hardly alone in making false claims about energy efficient building products. Meyer Enterprises was ordered by an Illinois federal court to pay $155,000 for selling an insulation barrier with the claim that it had an R-value almost 4 times of its actual performance. Environmate of Alabama sold a similar product that had an R-value half of what the company had disclosed to customers.

And so we have an easy lesson here: consumers have got to learn the jargon if they participate in any program such as the the Home Star Act of 2010 or are vetting local contractors. And any business owner too dismissive about compliance may want to take notes on Sumpolec’s fate--he has thirty days to pay that fine and is now subjected to a bevy of documentation requirements.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost). He will explore children’s health issues in India next month with the International Reporting Project.

[Image credit: Lowe's]

IBM recently announced three public school initiatives as part of their Smarter Planet program which is now five years old. The districts involved are: Palm Beach Country (SDPBC) in Florida, Portland Public Schools (PPS) in Oregon, and Clark County School District (CCSD) in Nevada.

Through the use of IBM software and analytics, the schools are able to monitor and manage their physical assets more effectively, which results in reduced operating costs, increased returns on invested capital and reduced operating costs, leaving more precious resources available for their core educational missions.

With more than 95 percent of all school districts across the US facing budget cuts, there could not be a better time to bring this combination of technology and know-how to bear on minimizing the peripheral costs associated with running an educational system.

Here are a few examples of the kind of things that have been done.
In Palm Beach County, the school district implemented IBM’s TRIRIGA real estate management system to help manage the operation of a leasing program, so that they can capitalize on making unused facilities available during off-hours. Since adapting this system, leasing revenues have increased by $4.5 million.

In Portland, the same software is being used to prioritize modernization efforts in a district where the average building age is 70 years old. It also helps them to perform smart, predictive maintenance procedures. As Ben Franklin so astutely pointed out, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” The smart building software has helped the district identify problems quickly in their 81 buildings and has reduced facilities costs by 15% while increasing the speed of modernization by 46 percent.

Clark County Nevada is the fifth largest school district in the country with 36 million square feet of building space, covering 8000 square miles. The use of IBM’s Maximo software has helped the district stay on top of some 100,000 maintenance work orders per year and has prevented major issues that would have otherwise forced some schools to close.

Meanwhile, at the college level, Tulane University’s School of Architecture, working with IBM and Johnson Controls is transforming its historic building into an energy-efficient “living laboratory” that collects real-time sensor data throughout the building to drive higher energy efficiency, by simply, as Charles McMahon, Tulane’s CTO puts it, “by listening to what the building has to say.”
And at the City University of NY (CUNY), IBM software allows facility staff to track performance across buildings and against simulation models to see the impact of past renovations and to plan future ones. This has helped the city in its effort to shave 30% off of its municipal carbon footprint by 2017.

[Image credit: IBM Curiosity Shop: Flick Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.
Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

By Nellie Stadtherr

My recent post, Healthy Humanitarian? Get Hungry For Fair Trade, elicited a comment that got me thinking. In reference to the potentially negative consequences from the quinoa trend, one reader responded “The trouble here is that many consumers are completely detached from their food sources…” I agree wholeheartedly.

A few summers ago I was interning in Indonesia with Mercy Corps. During a tour of the slums of Northern Jakarta,  one of our local Program Managers warned me to never eat the food from the street vendors. “They add borax to the noodles,” he explained. “It helps them stay fresh throughout the day and look whiter, which is more appetizing.” I was horrified. Especially when I realized that these noodles were most locals’ standard lunch. I could only imagine the damage that must do!

Fast forward to fall, 2012. Enjoying an afternoon of munching an organic apple while reading Women’s Health Magazine to find an article profiling the hidden toxic ingredients in the food commonly found in American grocery stores. According to the author, Gretchen Voss, mislabeled food containing drugs, chemicals, and unrevealed ingredients find their way into our grocery shelves (and our pantries!), making up to seven percent of US food supply.

This scary and disgusting phenomenon is known as “food fraud.” In addition to the Women’s Health article, food fraud has been the topic of many recent media outlets, including NBC, CBS, and The Guardian.  The U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), the nonprofit that created the Food Fraud Database, released a new report on January 23, 2013 showing a 60 percent increase in food fraud cases in the past year. The USP defines food fraud as “a collective term that encompasses the deliberate substitution, addition, tampering or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients or food packaging, or false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain.”

What I find the most alarming about food fraud is that it seems no product is impervious to its reach. I would not be surprised to discover that Doritos are filled with ingredients Mother Nature didn’t intend us to eat (because that’s exactly what Doritos are). I didn’t blink and eye when news broke that Taco Bell’s “beef” contained less than 35 percent meat. But I was appalled to learn from the USP that potential “ingredients” for milk includes detergent and arsenic-contaminated sodium phosphate; sawdust in tea, coffee, and spices; antibiotics in honey; and tuna that isn’t tuna at all but escolar, which is banned in some countries “due to its high likelihood to cause a special form of food poisoning.”

Hmmm… sounds familiar. The difference is that when I asked my friend in Indonesia how in the world street food vendors thought it was okay to poison people with borax on a daily basis, he simple responded, “They don't know any better. They know it helps them sell more noodles, which means they can feed their own children.” Not that it makes eating borax better, but the intention makes the situation more sad than anything else.

What motivates the global conglomerates that are spiking 30,000 bottles of Worcestershire sauce with carcinogenic food dyes? Profit maximization. Making the cheapest product they can sell in the highest quantity at the highest price, regardless of the serious health implications this can impose. I guess that’s also “sad,” in more of a pathetic, immoral kind of way.

The thing that scares me the most about food fraud is the potential of accidental ingestion of allergens. One of the foods most prone to adulteration is one most of use on a daily basis – olive oil. Our precious EVOO is commonly watered down or cut with soybean or peanut oils. Maybe not that big of a deal if you’re just looking for something to grease your pan. But for the estimated 3 million Americans with peanut allergies, which are often severe and potentially fatal, not knowing what’s in that bottle could be life threatening.

So how can we avoid falling victim to food fraud? How do we stop this epidemic? I think it comes back to the comment about being disconnected from our food sources. Grabbing the items off the shelf without considering their origins has clearly become risky behavior. As consumers, we are the ones who can eliminate food fraud with our purchasing power. If there wasn’t a profit to be made, these products wouldn’t be out there.

Easier said then done, yes. Are we to critically investigate each can of food we purchase? Well….yes and no. The clues are definitely on the packaging and from the source.

Many of us have learned to examine our meat, egg, and dairy labels for terms including “free-range,” “no pesticides,” “no added flavorings,” and “hormone-free.” (Again, kind of sad in a depressing sort of way that we actually have to seek out labels informing of us what unnatural ingredients are NOT in our meat…). We realize that buying organic produce is an option to avoid ingesting pesticides, wax, and chemicals. We can even buy these products directly from the source, visiting our local butcher or farmers market, streamlining the distribution chain.

But what about grains, condiments, and canned food? Most of us can’t visit our local wheat (or quinoa) farm. Most of us don’t make our own ketchup or even have time to soak dry beans. How do we become connected to these types of foods that we’ve come to depend on grocery stores to supply us?

My solution is to purchase products from the brands I trust and take the time to learn about what brands stand for. This is rather easily done by taking the time to evaluate labels and a quick visit to the company’s website.

Let’s take beans for example. Pick up a can of Eden Organics Caribbean Beans and you can immediately tell the food is organic, in a BPA-free can, and contains only, well, real food.  Ingredients read: Organic Black Turtle Beans, Water, Organic Minced Dried Onion, Sea Salt, Organic Paprika Powder, Organic Cayenne Pepper Powder, Organic Cumin Powder, Organic Garlic Powder, Organic Cinnamon Powder, Organic Black Pepper Powder. Their website clearly states their mission and commitment to health and transparency.

Moving further down the aisle one might see a can of Ranch Style Texas Style Beans, another seasoned bean product owned by ConAgra. The brand, which proudly states it’s products “can be found in 97 percent of America’s kitchens,” was sued in 2011 for label fraud.

While the front of the black label doesn’t tell you much beyond the bean’s “Appetite Pleasin’” taste, a spin of the can reveals the longer and less-intuitive ingredient list than Eden Organics’: Pinto beans, water, tomato puree (water, tomato paste), less than 2% of: Blend of Vegetable Oils and Animal Fat (Partially hydrogenated Soybean Oil and/or Partially Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil and Rendered Beef Fat), Salt, Chili Peppers, Sugar, Paprika, Vinegar, Spices, Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Natural Flavorings, Soy Lecithin.

It always confuses me when companies have to include an “and/or” clause in their ingredient list… because they aren’t sure what kind of oil they’re using? Hmm. And if some spices are listed, such as paprika, what does the generic “spices” allude to?

I don't think it takes much consideration to determine which of these options is better for you in general and has less likelihood of containing fraudulent ingredients.

As we enter the new, Post-twinkie era, I hope that we can eliminate food fraud not through lawsuits but through more thoughtful purchases. We can become more connected to our food sources, whether it's the farmer, butcher, or brands we can trust from our grocer shelves. We should do this to heal of our bodies, the health of our planet, and the health of our souls.

Are we so hungry that we will allow these profit-hungry conglomerates to continue to poison us? Or can we take the time to savor the taste of purchasing power and support the brands that are committed to something more than money?

Image Credit: Ian Boyd, Flickr

By David Thomas

Chinese cities are experiencing their own version of the London fog of Victorian Britain. Smog in Beijing was at a record high this month, causing factories to be closed until the levels dissipated.

The health risks have convinced Shi Dinghuan, president of the Chinese Renewable Energy Society, to raise his organization's solar targets from the level set in 2011, 21 gigawatts, to 35 gigawatts by 2015. This will provide five times the solar capacity as there was at the end of 2012. “We’ve got more pressure to save energy and reduce emissions as smog worsens due to pollution,” he said.

Solar power is the natural choice for China. Panel prices have dropped by 25 percent in the past year, and there is greater supply than demand at the present time. This is partly due to the U.S. tariff on Chinese panels designed to safeguard their own homegrown panels. Similar policies are likely to be enacted in European nations.

The impact of the tariff on Chinese panel exports has been serious. At first, there was talk of a counter-tax on cheap raw polysilicon, one of the raw materials in solar pv, which is currently imported into China. A reactionary tariff is now looking unlikely, as it would most likely add further pressure on Chinese panel production, which survives due to its margins.

Meanwhile, the twenty million people living in Beijing are suffering the consequences of China’s industries, powered largely by coal and things could get worse before they get better. Earlier statements have indicated that the next generation of Chinese power plants will be 70 percent coal, due to the nation’s massive energy demands.

China is the world leader in terms of total carbon emissions because of its rapid development - not because it is a pollutant state. The ramp up in solar targets indicates that some officials are looking for a solution. The government has also offered 13bn Yuan ($2.1bn) in solar subsidies to encourage the growth of its renewable power industry.

At the end of 2012, two of China’s largest solar manufacturers, LDK Solar and Suntech, experienced a jump in stock price. The recent developments in Beijing will see plenty more business coming their way in the next decade.

[Image credit:Lu Feng, Flickr]

David Thomas writes about cleantech, government policy and energy efficiency for The Eco Experts. You can speak to him @theecoexperts

A recent article in the journal Nature alleges cats are responsible for killing billions of animals in the U.S. annually. In jargonistic terms, “free-range domestic cats,” particularly “un-owned cats,” may kill as many as 3.7 billion birds and 20.7 mammals annually. The article’s findings have spread rapidly across the web, with media outlets including USA Today, Time and Huffington Post running stories about this supposed environmental havoc that felines are having on the natural environment throughout the United States. The study's authors call trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs "potentially harmful to wildlife populations," because they work gradually - leaving birds and wildlife at risk.

Advocates for a more humane approach to controlling feline populations are pushing, if not clawing, back hard. Becky Robinson of Alley Cat Allies slammed the research and criticized the study, pointing out some research was a half-century old. Robinson also highlighted research cited in the study that was the work of a former Smithsonian researcher who lost her job after she was found guilty in Washington, DC of animal cruelty--as in attempting to poison cats in her Northwest DC neighborhood.

It is true that cats kill birds and small rodents: after all that is what they are instinctively wired to do, as anyone who knows how to use YouTube can attest. But reading through the Nature article, I could not help but wonder: did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and their fellow researchers at the Smithsonian cherry pick data for a conclusion that a crew of bureaucrats had already reached about the impact of cats on wildlife? And why not focus on the some of the larger reasons for the destruction of wildlife and its habitat, as in rampant overdevelopment and environmental degradation? And finally, if our society has such a problem, is it time for business to step up and help combat a problem that has long overwhelmed financially strapped animal non-profits and municipal animal control agencies?

As Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society points out, the three co-authors of the Nature study, Scott R. Loss, Tom Will and Peter P. Marra, came up with numbers that are in reality “informed guesswork.” Guesswork is a kind word: stating that cats kill 6.9 to 20.7 billion mammals annually is not an estimate--it is throwing a bowl of jell-o on a wall to see what will stick.

Even the authors admit that their methodology has shortcomings--I would go so far to say the quality of research was at best marginal and would not pass muster at any respectable university. We know businesses are good at sponsoring studies that result in a predetermined outcome favorable to them; apparently employees of government agencies can do the same. Never mind the cats versus birds argument that has has brought out more than enough hysterics: throwing out provocative numbers to attract the attention of large media outlets is not research--I would call it irresponsible. The blame for loss of wildlife does not lie at kitten paws.

The stubborn fact is that approximately 4 million cats are already euthanized annually, according to the Humane Society of the United States. And while it is true that cats kill their fair share of birds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does a fairly good job killing birds for various reasons.

What the study also ignores is the fact that while there is a long way to go to keep domesticated animal population under control, we have come a long way. When it comes to animal control, Alley Cat Allies, the Humane Society and hundreds of small local organizations have made progress with trap, neuter and return (TNR) programs.

Anyone who grew up as recently as the 1970s and 1980s might remember folks showing up in front of a store to give away free puppies or kittens to whoever would take them. Much, not incremental, progress has been made to reduce the number of stray cats and dogs in our communities.

So instead of touting a solution - killing more cats - in search of a problem, let us focus on much larger problems: humans’ encroachment on wildlife among other environmental challenges.

And it is now the time for businesses to step up and raise awareness amongst their employees, customers or stakeholders--and strongly consider animal welfare non-profits for their corporate giving and community grant programs. Many veterinary clinics and non-profits offer a hour or two of low-cost spade and neuter programs a week--clearly more time is needed. And finally, TNR has worked, and such programs cost taxpayers almost nothing: it costs about $100 to euthanize a cat. Forget about the emotional argument--killing more cats will be a government boondoggle. We just need more TNR programs funded, and more influential Bob Barkers reminding everyone to spay and neuter your pets.

Image credit: Luis Mézquita/Unsplash

According to the industry group American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. wind power industry not only had its best year ever in 2012, but exceeded natural gas in the installation of new electric generating capacity. The $25 billion in private investment alone wind energy projects attracted produced over 13,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power capacity last year--an estimate that exceeds the 10,700 MW that the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) estimated in a recent report. Now the total wind generation capacity in the U.S. stands at over 60,000 MW (60 gigawatts, or GW).

The new milestones will be a shot in the arm for clean energy advocates, who have witnessed a roller coaster of hopes and disappointments the last several years. For example, T. Boone Pickens was once a big proponent of wind power, only to eventually pull his support out of all wind projects in which he had invested. Ironically, much of the new wind power capacity is in the central or prairie states Pickens had envisioned, including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa.

The newly online wind power projects range from the 210 MW Bison Wind III in North Dakota to the 235 MW Chisholm View wind farm operated by GE in Oklahoma. Illinois witnessed a huge surge in wind power capacity, with such projects now providing over 800 MW annually. Overall, 190 projects in 32 states and Puerto Rico now generate enough electricity to power 15 million homes: or all those in Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio combined. That sum of wind power is 42 percent of new power capacity last year; and in fact, renewables were responsible for 55 percent of all new electricity generated in the U.S. last year.

Of course wind power is not completely out of the woods yet. While Congress extended the federal government’s Production Tax Credit past its original expiration of last December 31, the constant drama over the “fiscal cliff” poses uncertainty within the industry since it is a benefit of that federal incentive. Wind installations will continue to face local opposition, as in Vermont, where the state’s junior senator, Bernie Sanders, currently tangles with local officials over a potential moratorium on new wind energy projects.

Overall, however, wind power is on an upward trajectory. Remember that it took the U.S. 25 years to reach 10 GW of wind energy capacity. Between 2008 and 2012, that amount surged from 20 GW to 60 GW. Meanwhile fracking for natural gas continues as that boom will not slow down anytime soon. But despite protests and bureaucratic delays, the industry is in an growth spurt.

The peaks and valleys the wind power sector experiences will continue, but watch for this source of energy to grow in size between environmental concerns over sources such as natural gas and coal; plus fossil fuels continue their overall climb in price as well. Throw in the mix of next-generation technologies, and the future of wind will be bright--and exciting.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost). He will explore children’s health issues in India next month with the International Reporting Project.

[Image credit: GE]

Volkswagen has flipped the switch on a gigantic new solar park that will help power its ultra-green Diesel Passat factory in Chattanooga, Tenn.

The park is the largest solar installation ever built in Tennessee. A veritable ocean of solar modules –  33,600 in all – occupy 33 acres and produce enough electricity to power 1,200 homes each year.

"We are proud to power up the biggest solar park of any car manufacturer in North America today," said Frank Fischer, CEO and Chairman of Volkswagen's Chattanooga operations.

The new solar system will provide 12.5 percent of the energy needs for the factory, which in late 2011 became the world's first factory to earn LEED Platinum Certification and has been called "the world's greenest auto plant" by the U.S. Green Building Council.

"Powering up the solar park also validates the awarding of the LEED Platinum certificate to Volkswagen Chattanooga, which is still the only car factory in the world that has earned such an honor,” added Fischer.

Touring the 1.5 million-square foot facility, one could be forgiven for thinking that Volkswagen spared absolutely no expense in its effort to build the world's most sustainable car factory.

A case in point: When you flush a toilet in the bathroom on the factory floor, it's rainwater you're seeing go down the drain. That rainwater was collected on the roof of the factory and is also used to cool the welding machines. The water is pumped by gravity, saving electricity, and the bathroom itself doubles as a tornado shelter.

And that's just the beginning.

The forklifts and carts are plug-in electric vehicles; the tile is made from recycled post-consumer waste; the exterior is lit by energy-efficient LED lights that have a relatively benign effect on local wildlife; the land on which the factory rests also houses EPA-protected marshland that provides a habitat for 17 confirmed bird species; the plant itself was built on brownfield land that was revitalized after being used to manufacture TNT; and so on.

In bringing manufacturing back to the United States, Volkswagen has cut down on the energy needed to ship its cars to the U.S. market. In Chattanooga, Volkswagen found a U.S. city that apparently holds sustainability in as high regard as the automaker itself.

Carsten Krebs, Director of Communications for Volkswagen Group of America, said that the short list for building sites came down to Huntingdon, Tenn., Detroit, and Chattanooga. Ultimately, the enthusiasm with which city officials embraced Volkswagen's sustainability agenda tipped the scales in Chattanooga's favor.

Chattanooga, which, like many other blue-collar American cities, suffered from economic depression and depopulation as industry fled to cheaper foreign markets in the 1970s and 80s, has embarked upon an ambitious effort to revitalize its economy with sustainability as a core strategy.

Downtown Chattanooga is peppered with symbols of its sustainable urban development plan. A five-minute stroll down Broad St. brings a pedestrian past an electric vehicle charging station (complete with a Chevy Volt parked beside it) and a row of bicycles available as part of the city's new bike-share program.

Mayor Ron Littlefield said he and his colleagues "have been enthusiastic" about Volkswagen's involvement in Chattanooga because the company "represents so many qualities that have helped Chattanooga become a leading city in the industrial economy.”

Acknowledging that Chattanooga once earned the dubious distinction of America's dirtiest city in the late 1960s, Littlefield said that Volkswagen's vision of sustainable industrial production dovetailed with his own.

"We've come a long way," said Littlefield, "and Volkswagen is... the crowning glory of Chattanooga's resurrection from its industrial past."

Full disclosure: travel to the factory was covered by Volkswagon; opinions are my own.

Ohio State University (OSU) expects to shave nearly $1 million off its energy bill in 2013, thanks to a 20-year power purchase agreement that entails buying a whopping 50 megawatts (MW) of clean, renewable electricity from more than 100 wind turbines in northwestern Ohio. The wind-generated electrical power is being produced at the Blue Creek Wind Farm in Van Wert and Paulding counties and delivered to OSU via American Electric Power (AEP) transmission lines, according to a report from the Columbus Dispatch.

OSU has set a goal of becoming carbon-neutral. More than 400 researchers are studying energy issues at the state university, and energy was recently singled out as one of three priority focus areas for university instruction and community research for the next ten years, according to Columbus Dispatch's report.

Working both inside and outside the institution of higher education, “Together, we will make Ohio State a national leader in sustainability, while investing in renewable energy produced right here in Ohio,” OSU president E. Gordon Gee was quoted as saying when the wind power purchasing agreement was signed.

Direct purchase of wind power contributes to OSU's sustainability drive

OSU has been spending some $35 million annually on electricity. The high cost of purchasing wind-generated electricity had held OSU from negotiating agreements earlier, OSU senior energy adviser, Scott Porter, told Columbus Dispatch. “We were willing to pay a premium for clean energy, but we still had to be good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars,” he was quoted as saying.

OSU's direct purchase of wind-generated power from Blue Creek also marks a milestone for Iberdrola Renewables. “This is the largest university purchase of wind power in our company’s history, and we look forward to a long and fruitful partnership,” Iberdrola Renewables' vice president Barrett Stambler stated.

More wind power capacity was installed in the U.S. in 2012 than any other source of electrical power – more than double the amount of coal-fired power generation brought online last year.

The surge in U.S. wind power capacity in 2012 was propelled higher in particular by the likelihood of the key federal production tax credit (PTC) for installed wind power generation capacity expiring at year-end 2012, an incentive that was extended for another year as part of a deal that helped the US government avoid going over the so-called “Fiscal Cliff.”

Iberdrola's Blue Creek Wind Farm

With wind power generation capacity rated at 304 MW, Iberdrola's Blue Creek Wind Farm is the largest in Ohio, which topped the ranks of U.S. states in terms of percentage growth in wind power generation capacity in 2011. Completed in June 2012, a total of 152 Gamesa 2.0 MW wind turbines manufactured primarily at a plant in Pennsylvania standing on 100-meter-high (328 feet) towers are up and running on site.

Each turbine can produce as much as 2 MW of clean, renewable electrical power, enough to meet the needs of around average Ohio homes. In total, Blue Creek generates enough electricity annually for approximately 76,000 homes, according to Iberdrola.

Generating electrical power from wind energy at Blue Creek avoids around 1.6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year, the equivalent of 158 Ohio Stadiums, planting some 138,000 acres of trees, taking 114,000 cars off the road, or reducing oil consumption by more than 2.1 million barrels per year, according to Iberdrola.

“If electric cars were widely available, this project would produce enough electricity to power 479,000 electric cars for a year. It also avoids the consumption of 408 million gallons of water per year,” the Spanish multinational renewable energy provider states on the Blue Creek project page of its website.

In addition to avoiding carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, building the wind farm has provided a substantial green economic boost to Ohio's economy. The Blue Creek Wind Farm generated some $2 million in annual lease payments to local landowners, $2.7 million in annual PILOT payments to local tax authorities, 15-20 new permanent jobs and more than 500 construction jobs at peak. Local spending during construction amounted to some $25 million.

Microsoft is at it again. A leader in corporate social responsibility and social enterprise initiatives, now the information technology giant is boosting its environmental stability chops within its corporate citizenship agenda. Scientists within the company’s research division are now partnering with the United Nations Environment Program’s World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) to develop an exhaustive biodiversity modeling for ecosystems throughout the world.

In an article in the journal Nature, the Microsoft Research and UNEP authors make the case that such a computer model would accelerate understanding about biodiversity and conservation. This general ecosystem model, or GEM, is similar in concept to computer modeling projects that have helped scientists understand the implications of climate change. In plain English, think of this as a three-dimensional system akin to Google Maps, but with a cross section view instead of a relief map, and laden with biological instead of traffic data that anyone could tap into.

This general ecosystem model would simulate the steps that would occur within an ecosystem, and follow the transfer of nutrients within organisms in addition to feeding, decomposition and reproduction. Imagine such a model that would map out a forest in the Pacific Northwest. Data, ranging from plants of all sizes from giant trees to ground cover; animals both wild and domesticated; creatures that eat smaller creatures; organisms that live off other organisms; and just about information about any life form from lichens to bacteria would be included within this system. According to a release on the UNEP site, this general ecosystem model would allow scientists to model what would happen to groups of life forms over time under various conditions.

The concept of a general ecosystem model goes back a generation ago. Scientists at Penn State, for example, developed a modeling system to gauge the conditions of wetlands. The Microsoft-UNEP model, however, could have the capability to measure life activity in all forms, and within any environment.

One prototype, the Madingley Model, is a step towards a holistic and robust general ecosystem model for both land and marine ecosystems. The system can simulate the fate of just about every organism from a few unicellular plankton to the largest marine whale--just at this point, not those IN the soil. As one scientist on the project quipped, “you have to start somewhere.” The goal of the Madingley Model’s team is to launch more competing models and engender suggestions, or even replacements, for this project. In the end, such a model could give businesses, academics and public officials better data to make more informed positions on conservation policy. As for Microsoft’s involvement, we have another example of how collaboration between large global companies and NGOs or government agencies can build capacity to do great things.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost). He will explore children’s health issues in India next month with the International Reporting Project.

[Image credit: Leon Kaye]