by Eric Richard

This post is my summary of the MCAN 2007 Conference.

I thought it was an good, productive day.

If there was one theme that came out loud and clear it is that big things are happening in Massachusetts. There was a palpable level of energy over both the Green Communities Act (the energy bill put forth by Speaker DiMasi) and the Global Warming Act.

I don’t think anyone thinks that either of these is perfect, but I think people are excited that after years of Republican governors, you are finally seeing major movement on the environmental front.

There was definitely a strong sense of optimism that Massachusetts will finally go from lagging behind on environmental issues to really being a leader. As one audience member said, “With all of the changes going on, I will finally be able to be proud to be an environmentalist from Massachusetts.”

There was also a very strong sense that if we really push hard here, this can result in a huge boost to the state’s economy, creating a large number of highly paid, technical jobs. This has been Gov. Patrick’s position from day one — that you can have a focus on environmentalism and job growth at the same time and, if done right, this could lead to a real boon to the state’s economy.

I really enjoyed Ian Bowles’ presentation. I don’t think you could walk away from his presentation without thinking that the Patrick administration is moving aggressively to make things happen. I also thought his point that we should be focusing on efficiency rather than new energy was very interesting. He seemed to be quite convinced that if we can get the Green Communities Act passed, that it will result in pretty wide sweeping changes around efficiency.

I also enjoyed Warren Leon’s presentation. There have been discussions on this blog about the role of individual action vs. governmental regulation and where we should put our energies and I thought he had a very interesting perspective on why individual action is a prerequisite to action at the legislative level. I thought one of the more interesting questions of the day was when someone asked Mr. Leon what he thought of the provision in the Green Communities Act that would bascially eliminate the organization that he runs. He gave a very direct answer!

One thing that was moderately surprising is that I never heard a question come up about the NSTAR Green program, what its status is, what people think of it, etc. I would have expected a little more discussion on this front.

On a very practical level, kudos to the staff that put the conference together. The registration process was much better than last year. And I also appreciated their focus on practicing what they preach by minimizing handouts and ensuring that as much as possible was recyclable.

Anyway, it was an interesting day. I’d love comments from anyone else who was able to attend on what they liked, didn’t like, what they thought was interesting, etc.

by Eric Richard

The following are notes on a very brief update from Mark Rodgers on the state of the Cape Wind project.

It’s been a long road, but I am pleased to report that the pace is going to pick up remarkably. We expect by the this time next year, the permitting phase of Cape Wind will be over. The U.S. Minerals Management Service will be coming up with an environmental assessment for Cape Wind.

Ian Bowles has said that Cape Wind’s impact is akin to taking 175,000 cars off the road. The NRDC has said that Cape Wind is the largest supply side reduction of CO2 proposed anywhere in the U.S.

We look forward to moving this project forward.

by Eric Richard

The following are notes taken from the MCAN 2007 presentation by Warren Leon who is the Director of the Renewable Energy Trust at the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

For decades, I have been working in the environmental field and advocating activism and change and the individual and local level. And no matter where I go, someone always asks the question, “Isn’t what is really going to make a difference, big policy at the national and international level? How can you possibly make a difference for something as big as global warming at a local level?”

My response has been that if you care about things at the national level, then you had *better* be engaged in the individual actions.

For example, on fuel efficiency standards, we made trip after trip to the U.S. Congress to tell them to implement higher fuel efficiency standards and we presented all sorts of polls showing that the U.S. population was in support of increased fuel efficiency standards. But, they didn’t believe us. Why? Because real people in the real world weren’t taken the individual action of buying fuel efficient cars. So, the facts in the real world undercut our polls. If people are out buying gas guzzling SUVs then it is hard to make the point that they want more fuel efficient cars. They already have a choice and they are voting with their dollars.

As another example, the organic farming industry complained for years that all of the money for agriculture research would go to conventional agriculture. The point it changed is when individual consumers started putting their money toward organic foods. People noticed and then money started flowing toward organic agriculture.

One of the reasons why you see all of the action happening recently at the state level in Massachusetts is because you have all of the activists out there like you, convincing the legislators that this is an important issue.

So, how can you be an effective activist?

We are at the point where we are going outside of the converted and are trying to reach a mass audience. These people will be more critical and more cautious and will be more likely to turn off to the cause if they do not get good results. Because of this, we need to make sure that we are not over-hyping the products that we are selling or the results that we will achieve. We need to be scrupulously honest about the results we will achieve.

If we push new technologies, we need to make sure that they are reliable and that they work.

We to have high standards and be honest. We have to admit to ourselves that there is a tendency in the environmental movement to oversell things.

The real way to have maximum effectiveness is to be analytical. We should figure out what are all of the different things we can do in the community and figure out which could have the greatest impact and focus on that. We should know up front what we should expect to accomplish and how we can accomplish it.

One possible strategy is to focus on things that are highly visible. It gives a sense of progress. It shows that things aren’t hopeless and that it is possible to make change. It will make it much easier for you to succeed at your next project if you can get a visible success.

At the same time, just because something isn’t visible doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. If you do something that is not as visible, you should make sure you get as much impact out of it as possible.

With any project you do, you should look for educational opportunities associated with the project. Can you use the project to educate the public that there are other citizens who care? Can you use the project to educate policy makers that there is a signficant constiuency that cares about the issue? Are there other people in the community who can learn from your project to replicate it in their world? Is there an opportunity to educate youth about the technology involved or the possible economic impacts?

Can you disseminate out information about your projects to other people for them to learn from your work? For example, can you exchange information with your sister city about your projects so they can learn from them?

Figure out how to get out the message to developing countries that we in America release that the current model is not correct and that they shouldn’t follow our past mistakes, but our new tactics.
General Q&A

Q: Is there any advantage to moving the Renewable Energy Trust Fund over to the EOEA.

A: I think it would be a terrible idea. Obviously, that is self serving. We haven’t been perfect. But, we have learned an awful lot over the years. We know how to deliver the best results at the minimal cost. I think we’d lose a lot of momentum.

To the extent that the legislature gives us clearer guidance about the sorts of projects they would like to see us focusing on, that would be great.

Q: There are lots of things that we “know” we shouldn’t do, but we still do. We know we should exercise, but we don’t. We know we should eat healthy, but we don’t. Why do you put such great focus on education and how do you see that it makes a difference?

A: There are lots of things that we know we should do that we don’t do. But, the education that I was talking about was to educate people about the fact that a lot of people have woken up to this issue. What we should be focusing on are the things that people do once (e.g., buy a car, buy an appliance, build a new building) rather than focusing on the things that they do over and over again every day. Those things will have a bigger impact.

by Eric Richard

The following are notes from Ian Bowles‘ presentation at the MCAN Conference. Ian Bowles is the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for Massachusetts.

At many ways at the federal level, we have a lost decade. But George Bush’s indifference on this issue has unified the Democrats and unleashed the states. In addition, the media has turned on this issues and the IPCC is starting to really have an effect.

We’re the first state to put the energy and environment departments together. One goal was to focus on improving the environmental impact of energy. But, it is also to focus on the positive economic impact that we can get from energy initiatives. This really is an economic opportunity for Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, we inherited a bit of a hole from the previous administration. Governor Romney basically poisoned the well telling business that RGGI was going to mean more cost for them. This got us off to a tough start, but we are now engaging with the businesses to educate them about how this can be an economic opportunity.

The more we can show that what we do saves money and reduces emissions, the more the consensus will grow.

We joined RGGI on Deval’s 10th day in office — this was really his first major policy initiative. We’re ready to move. We’d like to start running our auctions in the 2nd quarter of next year. We are now waiting on the other states to catch up.

We are the first state to require that large developments do an analysis of what they can do to reduce their overall greenhouse gas impacts. This will bring to the fore more green buildings.

We also adopted a biofuels initiative that will require home heating oil to include an increasing percentage of sustainable biofuel.

We instituted a policy that cellulosic ethanol will not be subject to the gas tax. Our hope is that we can start to turn Massachusetts into a center for innovation around cellulosic ethanol.

The way we regulate utilities today encourages them to sell as much electricity as they possible can. Their rate structure means that the more they sell, the more their shareholders make. We need to separate out the incentive for utilities to be real partners in conservation. We’ve got to find ways to make the utility companies full bore partners on efficiency.

The governor has proposed a zero load growth policy which means that we would have to generate any additional energy through conservation/efficiency.

Thew new energy bill passed by the house will free up money for energy efficiency.

We want to install 250 MW of solar in the state in the next 10 years. This will require new solar rebates that we hope to roll out by Jan 1 of next year.

We need to make it easier for towns to build things like windmills. We have to get the regulations out of the way and allow them to move forward. Allow smaller renewable installations should get the same regulatory benefits as large scale energy providers.

Big change in the MA building code. That will have far reaching benefits.

Mitigation is our predominant priority, but we are starting to do some things for adaptation.

The challenge is getting the mainstream business to understand that this is an issue they should be paying attention to. For example, working with the local chambers of commerce and get them on board.

There is great opportunity for municipal leadership.

General Q&A

Q: Since we want to discourage auto transportation and encourage public transportation, shouldn’t we consider a gasoline tax?

A: We are in the midst of a robust debate about the structure of our transportation agencies. We want to first focus on getting efficiencies there. Once we have that, we will come back to this issue.

Q: What plans are there for training inner city workers on renewable energy?

A: Greg Watson is focusing his energy on this specific issue. We’ve had great cooperation with the IBEW and other unions.

Q: Salem Harbor and Brayton Points are some of the dirtiest plans around. When we talk about cap and trade, how can we get rates / ton of emissions that will shut those plants down? And what are we doing to replace that capacity? And what is the role of nuclear energy?

A: One of the benefits of utility deregulation is that now have some of the most efficient power plants in the nation.

Our policy is to review all of these systems. RGGI will put pressure on the plants that are high emitters and the economics will not favor coal.

We have serious reservations about the waste from nuclear plants. On the economic site, nuclear will be able to compete.

Q: The House energy bill includes a provision that might incent coal gasification. What is your position on this?

A: The bill takes the RPS and creates three different categories of energy — two of which are called “renewable”. The “tier 3″ category, which is not called renewable, includes both combined heat and power and coal gasification.

I see this as a real benefit for combined heat and power since it is much cheaper than coal gasification, so, I wouldn’t overreact to that clause.

Q: What can we do to improved commercial investment in renewables?

A: We hope that our new program will change things quite dramatically in the coming months.

Q: You haven’t mentioned advanced metering to allow consumers to manipulate when they use energy. To what degree are you looking at that technology to get residential customers involved in their use of energy?

A: A lot of commercial/industrial users can use things like time-of-day pricing. As home owners, we don’t have the opportunity to participate in similar pricing. This would be a big benefit to residents.

The problem is that the cost of those smart meters remains substantial.

The House bill has a pilot program of smart meters. But, the question is always which rate payers should bear the cost of those smart meters?

The way forward is the pilot program.

Q: Who is pushing for coal gasification?

A: Those who are pushing coal gasification are the generators who want to experiment.

As you think about things to fight against, set priorities. I would focus on bettering the economics for renewables and then let economics work. So, if you can focus on allowing more renewables to get built and improve the economics of them, then you don’t need to fight the battle on non-renewables.

Q: If we are using the casinos to pay for roads, isn’t that counter to the concept of having people drive less?

A: The casino proposal did include LEED certification requirements for the casinos.

This is a debate worth having.

There is a lot to like about pushing the burden of financing transportation onto the users of transportation, but I don’t think that all of this funding could come from these people.

Q: How do you balance the needs of new renewable energy with the costs to the towns of generating this new energy? For example, adding a biomass plant can generate all sorts of additional traffic, congestion, etc. to haul materials to the plant.

A: Our office will look at each case on the merits, so there is not a bias toward renewables over the towns.

Until we make energy efficiency the centerpiece of our policy, there are going to continue to be new pushes for new supply. The best thing we can do is focus on energy efficiency.

by Eric Richard

The following are notes from a presentation by Rob Pratt, a Senior Vice President of the Henry P. Kendall Foundation. The Kendall Foundation created the Cambridge Energy Alliance to try to demonstrate large scale energy reductions focused in Cambridge, MA.

What is the Cambridge Energy Alliance?

We can either be depressed by climate change or excited about what we can do.

In 1999, the trustees of the Kendall Foundation decided to make environmental issues and global warming their “big thing”.

When looking at making a difference, it is all about emissions. You have to figure out what the biggest contributors are to the problem and then figure out how you can reduce the most important problems.

If you look at the major contributors to global warming in New England, they are slightly different than the national average.

In New England, transportation is our biggest emitter. This is a very difficult problem to solve, but this is our largest problem. Electric power is our second biggest contributor in New England (first nationally). It is crucial that we have to make sure that coal becomes history.

Residential electricity consumption in New England is almost 3x the national average. In part this is explained because we are a cold region. But, there is also a lot of affluence and larger houses here. It isn’t all due to the climate.

With electricity being such a substantial piece of the problem, you can either focus on supply side (e.g., increasing green energy) or demand-side (reducing consumption of dirty energy). Energy efficiency is a very financially attractive way of addressing this issue. Every time you replace a window or a boiler, you get savings year after year.

We have to step up energy efficiency to a whole new level. Where can we start making a difference? What are the kind of things we can do?

We have established the Cambridge Energy Alliance which is a 5-year program to go after all sectors in Cambridge to reduce 50 MW of electrical consumption (14% of Cambridge’s electricity).

Our goal is to get a 50% participation rate among residents. This is a very high bar — most energy efficiency initiatives are lucky to get 3-4% participation. This level of participation has never been done before. People don’t even think that this level is imaginable. We believe that by using the City as the advocate combined with very large scale cavassing (like political canvassing) and visible publicity and peer pressure, we believe we can get there.

We want to show the world what can be done.

Our program is based on the ESCO model. We work with organizations to provide them money to make the necessary changes and then they pay back through their savings.

By fronting the money for energy efficiency, we believe that we will be able to demonstrate that energy efficiency programs can be very profitable and will drive large scale adoption.

What can people do in their local communities?

Continue to idenitfy and support clean energy opportunities. Solar hot water heating, as an example, is very effective.

Promote energy efficiencies. Use perfomance contracting for municipal buildings. Have your municipality contract with an ESCO. We have some of the best ESCOs in the country here in MA.

Mobilize the school and university students.

Reduce waste and increase recycling. If you can really build up your recylcing percentages, that is really big.

What can people do individually?

Transportation is a big one. A lot of this is life style. We need to be moving our population centers into more dense areas (smart growth). The most efficient building a long way out of the city is not as good as a moderately efficient building in the city.

Home energy efficiencies are very good.

Local food can help a lot.

by Eric Richard

The following are notes taken from the “What’s New Under the Golden Dome?” session at the MCAN conference.  This session was a panel talking about environmental and energy legislation in the Massachusetts State House.

Sen. Mark Pacheco

The grass roots support is definitely out there and you all are ahead of the politications.

How do we put Massachusetts back in the lead on environmental  issues, like we once were?  We are currently in a position where we are trying to catch up to states like New Jersey.  We should be able to do better.

This year is really fantastic what is starting to take place.

The Green Communities Act, which is the energy bill, has been reported out of the house.  It primarily deals with fuel efficiency.  It is quite a comprehensive bill.  There are some technical issues that we want to work out in the Senate, but we are in the process of putting a major focus on fuel effeciency and energy efficiency and renewables for the Massachusetts economy.  There are a number of provisions related to green buildings.
In addition, we crafted The Global Warming Solutions Act to reduce CO2 by 20% over 1990 by 2020 and 80% over 1990 by 2050.  We set some benchmarks on how you get there.  By 2009, the state agencies would be required to put forth plans to hit these goals.  We want to codify this into law so that it isn’t the discretion of the next governor to either comply or not.

We expand the role of the transportation secretary to say that, “It is your job to look at the role of emissions in transportation.”

We also create the mechanism for a revolving loan project to fund pilot projects around the state to show that this can actually work.  The costs for solar or wind or whatever, wind up  being inflated when we do not have financial institutions that won’t do the lending on a longer term basis (20-25 years).  Once you get financing on a longer term, then many of these projects are very competitve with what is out there in the tranditional sector.

It is great that we have gotten all of this into the mainstream dialog, but if we want to ensure that these bills turn into law, we need to ensure that global warming advocacy continues to happen.  It is great that we are making progress here, but we have to finish the job.  Call your state senator and rep. and make sure they know how important it is to you.

Frank Gorke, Dir. of Environment Massachusetts

This really is an exciting time under the Golden Dome.  I have been working on these sorts of issues since 2001.  And in past years, there just hasn’t been as much to talk about.

If you only remember one thing, it is to call your Senator and ask them to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act.

One of our arguments is that one of the best ways of getting to a national policy here is to get the most progressive states to pass the most progressive laws mandating the science based limits.

When the speaker initially introduced his energy bill, it was really half-baked.  The energy package that they just announced is much improved.  We think this will go a long way toward making a new energy future here in Massachusetts.

It puts energy efficiency at the heart of our energy policy.  We currently pay about $.09 to buy new energy.  You can save energy for about $.03.  We should take every step we can to put efficiency first.  We expect to see a significant expansion of the efficiency programs if this bill passes.

It tackles buildings in a significant way.  Massachusetts has long had energy codes, but we have failed to update them in any meaningful way.  Because of that, they are out of date. The bill now says that we will take the most recent standards for energy efficiency every three years.   This will ensure that we are always up to date with modern standards.

It also creates a new enforcement regime for energy code.  We think that energy code compliance is very low.  The bill directs the energy office to create a new regime and train energy code inspectors.  We expect this would result in buildings that are significantly more efficient.

There is a net metering provision in the bill that will make it more cost effective for home owners and small businesses to install their own reneweable energy sources.

There is a provision in the bill that directs regulators to get rid of any obstacles to combined heat and power.  Combined heat and power is when you use the waste heat used for generating energy to then actually heat or cool your building.  You can immediately increase your efficiencies through this.

It also creates an alternative renewable portfolio standard.

There are a number of companies in Massachusetts who are pushing for coal gasification.  We are very concerned about this.  Any coal process is inherently dirty.  Coal gasification is probably something that we should continue to do research on, but it isn’t something we should  be putting into prime time.  But one of the provisions in this bill would basically require some energy come from coal gasification.  If this provision is going to be in the bill, we need to get a requirement that 100% of the CO2 has to be sequestered.

Overall, we are very encouraged that this bill is on the move.  It passed out of the House on Thursday.  The Senate is likely to take this up in January.  We hope they will pass it with some of these specific changes.

John Rogers, Union of Concerned Scientists

Massachusetts passed the first renewable portfolio standard in 1997.  There are now 26 states that have them.  There is one seriously in play at the federal level (it has passed in the house, but not in the Senate).

What is clear, is that it is one of the most powerful tools for renewable energy in the U.S.

In Massachusetts, the supply of renewable energy has been growing.  This has been coming online because of the RPS.

The bad news is that there is still a gap between where we want to be and where we are at.

The original legislation sets a target of 4% renewable energies by 2009 and then says that it will grow 1% / year, but that is not codified in statue.   This lack a statutory requirement creates some uncertainty in the market and hurts development of new renewables.  In contrast, the new energy bill lays out a codified path to get to 14% by 2020.   This will help get new investments since people can count on the requirements being in placed.

There were certain technologies that were left out of the original bill.  It doesn’t have hydro-electric energy.  There was a category of biomass that was originally excluded.  The speakers bill covers these.

The bill also includes requirements for long term contracting (10-15 year contracts) with renewable energy providers.    Unfortunately, it limits this to MA-based providers which isn’t necessarily good.

It also limits some of the imports of renewable energy from outside of New England.  That isn’t necessarily a good thing.

There is a provision that would bring the MTC under the EOEA.  We still think it is probably a bad idea to bring the MTC that close to the general budget.  We think that a measure of independence and ensures that we are spending on renewables is important.

General Q&A

Q: Are we ever going to have mandatory recycling in the State?  And will we require stores to take things like packaging back to the stores?

A: There are a number of pieces of legislation before the committes that would do that.  The ability to get them through is more difficult.  It has been very difficult to get this done.  Every legislative cycle you try to pick out a few things that absolutely need to happen.

A: It is our hope that by putting in place a broad carbon cap that it will make it easier to use the existing tools to hit that target.  If you pass the Global Warming Act, then it makes these sorts of tactics much more viable.

Q: What language do we have in the Global Warming Solution Act and in the speaker’s enegry bill that would provide some support at the vocational school, commuty college and high school level to train people with new skillsets?

A: In the Global Warming Solutions Act, we have language in there that creates a set of initiatives for workforce development.  This is going to take off.  It is going to be similar to what happened in the .com sector in CA.  If we adopt this legislation it will really drive a lot of capital investment in the state that will create new jobs.

Q: Why does the speaker’s legislation provide tax benefits for “hybrids” rather than based on fuel efficiency standards?

A: Can we improve that langauge?  I believe that there will be a lot of ammendments on the Senate side that will take a lot of good ideas that came out of the House and, now that the world has seen it, and try to improve on issues like this.  Hopefully this results in an even better bill for us to take to conference.

A: A number of folks have already suggested to change this language to be performance based rather than technology based, but we have failed so far.

Q: In Ireland, when you pay the emissions taxes on your car, part of that is a carbon-based tax that charges more based on emissions.  Is that possible here?

A: That proposal is on the table right now and this is in the transportation bond bill as one of the ways that we believe we could pay for more commuter rail services.  People would pay more based on their level of pollution.

Q: Is there anything in the dialog for a lighting efficiency standard?

A: I have language that would phase out incandescents completely.  We have already thought all of this out.  We can move in that direction, but we didn’t want to attach this to the energy bill to ensure that we didn’t derail the energy bill.

Once we get the Global Warming bill done, the executive branch could then start promulgating these regulations.

We could  put forward legislation that sets forth minimums.

Q: Is there anything in the existing law that would prevent towns or municipalities from putting in place regulations that would require manadatory recycling of materials at stores?
A: Not sure.  This could wind up being impacted by federal commerce and trade laws.

Q: What is 1990 used as the base year for the Global Warming provisions?

A: 1990 is the year that was used in the international negotiations.  Most states have increased their emissions significantly since 1990.  But Massachusetts has kept its emissions flat since 1990.  So, 1990 actually is a fine year for MA standards.

The following are notes taken from the opening remarks by Rob Garritty, Executive Director for MCAN.

Most of our big-L leaders are actually followers. Our political leaders lead when people re showing them the way. You need to show them the way to go.

The following individuals are the real folks leading the way. They are the “Everyday Climate Heroes”:

• Loie HayesCoordinator of the Boston Climate Action Network. Became actively involved in 2005 with Clean Water Action. Started four LCD groups and also had a very successful Step It Up Event.
• Nancy Nolan

  Coordinator the Lexington Global Warming Action Network which now has an e-mail list of over 250. Worked with MassEnergy and MTC to win solar panels. Over 350 Lexington residents contributed to earn over
  $50,000 in PVs for Lexington.

• Carol Hannauer

  Installed a geothermal heat source. Cut her water use in half. During her two year presidency, has expanded Sudbury’s activty a lot including a Sustainable Sudbury project. Expanded the town’s plastic
  recycling project and a methane recovery project at the landfill.

• Jennifer Boudrie

  Founded the Marlborough Climate Action Network (now called Green Marlborough). Put her advocacy into action and ran for city council.

• Dan Ruben

  Executive director of Boston Green Tourism. Helped “green” the 2004 Democratic and Republican National Conferences.

• Susan Altman

  An environmental communication expert. Runs our Low Carbon Living program. Created Medford Environmental Alliance.

• Laurie Macintosh

  Founded Sustainable Milton. Initiated a Recycle Up program to increase paper and cardboard recycling.

• Paul Eldrenkamp

  Active Newton Green Decade member. Often demonstrates blower door tests and infrared scans.

• Bob Luoma

  Built two web sites for MCAN. Founded Carlisle Climate Action Network. Webmaster for MCAN.

• Tom Balf

  Environmental health and safety expect. Got over 1,000 people to a Clean Energy Fair.

• Susan Butler

  Major improvements for her house. And is selling clean energy RECs President of Green Decade Cambridge. Helped earn 2 solar PV arrays for Cambridge.

• Marc Breslow

  Founded MCAN in 1999. When we started this back then, global warming was known as a problem, but had no visibility in the world as a problem we have to be addressing. It is incredibly gratifying to see the whole world dealing with this problem.

by Eric Richard

Today, I am at the MCAN Global Warming Conference.

I will be taking notes throughout the day and posting them online for folks who weren’t able to come.

by Eric Richard

A few months ago, there was a post about Green Dimes.  My wife and I have subscribed to this and haven’t really noticed any substantive change in the mail we get.

So, a couple of weeks ago, when I heard about the new junk mail reduction service supported by Natural Resources Defense Council,  I figured I’d give it a try.

It is really simple to use and, unlike Green Dimes, it is completely free.

First, you create an account.

Then, each time you get a new catalog in the mail, you log in, find the catalog in their list, and type in the “Customer Number” that is on your catalog. They then take care of getting you off that catalog’s mailing list.

So, now each time we bring in the mail, I take the catalogs over to my computer and zap them.   Takes about 10 seconds each.

One thing that is very nice is that their list of catalogs seems to be pretty complete.  In the last couple of weeks, I’ve added 11 catalogs to our “do not send” list and I think there have only been one or two catalogs that I couldn’t find in their list.

Now, I don’t have the results yet — it will take a few more months.  But, hopefully this will help reduce our paper waste.

The following article appeared in the Sudbury Town Crier last week.

by Eric Richard

School is back in session, the morning air is crisp, and the leaves are starting to turn. This can only mean one thing – Fall is upon us.

As we move out of summer and into fall, we are all looking at is renewing our contracts with our heating oil providers to make sure our homes are warm throughout the upcoming winter.

But, before you sign on for another year with your existing provider, you might want to consider trying something new that can help the environment.

Home heating oil, also known as “No. 2 heating oil”, is a liquid petroleum product, somewhat similar to diesel fuel used in some automobiles.

Because home heating oil is made from petroleum, it has a number of intrinsic problems associated with it including:

• It increases the demand for imported foreign oil.

  The United States imports about 56 percent of its oil and this number is increasing. According to the US Energy Information Administration, this number could grow to as high as 70% by 2025.This dependence on foreign oil produces very broad national security concerns.”It’s one of the great failures of American politics and policy that we are so dependent on oil from one of the most corrupt and unstable areas of the world,” says former US Sen. Timothy Wirth.

• The price of heating oil is subject to huge price fluctuations.

  We have all seen this effect first hand. As oil prices increase, home heating oil prices increase.A storm that knocks out a refinery or a political event in the Middle East can result in major jumps in the price of heating oil.

  Oil is already trading at record high prices of $80 per barrel and prices are likely to continue increasing with more consumption leading to greater demand.

• Burning oil is an inherently dirty process.

  The process of breaking down the chemical bonds in oil to produce energy results in all sorts of by products like carbon dioxide (CO₂) , carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NO_x), and sulfur oxide (SO).These emissions result in increased global warming, acid rain, and adverse health effects.

Fortunately, there is an alternative that can help reduce all of these negative effects: rather than burning petroleum to heat our homes, we can burn fat.

What is Biodiesel?

Biodiesel (also known by names like “biofuel” and “Bioheat® fuel”) is a fuel made from vegetable oils (typically soybean oil), recycled cooking grease, or animal fats rather than petroleum.

Biodiesel can either be used in its pure form (referred to as B-100), or can be mixed with traditional home heating oil.For example, a mixture of 80% heating oil and 20% biodiesel is referred to as B-20.

The great news is that a mix like B-20 can be used in your existing home heating system without any modifications; you can use your existing tank and burner. In fact, you can even add B-20 to an existing tank that already contains traditional heating oil.

B-20 is a better option than traditional heating oil for many reasons including:

• It reduces the need for imported foreign oil. Every gallon of biodiesel that is used reduces the need for imported oil.
• It helps support the domestic economy.

  Rather than sending money abroad to buy oil, biodiesel is generally made from American-made products.

• It burns more cleanly than traditional heating oil.

  According to the Department of Energy, Burning B-20 results in approximately 15% lower CO₂ emissions and substantially lower emissions of other pollutants.

• It has lower price variability than heating oil.

  Any good financial planner will tell you that the key to a healthy investment portfolio is diversification – by investing in different products you spread your risk around meaning that you are insulated from the full brunt of changes in one area.Similarly, B-20 helps decrease the impact of spikes in the oil market. While traditional home heating oil will swing greatly with the price of petroleum, B-20 will have narrower swings, dampened by the fact that 20% of the mix is coming from a source other than oil.

The only downside of biodiesel is that it tends to be slightly more expensive than traditional home heating oil. But, the difference is very minor and worth paying to help national security and the environment.

What’s Next?

The great news for Sudbury residents is that B-20 is an option that we can all consider. Bursaw Gas & Oil in Acton provides biodiesel to Sudbury.

So, as you plan for this winter, do something for the environment and switch from traditional home heating oil to biodiesel. Call Bursaw at (978) 263-8752 and make the switch.

While you are at it make sure to get your furnace tuned and replace your air filters to ensure that your entire system is running at optimal performance.

by Eric Richard

Well, the CSA season is behind us, so now it is time to look back and see how the season went. I’ll be posting a few summaries here to recap my wife and my thoughts on the season.

The first review will be a financial analysis.

Going into the CSA season, one of the things we promised to do was keep track of the actual value of the food that we got from the CSA and compare it to the amount we paid.

I detailed the approach we’d take in a previous post titled “Computing the Real Value of a CSA“.

In that post I said I’d take two different approaches to answering the question. And, now that the season is over, I can reveal the results of each methodology.

So, here are the results from methodology #1.

Method #1: Computing “Real Value” of the Food

When we joined the CSA, we paid $675 for the entire season. $50 of this was a fee for new members — if we had participated before, the cost would have only been $625.

According to our analysis, the food we got over the season was worth $731.53.

There are several nuances to be aware of in terms of how we computed this value.

• When we computed the value of the distribution, we used the prices for non-organic products. We did this for two reasons:
  1. It is very unlikely that we would have been able to find a single, consistent source of prices for organic equivalents of every distribution — we had a hard enough time finding prices for regular equivalents each week.
  2. When we went into the season, we were not looking for an organic CSA — that was just a bonus for us. Therefore, if we were purchasing the same foods in a grocery story, we wouldn’t have bought organic versions.

  I am sure that if we had compared to organic prices, the actual value of the CSA would have significantly more. For example, a non-organic pint of cherry tomatoes runs for about $3.00 while the organic equivalent is $5.00. A lb. of non-organic tomatoes is $2.00 whereas the organic equivalent is $5.00.

  The real point here is that if “organic” is important to you and you would have been buying this same organic produce in the store, then you can make a very strong argument that the CSA would be a fiscally smart way to buy this produce.

  But, since that isn’t what we were looking for, we didn’t take it into consideration.

• There were several weeks where we did not take the entire distribution.In general, we tried to keep track of what we could have taken, but I am sure there are weeks that we missed things.Therefore, the value we computed is probably 5-10% lower than it actually should have been.
• There were a few cases where we could not find prices for the exact products we got and, instead, chose more common equivalents.For example, one week we got “tongue of fire beans”. I know this might surprise you, but you just can’t find those in the local grocery store. So, we priced them as edamame.I am guessing that, in general, this lead to a slightly lower computed value as compared to the actual value since I am guessing that because these items were “exotic” they would be slightly more expensive.

Putting all of this together, I think we can make a good argument that we got more than our money’s worth out of the season.

by Eric Richard

Note: This was the last distribution.  As part of this distribution, we also got one “make up” distribution since we missed week 9.  So, this list contains the normal week 20 distribution plus the make up distribution.

• 2 bunches bok choi
• 2 heads cabbage
• 1 lb. parsnips
• 2 lb. carrots
• 3 butternut squash
• 1 lb. turnip
• 2 celery roots (celeriac)
• 1/2 lb. tomatillos
• 3 leeks
• 1/4 lb. brussel sprouts
• 1 1/2 lb. potatoes
• 3 heads garlic
• 1 pie pumpkin

That’s all folks!  That’s the end of the CSA season.  We’ll be posting some “wrap up” posts on the season next.

by Eric Richard

• 1 qt. cherry tomatoes
• 2 qt. tongue of fire beans
• 3 leeks
• 1 bunch cilantro
• 3 chili peppers
• 1 lb. beets
• 1 celery root (celeriac)
• 1 lb. tomatoes
• 3 lb. potatoes
• 1 cabbage
• 1 head romaine lettuce
• 1/2 lb. arugula
• 1 bunch bok choi
• 1 acorn squash
• 1 lb. carrots
• 1/2 lb. tomatillos
• 1/2 lb. green peppers

by Eric Richard

• 1 pt. cherry tomatoes
• 1 pt. raspberries
• 1 qt. green beans
• 1 lb. green peppers
• 1 bunch cilantro
• 3 chili peppers
• 4 1/2 lbs. tomatoes
• 1/2 lb. arugula
• 1 dumpling squash
• 2 leeks
• 2 heads garlic
• 1 lb. carrots
• 1 lb. spinach
• 1 head green leaf lettuce
• 1 lb. tomatillos
• 10 pods okra

by Eric Richard

• 1 (10 lb.) pumkin
• 1  qt. green beans
• 1 pt. raspberries
• 1 lb. spinach
• 1 qt. cherry tomatoes
• 1 lb. tomatillos
• 1 lb. green peppers
• 1 onion
• 1 dumpling squash
• 5 lb. tomatoes
• 1 cabbage
• 1/2 lb. Russian kale
• 1 lb bok choi
• 1/2 lb. arugula
• 1/2 lb. mixed greens
• 1 lb. carrots
• 1 celery root (celeriac)

by Eric Richard

• 1 qt. green beans
• 1 cup raspberries
• 1 1/2 lb. mixed greens
• 1 lb. broccoli
• 20 pods okra
• 1 lb. carrots
• 2 daikon radishes
• 1 onion
• 6 lb. tomatoes
• 1/2 lb. turnip greens
• 2 lb. spinach

by Eric Richard

• 1 lb. green peppers
• 1 cup raspberries
• 1 bunch edamame
• 2 qts. yellow beans
• 1 squash
• 1 head Boston lettuce
• 1 bunch (1/2 lb.) chard (choice of broccoli, chard, cabbage, kale and okra)
• 1 bunch (1/4 lb.) broccoli (choice of broccoli, chard, cabbage, kale and okra)
• 1 1/4 lb. spinach
• 1/2 lb beets
• 1 onion
• 1 bunch (3 oz.) basil
• 1 lb. carrots
• 6 lb. tomatoes

by Eric Richard

• 1 onion
• 1 bunch (6 oz.) basil
• 1 bunch (3 oz.) cilantro
• 1 1/2 lb. carrots
• 1 head broccoli
• 4 green peppers
• 1 bunch (1/2 lb.) bok choi (choice of bok choi, kale, okra, and beets)
• 1 bunch (3/4 lb.) kale (choice of bok choi, kale, okra, and beets)
• 1 head lettuce
• 1 bunch edamame
• 1 melon
• 4 lb. tomatoes
• 1 pt. cherry tomatoes
• 1 pt. green beans
• 1 pt. raspberries

by Eric Richard

The CSA season is over, so finally posting all of the remaining distributions.

• 6 lb tomatoes
• 1 bunch (3/4 lb.) kales
• 1 bunch (1/4 lb.) basil
• 4 leeks
• 1/2 cup raspberries
• 1 bunch edamame
• 1 quart yellow beans (choice of yellow or green beans)
• 2 quarts cherry tomatoes
• 2 lbs. carrots
• 1 squash
• 3/4 lb beets
• 1 head Boston lettuce
• 1  onion
• 1 head garlic
• 3 oz. parsley (take as much as you want)
• 3 oz. cilantro (take as much as you want)
• 3 chili peppers (take as much as you want)
• 6 ears corn
• 1 1/4 lb. green peppers
• 1 cantaloupe (choice of cantaloupe or watermelon)