To many environmentalists, nothing symbolizes the drive toward a cleaner, more sustainable and more environmentally friendly future as well as the modern wind turbine. Pristine white, lean, elegant, and minimalist, it is such a ready summation of all the things many clean-energy advocates desire that their appearance in green-oriented advertising—even for products unrelated to wind power—is hard to miss.

 

However, while high-profile, and a major, viable step toward a future powered by cleaner energy, wind power might not be the cure-all it is sometimes made out to be. Some conservation groups oppose wind turbines in certain locations, citing their visual disruption of natural views, and interference with local wildlife in rural areas. Additionally, demand for wind turbines is drastically outstripping manufactures ability to produce the iconic power generators. It’s clear that other options must be exercised in moving worldwide energy production toward sustainable sources.

One of the most potentially viable means of doing this is a market-driven approach to reducing the heat-trapping emissions leading to global-warming. Broadly referred to as “cap-and-trade”, the concept is not as widely understood as it ought to be, given that 11 of 13 carbon-reduction bills presented before congress this past legislative session involved market mechanisms, rather than direct carbon taxes.

In a simplified model, the way cap-and-trade works is that a government sets a cap on how many greenhouse gasses a country can emit in a given time period. It then sells or auctions off licenses to produce these emissions. Revenue generated from these sales can be “recycled,” so to speak, into subsidizing cleaner sources of power, like wind turbines, funding research into new clean energy sources, or furthering the development of existing technology.  In short, it makes energy that contributes to global warming expensive, while making energy that doesn’t fairly cheap.

Though many object to cap-and-trade plans on a philosophical level, because they essentially allow large companies to buy the right to pollute, they do soothe one of the most frequent arguments against greener technologies—namely, their comparatively high cost. By adjusting the price of various energy sources to account for their environmental impacts, cap-and-trade gracefully intertwines the market system that drives the world economy, and the environmental protection that is of growing concern to consumers.

While cap-and-trade plans don’t create the motivational and attitude-adjusting vistas of a regiment of wind turbines, they have arguably had the largest impact in reducing human-produced climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1996 by most of the developed world (the United States failed to ratify), began imposing a cap-and-trade system on many notable greenhouse gas producers in 2005, and its successes have inspired even more ambitious programs to curb climate change.

Photo by Bethany Brady

Tire-maker Michelin has a fuel-saving tire for truckers — the Michelin X One. This tire promises greater fuel efficiency, a boon for semi-drivers who routinely spend $1,000 to gas up. Michelin is also touting the tire’s green factor: by increasing fuel efficiency, it also reduces carbon emissions.

"With the cost of diesel fuel now averaging almost $5 per gallon, we believe this message will truly resonate with truckers who pay more than $1,000 per fill up and travel 100,000 miles or more each year," said Marc Laferriere, the vice president of marketing for Michelin Americas Truck Tires. "Michelin X One tires provide an excellent means to improve a truck's operating efficiency," he continued.  "Not only does this save the trucking company green on their bottom line, but it also saves the environment green by reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions."

The new tire is wider than conventional dual tires, allowing trucks to use a single tire instead of two separate ones side by side. The Michelin X One was originally introduced in December 2000. Since then, truck drivers have reported between 4 and 10 percent improvements in fuel economy. The single tires also weigh less than the more traditional style of dual tires, reducing the overall weight of a truck and allowing it to take on more cargo. Being able to carry more cargo in a single load allows truckers to make fewer overall trips -- an obvious environmental benefit.

Capitalizing on the current fuel- and sustainability-conscious consumer climate, Michelin has just launched the Go Wide. Save Green. Tour to promote the X One. The tour consists of a set of demonstrations in eight North American locations to illustrate the improvements the wider tires offer. Daimler Trucks North America and Utility Trailer will also be participating in the demonstrations to showcase the product in action.

While one might argue that Michelin is just attempting to take advantage of the move toward sustainability in a variety of industries to step up its marketing, I think this campaign is a good move on the company's part. Although the trucking industry is changing as sustainability concerns of late have given rise to a preference for local goods, companies will always need to ship goods and materials. The industry’s goal, therefore, must be to make shipping as fuel efficient as possible, in part by improving each component of the truck. Michelin takes a good step in that direction -- one that shouldn't prove incompatible with future technological developments.

Related articles:
Trucks Skirt Efficiency Issue
Tire Company Spins Social Networking Site
Hypermiling: Getting the Most From Every Gallon

Photo courtesy of Michelin

It's an unfortunate coincidence: The developed world is finally coming to realize the destructive power of its heavily-industrialized economies just as the rest of the world is beginning its widespread adaptation of modern production methods.  

This time around, though, there are new catches for the would-be industrialist. We are now well aware that the world’s resources are finite, and knowledge abounds of the planet’s limited capacity to absorb industrial pollution, on both a local and global level. And there are already 150 years — roughly a century of them completely unregulated — of accumulated industrial damage to mitigate. 

Furthermore, as if the stakes needed to be any higher, the huge size of the populations involved in this upcoming wave of industrialization makes its potential environmental harm nearly limitless. 

So how best to moderate between the right to develop and the need to protect? The UN has already ruled that it’s unfair to make developing nations meet the stringent controls placed on current economic powerhouses. But to allow newly developing nations to make the same mistakes as their predecessors made would be catastrophic for the entire world. 

The currently proposed solution — in India, at least — seems to be a delicate tightrope walk between the two undesirable extremes. India, which currently produces only 4% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, plans to continue exploiting its inexpensive, heavily-polluting coal resource to meet the current 8-9% yearly growth of its economy.

The environmental check to this expansion will be to keep per capita warming emissions in line with already-developed nations. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh explains that "despite our development imperatives, our per capita [global warming] emissions will not exceed the per capita [global warming] emissions of the developed industrialized countries.” 

While India’s large population gives it plenty of leeway to pollute under this system, increasing prosperity will almost certainly bring about  a reduction in population growth, as well as increased public sphere capital, some of which will be fed into green energy projects slated to  meet an ever-increasing share of the nation’s energy needs.

While the compromise looks good on paper, and certainly has tremendous potential to succeed, simply undercutting the per capita global warming emissions of developed nations may not be a strict enough control.  Already, pollution is limiting crop yields in a nation that desperately needs food, and with the introduction of the Nano, an ultra-compact, ultra-affordable car in 2009, emissions could skyrocket before improved living conditions have a chance to curtail the ever-increasing population growth rate.

Related articles:
India to Receive UN Funds for Cleantech
The Future of Controlling Climate Change
Manufacturers Weigh in on Environment and Business
Emerging Markets Consider Sustainability

Photo by Tawheed Manzoor

Three-fifty. Four dollars. In some locations, well above four-fifty and heading past five. No matter what the price of gas, it seems that many Americans are willing to pay it. While some are forced to pay by sheer necessity, many more continue to do so by choice, even in areas where travel by car is not necessary, or where effective, reliable forms of alternative transportation exist. And nearly everywhere in America, there are untapped opportunities for bicycle commuting. 

But one woman near Boston is looking to break down the barriers to biking. Susan McLucas, through her course “Bicycle Riding for Beginners,” as well as several one-on-one lessons, claims to have taught more than 2,000 people how to ride a bicycle. The 59-year-old resident of Somerville, MA, has taught cyclists of all ages who were unsure, rusty, or complete beginners how to ride and become comfortable on their bicycles. Over the years only five of her 2,000+ students have failed to get up and running on two wheels.

Studies tend to show that the biggest obstacle to widespread adaptation of bicycle riding in the United States -- other than concerns over distance to travel -- is fear of injury, or lack of confidence in bicycle riding skill. But McLucas's ecstatic, enthusiastic approach (“A little more speed! Wobble, wobble, Maria! You rock! You rule! Don't look down”) looks to turn adults who never learned to ride the ultra-efficient machine into bike enthusiasts.

There’s no debate on the environmental benefits of choosing a bike over a car. The bicycle offers zero carbon emissions, and can take a 150-pound rider 50 miles at a moderate pace using only the energy found in a humble burrito. Increased bicycle use also eliminates smog-forming emissions, noxious chemicals like ozone and volatile organic compounds, and decreases demand for gas.

High levels of bicycle riding in urban areas carry even greater non-environmental benefits, including improved property values, a better awareness of the surrounding community, and less invasive noise pollution. Bikes also reduce road wear exponentially, and prevent the sort of gridlock that costs people in the United States millions of productive work hours each year, as well as irreplaceable time spent at home with family. 

While all Americans have the right to choose what form of transportation they use, until greener vehicles, such as hybrids and zero emissions vehicles like plug-in or fuel cell vehicles become more widely available, the bicycle remains the greenest choice for most transportation needs. And enthusiasts like Susan McLucas do a tremendous service by getting people who might never have bicycled out of their cars and into the bike lanes.

Related articles:
Shape-Shifting Bicycles a Commuting Option
National Bike to Work Week: America’s Sustainability Band-Aid
For Mayors, Fuel Cost Presents Opportunities
Cardboard Bike to Lower Pedal-Powered Price Point

Photo by Gaetan Lee