|
by Rick Stryker, P.E
Almost forty years ago (!), a certain celebrity frog first sang
a melancholy tune bemoaning being overlooked because he shared his color
with so many other things. His contribution to the balance of life seemed
lost. In a wash of introspection, he seemed to feel very small and insignificant.
In a world of more than 6½ billion people, it's easy to
wonder whether we or our individual actions or contributions matter at
all. At the same time, the green-and-white "Think Globally, Act
Locally" bumper stickers abound. Can both perspectives be right?
Can both be right for me and for my organization? The ideas seem to be
at opposite ends of a spectrum almost too broad to comprehend. Or perhaps
there's yet another alternative. Maybe, like so many other things,
could they simply be at opposite ends of a spectrum with an infinite
number of shades between them? Can we find a place in between the extremes
where we can participate, make a difference, and even effect change,
at our tiny level?
Although contemporary activists would like to lay claim to "green" as
a mindset or practice, the roots of conservation and ecology are deeply
set in the human psyche. Benjamin Franklin comes to mind quickly as an
early conservationist, from a time when the country's resources
were largely thought to be inexhaustible. And while Poor Richard's
axiom "Waste not, want not" seems outdated for today's
throw-away society, the conservation movement continues to gain momentum.
But what, exactly, is "green" as it's being used today?
Is it recycling, conservation, sustainability, pollution abatement, what?
Each individual or organization must decide whether to make resource
stewardship part of its personality or culture. Within that context then,
camp leadership must choose which aspects of resource management fit
appropriately into the camp's operation, budget, and probably most
importantly, its program and culture.
Stewardship
At its core, the soul
of green is "stewardship," the idea of making the best use
of the resources available. Unfortunately, consensus ends there because
everyone has a different sense of what the "best use" may
be for any particular resource. The disagreement comes as we struggle
to reconcile what's worth saving with all of the apparent costs.
Stewardship is the act of managing the assets or affairs on behalf of
another. This concept cuts to the heart of the matter since the effects
and benefits are best considered as part of a widespread effort, and
when taken in concert with many others with a similar aim. For issues "green," though,
the idea is that the most widely shared and universally needed resources
should be managed with an eye to making them last. Fundamentally, these
are water, air and soil, but others like energy/ fuels, trees, and even
undeveloped space have become part of the common understanding of the
green lexicon. We can say, then, that green products and practices aim
to stretch the limited supply of those constituent parts.
Green Products
and Practices
Consider photovoltaic cells ("solar panels")
as an example. Beyond augmenting the power supply in houses, many household
installations are configured to deliver excess generated electricity
back to the power grid. This return makes the electric meter slow (or
even reverse direction), simulating a lower electrical consumption. The
consumer sees a reduced electric bill, the power grid gets a little more
power to pass around, and the company has to consume less fuel to meet
demands. The question that needs to be asked is whether the cost of the
installation and maintenance would, in fact, "pay for itself" eventually.
The mathematics here can be pretty complicated, and in its simplest
form involve some assumptions about the rate of inflation, the cost of
buying electricity over the usable life of the equipment, the expected
service life of the equipment, and the efficiency of the equipment. The
details of those calculations are beyond the scope here, but a detailed
analysis will show that the equipment will be worn out and need to be
replaced before it's generated enough income to cover the capital
cost. Each part of the equation (equipment, maintenance, installation,
and power prices) needs to continue moving in the direction that they
have been for fifty years: The price of electricity from the grid and
the efficiency of the equipment need to increase and the cost of the
equipment needs to decrease before the economics of solar panels become
a "financially smart" installation.
But aren't they
still green? Sure! Let's go back and look at the scenario where
solar panels generate electricity and sell it back to the grid. We've
seen that the financial costs are greater than the benefit to the individual,
but what about the effects on society as a whole? What if half of all
of the meters were turning backward at any one time? In the Northeast
where "coal is king," less fuel burned translates to fewer
emissions which can mean (among lots of other things) lowered rain pH
(less acid) to impair lakes and streams. From the fish to the municipal
water supply, everyone benefits!
The owner of the equipment gets the
intangible benefit of having made a contribution to the greater good
as well as the added bonus of having the electric bill reduced. However,
the fiscal balance sheet cannot put a price on the intangible benefits
of cleaner air or the "contribution to the greater good," so
from a financial perspective, the costs outweigh the return on the investment.
The federal government has provided some tax incentives to encourage
this sort of "bigger than just me" action. But these are
only incentives and don't approach reimbursing the actual hard-money
capital or operational cost of these sorts of commitments. The not-for-profit
organizations are quick to point out that "tax breaks" don't
help them much at all.
Unintended Consequences of Thinking Green
There
is also the idea that there are unintended consequences and unexpected
outcomes each time one alternative is chosen over another. Wind energy
is a great example. Advances in technology and engineering have brought
the ancient windmill into focus as a modern power supply alternative.
Current designs deliver more energy, with lower wind and slower blade
speeds. What could possibly be a downside to that? There are two issues
that have come to the forefront as more installations are proposed. The
first is that they're large and present a distraction, and are
even an eyesore to some. Their very nature requires that windmill "farms" are
placed in open areas and ridge tops where winds are frequent and steady.
The second is their effect on wildlife, particularly birds.
The rotating
arms of windmills do, indeed, take a toll on bird populations, and are
indiscriminate since sparrow or bald eagle alike could fall prey to the
fast-moving blade tips. Wind farm opponents (including some of the most
vocal "green groups") contend that mortality of raptors is
particularly high since rodents, the birds' primary food source,
congregate in large numbers at the base of the windmills, luring the
hunting birds into what amounts to a well-baited trap. Other studies
have concluded that raptor mortality for windmills/wind farms is actually
no more significant than mortality from vehicle strikes, but that the
dead birds are simply concentrated in a very small space, making the
effect seem much larger. So the debate continues and despite the "green"
nature of a windmill, it seems that even here, there remains a cost.
What's In It for Us?
So where does that leave camps? In the tough reality
of camper revenue versus capital expenditure, it may seem impossible
to justify any capital investment without a significant direct return,
an identifiable benefit to the campers, or accepting the unintended consequences
of trying to be more environmentally conscious (dead birds, for example).
Probably the most difficult hurdle to clear when considering going green
is the "me" syndrome, because when put on a financial spread
sheet, incorporating green strategies will cost money. "Where is
the benefit to us?" may be a question that you'll hear. Stewardship,
by definition, refers to the "assets or affairs of another." The
key word here is another, and not self.
Stewardship transcends the organization.
Leadership puts the larger community before itself. Your organization
has chosen and is following this particular path. Like clean water, hot
food, and quality programming, it is simply the right thing to do. The
cost to the organization is part of the cost of being a leader in your
business and community.
The Green Philosophy
Without a doubt, that perspective
allows us to try to frame the investment into program-smart, efficient,
and well-planned green projects in a whole new way. This idea transcends
the idea of "me first," and instead embraces the idea of
community, nurture, and caring, not at all unlike the ideal environment
to which camp should aspire. "Green" then evolves from being
a gimmick to being a corporate philosophy permeating the organization,
its operations, management, marketing, and culture. Once the aims and
mission of the organization are reconciled with the opportunities for
environmental stewardship, incorporating strategies that are appropriate
and sustainable becomes a matter of course. That word "sustainable" is
an important piece of this puzzle. Many conservation efforts and programs
are forced into an organization like a square peg into a round hole.
Typically, they are only marginally successful any way that it's
measured because the philosophy and mindset aren't part of the
fabric or culture of the whole organization. When the champion is no
longer pushing, driving, and demanding participation, the effort simply
falls by the wayside, and all of the progress is lost. The "champion" may
not even be a person. In some places, state and local governments have
provided financial incentives, and when the money has dried up, programs
have withered and gone away. Again, before your organization adopts any
new "green" strategy, product, or approach, make certain
that the culture will sustain it not because "we have to" but
because "it's who we are."
Where Do We Begin?
Despite extending for relatively large distances,
a spider's web, strands interconnected and interrelated, notify
the spider that dinner has arrived. Each fiber must work in concert with
the next to snare, hold, and then pass notice to the spider. In the same
way, your facility is intimately connected to the environment through
occupancy, use, and configuration. Facilities only enhance program.
For
many, there is at least a certain degree of the chicken-or-the-egg paradox.
And just like most things worth doing, this is absolutely one which is
best done once and done right that first time. Incorporating more environmentally
friendly practices and products at camp has to be part of the overall
operations of camp, from support areas like food and administrative services
through facilities planning, maintenance, and capital investment. This
begins as simply as adding a line to the mission statement, but has to
be followed with forethought and planning to research and implement the
strategy across the property. It may seem like a monumental task, but
this is a paced effort with many, many intermediate milestones along
the way.
Remember the answer to the riddle, "How do you eat an
elephant?"? That's right: ONE BITE AT A TIME! Each of camp's
small steps toward the green finish line is another bite of elephant.
Every guest who is introduced to the benefits of conservation and stewardship
is another potential ambassador for the cause, as well as a spokesperson
for the place where they saw how smart planning and a willingness to
step up to the plate can make a difference.
Green Strategies Can Work
at Camp
Once the organization has committed to bringing green strategies
to camp, the real work and test of that commitment begin. There are as
many ways to bring this to life as there are people with ideas, and the
limitations are only the creativity of the individuals involved and the
commitment to execute the plan.
Electricity
With gas and electric costs
in the news, energy generation and power consumption are the two areas
of "green" facilities that have probably gotten the most
attention over all. So it's no coincidence that electricity is
where your organization can enjoy the largest direct return on the investment.
The diversity of electrical "contributors" to the grid has
prompted the government to require that electrical utilities allow the
consumer to "choose" their source of electricity. This choice
is very similar to choosing long distance and local telephone service.
Better than in the phone industry, though, is that you're directing
the purchasing utility to get your "share" of the power demand
from a source that you find most environmentally acceptable. You, then,
are able to decide the value of, and therefore the cost to, your organization
for using a "greener" power supply. Beware! It probably will
not be the cheapest source from which you have to choose. That additional
cost is your contribution to the greater good, beyond your property boundaries
and program offerings. You can offset that increased cost per kilowatthour
(kW-h) by installing fluorescent fixtures, and dusk-to-dawn motion sensors
on area lights, to name just two possibilities.
Propane
Propane is a perfect
example of the paradox that links "green" and "efficient." Long
a staple of camps everywhere, more than 90 percent of propane is produced
during natural gas processing and petroleum refining, with less than
10 percent imported as a finished product. It is highly efficient to
transport and store because it's handled almost entirely as a liquid
under pressure. For example, a 1,000-gallon tank of propane gas would
supply a family's cooking needs for about a week. A thousand gallons,
stored as a pressurized liquid and delivered to the stove as a gas, however,
could supply that same family's cooking needs for five years, or 260
times as long. If a leak develops, the gas is lost to the atmosphere
and dissipates and so does not pollute water, soil, or air. When burned,
it heats water and air very, very efficiently and quickly. So propane
and its close cousin natural gas are well suited for on-demand needs
such as instantaneous hot water heaters and cooking; the fuel is used
only when you need it.
As we've seen, though, there are environmental
trade-offs for its other efficiencies. Complete combustion of propane
creates water vapor and carbon dioxide. If your organization's "green mission statement" includes
working toward reducing carbon emissions, there is much study, consideration,
and mathematics ahead to weigh the benefits and costs to the environment.
For example, what if the cabins use conventional, tanked hot water
heaters for showers? This traditional configuration keeps water hot in
an insulated tank, in anticipation of someone opening a hot water tap.
When the water temperature drops in the tank, either through demand or
through heat loss through the side of the tank, the unit heats the water
inside. This cycle would continue as long as the electrical power or
gas was supplied, regardless of whether any one opened a faucet and derived
a benefit. One alternative is to install tankless (or "instantaneous")
hot water heaters. Water is not heated and stored, but is heated only
when a tap is opened. When the tap is closed, the unit shuts off. So
fuel is only consumed when hot water is required. Because of the heater's
efficiency, only gas is used as a heating method; electrical units don't
exist. Clearly, the tankless unit is a better environmental choice when
replacing a gas-fired hot water heater. However, if you choose to replace
an electric heater with a propane unit of any kind, it is very likely
that you've replaced one carbonproducing source with another. The question
to be answered is whether the new installation will produce less carbon
overall than the electric power plant would when making the same amount
of hot water.
This line of thought isn't unique to hot water supply,
either. Many camps use golf carts on their properties. Electric or gas
(including propane!) is the common question. Without a facility environmental
mission statement, the pre-purchase questions might include comparing
the capital costs of the equipment investment and perhaps the staff's ability and skill
in maintaining one type over the other. But if the green objective is truly
part of the organization's culture, someone needs to evaluate and
include considerations about the impact of each alternative. Superficially,
the electric cart may appear to be a more "friendly" choice,
but depending on the source of your electric power generation, demanding
electricity to charge the batteries may actually be a much poorer choice
than even a gasoline-powered vehicle!
Let's Build!
There are a number
of alternative materials from which to choose when considering a construction
project. Traditionally, the final appearance, function, and budget would
dictate the materials to be used for the project. But the increasingly
competitive building materials business would have consumers considering
other factors including recycled materials content and the energy efficiency
of their production plant. Some claims are nothing more than marketing
spin, where others are certifiably delivering benefits far beyond the
area where the products are made.
Plastic Building Materials
The products
that use recycled materials including plastics and wood waste typically
cost more than their traditional material counterparts because of the
labor and energy required to sort, clean, and process the used materials
into their new form.
There is another class of claim that's deeply disturbing,
however, and that is the rumor. Unscrupulous sales people and uninformed
customers can combine to create a climate of half-truths and misconceptions.
For example, in the past five to ten years, "composite lumber" has
been the subject of a number of these fallacies—the most blatant
of which is that the plastic used is old soda bottles, milk jugs, and grocery
bags.
Although there are some product lines which incorporate post-consumer
products, this is largely the exception rather than the rule. Plastics
are hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon, mostly) and on
a molecular level derive their physical properties from the arrangement
of their molecules (long strands or chains). Each time the material is
heated to allow a manufacturer to rework it, the length of the chains
is shortened and the strength of the material is reduced. This is very
similar to when metal is heated or flexed back and forth repeatedly.
The difference between these materials, though, is that metals can be
reworked into products which are as strong as or stronger than they were
before. At present, very few plastics can mimic that property. For plastic
products, most often the most structurally consistent products use new
(or "virgin") resins because of the predictability and repeatability
of the manufacturing process when used materials are excluded from the
mix.
Is there benefit to using plastic or plastic composite materials?
Certainly, if the organization's
green mission is focused on the timber, logging, and wood-processing industries.
Well-made plastic products installed into well-designed projects can match
the performance of their wooden counterparts, with lower maintenance costs
and a longer lifespan. Also, if a stated objective is to reduce landfill
contributions, then recycled plastic products (like carpeting/flooring,
picnic tables, and benches) may be well worth the additional cost. However,
to purchase plastic building or landscape products because you think that
it has been recycled or because it could be recycled may be shortsighted
at best, or at worst, simply a poor choice. Carefully consider the alternatives,
do the research, and make an informed selection that best fits the organization's
green mission statement.
Wood or Metal Frame Construction
One very straightforward
illustration of an organization's long-term commitment to a certain
philosophy is the selection of one framing material over another. In
the past decade, angular galvanized steel has replaced traditional wooden
studs in some areas and applications. In some circles, this change is
being embraced as an alternative to logging and the idea that the metal
is recycled.
If saving forests is part of the green mission, then this
logic works well to justify the choice. However, there may be costs to
the environment that are unaccounted for as part of the decision process.
For example, when used as framing on exterior walls, extra effort and
care is required to ensure that these metal parts don't wick energy from
the inside space directly to the outdoors. The additional cost (in utility
bills and emissions) to heat or cool such a structure could quickly overtake
the value of the environmental savings to not choose farmed timber. Again,
neither selection is either right or wrong, because what's "best" depends
on who is making the judgment within the larger context of his or her organization.
What Your "Homework" Might Uncover
Have you ever wondered why
recycled paper costs more? The environmental regulations on the paper
industry apply equally, and the hard cost of making paper is almost the
same regardless of the post-consumer content. A number of studies have
looked at that very question and concluded that it's largely a supply
and demand issue. Since many government agencies operate under a "recycled
content" mandate, the price is higher simply because the supply is lower.
So, armed with that knowledge, are you really getting more for the extra
money you spend buying "recycled" copier or printer paper? Not really.
You're simply paying a premium because the supply is scarcer than the
other kind. If you doubt the truth of this, compare the content and prices
of toilet or facial tissue. What about "saving trees?" Interestingly,
most of the paper produced from virgin pulp is farmed. Trees which are
cultivated and harvested for this purpose are promptly replaced with
new seedlings. One writer concluded that "…to claim that paper
recycling saves trees makes about as much sense as a claim that a ban on
corn would save cornstalks."
Choices, Choices, Choices
Like so many
other decisions when running camp, being environmentally smart is much
more complicated than it appears at first glance. Once the organization
has committed to a set of environmental priorities that suit its operation,
program, and facility, evaluating the alternatives is a more straightforward
process. To be effective, environmental stewardship must be a way of
life and part of the daily routine for your organization and staff. It
will come at a cost both financial and in labor-hours, but in the things
that really matter, doesn't everything? Yes, the famous frog did, indeed,
begin his first solo lamenting the hardships of being green. But you should
also remember that he concludes with the affirmation: "I am green
and it'll do fine, it's beautiful! And I think it's what
I want to be (Raposo 1970)." Today's green is waiting for you
and your camp to find a shade that works for you.
Opportunities
to "Be Green" at Camp
Reference
Raposo, J.
(1970). Bein' Green, sung by Jim Henson.
Originally published in the 2007 November/December
issue of Camping Magazine. |
