Environmental managers are becoming responsible for reporting ever-larger amounts of data, which they need to dissect in more and more ways, according to participants in an Environmental Leader webinar.

Speaking to participants in yesterday’s webinar, Energy and Environmental Management: Best Practices for 2011 and Beyond, Hara’s Michel Gelobter said companies increasingly must bring together huge amounts of data.

more from Environmental Leader

When the library was remodeled earlier this year, it didn’t just re-open as a seismically safe building that was fully accessible to the disabled, and technologically updated — it received a green makeover! The renovation is part of San Francisco ‘s Branch Library Improvement Program (BLIP).

Located at 1616 20th Street , between Connecticut and Arkansas Streets, the library now sports features advocated under LEED (leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards including: improvements to indoor air quality by using low-VOC (volatile organic compound) paints, adhesives and sealants. This is important because ‘regular’ materials give off toxic gasses.

Existing materials and resources were used. And energy efficiency improvements were made, including: the use of natural ventilation, the combination of natural lighting and high-performance lighting fixtures, the use of efficient building insulation, and a reflective cool roof!

While the building is not LEED certified, a costly process that can add thousands of dollars to a project, it is a healthier space for the community that is more energy-efficient and designed to reduce the library’s impact on the environment.

Perhaps the city’s green library campaign is one of the reasons San Francisco was ranked #2 among the greenest cities in the U.S. by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Mother Nature Network.

For details about the Potrero Branch Library’s greenovation, check out the Green Report Card produced by the SF Department of Public Works.

Check out “Plastic State of Mind” from the folks at Green Sangha. Enjoy!

Proposition 23, which would take the legs out of AB32, was defeated. And, the political figures who have championed the state’s clean air efforts, such as Barbara Boxer, Jerry Brown and Nancy Pelosi, have been elected or re-elected. (Still awaiting the outcome of the Attorney General’s race)

The one place we fell short was with Proposition 26.

While organizations, businesses and individuals were busy addressing the obvious threat to California’s environmental momentum, in Prop. 23, Proposition 26 snuck up on us. I will be the first to admit that I was deeply entrenched in Prop. 23 by the time the campaign reared its head, in a battlefield-like sabotage move.

The campaign, which was backed by Chevron and the American Beverage Association, giving $4 million and $3 million, respectively, was called the “Stop Hidden Taxes” initiative.

Anyone who hadn’t thoroughly read the initiative, or who hadn’t received information about its true implications could have easily voted for its passage.

Over at the LAWeekly blog, Joe Lyou, executive director of Los Angeles-based Coalition for Clean Air, says,

“Proposition 26 is in some ways more important than Prop. 23. Prop. 26 could make it almost impossible for regulatory agencies to collect fees.”

Why? Under Prop. 26, a two-thirds supermajority vote will now be required to pass polluter, alcohol and other fees at both state AND local levels. This is the same strategy pulled under Proposition 16 – forcing a two-thirds vote in a state that is notorious for not being able to gain that much agreement in its legislature.

Well. All is not lost, but we’re going to have to work even harder to move companies to reduce pollution, and make sure they are paying for the pollution they do create.

Note: at this moment, the jury is still out on the Attorney General race, which pits Kamala Harris of Northern California, who currently has a slight lead, against Southern California’s Steve Cooley. But we’re pulling for Kamala. California, and California’s next attorney general, will have a tremendous amount of influence over state and federal environment and energy policy.

Key issues

Proposition 23 has been called an initiative pitting environmental health vs. jobs, and California vs. Texas oil.

Proponents of “Yes on Proposition 23″ believe the initiative, which campaign ads refer to as the “California Jobs Initiative 2010″, will save jobs. They argue that businesses will be strained under the regulations of AB 32, face higher energy costs and be forced to cut back on jobs.

Opponents of Proposition 23 believe Texas oil companies designed the initiative to not only stall, but kill clean energy efforts and air pollution standards in California. They’re concerned that indefinitely suspending AB 32 would not only result in continued, escalating impact to the environment and public health, but would succeed in pushing the cleantech industry out of California.

What supporters are saying:

Some believe AB 32 makes California an unfriendly place to do business. “It’s all about the regulatory environment in California. It’s the worst place to do business,” says James Duran, chair of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley at a recent debate hosted by New America Media. “We need to create jobs, not make it more difficult to create jobs.”

“Proposition 23 is particularly needed to protect Santa Clara’s small and medium businesses that have been hit particularly hard by the recession,” says Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Steve Van Dorn on the Yes campaign site. “The higher energy costs resulting from AB 32 will put our region’s businesses at a significant disadvantage with states and countries that have less draconian global warming regulations.” 

Others don’t believe small businesses have time to wait for the economy to pick up and green jobs to kick in under AB 32. In fact, some, like small business owner Edwin Lombard, of Edwin Lombard Management in Sacramento, are concerned that the green jobs gains expected as a result of the implementation of AB 32 will not replace the 2.2 million jobs already loss due to the recession.

The California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Director Julian Canete says the organization joined the ‘yes’ on 23 campaign because they couldn’t get California Air Resources Board (CARB), the regulatory body for AB 32, to listen to their concerns regarding understanding AB 32′s impact on small businesses. About Proposition 23, he said he thinks “It’s the right thing for small business right now.”

What opponents are saying:

The environment set under AB 32 has helped to draw significant cleantech investment to California.

“In the first half of 2010, the state attracted 40 percent of global cleantech VC (venture capital) funding, exceeding the first half of 2009 by two-and-a-half times,” according to a recent study by Next 10. And Deutsche Bank has stated that “if Prop. 23 passes, the signal we send is not to bring cleantech jobs to California,” says Carl Pope executive chairman of the Sierra Club.

Moreover the green sector is responsible for a significant portion of new jobs, according to Dave Room, co-founder and Clean Energy Director of Bay Localize and coordinator of the Local Clean Energy Alliance in Oakland. “Supporters of Proposition 23 are saying this is a job killer. What Proposition 23 would really do is kill the green jobs sector; one where there has been a concerted effort to bring in people of color.”

The unemployment benchmarks in Prop. 23 are also untenable, opponents say. “In last 40 years, 5.5 percent sustainable unemployment has only happened three times, says Silicon Valley cleantech consultant JB Tengco.”The way it’s worded, it looks like (Prop. 23) is slowing it (AB 32) down, but it’s really a strategic way to kill this.”

Even more concerning, say opponents, is that oil companies are the primary funders behind the campaign. If fact, Tengco says “97 percent of the money is coming from Valero and Tessero. They are among the top 10 polluters in California. They have earned $10 billion in profits from California over the past decade.”

Yes on Prop. 23 vs. No on Prop. 23 is “money of the past fighting money of the future,” says Ian Kim, Director of Green-Collar Jobs for the Ella Baker Center.

ENDORSEMENTS

“Yes on Proposition 23″ Endorsements:

Business and Business Groups

Hispanic Chambers of Commerce for: Contra Costa County, Silicon Valley.
Chambers of Commerce for: Santa Clara, Milpitas. Silicon Valley Black Chamber of Commerce.

Local News Agencies

Based on the official site, no Bay Area news agencies appear to be publicly endorsing the ‘yes’ position.

Government

Based on the official Yes on Proposition 23 site, no Bay Area cities appear to be publicly endorsing the ‘yes’ position.

Who is Providing Financial Support?

According to Ballotpedia, supporters of Proposition 23 have raised $8 million, with $4 million coming from Texas-based Valero, $1.5 million from Texas-based Tesoro and $1 million from Texas-based Flint Hills Resources, which has oil operations in several states outside of California, and is a division of Koch Industries.

“No on Proposition 23″ Endorsements

Business and Business Groups

More than 200 businesses have come out against the initiative, including: Google, Symantec, Virgin America, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Nike Inc., Steven Bochco Productions, Levi Strauss & Co., Gap, Inc., and Cisco. The list appears to be dominated by small businesses, but it is not clear which are local, Bay Area businesses.

Chamber of Commerce for: Fremont, Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Sunnyvale; Oakland Black Board of Trade and Commerce; San Mateo Economic Development Association; Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Local News Agencies

Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, SF Bay Guardian, Bay Area Reporter, La Opinion, La Prensa, Marin Independent Journal, Milpitas Post

Government

Bay Area cities coming out against Proposition 23, according to the No on Proposition 23 campaign site are:

The City and County of San Francisco, the cities of Burlingame, Oakland, Palo Alto, San Leandro, San Mateo and Sunnyvale

Who is Providing Financial Support?

According to Ballotpedia, campaign committees advocating no on Proposition 23 have raised more than $11.5 million dollars, with $2.5 million coming from California-based Thomas Steyer of Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C., $1.5 million from the California-based Natural Resources Defense Council and $1 million from Robert Fisher, former chair of The GAP.

Chances proposition will pass:

According to an Oct. 25 Los Angeles Times/USC poll, “Prop. 23, which would suspend new emissions standards until unemployment drops, trails 48% to 32% among likely voters.”

Official summary of Proposition 23: Suspends state law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.

Requires state to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension ends.

Estimated fiscal impact:The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues.

Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.

Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.

For more information, visit the California Statewide General Election – Official Voter Information Guide.

Water map shows billions at risk of ‘water insecurity’

About 80% of the world’s population lives in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure, according to a new global analysis.

Researchers compiled a composite index of “water threats” that includes issues such as scarcity and pollution.

The most severe threat category encompasses 3.4 billion people.

Writing in the journal Nature, they say that in western countries, conserving water for people through reservoirs and dams works for people, but not nature.

Instead, they say governments should invest in water management strategies that combine infrastructure with “natural” options such as safeguarding watersheds, wetlands and flood plains.

They urge developing countries not to follow the same path.

To read more visit BBC News Science & Environment

Water Map

In fashion news…In case you thought the sticker tag was the only price in fashion…

Post from Elena_SC’s Blog

Water footprint: how the fashion industry and your shopping impact the Planet

Many people probably don’t know that the fashion industry is facing today a very big challenge related to water usage. The reason is simple: the textile industry is the third largest consumer of water in the world – behind at paper and oil industries – as well as polluter, making the business of fashion and clothing – from production, to consumption, care and disposal – among the world’s most environmentally damaging.

I’m looking forward to hearing and providing the details of the new facility.

In the meantime, following is the AP announcement in the San Jose Mercury News.

I’ll provide details and an update as soon as I have more information.

LOCKPORT, N.Y. — Yahoo has opened a new data center in upstate New York which promises to be one of the most energy efficient of its kind.

Yahoo chief executive Carol Bartz and New York Gov. David Paterson were on hand for the opening Monday afternoon.

The green technology used at the center in Lockport, Niagara County, earned a $9.9 million sustainability grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The center, located 20 miles northeast of Buffalo, immediately creates more than 100 jobs, with the potential for more later on.

Based in Sunnyvale, Internet pioneer Yahoo has been expanding its number of data centers around the country

I don’t know Fujitsu’s intention, but it piqued my curiosity — not about the scanner, but about their sustainability record. Greenwashing, avoiding greenwashing, and covering up greenwashing are big business these days, so…

I checked out the company’s sustainability report, which they’ve been publishing as far back as 2000. It appears to be pretty forthcoming and thoughtful in process and approach — detailing their internal set of regulations — Green Product Evaluation Standards and product environmental assessment.

While I’m not endorsing Fujitsu products, am not (and have never been) paid by them, I thought I would share information that I pulled from the  section on eco-friendly products.

The Fujitsu Group has adopted a unified Group-wide approach to eco-design for newly designed products and works to improve environmental performance throughout the product life cycle.

We have been implementing our own environmental assessments for products since 1993, and we strive to develop eco-friendly products that reflect environmental considerations in such areas as energy saving, 3R design, non-use of hazardous chemical substances, packaging materials, and information disclosure.

If you’re still curious about the video, here it is…