Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xvii #3/Fall 2001Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xvii #3/Fall 2001

CONTENTSOTHER VOICES: ERIC RASMUSSEN . . p a ge 4

BATTLING WASTE IN THE MILITARY . p a ge 6

FUEL CELLS . . . . . . . . . . . p a ge 10

PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . p a ge 11

INSURMOUNTABLE OPPORTUNITIES . p a ge 12

“AN APPLE A DAY” . . . . . . . . p a ge 14

DEAR ROCKY . . . . . . . . . . . p a ge 16

LIFE AT RMI . . . . . . . . . . . p a ge 17

WHAT ARE YOU DOING? . . . . . . p a ge 18

MIKE CURZAN . . . . . . . . . . p a ge 25

DONOR SPOTLIGHT . . . . . . . p a ge 28

ALEXIS KAROLIDES . . . . . . . p a ge 33

B rit tle Tim es, R MI’s Response

F rom its inception, Rocky MountainInstitute has worked to promote asecure, prosperous, and life-sus-

taining world. On 11 September, thosegoals came under attack—magnifying theirimportance and urgency. We can besthonor the thousands of victims, citizens ofover 80 nations throughout the world, byrecommitting to create such a future.

A handful of people with plastic knives andbox-cutters seized four airplanes and

c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t p a g e

wreaked havoc. A week later,their violence was threateningto hijack much of U.S. policy.Their attack so outragescommon decency as to temptreactions that Americanswould abhor in normaltimes—bombing civiliansruled by despots consideredcomplicit, eroding civil liber-ties, blaming anyone wholooks or thinks differently,rushing to military and energychoices that would berepented at leisure. But ifpolicy simply reacts to the ter-rorists, they win. America andthe world need rather toaddress root causes: to reas-sume global leadership inhelping all people to fulfilltheir legitimate aspirations fora safe and decent life.

The terrorist attack elicitedwide agreement on someobvious but sometimes over-looked points:

• Murdering innocent people is a supremeevil in the eyes of every religion, emphati-cally including Islam. This applies to ter-rorism—and to America’s response to it.

• The perpetrators must be brought to jus-tice under the rule of law, and with greatcare not to harm the innocent.Indiscriminately violent retaliation wouldundermine all we’re fighting for. A world ofjustice and compassion is morally, as wellas practically, better than a world of

revenge. Amidst talk of technology and ret-ribution, we need understanding and trans-formation.

• America’s distinctive strengths flow fromher diversity, freedom, and tolerance—pre-cisely the qualities that are most underattack, most precious, and most vital not toimpair. Terrorists succeed if they drive us todeny our values and diminish our free-doms.

• The attackers hope to provoke ajihad/crusade confrontation betweenAmerica and Islam, and more broadly toinflame tensions between the powerful andthe dispossessed. We defeat this goal if we

Th e even ts o f 11 Sep te m b er m ig h t h ave p er -m a n en tly a lt ere d our u n d erst a n din g o f wh at isre q uire d to m a in t a in a f ree a n d op en socie ty.

B y A mory B. Lovins and L. H unter Lovins

instead build a new solidarity betweenthose working to achieve a just and sus-tainable society and those for whom it is adistant abstraction. Terrorists are bredamid social and economic conditions thatcreate despair and fury. To the extent thatenhancing sustainability can relieve thoseconditions, we both do right and increaseeveryone’s security.

• Many people in the world are pro-foundly angry at America, and it would bewise to understand why. Wall StreetJournal correspondent Jonathan Kwitney,in his disquieting book Endless Enemies:The Making of an Unfriendly World,chronicles scores of countries where venal,stupid, or insensitive U.S. behavior, overdecades, turned potential friends into foes.If we want other countries to think well ofus, he concludes, we should be the kind ofpeople one would like to do business with,and should ensure that whoever comes topower in other countries has never beenshot at by an American gun. That seemssimple and effective, pragmatic and princi-pled. As we seek to understand other cul-tures, honor their differences, and respectsocial goals that may diverge widely fromour own, we need to hear the reasons forthe anger of those who do not feel heard.As a Muslim prayer reminds us, “Praise be

to the Lord of the Universe who has cre-ated us and made us into tribes andnations / That we may know each other,not that we may despise each other …And the servants of God, most gracious arethose who walk on the Earth in humility,and when we address them, we say‘Peace.’”

• The United States is extremely vulner-able, not just because it’s a free and opensociety, but also because of the fragilearchitecture of its complex, centralized,interdependent technical systems—gigantic pipelines, powerlines, dams,refineries, chemical and nuclear com-plexes. This vulnerable design makesfuture attacks both more probable andpotentially far worse. We’ve long been sur-prised these weaknesses weren’t exploitedsooner and more fully. A great deal morework is needed to identify these vulnera-bilities and design them out.

Consider, for example, the opportunisti-cally renewed push for uneconomic andextraordinarily vulnerable energy technolo-gies, such as expanded dependence on theTrans-Alaska Pipeline (RMI Solutions, Vol.17, No. 1, spring '01) and on nuclearpower, which holds billions of curies ofreleasable radioactivity—rivaling thefallout from a megaton-range ground-

burst—upwind of many American cities.For example, The Nation (16 September)and U.S. News and World Report (17September) report that over half of U.S.nuclear plants routinely fail basic site-secu-rity tests even when given advance notice.(They just went on maximum alert, butthat doesn’t mean they could repel a com-petent attack.) It doesn’t take a crashingwidebody jet to unleash their lethal inven-tories (though that would); a few peoplecould do it on the ground, in some caseswithout entering the plant’s site. Despitethis threat and nuclear power’s disastrouseconomics (see “Gone Fission,” p. 11), itsproponents nonetheless want, and have sofar gotten, even bigger subsidies to supportexpansion, and seem about to winrenewal of their liability exemption. Incontrast, as David Lochbaum of the Unionof Concerned Scientists noted, nobody isasking about terrorist threats to wind-mills—which also produce power soonerand cheaper.

Our 1982 Pentagon study Brittle Power:Energy Strategy for National Security, stillthe definitive unclassified work, showedhow accepting market verdicts could grad-ually, steadily, turn vulnerability intoresilience. The foundation of a secureenergy system is to need less energy in thefirst place, then to get it from sources thatare inherently invulnerable becausethey’re diverse, dispersed, renewable, andmainly local. They’re secure not becausethey’re American but because of theirdesign. Any highly centralized energysystem—pipelines, nuclear plants,refineries—invites devastating attack. Butinvulnerable alternatives don’t, and can’tfail on a large scale. Ignored in the currentdebate but available in the marketplace,they’re also cheaper and more reliable. Intime, they can make major energy inter-ruptions impossible. Thus real energy secu-rity comes from choosing the best buysfirst; not bailing out market failures;building a balanced portfolio of competi-tive demand- and supply-side investments;

p a ge 2

N ew York as we a ll re m e m b er i t. Th e 11 Sep te m b er at t a cks will h ave i m pli-c ations for us a ll.

and preferring energy options invulnerableto cutoff by accident or malice. Happily, allthese virtues coincide in the same tech-nologies—the ones current policy disfa-vors. Why should some of the gravestthreats to national energy security comefrom the energy policy of our own govern-ment?

To some extent, RMI can offer theseanswers. In other realms, we have onlyjust begun to pose the questions. Forexample, the work that Hunter Lovins andWalter Link of the Global Academy havebeen doing on globalization raises someintriguing issues. As their recent paper forthe United Nations pointed out, the worldis profoundly different from the mentalmodel most of us carry of an effective com-munity of national governments. In fact,power now resides in three sectors: gov-ernments, corporations and civil society.As newspapers blare that we are at war, itis worth asking, “With whom?” Is this thefirst major conflict between a globalizednetwork and a national government? Inthe new tri-polar world, where powerresides in governments, corporations, andcivil society, this network of self-organizedindividuals empowered by satellite phones,email, and FedEx to pursue their agendaaren’t playing by governments’ rules, butthey’re highly effective. Similarly, solutionsto the many global challenges will onlyarise if collaboration between the threesectors creates new networks dedicated tofinding and implementing solutions.

The question that has guided RMI’s workfrom its inception is how can Americans,and all people, be safe and feel safe inways that work better and cost less thanpresent arrangements? Recent events havebeen called the first war of the 21stCentury. Unfortunately, that “honor” goesto the many conflicts that continue to takelives around the world. Security—freedomfrom fear of attack or privation—is bestachieved from the bottom up, not from thetop down; by means that are the provinceof every citizen, not the monopoly of

national governments; and withoutneeding to use or threaten violence. Itcomes from making others more secure,not less, whether on the scale of the vil-lage or the globe. It is rooted in conflictavoidance or prevention; bolstered by con-flict resolution; and backstopped by non-provocative defense, which can reliablydefeat aggression without threateningothers. This new security triad fromSecurity Without War—a prescient 1993RMI book by Hal Harvey and MikeShuman—suggests that though there is avital role for the military professionals withwhom RMI has long worked (see “BattlingFuel Waste in the Military,” p. 6), that roleis poised for profound change in anincreasingly dangerous, multi-polar, andpolarized world.

The foundation of real security is globalgood-citizenship, fully engaged within aninterdependent world of mutual interests.World War II arose from a resentfulGermany punished for World War I.George Marshall didn’t repeat that error;he strengthened and rebuilt Germany as abulwark of democracy. We have vastrebuilding to do to reverse the poverty,inequity, and injustice that make peoplefeel angry, powerless, and resentful. As JeffRaskin remarks, “Putting the billionsrecently allocated [for military strikes] intofeeding the hungry, teaching the undered-ucated, and healing the sick around theworld would go further toward minimizingterrorism than anything else we could dowith the money.”

John Wimberly, of Western PresbyterianChurch in Washington, D.C., writes of thespiritual dimensions of this challenge:

“Regardless of where one stands in thedebate about the causes of wealth andpoverty, Tuesday’s terrorism leaves us nochoice but to admit that fear, hatred, andviolence increasingly define the relationsbetween the rich and poor.

“Those who don’t have wealth fear thattheir children’s lives will be worse than

their own. Anger grows as they watchtheir loved ones die of diseases that disap-peared years ago in developed nations.Leaders who foster hatred of the devel-oped nations suddenly sound reasonable.

“Those who have wealth grow increas-ingly fearful of the masses of poor people.They become resentful that their wealthdoes not give them the freedom and safetythey once assumed it would create.Leaders who tell them that the poor are athreat to their well-being suddenly soundreasonable.

“It is a recipe for madness. A blueprint formutual self-destruction. Where does itend? The world’s major religions all agreethat it is the responsibility of those whohave to help those who do not ... Whatwe do or don’t do with our money is anissue of profound spiritual significance.The strong are supposed to help the weak.

“And isn’t the well-being of others animportant aspect of good economic policyas well? Impoverished people don’t buyproducts. Uneducated people don’t consti-tute a good workforce. Strong economiesproduce jobs that can enable the poor tobuild a better future ... Long-term eco-nomic self-interest requires attention to theneeds of others.

“If both economists and the world’s reli-gions agree that self-interest and theinterest of all are inseparably intertwined,what is the problem? The problem is fear,fear that morphs into hostility ...

“The opposite of fear is faith. Our dailylives are built on hundreds of large andsmall acts of faith. We have faith thatwhen we get on a plane, it will take us tothe scheduled destination; that when wesit in an office, we are safe; that the sunwill set tonight and rise tomorrow.

“What is at stake today is whether we willlive lives of fear or lives of faith. We live ina national and personal moment of truth.”

We all have much work to do.

p a ge 3F a l l 2 0 0 1

p a ge 4

In February 1994, Robert Kaplan wrotean article for the Atlantic Monthlyentitled “The Coming Anarchy.” That

essay presented a clear and telling depictionof how scarcity, crime, overpopulation, trib-alism, and disease were affecting theworld’s social fabric. The article impressedPresident Clinton, and the general acclaimhelped propel Kaplan into a book-lengthexpansion entitled The Ends of the Earth:A Journey to the Frontiers ofAnarchy (Atlantic Press,1996).

That book remains veryuseful reading. It is a bleakstory, in the main, but it con-tains knowledge we need toacquire if we’re to under-stand the world formed sincethe loss of the other super-power. Fortunately, as a fleckof copper within the graysand of the tale, there is astory late in the book that helps relieve thedespair. It tells of the Rishi Valley, nearBangalore in India. The valley’s commoncycle of poverty, degradation, and decline

was arrested through unusual attention tohusbanding local resources, restoring localhydrology, and educating the local commu-nity on the strengths and possibilities oftheir environment. The consequent trans-formation was remarkable and is serving asa model for restoration throughoutsouthern India.

There are many places in the world wheresuch a transformation would be welcome.

My wife and I lived inHaiti in 1985–1986, whileI was on loan from LosAlamos NationalLaboratory. In Haiti I wasstruck by the poverty—although poverty is notunique anywhere—and bythe ignorance, and stillmore by the bleak future ofan agrarian society wherethere is no soil. I alsobecame interested in the

unintentional effects the United States canhave on countries only briefly useful to us.

During those months in a remote corner ofHaiti, I learned a little about the environ-mental damage wrought by the UnitedStates in pursuit of natural rubber near theoutset of WWII. Then, as now, we weresecuring the materials required to sustainour national economy. But the native treeswe cleared for the cultivation of newrubber plantations were not replaced whenthe rubber trees we planted failed to grow.The subsequent decades of tropical rainfallonto dead stalks and rootless dirt took thetopsoil with the runoff. Haiti was then, andremains, an environmental and social dis-aster; a country mired in misery andunlikely to improve within our lifetimes.

With the history of U.S. intervention, andthen our departure with nary a backward

glance, Haiti resembles Afghanistan. Weonce supported both the people ofAfghanistan and those from elsewhere whorose in support of the Afghan opposition tothe Soviets. We armed and trained thosewe thought might serve as a bulwark for usin Central Asia, then we left them behindonce our own ends had been met. We’renow facing opponents in Afghanistan whoonce worked for us in that war, and thetraining we gave them created a formidablefoe.

Afghanistan echoes that spiral of povertyand decline I found in Haiti, but with theadded burdens of both war and civil strife.Understandably, many within Afghanistanare now worried about our response to theU.S. attacks. Tonight they are moving asquickly as possible out of our way, crossingborders in every direction. The UN HighCommissioner for Refugees estimates up toa million will flee into Pakistan, 400,000into Iran, and thousands more across thenorthern borders into Uzbekistan andTajikistan, all arriving before Thanksgiving.The needs of that mass of humanity pose agenuine threat to the security and stabilityof the surrounding nations, each of whichwas only marginally able to manage thebasics for it’s own citizens before thisonslaught. Wouldn’t it be useful to findourselves able to ease that refugee burdenand perhaps establish a foothold for a moresustainable society in those new camps?

However, before we make any decisions onthat sustainable society we need to knowmore about the young and the poor in thewastelands of that region. We need thisknowledge because violent young menhave come from there to us and expressedtheir views about our society. They havedone it with calculated and deliberatemalice against the innocent and unsus-

by Eric R asmussen, M D, F A C P

Sh a pin g O urResponse

OT H ER VOICES

Eric R asm ussen

Dr. Eric Rasmussen is a Navy physician, aninstructor in humanitarian medicine for theUnited Nations, a medical evaluator for tor-ture victims, and a Principal Investigator forboth DARPA (Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency) and the National ScienceFoundation. He has served in nuclear sub-marines, on aircraft carriers, on the groundin Bosnia and Africa, and as the FleetSurgeon for the U.S. Navy's Third Fleet. Hiscurrent focus is medical support to humani-tarian operations. The opinions expressedin this article are the author’s own and donot necessarily reflect those of theDepartment of the Navy or the Departmentof Defense.

Ref u gee C a m ps as a M odel forSust a in a ble Set tle m ent

p a ge 5F a l l 2 0 0 1

pecting. Almost 6000 died in a few hours,roughly equaling our Vietnam dead in all of1966. Nothing even remotely like this hasever happened in the West.

It now seems likely that Afghanistan is thegeographical source of the violence visitedupon us, although Al Qaeda cells in manycountries may share in the guilt.Afghanistan is a very unfortunate, thoughhardly surprising, location. Should theUnited States choose to take an equally vio-lent retribution there, it will be visitedupon a nation and a people already on theedge of the abyss.

Few of us know much about Afghanistan.Brief perspectives from the news fail to rec-ognize the depth, complexity, intensity, andsophistication of a culture so completelyoutside our ken. We may feel anger at theevents of 11 September, but for many of usit is tinged with a dispassionate respect foran enemy who can live unnoticed within adespised society for years while preparingfor a complex suicide. These men attackedthe most powerful nation in the worldusing blades designed to open cardboardboxes, succeeded in their attack to a degreealmost beyond imagining, shook social andeconomic foundations globally, and maywell have tipped the United States into afinancial recession. Current figures showthat in the week after the attack, morethan $1.4 trillion was lost from the world’sfinancial markets. This from a combinationof cardboard box-cutters and an unshakablewill.

That “will” is a critical component in theirsuccess, and much of it is developed withina very limited educational system in theworst of circumstances. We in the West areonly vaguely aware of Islamic schools. Formany men in Afghanistan (women areexcluded) those schools are now the onlysource of learning and advancement.Although the Taliban are not Afghan (andare viewed by many Afghans as unwel-come outsiders), they have forced on thenative Afghans conformation to an

extremist Islamic doctrine calledWahhabism. In the newly-establishedIslamic schools they teach the Wahhabi ver-sion of their faith, facets of which includethe demonizing of us and of Israel, and theadvocating of a self-sacrificing violence.Their doctrine and their opinions, in nosense excused, are shaped by the atrocitiesexchanged during the Soviet invasion ofAfghanistan, by the brutality of the subse-quent civil war, by the deaths ofPalestinians in Israel, and by their daily lifeof violence, illiteracy, isolation, deprivation,and insecurity bred by poverty. They havecontinued to struggle in the face of environ-mental devastation and ever-dwindlingresources having little but their faith to holdon to, and their belief system is deeper andmore pervasive than almost anything wecan understand.

To get a glimpse of the unfamiliar intensityand single-mindedness of fundamentalistIslam, remember the perhaps apocryphalstory concerning the burning of the Libraryat Alexandria in Egypt. Alexandria was then(around 640 AD) the largest repository ofpapyrus books and Classical learning theworld had ever known. Reportedly, thebesieging Caliph Umar said, “If the booksagree with the Koran they are superfluous.If they disagree, they are blasphemy. Burnit.” And 550,000 irreplaceable manuscriptswent up in smoke.

More than 1300 years later the Talibandecided that the very presence of ancientBuddhist sculpture within their sight wasan insult to Islam. The sculptures weredestroyed.

Such anecdotes may enlarge the separationwe draw between “us” and “them,” butthat is not my intent. We in the UnitedStates recently appeared to be embarked ona somewhat isolationist voyage ourselves,taking our own measure of global agree-ments that we thought might not be in thebest interests of the United States, andaccepting participation with the world onlyif we thought it to our purpose. That is now

altered significantly, and the GrandCoalition developing will probably forceour cooperation globally in ways not envis-aged on Inauguration Day 2001.

That change may be an opportunity. Ifwe’re now intending to cooperate withinternational partners toward commongoals, a few rational humanitariansworking in sustainable development couldhelp that new cooperation move forwardmore effectively. And we would start withrefugee camps. Thoughtful people withsome experience in sustainable develop-ment can now describe better ways todevelop a society, its communities, and itstools than we could ten years ago.

For transforming established communitieswe can learn from the successes inCuritiba, Brazil, detailed in NaturalCapitalism. For the development of a com-munity within challenging regions we havethe examples of Gaviotas and the RishiValley. In describing ZERI (Zero EmissionsResearch and Initiatives) we can demon-strate a superior method for efficient, sus-tainable, and profitable business practicesin a dozen places around the world.Within the projects coordinated throughRocky Mountain Institute we can showthirty successes that optimized each loca-tion for the people it contained. MichaelHawley at MIT established schools inCambodia that have stimulated even theyoungest pupils to learn. John Todd’sLiving Machines produce fresh water fromsewage. And, to help us understand whatit takes to succeed in a harsh and unfor-giving environment, we have JanineBenyus, unfolding the elegant and appro-priate engineering used by nature inBiomimicry (William Morrow &

Co, 1997).

There are other valuable people, many ofthem friends and colleagues, all willing andable to create something helpful out ofutter waste. We should recognize, though,

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 4

M ost Americans are only tooaware that their tax dollars sup-port a massive military machine.

The Department of Defense’s annual budgetis over $291 billion and rising. DOD hasthree million people, 36 million acres, over250 major installations, 40,000 additionalproperties, 550 public utility systems, over150,000 land vehicles, 22,000 aircraft, andover 300 ocean-going vessels.

But most of us don’t realize that despite a36 percent drop in total DOD energy useduring 1990–99, chiefly due to force reduc-tion, around $5+ billion of the militarybudget buys energy. Most of DOD’s five bil-lion gallons of annual petroleum use fuelsweapons platforms—land, sea, and air—that are manifestly inefficient. To add a littleirony, much of the fuel used by the militaryis exhausted moving fuel around. Of thegross tonnage moved when the Armydeploys, 70 percent is fuel.

Since it was founded, RMI has welcomedopportunities to work with and learn frommilitary professionals who pursue securitygoals by different means. RMI’s pioneering

work in the 1980s on nuclear nonprolifera-tion, domestic energy vulnerability, and“least-cost security,” attracted much atten-tion in military circles.

In recent years, RMI’s involvement with themilitary has expanded. In 1995, my brief toNaval leadership launched a series of collab-orations, which between 1995 and 1998saw RMI’s Green Development Serviceshelping the Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand (NAVFAC) overhaul how theNavy designs buildings. Nowadays, all bid-ders for NAVFAC contracts must be good atintegrative design. RMI has also supportedsimilar efforts for the Army in Texas andIllinois, the Marine Corps in NorthCarolina, and the Air Force in Colorado.

All of the Armed Services are variouslyadopting green design—not just to savemoney, but also to improve the quality ofservice life, which is critical to recruitment,retention, and operational effectiveness.And efficient buildings slow the conversionof tax dollars into climate change—perhapsthe gravest threat to global security.

In 1999, our technical work with the mili-

tary moved beyond buildings when I wasinvited to serve on an unclassified DefenseScience Board Task Force. It sought toascertain why the Defense Department isthe nation’s largest energy user (using onepercent of all energy in the United States)and probably the world’s largest oil buyer.Clearly, the Task Force would like to changethat ranking.

Most of the things we looked at were not,as the saying goes, rocket science. It wasn’thard to decide that 0.56-mpg tanks and 17-feet-per-gallon aircraft carriers are just asunnecessarily wasteful as civilian gas-guz-zlers. Through a hundred-odd briefings in ayear and a half, the Task Force found morethan a hundred effective fuel-saving tech-nologies. None would impair and mostwould improve what the DefenseDepartment is there for—warfighting capa-bility. Much, perhaps most, of DOD’s fuelcould be cost-effectively saved. That tech-

B attlin g Fuel Waste

B y A mory Lovins

in theMilit a ry

Aeria l re f u elin g o f a B -52bo m b er by a K C -10A.P hoto: U.S. Air Force

p a ge 6

SECURITY

nology assessment was the easy part. Theharder question was why a capable meritoc-racy with more wants than funds hadn’tachieved all the savings already.

The institutional reasons that trapped goodpeople inside a dysfunctional system werecomplex, but they were rooted in false pricesignals due to a lack of activity-based costing.When weapons platforms are designed andbought, their fuel is assumed to cost whatthe DOD-wide supplier, the Defense EnergySupply Center, charges as its average whole-sale price, fluctuating around a dollar pergallon (currently $1.34).

p a ge 7F a l l 2 0 0 1

Further Reading:

• Lovins, Amory B. and L. Hunter.

Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for

National Security. Includes a foreword

by President Reagan’s Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff and President

Carter’s Undersecretary of the Navy.

Andover, Mass.: Brick House, 1982.

Out of print; to be reposted at

www.rmi.org. Summarized in “The

Fragility of Domestic Energy,” Atlantic,

November 1983.

• “Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs,”

Foreign Affairs, 58:1136 (summer

1980), 59:172 (Fall 1980).

• Shuman, Mike, and Hal Harvey.

Security Without War. Boulder, Colo.:

Westview, 1993. A book credited with

contributing to Gorbachev’s revolution

in Soviet policy.

• The Defense Science Board’s report

More Capable Warfighting Through

Reduced Fuel Burden was released in

May 2001 by the Office of the

Undersecretary of Defense for

Acquisition and Technology,

Washington, D.C. 20301-3140. It was

summarized in Business Week, 3

September 2001.

However, the cost of delivering that fuel tothe platform is assumed to be zero.Logistics—moving stuff around—takesroughly a third of DOD’s budget and half itspersonnel. But when designing and buyingplatforms, logistics is considered free to theplatform that consumes the fuel. This prac-tice understates delivered fuel cost by afactor that I estimate to average at leastthree for DOD as a whole, and tens or hun-dreds in some particular cases.

The venerable B-52 bombers now beingflown by the children of their original pilotshave inefficient, low-bypass engines fromthe 1960s. Those could be refitted tomodern ones using a third less fuel toachieve up to half again as much range. Butthey haven’t been, because the fuel isthought to be cheap. And so it is, whendelivered in peacetime to a U.S. airbase,where delivery to the plane adds only about20 cents a gallon. But when the plane is onthe long-distance mission for which it wasbuilt, it typically needs midair refueling.That adds $17.50 a gallon, not counting the$9-billion cost of at least 55 tankers the AirForce would need to replace. Thus the AirForce in FY1999 paid $1.8 billion for twobillion gallons of fuel, but delivering thatfuel into the aircraft added another $2.6 bil-lion, so the actual delivered fuel bill was$4.4 billion: the Air Force spent 84 percentof its fuel-delivery cost on the 6 percent ofits gallons that were delivered in midair. Ifyou count that delivery cost, re-engining theB-52s has a quick payback—all the more sobecause it typically makes midair refuelingunnecessary!

The Army’s formidable half-mile-a-gallonM1A2 tanks are powered by inefficient1960s-design gas turbines that yield 1500horsepower to make 68 tons dash around abattlefield at 30 mph (42 on the road). Theydo that pretty well. But 60- to 80-odd per-cent of the time, that huge turbine is idlingat one percent efficiency to run a 5-kilowatt“hotel load,” mostly air conditioning andelectronics. Most civilian vehicles would usea small auxiliary power unit to serve suchtiny, steady loads efficiently. Tanks don’t,

because their fuel was assumed to costabout a buck a gallon. But to keep up with arapidly advancing armored unit on the bat-tlefield, cargo helicopters may have toleapfrog big bladders of fuel hundreds ofkilometers into theater, using much of thefuel to do so. The delivery cost can then riseto $400–600 a gallon—yet it was assumedto be zero. If the designers had known thereal delivery cost, they’d have designed thetanks very differently.

Fuel-wasting design doesn’t just cost money;it inhibits warfighting. Each tank is trailedby lumbering fuel tankers. An armored divi-sion may use as much as 20, perhaps even40, times as many daily tons of fuel as itdoes of munitions—around 600,000 gallonsa day. Of the unit’s top ten battlefield fuelguzzlers, only Abrams tanks (#5) andApache helicopters (#10) are combat vehi-cles. Several of the rest carry fuel. This takesa lot of equipment and people. The Armydirectly uses about $0.2 billion dollars’worth of fuel a year, but pays about 16times as much, $3.2 billion a year, just tomaintain 20,000 active and 40,000 reservepersonnel to move that fuel. And unar-mored fuel carriers are vulnerable. Attackson rear logistics assets can make a fuel-hungry combat system grind to a halt. Yetthe warfighting benefits of fuel economy—in deployability, agility, range, speed, relia-bility, and maneuverability—are as invisibleas the fuel delivery cost.

Today’s armored forces were designed toface Russian T-72s across the North Germanplain. Nowadays, however, their missionsdemand mobility. Only one 68-ton tank fitsinto the heaviest U.S. lift aircraft, so deploy-ment is painfully slow, and when the tankarrives in, say, the Balkans, it breaks bridgesand gets stuck in the mud. Army Researchhas a better idea—an innovative 7–10-tonversion that uses about 87 percent less fuel,yet is said to be as lethal as current modelsand no more vulnerable. (The Army figuressuch redesign could save about 20,000 per-sonnel—plus their equipment and their own

c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t p a g e

logistical pyramid—needed to deliver fuel intheater and nearby, plus more to get it there:

in sum, billions of dollars a year.)

A little-known 1982 Army experiment sug-gests the potential value of even more radicallightweighting, possibly to a 0.7-ton version.When 30 tanks were set against 30 Bajadunebuggies armed with precision-guidedmunitions, the prompt result was 27 deadtanks (21 completely immobilized) and threedead dunebuggies. That exercise was donein desert, not forest or city, and not underchemical warfare conditions, but it’s stillenlightening. With different tactics, light andeven ultralight forces may be more militarilyeffective than familiar heavy ones.

Recent tactical experience, from Iraq toSomalia, suggests that the Joint Chiefs’ newdoctrine emphasizing light, mobile, agile,flexible, and easily-sustained forces is vital tomodern warfighting. Yet it’s very far frommost of the forces now fielded. Heavy-metaltradition dies hard, and porkbarrel politicsimpedes fundamental military reform.

Other policies inhibit capability as well.When I visited the Navy’s newest nuclearaircraft carrier, I was startled to find that itsdesign had been frozen 23 years earlier dueto the cumbersome procurement process.That’s a disadvantage of over 40,000-foldagainst electronic equipment that’s subject toMoore’s Law and bought at Radio Shack.Wargames suggest that an adversary with afew billion dollars’ worth of up-to-date over-the-counter hardware could even beat theUnited States, which has excellent warriorsbut often outmoded equipment.

A sweeping revolution in military affairs isunderway. The Defense Department is tryingto jettison or bypass its antiquated procure-ment methods and buy commercial off-the-shelf equipment wherever possible—it’susually far more modern and capable, butmuch cheaper and often durable enough.Similarly, DOD is asking why it takes sixmonths to plan a divisional deployment

p a ge 8

F r o m P r e v i o u s P a g e

W anderingaroundsome

Navy ships, I noticedthat many designdetails were as ineffi-cient as those incivilian buildings andequipment. Inefficientpumps fought againstthrottling valves; over-sized motors andchillers ran subopti-mally; operators lackedproper readouts andcontrols. How muchenergy, I wondered, is

thereby wasted? Might the Navy unknowingly have energy-saving opportunities at leastas big in its ships as RMI was finding in Navy buildings?

Calculations in the Defense Science Board Task Force confirmed that nearly a third ofthe Navy’s nonaviation fuel goes to “hotel loads”—not to propulsion, radars, weaponssystems, or aircraft-launching catapults, but to mundane pumps, fans, chillers, andlights. And based on some casual observations, much, perhaps most, of their energyseemed to be wasted.

To be sure, the Navy has different design imperatives than civilian architects: ships mustgo far and fast through all the world’s climates, project power, protect crews, and fightthrough gales and missile strikes. Being shot at demands serious redundancy and specialoperational methods. Cramped space often makes pipes and ducts small and twisting,especially when whichever get installed second must snake around whichever gotinstalled first. Nonetheless, there seemed much room for improvement, even though theNavy had already led all the Services in energy savings—partly by letting skippers keepfor their own ships’ needs half the fuel dollars they saved.

I discussed this hypothesis with Vice Admiral Denny McGinn, the dynamic Commanderof Third Fleet (now Deputy Chief of Naval Operations) whom I had met a decade earlierwhile lecturing at the Naval War College. We liked the idea of an experiment: let’s justgo measure how a ship works and see how much energy we can save. The Admiralnominated as a testbed his own command ship, USS Coronado, but that convertedamphibious support vessel was too atypical. A typical surface combatant was soonchosen instead—USS Princeton, a 9,600-ton, 567-foot, billion-dollar Aegis cruiser home-ported in San Diego. With support from Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, the Office ofNaval Research gave RMI a $50,000 grant to go see what energy-saving potential wecould find. The Naval Sea Systems Command’s able engineers had estimated that 19percent could be saved on ships of this class, of which Princeton was in the top onefourth for efficiency.

All Energy Experts on D eck!by Amory B. Lovins

USS Prince ton

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 8 c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t p a g e

M ILITARY E N ERGY ▼

p a ge 9F a l l 2 0 0 1

RMI’s Chris Lotspeich and three of RMI’s consulting engi-neers—Ron Perkins and Ned Orrett (both ex-Navy men) andJim Rogers—did two “floats” aboard Princeton to observe,study, measure, and learn about hotel loads from the officersand crew. Our preliminary survey found gratifyingly largepotential savings: perhaps, if found feasible, as much as severaltimes NAVSEA’s expectations.

Princeton uses nearly $6 million worth of diesel-like turbinefuel each year. Her gas turbines, akin to those on an older pas-senger jet aircraft, use about $2–3 million worth of oil to makeup to 2.5 megawatts of electricity, the rest for 80,000 horse-power of propulsion. The RMI team found that retrofittingmotors, pumps, fans, chillers, lights, and potable water systemscould save an estimated 20–50 percent of the ship’s electricity.That could cut total fuel use by an estimated 10–25 percent—perhaps even 50–75 percent if combined with other potentialimprovements we sketched for propulsion and electric genera-tion. (However, if the electricity-generating gas turbinesweren’t run differently, even heroic electricity savings wouldsave little fuel, because they’d be offset by even less efficientoperation of the underloaded turbines.)

Just as in civilian facilities ashore, the RMI team started by cal-culating what it’s worth to save a kilowatt-hour. Since the elec-tricity is being made inefficiently from fuel that’s mainlydelivered by “oiler” ships, the answer is an eye-popping 27cents, six times a typical industrial tariff ashore. This high costmakes “negawatts” really juicy. For example, each percentagepoint of improved efficiency in a single 100-horsepoweralways-on motor is worth $1,000 a year. Each chiller could beimproved to save its own capital cost’s worth of electricity(about $120,000) every eight months. About $400,000 a yearcould be saved if—under noncritical, low-threat conditions—certain backup systems were set to come on automatically when neededrather than running all the time. Half that saving could come just from two 125-horsepower firepumps that currently pump seawatercontinuously aboard, around the ship, and back overboard. In a critical civilian facility like a refinery, where one wanted to be equallycertain the firefighting water was always ready, one would instead pressurize the pipes (usually with freshwater) with a 2-hp pump, andrig the main pumps to spring into action the instant the pressure dropped.

Princeton’s total electricity-saving potential could probably cut her energy costs by nearly $1 million a year, or about $10 million inpresent value, while improving her warfighting capability. (A ship that burns less fuel can go farther and faster between refuelings, andemits less conspicuous signatures to announce her presence.) The Navy has 27 ships of this class, 317 in total (surface and submarines,fossil- and nuclear-fueled), most with analogous designs and operations. RMI has invited the Navy to tear our conclusions apart, and, ifthey find them useful, consider implementing them just as aggressively as, in the second half of the ’90s, they adopted RMI’s recommen-dations for green building design.

Maybe those who seek offshore oil resources beneath fragile seabeds are drilling in the wrong place—under the ocean rather than atopit. Aboard the U.S. Navy’s ships, it seems, are rich reserves of “negabarrels.” Exploiting them will save hard-earned tax dollars, reducepollution, and improve our nation’s security and prosperity. You might call this approach applied patriotism.

All Energy Experts on D eck!f r o m p r e v i o u s p a g e

A bove: Th e view f ro m USS Prince ton as sh e p ulls over af u el lin e to t a ke on h u n dre ds o f t housa n ds o f doll a rs’wor t h o f f u el f ro m a n oiler. O n t h e f a r sid e o f t h e oiler,a not h er cruiser is f u ele d si m ult a n eously. P hoto: C hrisLotsp eich.

p a ge 10

value in such sensitive industries as datastorage, semiconductor manufacturing, andmany conventional industries as well.(Although the digital economy is drivingdemand for increased power reliability, thisgrowth does not translate into increases inthe amount of electricity needed, as a coal-industry disinformation campaign had ledmany to believe.)

Finally, fuel cells are among the cleanest DGtechnologies, and their environmental bene-fits allow them to be sited very flexibly. Thissiting flexibility makes it more feasible tocapture other DG benefits, such as premiumreliability and distribution cost savings,which depend on the proper siting of DGsources in relation to customer demand.Thus, promising near-term applications arein emission-limited areas where there are

T he recent electricity crisis inCalifornia has focused attentionon the option of generating elec-

tricity from small, decentralized sources, col-lectively known as distributed generation(DG). The changing structure of the electricindustry and the continuing development ofnew technology have also made DG optionsmore attractive. One promising DG option isthe fuel cell, which converts fuel to elec-tricity at high efficiency without combustionand with negligible emissions. Several dif-ferent fuel cell technologies are under devel-opment and commercialization for variousstationary and vehicular applications.

Market conditions in the electricity industryare changing in favor of DG technologiessuch as fuel cells. Strict environmental con-straints on power production are inevitable,as electric generation produces a large shareof local and global pollution. The restruc-turing of the industry is causing power mar-kets to diverge into two groups ofcustomers, those who demand a low-costcommodity and those who demand electricservice with a high level of reliability. Theemergence of the digital economy is drivingthe demand for premium-reliability power,and many customers are willing to pay forit. But they can’t get premium power from acentral power plant because the grid inbetween is too unreliable.

New DG technology is making it more fea-sible and less expensive to produce powernear the customer. Also, new technologiesfor controlling, switching, and storingenergy are enabling the transition to DG byimproving efficiency and reliability. Fallingcosts of fuel cells will make them increas-ingly competitive with conventional powersources. In fact, careful study of the eco-

nomics of powerdelivery suggeststhat cost-effectiveapplicationsalready exist.These early mar-kets can lead tocommercializa-tion paths thatwill bring fuelcells into main-stream use inbuildings andvehicles.

The main benefitsof such DG tech-nologies as fuelcells can bedivided into fivecategories.

First, small scaleand modularityprovide added value by offering the abilityto put in place as little or as much gener-ating capacity as needed, but no more. Thevalue derived from this increased flexibility,called option value, is based on shorter leadtime and decreased risk of overbuilding,which reduce financial cost and risk.

Second, DG sources can provide substantialcost savings if they are sited where (andwhen) they can prevent or defer pendinginvestments in utility distribution capacity.

The third, and related, benefit is engineeringcost savings from reduced losses, improvedvoltage stability and power factors, andlonger equipment life.

Fourth, by providing an independent powersource near the customer, DG can improvethe reliability of electric service to customerswhere the reliability of power is critical.Premium reliability can have a very high

Cle a ner Energy,Greener Pro fi ts

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 2

DISTRIBUTE D GE N ERATIO N

Fuel Cells as Cost -E f fective Distributed Energy ResourcesB y Joel S wisher

Id atech e m ployees d iscuss d esig n o f a m et h a nol f u elp rocessor d evelop e d for a resid en tia l-siz e d f u el cellsyste m . Th e fi n a l p rod uct, a washin g - m a chin e -siz e d u nit,will p rod uce t hree to four k ilowat ts o f cle a n en erg y. P hoto:cour tesy o f Id a Tech

p a ge 11F a l l 2 0 0 1

B uoyed by a supportive WhiteHouse, growing climate concerns,temporarily high gas prices, and

California’s electricity mess, the nuclearindustry is running an all-out public relationscampaign to resuscitate its product. It ignoresone crucial fact: nuclear power already diedof an incurable attack of market forces. AsThe Economist recently concluded, oncetouted as “too cheap to meter,” nuclear nowlooks “too costly to matter.”

Overwhelmed by huge construction andrepair costs around the world, nuclear plantsended up achieving less than 10 percent ofthe capacity and one percent of the neworders (all from countries with centrallyplanned energy systems) officially forecast aquarter-century ago. The industry has suf-fered the greatest collapse of any enterprisein industrial history.

RMI’s primary objection to nuclear is itsfailure to pass the market test. But it is trou-bling that thenuclear industry isstill dismissinglegitimate publicconcerns about therisks of a tech-nology so unfor-giving that, asNobel physicist Hannes Alfvén wrote, “Noacts of God can be permitted.” Each nuclearplant, through accident or malice, couldrelease enough radioactivity to threaten acontinent. The industry correctly claims thatthis is extremely unlikely, while many citi-zens equally correctly point out that it hashappened, and that it can happen again. Butlet’s take the industry at its word. If nuclearpower plants are so safe, then why would theindustry build and run them only if the fed-eral government passed a law (the Price-Anderson Act) limiting liability in majoraccidents? Why should the nuclear industryenjoy a liability cap that reduces its incentivefor safety, distorts choices with a vast subsidy,and is unavailable to any other industry?Shouldn’t nuclear operators self-insure andput their money where their mouths are, orbuy insurance at market prices like everyone

else? The exemptionlaw’s expiration in2002 presents anawkward dilemma foradvocates of bothnuclear power andfree markets.

Citizen opponents arealso correct that scien-tists still haven’tdeveloped reliableways to isolatenuclear wastes anddecommission plants,which remain danger-ously radioactive forfar longer than soci-eties last or geologicalforesight extends.And as we wrote in the summer 1980Foreign Affairs (“Nuclear Power and NuclearBombs”), nuclear power’s gravest risk is thatpower plants provide ingredients and inno-

cent-seeming civilian cover for the develop-ment of nuclear bombs, as was the case inIndia and elsewhere. However, after decades’proof that reprocessing nuclear fuel — whichseparates out vast amounts of pure bombmaterials — is also unprofitable, unnecessary,and a complication to nuclear waste manage-ment, the White House has recently pro-posed to revive it.

But RMI’s approach has always been that ifnuclear power is uneconomic, we need notargue about whether it is safe. “If a thing isnot worth doing,” said economist JohnMaynard Keynes, “it is not worth doingwell.” Leaving aside bomb-spreading, wastes,sabotage, and uninsurable accidents, nuclearpower is simply uncompetitive and unneces-sary. After a trillion-dollar taxpayer invest-ment, it delivers little more U.S. energy thanwood. Globally, it produces severalfold less

energy than renewable sources. The marketprefers other options. In the 1990s, globalnuclear capacity rose by one percent a year,versus 17 percent for solar cells (24 percent

last year) and 24 percent for windpower.Indeed, worldwide, windpower has latelyadded about 5,000 megawatts a year, ascompared with the 3,100 newmegawatts nuclear power averaged annu-ally in the 1990s. The decentralized gen-erators California added in the 1990s

have more capacity than its two giant nuclearplants—whose debts triggered the restruc-turing that created that state’s current utilitymess.

Enthusiasts claim new-style reactors mightdeliver a kilowatt-hour to your meter for fivecents, vs. 10–15 cents for post-1980 nuclearplants worldwide. (Of that 10–15 cents,nearly three cents pays for delivery, abouttwo cents for running the plant, and the restfor its construction and for occasional majorrepairs.) But on the same accounting basis,superefficient gas plants or windfarms costonly 5–6 cents per kilowatt-hour, cogenera-tion of heat and power often 1–5 cents, andefficient lights, motors, and other electricity-saving devices under two cents, often undera penny. Cogeneration and efficiency are

GO N E FISSIO N?

B y L. H unter Lovins and A mory B. Lovins

PERSPECTIVES

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 2

p a ge 12

STRATEGIC IN FLUE N CE

T he world has experienced signifi-cant developments since itsleaders last gathered for an Earth

Summit in Rio. There has been progresstowards the goals, and yet in many waysthe situation has become worse ratherthan better. More than ever, an urgentneed remains for both comprehen-sion and action.

T H E BIGGESTC H ALLE NGE: LOSS OFEC OSYSTE M SERVICES

Perhaps foremost, there is no longerany serious scientific disagreement thatevery known ecosystem on the planet is introuble. “There are considerable signs thatthe capacity of ecosystems, the biologicalengines of the planet, to produce many ofthe goods and services we depend on israpidly declining,” states a report preparedby the UN, the World Bank, and the WorldResources Institute. According to thereport, half the world’s wetlands havebeen lost in the past century, half of theworld’s forests have been cut down, 70percent of the world’s major marine fish-eries have been depleted, and all of theworld’s coral reefs are at risk.

There is a growing realization that theenvironmental problem is not so much apolluted river here or a release of a partic-ular toxin there, but the worldwide loss ofecosystem services, the natural capital thatenables the planet to sustain life. Theprocesses that cycle nutrients and water,regulate the atmosphere and climate, pro-vide pollination and biodiversity, rebuildtopsoil and biological productivity, controlpests and diseases, and assimilate anddetoxify society’s wastes are supplied bysuch ecosystems as estuaries, coral reefs,forests, grasslands, oceans, etc. The freeand automatic services from these ecosys-tems provide tens of trillions of dollars ofworth each year—more than the global

economy. But their value is nowherereflected on anyone’s balance sheets. Theirloss is dooming many species, but isignored in reports from Wall Street.

The cost of destroying ecosystem servicescan be staggering. In China’s Yangtze basinin 1998, for example, upstream deforesta-

tion triggered flooding that killed 3,700people, dislocated 223 million, and inun-dated 60 million acres of cropland. That$30 billion disaster forced a logging mora-torium and a $12 billion crash program ofreforestation.

T H E N E X T IN DUSTRIALREVOLUTIO N

At the same time, we stand on thethreshold of changes almost unimaginableto us, a historic shift between all that hashappened since the first industrial revolu-tion and the next industrial revolution.Why now? Perhaps because of the gravityof the situation. Abba Eban once said,“People and nations behave wisely—oncethey have exhausted all other alterna-tives.” But fundamental economic shiftsare also underway. The first industrial revo-lution grew out of conditions in which thescarcity of skilled labor was limiting mate-rial progress. All of our institutions today,from tax codes to mental models, derivefrom an attempt to penalize the use ofpeople and encourage and even subsidizethe use of natural resources to increaselabor productivity. Businesspeopleresponded to the incentives in front ofthem and helped to create the present eco-nomic and environmental conditions.

Now, when 10,000 more people arrive onearth every hour, what is scarce is not

people. Today more people are chasingafter fewer jobs and natural resources. Thelimits to economic growth are coming to beset by scarcities of natural capital, not bythe scarcity of human labor that character-ized the first industrial revolution.

Business is the cause of most environ-mental challenges, but it is also theonly institution left on the planetlarge enough, well managedenough, and resourceful enough tosolve the problems facing us.Increasing resource productivity, at

the same time, has the potential to solvemost of the environmental challenges thatthe world’s nations must address.Companies like Interface—which has madea fundamental commitment to sustain-ability and now makes 27 percent of itsoperating profits from eliminating waste—have demonstrated the success of theseconcepts. There are other corporateleaders, too, and their exemplary roles areencouraging.

FIVE AC HIEVE M E N TS

SIN CE RIO

1. The Rise of Corporate SocialResponsibility

Increasingly, major corporations are real-izing that to retain credibility they mustmake clear to their customers that theyhave made a commitment to environ-mental responsibility and that they intendto live by this commitment. This is a signifi-cant enough trend that the Dow JonesSustainability Group Index now tracks theperformance of the top 10 percent of theleading sustainability-driven companies inthe 2,000-company Global Index.

2. The Rise of Civil Society

At the same time that corporate efforts topromote sustainability are increasing, civilsociety is gaining in strength and capability.North America and Europe have long had a

B y L. H unter Lovins and Walter Link

Insur m ount a bleO p portunities?

STEPS A N D BARRIERS TOIM PLE M E N TING

SUSTAIN ABLE D EVELO P M E N T

p a ge 13F a l l 2 0 0 1

vibrant civil society, but the past decadehas seen a dramatic increase around theworld in the number of groups addressingthe challenges of sustainability. Also, con-sumers are increasingly voting with theirdollars, favoring companies that they per-ceive are socially and environmentallyresponsible.

3. The Advent of Socially ResponsibleInvesting

Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) pre-dates Rio, but since Rio, the SRI movementhas matured to the extent that a 1999study by the Social Investment Forum esti-mated that well over two trillion dollars isinvested in the United States alone usingsome social criteria. A 1999 report onresponsible investing in the United Statesreported that one out of every eight dollarsunder professional management was part ofa socially responsible portfolio.

4. The Creation of Standards and NewForms of Measurement

The gross domestic product, or GDP, thetraditional measure of financial activity, iswidely acknowledged to be useless formeasuring whether society is better off.The GDP operates like a business incomestatement that adds expenses to incomeinstead of subtracting them.

Several new indices are now used tomeasure the quantity of products and serv-ices consumed and assess progress towardsustainability.

5. NGO, Business, and GovernmentCoalitions

The complex nature of the issues of sus-tainability means that no one set of expertshas a monopoly on solutions, or the abilityto impose them. Coalitions of government,businesses and non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) are arising to work togetherto design and implement solutions that aremore sustainable and more appropriate totheir circumstances.

FIVE C H ALLE NGES A N DSOLUTIO N S

1. Restructure the World’s Economiesfrom Devastating to Sustainable

The accomplishments listed above aresources of hope, but are only tentativesteps towards creating a sustainable world.The hard truth is that even companies mostdedicated to the ideals of sustainability arestill polluting, and struggle to make a profitin an economic system that is predicatedon logic that makes the present systemunsustainable.

At the most fundamental level, the wholesystem within which decisions are madeneeds to be restructured so that theinevitable logic of the system leads to sus-tainability, not away from it.

Overcoming these formidable challengeswill require the following actions:

a. Clear statements by world leaders recog-nizing we are in a crisis;

b. A restructuring of regulations at all levelsof government to help reorient the naturalflow of economies in such a way that sus-tainability becomes the outcome inherentto the new system;

c. A new approach to problems and solu-tions from a whole systems perspective;and

d. A serious commitment by governmentsto identify and overcome barriers andresistance to change.

2. Near Certainty of Climate Problemsand Water Shortages

There is now indisputable evidence ofglobal warming, but there seems to be aparalysis among some nations preventing

them from adopting meaningful solutions.Climate will become less stable for at leastthe next few decades, probably at anincreasing rate. This will mean unprece-dented floods, droughts, more frequent andsevere storms, major insurance losses, localand regional famines, the spread of seriousdiseases to new areas, and more politicalinstability and refugees.

Climate change has resulted largely fromusing energy in ways that are economicallyinefficient. It is a problem that we needn’thave and that it’s cheaper not to have,because saving fuel costs less than buyingit. As a result, the private sector is con-tributing the most to reversing theproblem. Private-sector leadership is drivenas much by direct profitability as by climateconcerns. By 2010, the world’s sixth-biggest chipmaker (STMicroelectronics)aims to emit zero net carbon dioxide andequivalent gases, while DuPont intends toemit 65 percent less than it did in 1990—all in the name of increasing shareholdervalue.

3. Environmentally Caused Spread ofDisease, Human and AnimalEpidemics, and Other Health problems

A combination of factors—from climatechange and increased globalization tomodern agricultural and industrial prac-tices—has made it essentially inevitablethat there will be a continuing series of epi-demics and affronts to health. For example,climate change is allowing diseases and par-asites long thought confined to the South,such as the West Nile Virus, to migratenorth.

Synthetic substances and diseases thatdegrade the fertility and immune compe-tence of the population are of special con-cern, as pathogens, co-evolving under theselective pressure of ubiquitous antibiotics,increase their predation on dense humanmonocultures.

Chemists and designers have plenty oftalent to invent these improvements if

Editor's note: This article is a condensed

excerpt from Hunter Lovins's and Walter

Link's recent paper “Insurmountable

Opportunities.” The paper was written at the

invitation of the United Nations in prepara-

tion for 2002’s Rio+10 Global Summit on

sustainable development in Johannesburg,

South Africa. Lovins and Link were part of a

25-person expert group to contribute to the

agenda-building process. The full text is avail-

able at www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid178.php.

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 3

p a ge 14

other crops. Bulmers pro-duces some 10,000 tonnesof apple tree prunings eachyear, which are currentlyburned as waste. GunterPauli, a Belgian entrepre-neur, Director of ZERI (ZeroEmissions Research andInitiatives) and RMI networkmember, explained toDuncan and his colleaguesthat these prunings can beused as an agricultural sub-strate, and could, dependingon the crop, yield (out camethe calculator and pencil—click-click, scratch-scratch)… £10 to £20 million(wholesale) worth of otheragricultural products.

“That wholesale value isactually larger than the valueof the apples we grew on thetrees in the first place,”Duncan said during the char-rette, which was held in aHereford restaurant/confer-

ence center on the banks of the River Wye.Duncan liked these numbers. Everyoneliked these numbers. And nearly everyoneat the event sank into deep thought aboutagricultural products that didn’t look any-thing like your typical apple. In theirvisions fruits, vegetables, nuts and grainsbegan growing under apple trees alongHerefordshire’s backroads; tubers, legumes,fibers and fungi were being sold in thetown market through a Hereford Farmers’Cooperative; and “Hereford’s Best” becamea world-recognized agricultural brand. Bythe end of the charrette, Bulmers’Marketing Department even planned the

appointment of a Marketing Manager fornon-apple products.

The concept of converting apple tree clip-pings from a costly waste—collected,burned, and sent into the atmosphere as apollutant—into a revenue generator (otherfoodstuffs) that would likely outpace theoriginal product was just one of many real-izations that Bulmers employees and man-agers had during a four-day sustainabilitycharrette convened by RMI.

RMI leads several major charrettes annu-ally, but the Bulmers charrette (titled“Building a Sustainable Herefordshire”) wasone of the Institute’s most important jobs todate. Most companies that host charrettestarget specific aspects of the company: indi-vidual buildings or products or equipmentor process areas. For Bulmers, RMI waslooking at sustainability throughout theentire firm. It was a top-down rethinking ofthe entire corporate culture—a watershedmoment for Bulmers and for the commu-nity of Hereford, England. This charrettewas also something of a watershed eventfor RMI, as it was our first whole-systems-oriented charrette.

RMI’s role with Bulmers was one of sup-porting and steering an obviously deep-seated company desire to become“sustainable.” Bulmers’ Charlie Bower,whom RMI’s Amory Lovins calls “the mosteffective corporate change agent I knowanywhere” had somehow gotten it into hishead that Bulmers should become a corpo-rate name indelibly linked to the goals andqualities of sustainable business.

More specifically, Charlie’s goal is to makeBulmers the leading sustainable producer ofbeverage raw materials in Europe, and thecatalyzing agent in Herefordshire’s emer-

D uncan Green doesn’t haveepiphanies every day. In his posi-tion overseeing much of the pro-

cessing operations for HP Bulmer Ltd. (akaBulmers), the top English hard cidermaker,he sees a lot of things that he might do dif-ferently. But during a late-May sustain-ability charrette (an intense design andstrategic planning workshop) in which theentire firm re-examined its operations, hehad a major revelation.

Duncan’s epiphany came after he learnedabout agricultural symbiosis. More specifi-cally, Duncan, an apple man, learned thatcertain crops grow well on the waste from

Ch a n gin g the World—a n Ap ple a D ay

by C a meron M. B urns

R MI C O N SULTING

En glish Cider m a ker Aims for Lo f ty Ide al

Le f t to rig h t: R M I’s A m ory Lovins wit hPe ter S avid ge, Director o f H ol m e L a cyColle ge; Ia n Kirk hop e, B ul m ers’s Grou pO p erations D irector; Esm on d B ul m er, aFou n d er a n d Trustee o f t h e B ul m erFou n d ation a n d for m er C h a ir m a n o fB ul m ers. Th e River Wye, on e o f B ul m ers’m a ny co m m u nity concerns, is b ehin d.P hoto: C a m eron M . B urns

p a ge 15F a l l 2 0 0 1

gence as a model sustainable, rural-basedcommunity.

All these goals had been previewed at thecompany’s last annual general meeting. Asthe now-famous story goes, Bulmers’ CEOwas waxing poetic how the firm aimed tokeep on earning big returns for share-holders, but surely there was more to itthan that. Why, he asked, are we in busi-ness? Whereupon a cheeky entertainer gotup and amplified the message: “Saying thepurpose of a business is to earn returns forshareholders is like saying the purpose oflife is breathing.” He then breathed at theaudience for a minute or two—and added,“A bit boring, isn’t it?” Whereupon theCEO announced that as Bulmers strove tobecome a leader in sustainable business forfun and profit, everyone would be offeredexpanding opportunities to make theirlives, their communities, and the worldbetter. The response at all levels has beenenthusiastic.

The company has established objectives ofa 75 percent reduction in the environ-mental impact of transport by 2002; zerowaste emissions from Bulmers, Herefordby 2003; and a 75 percent reduction inenergy consumption by 2005. In late May2001, Bulmers, RMI and our project part-ners rolled up our collective sleeves andgot down to work.

STARTING OUT RIGH T

HP Bulmer & Co. was founded in 1889 bybrothers Percy and Fred Bulmer, who weregeniuses in their respective areas: Percy inperry (from pears) and cider productionand factory organization, and Fred(whether he liked it or not) in selling.

Percy and Fred weren’t just good atmaking cider and perry. They were experi-menters. They tried various machines intheir plants. They examined every knownand imaginable method for producingdrinks. Percy sailed to the Continent regu-larly to examine things as diverse as cham-pagne manufacturing techniques, bottlingtechniques, and sugar beet processing—all

of which would become “the foundationof the firm’s ultimate supremacy,” as L.P.Wilkinson wrote in Bulmers of Hereford.

They were also socially conscious men,with a keen awareness of the communityand their place in it. Fred was instru-mental in the creation of the National

Association ofEnglishCidermakersand was heavilyinvolved in edu-cation, health-care, women’srights issues,housing, andlaw and order.He helped start

programs for affordable worker housing;he helped found several schools; he foughtto raise the minimum wage; he was evenknown to visit sick employees whilestrolling around town.

Innovative, daring, willing to experimentand fail, willing to apply new techniques,and ultimately willing to offer help tothose around them, from other cider man-ufacturers to employees and neighbors—the company was different because Percyand Fred were different. Cidermakingmight’ve have been their business, butthat was just the economic engine thatpowered a raft of other activities.

More than a century later, the world is avery different place. Certainly the social illsthat were Fred’s great concerns still exist,but they are just one of many problemshumans on an overused planet are facing.Worldwide, natural capital is now indecline and international solutions are crit-ical. In rural Hereford, they include theloss of agricultural land for family farming,increased presence of pesticides in naturalecosystems, a community that is increas-ingly moving away from family farming(largely because the rising generation haslittle interest in agriculture), increasinglycongested highways, a declining riverecosystem, and to add insult to injury this

year, millions of animals slaughtered tostop Foot-and-Mouth disease.

Charlie Bower isn’t the only one awarethat the great heyday of Percy and Fred isgone. Esmond Bulmer, Percy’s grandson,and Hugo Bulmer, Percy’s great-grandson,agree. They know Bulmers can and prob-ably should try to regain that high commu-nity mantel on which their ancestors sat.They also know that such community nur-turing is just one facet of a responsible21st century corporation, and have beenexploring ideas and strategies with Forumfor the Future (a U.K.-based nonprofit con-sultancy similar to RMI), BreakthroughTechnologies, and the Bulmer Foundation.

Bulmers’ sustainability charrette, facilitatedby Rocky Mountain Institute, wasdesigned to draw out ideas for sustain-ability activities in eight areas of the com-pany’s operations and to assess whichmeasures offered the most significantadvantages in social, environmental, andeconomic terms.

RIDING T H E PLU M BING RA NGE

In one of his previous incarnations, RMI’sAmory Lovins was probably a plumber, acowboy of pipes, pumps and valves.Although today he might be an interna-tionally recognized energy expert andleader of an efficiency revolution, he’s stilla plumber at heart. And when he ridesinto town, poorly-designed and badly-sitedpipes, pumps, valves and processingmachinery of all shapes and sizes hadbetter look out.

Amory was at his plunger-slinging best atBulmers’ processing plant, during a tourthe day before the charrette. In its mostbasic essence, cidermaking really is aboutthe ebb and flow of liquids and semi-solids.After apples are grown, they are milledand pressed for juice. This used to be donewith flat, round millstones, but today isperformed by large metal machines thatlook remarkably like oversized washing

c o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 2 6

C h a rlie Bower

p a ge 16

ASK RO C KY

investments: lower SO2, less crop and fish-eries damage, reduced mortality from par-ticulates, greater economic efficiency, moremoney kept in your own community, lowerinterest rates, a cleaner city (Christchurchcould use cleaner air), corporate profits,lower bills, a better chance to distribute thebenefits of clean technology to the threebillion of us without access to power andpotable water, reduced need for nuclearpower (as if there’s a need for it anyway),etc.

The radiative changes we have added andwill continue to add to the atmosphereappear indisputable to me. I would be verysurprised indeed if stirring such a complexpot would not yield, as Paul Hawken putsit, “global weirding.” A record cold winterin New Zealand seems perfectly in linewith expecting change to be all over themap. It is, after all, the surprising surprisesfor which we cannot prepare that will bethe most interesting, not to say damaging.

Thanks again, Ken.

Cheers, Rick

P.S. Let me know if you spot any nudekings.

P.P.S. You can download NAS/NRC’s“Climate Change Science: An Analysis ofSome Key Questions” (the report requestedby the White House in May 2001) athttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html.

OF C HIC KE N S A N D KINGS

Dear (All) Rockies,

Natural capitalism and the “Soft Path”approach to energy provide a realistic wayof combining our natural desire to enjoylife with maintaining the resources on ourhabitat. This approach was sternlyendorsed in your article on Kyoto in thesummer newsletter.

But there was a strong hint, also, thatChicken Licken is alive and well when itcomes to the sky falling over climatechange and greenhouse gases. Is the cli-mate changing? Is CO2 damaging? I doubtboth. I suspect that when Chicken Lickengets to the king, she will find he has noclothes!

Global warming hasn’t settled in DownUnder yet. We are suffering a near recordcold winter—made worse by the effects ofsome lunatic changes on power genera-tion and sale as in California. Not so theNew York summer—no doubt it is reminis-cent of the “good old days.”

Greetings from the land of the kiwi.

Ken Nichol

Christchurch, New Zealand

Dear Ken:

Thanks for your response to our article andyour support of our work.

I cannot say with certainty, even to myself,that the climate is changing. All I can relyon is (a) anecdotal information aboutweather (most folks I ask believe theweather is changing, based on where theyhave lived for decades), (b) personal obser-vation over 40+ years (I concur), and (c)the assessments of a bunch of smart folks(the vast majority of whom have scientifi-cally concluded that the climate is alreadychanging and this change is likely to accel-

erate). Clearly, there is a differencebetween changing weather and changingclimate, but at some point there is a con-vergence. Mistrust of experts is often justi-fied, and you may trust whom you please. Ichoose to trust the experts I have read,spoken to, and worked with for years, all ofwhom can tell me volumes about how theclimate has changed and who are con-vinced that great changes are afoot, even ifwe start to reduce emissions immediately.The 2,000 or so scientists of theInternational Panel of Climate Change andthe U.S. National Academy of Sciences alsoagree (see reference to the recent NASreport below). There are so many con-vincing metrics: increased frequency andseverity of storms (even if you ignore theirrising economic damages), the global tem-perature record, the ice-shelf response, thearctic polynyas and ice sheet thickness, theearlier springs, migrating cloud forests anddisease vectors, the ecosystem and biolog-ical responses (migrations, feeding, andmating behaviors), the decreased transportof warm waters in the Gulf Stream, thewarming of the world’s oceans from thesurface to 3,000 meters, and so on. Noneof these changes, in isolation, prove thatclimate change is occurring. Yet in aggre-gate, these and hundreds of other changescome increasingly close to proof. Notabsolute proof, whatever that is, but proofbeyond a reasonable doubt.

But let’s assume that our concern is mis-placed: the climate is not changing. RMItherefore focuses on the profitable, “no-regrets” measures and hews close to thePrecautionary Principal. We can accomplishmuch as citizens, communities, and compa-nies that benefit the public weal and pri-vate interests whilst reducing greenhousegas emissions, regardless of whether cli-mate change is real or chimeric. Multiplebenefits can be reaped from the same

byR ick H eede

p a ge 17F a l l 2 0 0 1

President Clinton scheduledtime at RMI when herecently visited Aspen, andspent well over an hourchatting with severalRMItes, learning moreabout our work. As a greatsupporter of the bookNatural Capitalism while inoffice, he asked his staff toread the first galley proofs,and continues to recom-mend it in his speeches.

Although these great meet-ings of minds (and meetingsof great minds) are day-in, day-out activities for RMI, I’m notlisting them here to impress you. Rather, I hope you’re encour-aged by some of the “behind the scenes” discussions that RMI isregularly involved in about various global concerns. Unfortunately,the planet’s problems are so big and growing so quickly, that ifleaders—at all levels—don’t address these issues now, we face ableak future. If RMI’s work and thinking helps motivate or facili-tate these discussions, we’re a step closer to satisfying our mis-sion. I hope we can use our influence, at all levels, to help findthe absolute best solutions to some of earth’s great challenges.

P.S. As RMI faces its greatest strategic influence challenge ever,after the events of 11 September, our management, staff, andBoard of Directors are examining ways in which RMI can beinvolved in demonstration projects that can directly benefit thoseareas affected—from working to make refugee settlements moresustainable to being part of a team to design efficient, secure, andsustainable structures to replace the devastation in lowerManhattan. Meanwhile, we all suffer as you do from our desire to“do more.” Albert Schweitzer said it best: “Just as the wavecannot exist for itself, but must always participate in the swell ofthe ocean, so we can never experience life by ourselves, but mustalways share the experience of life that takes place all around us.”

L ong before I became executive director, I often heard orread of important visitors to RMI or world leaders whowere interested in RMI’s work—legendary scholars, inno-

vative scientists, famous writers and thinkers, and a cross sectionof politicians the likes of whom the U.S. Capitol seldom sees.Now, I know firsthand how fascinating RMI’s work is to manypeople, as demonstrated by the number and caliber of visitors toour offices in Old Snowmass.

First, it’s not just a coincidence that many important people areable to stop by RMI while visiting the Roaring Fork Valley. Amoryand Hunter intentionally set up shop in Old Snowmass almost 20years ago partly because it’s near Aspen. With the Aspen Institute,the Aspen Center for Physics, the Given Institute, and dozens ofhigh-quality seminars, meetings and conferences each year, manyof the world’s great minds congregate there.

Many come out to RMI, too, or learn more about us because ofour presence in the Valley. Over a cup of coffee or during a tour ofour energy-efficient facility, a casual conversation about a globalissue might lead to a cutting-edge paper, lecture, book, or demon-stration project on a specific topic. While you might hear moreand more about RMI’s research and consulting work, in thisnewsletter and, various media including journals and corporate lit-erature, our strategic influence is as great as ever. That’s becausewe agree with the late Dana Meadows who said the most effectiveintervention in a complex system is to change the mindset of thepeople who make the rules!

Who might a typical RMI visitor be, you ask? I’ll try and describe afew, since they are anything but typical. During a roughly two-week period in late July and early August, we hosted Peter Senge,author of The Fifth Discipline and a founder of the Society forOrganizational Learning, as well as Gunter Pauli, a Belgian entre-preneur, author, and founder of Zero Emissions Research andInitiatives. A group of editors from Fortune magazine hosted anevent in Aspen with the “100 Smartest People We Know,”including our own Amory Lovins. Then Amory hosted a half-dozen of those smart folks at RMI. Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, just-retired Chairman of the Committee of Managing Directors of theRoyal Dutch/Shell Group, came to talk to Amory and Hunter.Amory and Hunter also spent time with their friend Bill Joy, chiefscientist at Sun Microsystems. Dan Durett, Director of MinorityPrograms for the National Council for Science and theEnvironment, came by to talk about how we can collaborate toget RMI’s messages into programs at minority colleges and univer-sities.

Visitors Extraordin aireB y Mart y P icket t, E xecutive D irector

LIFE AT R MI

p a ge 18

step, though, is to greatly increase thecampus’s energy efficiency and replacecarbon-intensive energy sources like coal withmore climate-friendly sources.

Peter Light

(John and Mary FrantzInternship)

So you’re planning toget one of the firstHypercars to hit theshowroom floor, ormaybe you’re justinterested in theprogress of fuel-cell-powered vehicles.But how will youdrive more than 300

miles from the dealership—how will yourefuel your Hypercar with hydrogen gas?That’s the question I’m currently researchingat RMI. The halftime report: scores of ideasfrom many different industrial and academicarenas have sprung up to meet this challenge,and will elegantly cross-pollinate with theconcurrent developments of stationary fuelcells and distributed generation technologies.These are exciting times!

Lauren Yarmuth

(Eric Konheim MemorialInternship)

As this year’sKonheim Fellow, Ihave been involvedin compiling andediting case studiesfor the upcomingGDS Second EditionCD-ROM. The suc-cess of the 1997GDS publication

Green Development: Integrating Ecology andReal Estate, and accompanying “GreenDevelopments” CD-ROM—as well asincreased interest and demand in the field ofgreen development—have warranted an up-to-date version. The new edition will featureabout 200 case studies, including updatesfrom the first CD and many important newdevelopments.

creating a “checklist” that an RMI auditor canuse during a facility walkthrough to ask tar-geted questions and suggest cost-saving andenvironmentally superior solutions. This toolcan be continuously refined and tailored todifferent types of facilities—everything frommachinery manufacturers to breweries.

Eliza Eubank and Sarah Stokes

(David Tice MemorialInternship)

Current agri-culturalpractices areoften in con-flict withmaintaininga healthyecosystem.Our maingoal as

interns with RMI this summer is to create amodel where the two work together. We havedeveloped an intensive grazing program witha herd of 35 cows on the 957-acre WindstarLand Conservancy. Each paddock is grazedheavily for a short period (usually 2–3 days)then allowed a 45-day rest period. Thismethod of management mirrors the natural“herd effect” of elk, bison, deer, and antelope,and provides the cattle with high-qualitygrazing while preserving and improving thepastureland.

Peter Gage

I’ve been working onan inventory andanalysis of OberlinCollege’s greenhousegas emissions. Thelong-term goal is forOberlin to becomeclimate neutral by2020. In other words,this means that all the

school’s emissions of any greenhouse gas willbe accounted for and offset by variousmethods of carbon sequestration. The first

Editor’s note: Our first installment of “WhatAre You Doing?” features our summer 2001interns, some of whom filled internship posi-tions made possible by contributions fromgenerous donors. If you are interested insupporting one of these funds, or creating anew one, please contact DevelopmentDirector Dale Levy at 970-927-3851 ordalelevy@rmi.org

Jennifer Atlee

(Phillip Austin SemmerMemorial Internship)

Is your communitywary of investing ininnovative projectswithout proof of suc-cess? Several of us atRMI are currentlyworking on a“CommunityOpportunity Finder,”which will provide

communities with evidence that sustainabledevelopment projects will work for them.This new web tool is designed to mimic anexpert consultant's preliminary analysis,without the consultant's expense. Kate Parrotand I are developing the prototype moduleabout energy, which will provide the userwith hard numbers for the jobs created, andthe dollars and pollution saved, by imple-menting the recommended programs.

Ryan Bennett

(Neal McBurnett and HollyLewis Internship)

My work at RMIfocuses on inte-grating natural capi-talism into business.More specifically, I’mworking on a projectthat focuses naturalcapitalism principleson Chicago-area busi-nesses. Chicago is

ideal because of a plethora of manufacturingand industrial facilities. My work includes

Peter G a ge

Rya n B en n e t t

Eliz a Eu b a n k & S a ra h S tokes

L a uren Ya r m u t h

Peter Lig h t

Jen ni fer A tlee

W H AT ARE YOU D OING?

p a ge 19F a l l 2 0 0 1

p a ge 19F a l l 2 0 0 1

R MI N E W SCh ar min gBusiness withthe PrinceIn A ugust, H unter Lovins, RMI co-CEO (Strategy), met with a group of worldbusiness leaders at the annual reunion ofHRH Prince Charles’s “Business Leaders onEnvironment Program” at the Prince’sestate, Highgrove, England.

Along with such business leaders as just-retired Royal Dutch/Shell Chairman MarkMoody-Stuart, Lovins spoke on “ClimateFutures and Business Opportunities.”

The Business Leaders on EnvironmentProgram was created by Prince Charles toenable business leaders and “opinion-for-mers” to debate “the business case for sus-tainable development, in consultation withleading international figures in their fields.”

The Program offers a weeklong seminar atCambridge University where business pro-fessionals are immersed in sustainabilityissues as they relate to business. Those whoattend then become part of an ongoing net-work from which new recruits can drawinspiration, expertise and advice. Some 350representatives from 300 of the world’s

Presid en t Clin ton visit e d R M I in l a te Au g ust a n d sp en t t i m e wit h m a ny st a f f m e m b ers. Th ey inclu d e d ( f ro m le f tto rig h t): D a le Levy, M a rilyn Wien, Steve Swa nson, M a rty Picke t t, To m Feiler, N a ncy Joh nston, Bill Clin ton,C h a r m ain e Bou dre a u x, A m ory Lovins, M issy M orga n. P hoto: N or m Clasen.

biggest companies are network members.

This fall, the Program will expand to theUnited States. Executives interested in par-ticipating can get more information atwww.cpi.cam.ac.uk/bep/.

Lovins was asked to join the discussionbecause she is both a leading world experton sustainable business practices and wholesystems thinking, and because she isAmerican and was thus able to offer valu-able insight into the American approach tosustainability.

“It was great honor for RMI to be invitedto share ideas with the Prince, Sir Markand the business leaders.” Lovins said.“These people are serious about findingsolutions and it is exciting to be able tocontribute to such discussions.”

R MI Wins 3rdAward (o f 2001)R ecentl y , R MI pic k ed up its thirdprestigious award of 2001, the BuildingEconomic Alternatives Award presented byCo-op America.

Every year, Co-op America presents theaward to the person or group that theorganization believes has done outstandingwork in one of the “issue areas” covered inCo-op America Quarterly during the pre-vious year. (Year 2000 issue areas included“The Good Life: Redefining Success in the21st Century,” “Changing the Climate,”and “Wood Wise.”) The award is given “torecognize and congratulate people ororganizations that are on the forefront ofcreating positive change toward a sustain-able future,” according to Nate Albee ofCo-op America.

“We are especially impressed by RockyMountain Institute’s work in defining theproblems related to climate change and pre-senting viable solutions to those problems,”Albee wrote in a letter to RMI. “The onlyhesitation occurred when someone sug-gested that RMI receives so many awardsthat this one might get lost in a heap withall the others! While we hope this is notthe case, we would like to take the oppor-tunity to congratulate you officially. Keepup the great work!”

development (cost per square foot, pricingof building materials, HVAC systems, etc.)so developers, contractors, and home-owners can understand the financial impli-cations of green building.

The project has been funded with the helpof the Department of Energy and theKettering Foundation.

R MI Ch artsthe Course o fWastewaterTre at m entBraving airport closures and icyroads from a spring blizzard, eight topexperts in on-site and small-scale waste-water systems gathered with RMI staff inSnowmass 2–3 May to outline the futureof wastewater management. Led byAdjunct Research Scholar Richard Pinkhamand funded by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, RMI is documentingthe economic benefits of decentralizedwastewater technologies. These includereduced financial risk through incrementalimplementation (versus large, lumpyinvestments in centralized sewers and

N ew GD S C D -RO M O ut inE a rly 2002R MI’s Green D evelopmentS ervices’ new CD-ROM GreenDevelopments 2.0 is slated to be releasedin early 2002. The new CD, a follow-up to1997’s highly successful book and com-panion CD-ROM Green Developments,will include updates of some of the originalcase studies, plus over 120 new ones.

“It describes the principles of buildinggreen, but also gives a detailed look at thetechnologies used and how they apply toeach other within a system,” said BenShepherd, a GDS research consultant, whois worked on the project. “We are alsoincluding over 20 European case studies.Europeans are well known for their innova-tive uses of natural ventilation and day-lighting, so it’s great to have some goodexamples included.”

The CD boasts thousands of high-qualityimages (interior, exterior, location, site,architectural context, etc.).

Importantly, the disk will include financialinformation about green building and green

p a ge 20

R MI N E W S

R MI Senior [ St a f f ] M o m entIt was 1984 or ’85, no one can remember exactly. RMI’s Amory and Hunter Lovins and Michael Kinsley were attending a meetingin the cramped offices of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. A pile of documents was handed out to attendees. As Hunterrecalls it, Michael looked up from a document he was reading and said to the host that one document appeared to include a typo:it was supposed to say “megawatts,” but in fact read “negawatts.”

In any event, from then on Amory spread “negawatt” all over the industry and it soon became standard parlance for “saved watt.”Trying to nail down a specific date, Amory recently noticed that he used the term in the title of a November 1985 speech to theNational Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which was reprinted in Public Power in March 1986. Thus, he specu-lates, “negawatts” came into being during or before 1985.

“Where I saw an amusing typo,” Kinsley recalled, “Amory saw an entirely new term. And now it’s a common term in energy cir-cles the world over.”

treatment plants),lower-cost localreuse, distributedgroundwaterrecharge, reducedpressure for growthwhen sewers areextended, and ahost of otheradvantages. The

technologies are many and generallysimple, though innovations are constantlyoccurring and unit costs are likely todecrease as volumes go up. (Soundfamiliar? Think photovoltaics. Think fuelcells.)

And small-scale wastewater systems aren'tjust for rural areas anymore. RMI antici-pates that as the benefits become knownand efficient management institutions con-tinue to develop, advanced small-scalewastewater technologies will increasinglybe integrated into urban and suburbanwastewater systems. Modeled on RMI’sforthcoming book, Small Is Profitable: TheHidden Economic Benefits of MakingElectrical Resources the Right Size, thewastewater study will be available in mid-2002.

Rich a rd Pin k h a m

R MI N E W S

p a ge 21F a l l 2 0 0 1

R MI’s M ainBuildin g CoolIn mid-July, R MI got a strange phonecall from our local electric coop, HolyCross. It seems utility officials wanted tomake sure things were okay at RMI’s effi-cient headquarters. That’s because, as ofMonday, 16 July 2001, there had been azero net use of electricity in the buildingfor the first two months of summer. RMIco-founders Amory and Hunter Lovinswere, of course, delighted. “Our solarcapacity normally meets about half theannual needs of my household and a 12-person office,” said Amory, “but as theoffice equipment becomes more efficient,we can reach 100 percent solar in sunnysummer months. That’s less coal burned—and more money to do RMI’s work.”

R MI Bo ard GetsN ew M e m bersR MI welcomes three new mem-bers to our board of directors. All threecandidates recommended by the nomi-nating committee this year were electedunanimously by the board. BrianRosborough joined the board in March andJanine Benyus and David Orr in September.RMI’s bylaws allow for a board of up to 17members, and these new additions bringthe current number to 14.

Janine Benyus, of Stevensville, Mont., isauthor of six books on life sciences sub-jects.

A graduate of Rutgers University, Benyusholds degrees in forestry and writing. Inaddition to her writing, she teaches inter-pretive writing, lectures at the University ofMontana, and works towards restoring andprotecting wildlands.

Her 1997 book, Biomimicry: InnovationInspired by Nature, influenced the creationof natural capitalism by Hunter Lovins,Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken.

Biomimicry, seeking sustainable solutionsby mimicking nature’s designs andprocesses, is the second principle of naturalcapitalism.

Other books by Benyus include BeastlyBehaviors, a guide to animal behavior, andthree field guides to wildlife habitats.

“Janine knows RMI’s work really well,”said RMI Executive Director Marty Pickett.“One of RMI’s intentions was to placesomeone with expertise in biology on theboard, and Janine fills that spot.”

David Orr, of Oberlin, Ohio, is Professor ofEnvironmental Studies and Politics atOberlin College and Chairman of Oberlin’sEnvironmental Studies Program. Orr holdsa PhD in International Relations from theUniversity of Pennsylvania.

He is currently a trustee of the EducationalFoundation of America, the ComptonFoundation and the JED Fund, and is a pasttrustee of other such organizations. He is amember of the Editorial Advisory Board ofthe Orion Nature Quarterly and theBulletin of Science, Technology, andSociety.

Books Orr has written include Earth inMind: Essays on Environment, Educationand the Human Prospect (1994) andEcological Literacy and the Transition to aPostmodern World (1992). He has pub-lished dozens of papers and been invited topresent guest lectures at scores of colleges,universities, and other institutions in NorthAmerica and Europe.

“David Orr is one of the leading environ-mental educators in the country,” Pickettsaid. “He brings extensive nonprofit experi-ence to the board, too.”

Brian Rosborough is founder, currentchairman and past president of EarthwatchInstitute. He established two internationalnonprofits, Earthwatch Institute and theEarthwatch Institute Center for FieldResearch, to underwrite science, conserva-

tion and education projects that supportsustainable use of cultural and biologicalresources.

Rosborough’s current board membershipsinclude EarthCare Company, Inc. andUniform Digital Mapping and the boards oftrustees of Mount Holyoke College andPrinceton University.

“Brian also brings substantive knowledge ofRMI’s work,” Pickett said. “With his longcareer as founder and president ofEarthwatch, he brings a lot of experience innonprofit governance.”

M ovin g O nLongtime R MItes Jenni fer C airns,Mark S cot t, and Jo A nn Glassierhave decided to move on. Mark is headedto China, where he will be teachingElizabethan prose and Modern AmericanPoetry at Shanghai University. JoAnn isgoing into a semi-retirement so she canspend more time with her grandchildren.Likewise, longtime RMIte Jennifer Cairnsrecently moved on to retirement inHotchkiss. Good luck all!

D e ar R MI Re a ders a ndSup porters,

As you’ve probably read, we are now asking

for a $20 donation in return for an annual

subscription to our newsletter (three

issues). You can read the newsletter online

anytime at www.rmi.org without a subscrip-

tion. However, if you enjoy it, we hope

you’ll contribute anyway.

Also, we apologize if you received your

copy of RMI Solutions at the wrong address,

or if you requested an email notification and

instead received a hard copy in the mail.

Please, if you would like changes made in

your mailing address or in how you receive

RMI information, contact Jessica Hood at

970-927-3851, or email her at

jessica@rmi.org.

GO N E FISSIO N ▼ FUEL C ELLS ▼

p a ge 22

especially cheap because they occur at thesite where the energy is consumed and thusrequire no delivery.

All these non-nuclear options continue to getcheaper, as do fuel cells and solar cells—where a pound of silicon can produce moreelectricity than a pound of nuclear fuel.Already, Sacramento’s municipal utility,which has successfully replaced power fromits ailing nuclear plant (shut down by voters)with a portfolio emphasizing efficiency andrenewables, has brought the heretoforecostliest option, solar cells, down to costscompetitive with a new nuclear plant.

The PR spinners trumpet that nuclear powercosts less than power from gas plants.Perhaps, if you look only at the running costof an average nuclear plant that is alreadybuilt, compared with the running cost of anold, inefficient gas-fired plant. But this doesnot include delivery of nuclear electricity tocustomers, nor the prohibitive constructioncosts of a new nuclear plant. Notice, too, theads don’t compare new nuclear plants withthe new, doubled-efficiency gas plants thatare now beating the pants off nuclear andcoal worldwide. Under realistic cost compar-isons, nuclear power plummets to its actualstatus as the worst buy available.

Lost in the debate over what kind of newplant to build is the best option of all: moreefficient use of the electricity we alreadyhave. The U.S. has been reducing electricuse per dollar of gross domestic product by1.6 percent a year. In California between1997 and 2000, it fell by 4.4 percent a year.California has held its per-capita electricityuse essentially flat since the mid-1970s. Fargreater savings remain untapped—enoughnationally to save four times nuclear power’soutput, at 1/6th its operating cost. An esti-mated three-fourths of U.S. electricity couldnow be saved through efficiency techniquesthat cost less than generating that powereven in existing plants.

Nor, finally, do shortages of electricity in

California justify more nuclear plants any-where. California did not have soaring elec-tricity demand during the 1990s, did notstop building power plants, and is probablynot even short of generating capacity. Thesystem that had rolling blackouts at a 29-gigawatt load last winter is the same onethat comfortably delivered 53 gigawatts twosummers ago. Half its power plants didn’tsuddenly evaporate. Rather, there was ade-quate generating capacity—if power plantsran as reliably as they did before utilities soldthem. But since utility maintenance con-tracts expired last fall, many of the soldplants have been calling in sick—often,some evidence suggests, because their newowners earned far more profit by selling lesselectricity at a higher price rather than moreat a lower price.

If California did have a serious supply-demand imbalance, it should be resolved inthe cheapest, fastest, surest, and safest ways.Buying more nuclear plants violates all thesecriteria. It would buy less solution per dollar,making the problem worse. That’s also trueof nuclear solutions to climate change.

Anyone who doubts the effectiveness ofdemand-side solutions need only look toCalifornia, where in the first half of this year,with limited formal programs, Californianshave decreased their peak demand for elec-tricity by more than 12 percent, reversingthe past 5–10 years’ demand growth.

After a half-century of nuclear power, theverdict of the marketplace is in. Nuclearpower has flunked the market test. Nuclearsalesmen scour the world for a single order,while makers of alternatives enjoy brisk busi-ness. Let’s profit from their experience.Taking markets seriously, not propping upfailed technologies at public expense, offers astable climate, a prosperous economy, and acleaner and more peaceful world.

(For more information, please visitwww.nci.org/conf/lovins/001.gif)

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 1 1 c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 1 0

premium reliability needs, costly distribu-tion constraints, or both.

Fuel cells can be cost-effective in theseapplications even at their present costs, ifthe DG benefits can be captured. Thus,the near-term commercialization path forfuel cells appears to be grid-connectedfuel cell systems in commercial buildings,communication providers’ hubs, andother facilities that need high reliabilityand low emissions (especially if they canuse the fuel cell’s waste heat). The mostcost-effective applications will be in loca-tions with distribution constraints.

A longer-term commercialization path forfuel cell technology will integrate thesestationary applications with the generatingpotential for fuel cells in cars, trucks, andbuses. Vehicles parked at these facilitiesduring the day could be plugged into thebuilding, generating large amounts ofelectricity during peak demand hours.This would take fuller advantage of thevehicles’ fuel cells, which would other-wise stand idle in the parking lot.

Ultimately, such plug-in-power-plants-on-wheels could have 5–10 times as muchgenerating capacity as all the power com-panies now own.

Editor’s note: Dr. Joel Swisher, PE, aninternationally-recognized energy expert,recently joined RMI’s Research andConsulting team. His recent work on fuelcells was supported by the W. AltonJones Foundation. This report will soonbe available on our website,www.rmi.org.

ital per capita”—natural capital mustincrease with population. At present, this isnot happening.

It is important, however, to remember thatpopulation is only one term in the generallyignored Holdren and Ehrlich formula. Thatdictum tells us that the impact of a growingpopulation can be offset by a reduction inthe amount of resources that this popula-tion demands, and by better technologythat allows more people to enjoy a higherstandard of living using fewer resources.

FIVE STEPS TOSUSTAIN ABILITY

1. Implement Natural Capitalism.

The concepts of natural capitalism shouldbe integrated throughout the UN system,the various multilateral organizations, andthe world’s governments, as stewards forall life on earth. Failing that, these institu-tions will lose first their credibility and thentheir legitimacy.

2. Reinvent Governance.

Develop a system of governance thatacknowledges and builds on what isworking now: coalitions of non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs), companies,and governments. Strengthen the role ofthe many NGOs now active on the worldstage.

3. Support Micro-lending.

Far too little of the world’s enormous flowof capital reaches those who most need it.The various systems of charity and develop-ment aid, while noble, have not addressedthe structure of poverty, and in many casesworsen it, creating a culture of depend-ence. Banks and financial organizationsthat have created micro-credit programshave demonstrated how the innovativeforce of entrepreneurship can be used tocreate genuine economic development at afraction of the cost.

4. Change Education andCommunication.

Education must address all aspects of beinghuman rather than only providing jobtraining. Such education would enablepeople to learn how to value and respecteach other and the environment that sus-tains them and life, now and in the future.It would allow children to grow into prac-tical stewards of creation rather thanexploiters who try to fill their empty heartswith more and more consumption. DanaMeadows called this “Seeking to meet non-material needs with material acquisitions,”and points out that it is at the heart of theconsumption-driven lifestyles that now pre-dominate in much of the world.

5. Adopt the Precautionary Principle.*

This is simply sane policy for any speciesdesiring a lengthy tenure on the planet.Already embodied in the MontréalProtocol, it should be national policyaround the world, and the basis of all sus-tainability statements.

C O N CLUSIO N

Implementing the measures that have beenoutlined above would herald in a hugenew industrial revolution. It would revolu-tionize our systems and our thinking. Itwould also provide a boost to industriesand societies around the world, offering anenormous opportunity to deliver the prod-ucts and services needed to achieve sus-tainability. Providing these would not onlysolve the sustainability crisis, but wouldalso solve the unemployment plaguingmost countries. It would demonstrate onceagain that the supposed dichotomybetween environmental protection andemployment resides in an unsustainablesystem, and can be resolved by turningtowards sustainability.

IN SUR M O U N TA BLE O P P ORTU NITIES ▼

p a ge 23F a l l 2 0 0 1

asked to do so; they simply haven’t beenasked because, in violation of thePrecautionary Principle,* new syntheticchemicals have generally been assumedsafe until proven dangerous rather thanpotentially dangerous until proven safe.Wise governments will therefore err visiblyon the side of caution, and encourage inno-vation in developing and deploying non-toxic substitutes.

The industrialization of agriculture willyield ever worse problems of pathogens,contamination, pests, ecosystem break-down, and declining fertility. Ultimately,the habits and institutions that encourageand condone such outcomes will berejected. Europe’s rapid market swingtowards organic agriculture reflects agrowing suspicion that industrially pro-duced food may be unsafe in ways that arenot officially acknowledged and may notyet be known to science.

4. Genetic Technology

As we noted in the previous issue of RMISolutions (Vol. XVII, #1), humankind’snewfound ability to map and manipulatethe genome has brought us a new era ofgreat promise and challenge. Like nucleartechnology, the manipulation of thegenome has the potential to alter life as weknow it, and is shifting the pace of evolu-tion.

5. Population

Ever-increasing population means that toachieve sustainability—roughly definedfrom a human perspective as “natural cap-

*The Precautionary Principle as defined inthe 1998 Wingspread Statement on thePrecautionary Principle, has the followingcomponents: 1) action to prevent harmwhen science is uncertain; 2) shifting theburden of proof toward proponents; 3)assessing alternatives; 4) transparency anddemocratic participation in decision-making.

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 1 3

p a ge 24

that while elegant solutions are oftensimple, they cannot be piecemeal. Theyshould instead be complex, resilient, andintegrated. The key, as described by AmoryLovins and Gunter Pauli, is a “whole-sys-tems” approach to development, includingsomething as austere and forbidding as arefugee settlement. ZERI’s concept of “con-centric rings of utility,” each using thewaste products of a previous industry untilthere is no final waste at all, may be exactlythe solution required when resources arescarce, the population is fragile, and the ini-tial environment is unforgiving.

Now, more acutely than we had wanted,we find an opportunity to look carefullyand well at the plight of a newly-displacedpopulation. The Afghan refugee camps nowneeded on the Pakistani, Iranian, Tajik, andTurkmen borders are an ideal opportunityto establish sustainable settlements, pro-viding tools and techniques that encouragethe willing return of a refugee population.In addition, if we can design a sustainableand reproducible way to meet the humanneeds of both the new arrivals and theprior occupants in the austere conditions ofan ad-hoc refugee camp, the way that’sdone should also help billions of otherpeople trying to create sustainable settle-ments where they already live. The discus-sion of how that might occur is alreadyunderway.

In late August RMI hosted a very timelyseminar. The topic was the use of informa-tion technology for sustainable develop-ment. We wanted to look at howinformation collection and flow might leadto a greater understanding of the dynamicsof dislocation and resettlement, and howthat might give opportunities for shaping aproactive response as any crisis unfolds. Wewanted to see if it was possible to thrive indislocation.

The participants were bright and experi-

enced people working to intelligently assistthree groups:

1. Agencies involved in both sustainabledevelopment and emergency response, par-ticularly within global disaster relief;

2. The National Science Foundation, withspecial attention to their submission for theUN Earth Summit 2002 in Johannesburgnext September, and

3. Contributors to a subsequent seminar tobe held in February 2002 on the specificsubject of sustainable settlement for dis-placed populations.

We set as ground truth a few items aboutwhich we were fairly confident. Based onboth ZERI’s analysis and our own experi-ences, dislocated populations in both nat-ural and man-made disasters first needwater, food, security, shelter, and health-care. If we are successful in providing thosebare essentials, we will be able to progressto the provisioning of energy, education,jobs, and access to capital. This sequence isneither inviolate nor independent.Everything required depends a little oneverything else.

Once that perspective was clear, the partici-pants agreed on a second issue: before wecan supply provisions effectively, some cul-tural groundwork needs to be laid. Oneterm we used was “cultural intelligence,”and we used an example.

In October 1993, ninety-nine soldiers ofTask Force Ranger were pinned down in afirefight in Mogadishu, Somalia. EighteenAmericans eventually died. In the laterinterviews it was found that among theinnumerable reasons that the crowds inMogadishu responded with glee to thesight of Americans in trouble was report-edly that we had been insulting them daily.In Somali culture it is apparently consid-ered very offensive to show the soles ofyour feet to anyone. We, the U.S. military,

O T H ER VOIC ES: ▼

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 5

had spent many days flying low over thecity, soldiers sitting in the open doors of thehelo, with feet hanging out. There was nointent to offend—we just didn’t know.

Global relief organizations have nowacquired enough experience with refugeecamps to discuss problems like culturalintelligence in detail. Those of us notdirectly involved in relief work, yet with aset of tools that might be useful to thoseagencies, need to learn how to integrateour assistance to them effectively. We cansee, for example, methods by which ZERIand natural capitalism might form educa-tional crucibles, introducing knowledgeabout sustainable self-sufficiency to thosewho need to start over. As the crisis easesand repatriation becomes possible, wewould be able to help them return to theiroriginal homeland smarter than they left.

Should we succeed in developing such aninternational model, host nations may beless reluctant to offer refuge, and the painsuffered by all participants could bereduced. It would also ease the ongoingburden and expense on those countries andagencies taking responsibility for the dis-placed.

As the participants in the August seminarbroke from the plenary session into theworking groups, I was asked what perspec-tive I wanted them to take during their dis-cussions. I quoted from Amulya KN Reddy,a colleague from the Indian Institute ofScience in Bangalore. When approachingcommunity problems he said, “Take care ofthe poorest. The rest will then take care ofitself.” That advice was not intended assaintly sentiment. It was, rather, my recog-nition that optimal efficiencies can be bestfound among those who have the least, andso we should consider whole-system solu-tions from the bottom up.

That view was apparently successful,

because the ideas that streamed back fromthe working groups were intelligent, cre-ative, compassionate, and achievable.Although the topic was supposed to be“informational technology in sustainablesettlement,” a very broad topic, the groupschose to focus on displaced populationsand on using information to achieve sus-tainable, ZERI-based transitional campsalong natural capitalism principles.

So we will have a report on “informationtechnology in sustainable settlement” fromthis symposium. We will distribute itappropriately and someone may notice andchoose to implement something we’vementioned. If we have been careful, theimplementation will be useful and we mayestablish a groundswell of sustainabledevelopment that will echo the earlyachievements of the Rishi Valley andGaviotas, spanning boundaries that maythen begin to diminish resource-based con-flict.

But once the report is released, it is out ofour hands. Surely there is a more effectiveresponse to the twin tragedies of violentdeaths in the United States and slowerdeaths in Afghanistan than the release ofanother report and the hope that someonelistens and acts?

Let me suggest that we listen ourselves tothe ideas we shared, synthesize them,then carry that intelligent, thoughtful, pro-ductive, and energetic insight into the nextseminar, the next “charrette,” earlier thanwe had planned. We had intended to holda charrette on the topic of SustainableSettlement in February 2002. I think thatis too distant, and that the ideas andimplementation paths are needed now,even as the bitter Central Asian winterbegins to descend on the airstrips androads available for the relief effort.

The sustainable settlement meeting was

explicitly designed to address problemsinherent in the very type of crisisunfolding now. The resources that will beexpended by relief agencies to establishthe new camps will vanish, with more lossto follow, if there is no effort to design a“whole-system” community within themorass. Stopgap measures don’t incorpo-rate a future, though they may save thoseclosest to the brink. Knowing what is atstake, we should be working closely withcurrent experts in disaster relief to incor-porate sustainable design concepts fromthe very beginning.

We should act now—within weeks. Thesooner we can intelligently contribute toan integrated relief response, the better wewill lay foundations for success. Fromthere, as Janine Benyus describes, the suc-cessive stages of rebirth can begin.

To my knowledge, no attempt has beenmade to implement this degree of sustain-able development within refugee campsforming in a crisis setting.

The relief agencies have done extremelywell in relieving urgent needs in the faceof dwindling donor support, but their timeand resources are limited. We can, I think,bring to those agencies and the donor gov-ernments some hope for a system that willbecome self-sustaining, providing the toolsfor creative growth needed by any commu-nity. We can help them with water provi-sioning and purification, novel andnutritious food crops, power production,cooking fuel, disease surveillance andresponse, effective sanitation from biolog-ical systems, educational models that workin remote environments, employmentwithin the camps, food production, thedevelopment of non-violent communica-tion skills, and longer-term job opportuni-ties. And much of the effort can bedesigned using the people in the camp and

the environment that surrounds them,decreasing their helplessness, frustration,and rage. As was pointed out to me by asenior Navy officer recently, “It doesn’tmatter whether you’ve killed the mosqui-toes if you haven’t drained the swamp,”and this does appear to be an opportunityto shift the world perspective held bythose refugees recently under the influ-ence of a violent and cruel pseudo-theoc-racy.

Current events have been disheartening.But we can harness that sorrow and frus-tration to stimulate a diverse assortment ofintellects. Pushed by the images of bru-tality, waste and loss, we can turn ourenergy toward the development of a morejust and equitable and sustainable societyin a corner of the world that badly needsthat opportunity. Martin Luther King said,“If you want peace, work for justice,” andthere are few more stark examples ofunjust inequality than the need for arefugee camp. Let us use our intelligence,our energy, our sense of fairness, and ournewly-forming coalition to achieve a moreworthy goal than simply using our militarycapability for retribution. I think a refugeecamp designed and built as a sustainablesystem from the ground up might be adecent start, and the ripples would be ben-eficial across a large pool of the dispos-sessed throughout the world. If we aresmart, and just a little compassionate, wewill take this rare opportunity to quietlystart another Renaissance.

O T H ER VOIC ES: ▼

p a ge 25F a l l 2 0 0 1

functions, separate them into groups, andhave group members talk about sustain-ability activities, you might think you’d endup with eight completely different conver-sations—not so at Bulmers. Even Bulmerscharrette groups as divergent asTransportation and Packaging andMarketing came up with remarkably sim-ilar ideas and parameters for immersingBulmers in sustainability. This synergybetween the groups is precisely the type ofwhole-system or integrated thinking thatRMI fosters.

Ideas included the creation of a model sus-tainable Herefordshire farm, creative part-nerships with competitors, encouragingentrepreneurship within the community,sustainable packaging (yes, biodegradabledrink containers), preserving agriculturalHerefordshire through a yet-to-be-devel-oped “community investment instrument,”top-down sustainability training led bymanagers, and a totally new product—anaturally fermenting cider packaged in nat-ural, sustainable packaging. The ideas camefast and furious, and ranged from economic“plumbing” (stopping leaks and retainingvalue) to entirely new business concepts.

The most noticeable thing about the char-rette was that sustainability became anover-arching theme for the entire corpora-tion. Company officials announced a man-agement policy that would incorporatesustainability. But going deeper, Bulmers’management is set on finding the time andfinancial resources to allow sustainabilityactivities to happen.

“This was a truly remarkable event,” notedHuston Eubank, RMI’s project manager forthe Bulmers charrette. “It was what I imag-ined it might be like to have been in Ray C.Anderson’s office at Interface when hebegan implementing his “midcourse correc-tion” (see his book Mid-Course Correctionby Ray C. Anderson,

p a ge 26

A N A P PLE A DAY ▼

machines. Then there’s fermentation, matu-ration, filtration, blending, pasteurization,and carbonation. Finally, the drink is pack-aged and shipped. More than anything else,Bulmers’ processing plant exists to pushfluids around through pipes.

In FY2000, Bulmers spent an estimated£1.6 million on energy—a seemingly largenumber, yet no surprise considering motorsuse three-fifths of the world’s electricity,and that most motors are used forpumping. A large motor (tens of kilowatts)uses its capital cost in energy every fewweeks. Replacing old pumps and pipes withmore efficient models produces savings thatgo directly to a company’s bottom line, areimmediate, and have triple-bottom-line ben-efits. Surrounded by hundreds of pipes con-nected with thousands of 90-degreeelbows, Amory could see potential savingsin every direction. One pipe in the fermen-tation plant really caught Amory’s eye. Itsnaked across a large section of the factorywith 16 right-angle elbows that were vis-ible—and even a few more Amory couldn’tsee. “That pipe had 11 elbows that couldbe eliminated just by rotating the tankabout 60 degrees around its vertical axisbefore hooking it up,” Amory noted. Mostof the time, pipefitters are told to dresspipes in neat right angles and get paid morefor installing more elbows—not exactly thebest way to design for efficiency.

Amory’s friend Eng Lock Lee, on of RMI’sfavorite efficiency engineers, came overfrom Singapore to ride shotgun. He pointedout that when manufacturing processes areoptimized, generally many other things areoptimized as well. For example, usinglarge, straight pipes, optimally laid out toconnect equipment, leads to smaller (andcheaper) pumps and motors. But it alsouses less overall space, saves noise, yieldsgreater productivity, and requires less main-tenance. Often these non-energy benefits

are of far greater value than the energy sav-ings, yet are rarely calculated. (“I’m begin-ning to learn it’s really all about plumbing,”noted Duncan, as he led Amory and EngLock around the factory.)

D O W N TO BUSIN ESS

Amory and Eng Lock brought their keenobservations—as did another roughly 100charrette participants—to the table wheneveryone sat down to talk about how tomake Bulmers more competitive whilebecoming a sustainability leader. Whilemanufacturing processes would seem theobvious target for the bulk of the discus-sions, Charlie Bower’s vision for Bulmersgoes far beyond pipes and pumps—and theorganization of the charrette reflected this.Eight working groups brainstorming inno-vation in the areas of sustainable agricul-ture, community, management strategy,marketing, packaging and transportation,stakeholders, and manufacturing processescame up with dozens of ideas and specificactions. Pipes and pumps were but twosmall actors in a cast of thousands.

If you were to divide a company into eight

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 1 5

B ul m ers’ D u nc a n Green showsJoh n Tod d a n d R M I’s A m oryLovins a rou n d t h e p rocessin gpla n t. P hoto: C a m eron M . B urns.

p a ge 27F a l l 2 0 0 1

www.chelseagreen.com/Midcourse/index.html). Often the most difficult thing is todesign something simple. Bulmers is wellon its way with the ideas developed andshared at this charrette.”

M EA N W HILE, BAC K AT T H E

FAR M

The beauty of unlocking creativity in anevent such as the Bulmers charrette showsthat innovation doesn’t stop once you learnabout growing other products on supposedwastes. Impressed with the potential ofsymbiosis, Bulmers’ folks are no longer surewhether Bulmers of the 21st Century willbe a cidermaker, a vegetable grower, a com-munity vehicle for a local agricultural-growers’ cooperative—or all of the aboveplus several others.

Pushing their creativity a step further—which is probably what all Bulmersemployees will be doing in the future—does Bulmers begin offering an agriculturalwaste-removal service, and go around col-lecting and disposing of farmers’ wastes? Asmall fee for removing wastes might offsetthe cost of starting the new business ven-ture. And finally, maybe Bulmers won’tgrow symbiotic products at all, but insteadprovide support for local farmers to aug-ment their current operations and incomesby starting their own symbiotic products-growing operations.

Duncan Green isn’t quite certain, but onething he now clearly understands is thatcreativity, discussion, and motivation canopen up ways of seeing that most peoplewould not, could not ever understand—notonly for a company, but for the company’sfriends, neighbors, employees and businesspartners ... and even the competition.

A N A P PLE A DAY ▼

W ith a distinguished career infinance and affordable realestate development, Myron

(Mike) P. Curzan, Esq. fits comfortably intothe RMI Board of Directors, where hechairs the Finance Committee.

“I joined the RMI board because I wantedto be connected with a cutting-edge organ-ization,” Curzan said. “I’ve been pro-moting use of the green developmentconcepts pioneered by Amory and RMI tomy real estate clients.”

Most of Curzan’s career has focused ondeveloping affordable housing for universi-ties, governmental organizations, and non-profit corporations.

He was a senior partner specializing in realestate in the 1970s and ’80s for theWashington law firm of Arnold & Porter. In1990, Curzan took a two-year leave tobecome Vice Chairman of the Board ofConnecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCompany for investments. In 1996, heformed his own real estate developmentcompany UniDev, LLC, which specializesin university housing.

The latest UniDev project involves creating900 units of faculty housing at theCalifornia State University campus inVentura County. The residences aredesigned to be affordable to faculty andstaff making as little as $30,000 a year.

“We’re using an RMI-recommended ‘greenconsultant’ for the development,” Curzansaid.

As far as current RMI-related projects go,Curzan said he finds the HypercarSM

vehicle research the most exciting, as wellas systems for distributed generation.

“Efficient fuel cells have the potential notjust for powering vehicles, but for heatingand air-conditioning buildings as well,” hesaid. “There are tremendous spin-off possi-bilities.”

As a member of the RMI investment com-mittee, Curzan said he would like to maxi-mize the Institute’s endowment. “Amoryand Hunter [Lovins] never have a shortageof interesting projects to pursue. I’d like tosee more funds for those activities.”

—Bernie Grauer

Mike Curz a nRMI Board Member

B OARD SP OTLIGH T

p a ge 28

To help an organization like RMI do itsgroundbreaking work worldwide takes alltypes of people, of all sizes and shapes,beliefs, and levels of public prominence.One thing they all share, however, is devo-

tion to the Institute.

Grace (“Gracie”)Bailey and JerryGreenfield are twosuch donors.

Gracie lives inFranklin, Ohio,with husbandBryan and sonsZachary and Aaron.

Gracie became aware of the WindstarFoundation in the mid-1990s after readingJohn Denver’s autobiography Take MeHome. Gracie joined the WindstarFoundation, and eventually ended upgoing to Africa to work on a village watersystem with a Windstar group.

Gracie began donating to the WindstarFoundation, and later began giving to theWindstar Land Conservancy—$10 everypay period (twice a month). All of Gracie’sgifts are given in memory of John Denver,which is how she found out about RMI.

In October 1998, Gracie sent RMI a cross-stitched poem “Do not stand at mygrave...” and she’s been donating, andsending letters telling us about Franklinand the folks at her post office ever since.She also sends a batch of delicious cookiesonce a month.

“I have a list of people and groups I believein,” she says. “Baking them some cookiesis the least I can do. I don’t want to justsend a check—it’s so impersonal.”

Gracie recently lost her sister-in-law tocancer, and adopted one of RMI’s goats inher memory. Gracie and her family will

D O N OR SP OTLIGH T

visit RMI and Windstar in October for thefirst time.

Jerry Greenfield is the Jerry in “Ben &Jerry’s” ice cream, which he co-founded in1978 with childhood friend Ben Cohen.Jerry has been giving to RMI since 1994,either through the Ben & Jerry Foundationor personally. He got started in his supportof the institute after running into RMI co-founder Amory Lovins at a Social Ventureconference in Gold Lake, Colorado. “I

heard him talkabout energy andefficiency and com-pact fluorescentlightbulbs and hewas going aroundgiving these backmassages,” Jerryrecently recalled.“He gave me a

back massage that was incredible. It wasjust unbelievable.” (Amory calls it “alterna-tive energy.”)

Jerry believes the practical aspects ofenergy and resource efficiency are so com-pelling that every business should be exam-ining ways to become more efficient.

Although Jerry knows that the company heco-founded is in step with most of the prin-ciples RMI preaches, he became a sup-porter regardless, and has been donatingever since. With Jerry’s latest contribution,he included a handful of coupons for Ben &Jerry’s ice cream (which should go nicelywith Gracie’s cookies.)

(Somehow, neither Gracie’s cookies norJerry’s coupons seem to make it over toRMI’s Southeast Annex building, wheremost RMItes work; however, DevelopmentDirector Dale Levy promises changes are inthe works.)

‘Cookies & Cre a m’

Jerry Green fi eld

Gra cie B a iley

when global companies can deliver aspare part pretty much anywhere onearth in 24 hours. The result: a com-mendable effort to redesign a creaky oldlogistics system from scratch.

These innovations will all save prodi-gious amounts of energy, pollution, andmoney. From data in the DSB report, Iestimate that comprehensive militaryfuel efficiency could probably saveupwards of ten billion dollars a year,because the few billion dollars of directannual fuel savings can trigger far largeravoided fuel delivery costs. Fuel effi-ciency could displace—or redeploy fromtail to tooth—at least a division’s worthof fuel-delivery personnel and theirequipment and support pyramids.

As for whether such innovations alsomake the world more secure, thatdepends on how well citizens exercisetheir responsibility to use military powerwisely—and to create the sort of worldin which its use or threatened usebecomes less necessary.

If we get that right, we can all be safeand feel safe in ways that work betterand cost less than present arrange-ments, and fewer of the men andwomen in the Armed Forces need go inharm’s way.

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p a g e 8

M ILITARY E N ERGY ▼

RMISolutionsRMI Solutions is published three times a yearand distributed to more than 5,000 readers(by mail and online) in the United States andthroughout the world.

© 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rightsreserved.

Letters to the EditorWe want to hear your comments. Pleaseaddress all correspondence to:Cameron M. Burns, EditorRocky Mountain Institute1739 Snowmass Creek RoadSnowmass, CO 81654-9199(970) 927-3851fax: (970) 927-3420newslet@rmi.orgwww.rmi.org

Newsletter design by Dan Sadowsky.

Printed on New Leaf EcoOffset (100% post-consumer waste, processed chlorine-free.)Contact New Leaf Paper for more information1-888-989-5323. No new trees were used inthe production of this newsletter and we offerpaperless electronic delivery via our website.

About the InstituteRocky Mountain Institute is an entrepreneur-ial nonprofit organization that fosters the effi-cient and restorative use of resources to createa secure, prosperous, and life-sustainingworld.

Our staff shows corporations, communities,individuals, and governments how to createmore wealth and employment, protect andenhance natural and human capital, increaseprofit and competitive advantage, and enjoymany other benefits—largely by doing whatthey do more efficiently.

Our work is independent, nonadversarial, andtransideological, with a strong emphasis onmarket-based solutions.

Founded in 1982, Rocky Mountain Instituteis a §501(c)(3)/509(a)(1) public charity. It hasa staff of approximately 50. The Institutefocuses its work in several main areas—busi-ness practices, climate, community economicdevelopment, energy, real-estate development,security, transportation, and water—and car-ries on international outreach and technical-exchange programs.

O ur sincere apprecia-tion is o f fered to thesefriends who contributed toR MI bet ween 1 May and 31A ugust 2001. N umbers inparentheses indicate mul-tiple donations by our fre-quent givers. P lease let usknow i f your na me has beenomit ted or misspelled so itcan be corrected in the nextissue.

BENE FACTORS $10,000+ The Energy Foundation

The Roy A. Hunt Foundation

The Kettering Family Foundation

Steve & Michele Kirsch Foubnation

Nancy Kitzmiller Taylor

Sandler Family Supporting Foundation

Sun Hill Foundation

PATRONS $1000–$9,999 Sheila & Francois G. Brutsch

Mary & Myron Curzan

The Justin Brooks Fisher Foundation

John B. Gilpin

Mr. & Mrs. Henry P. McIntosh IV

Gary Mullard

Abby & George D. O’Neill

Prof. & Mrs. Richard L. Ottinger

Nancy & George J. Records

Deborah Reich and the Pumpkin Trust

Robert J. Schloss & Emily Sack

Susan & W. Ford Schumann

The Wendy & Richard Yanowitch Fund forthe Humanities

SPONSORS $100–$999 Daniel Alpert

Lorraine P. Anderson

Stuart H. Anderson

Anonymous (6)

Christine A. Asher

Joan & William C. Ball (2)

Teresa & Don K. Barth

Susan & William A. Bartovics

Mary & Keith Blackmore

Ann & David C. Boyer

Maryrose Carroll

Betsy & James J. Chaffin Jr.

Cisco Foundation

Bill C. Coleman

Winifred & Jack M. Colwill

George Allen Cook

Mr. & Mrs. Roberta & Thomas R. Corbett

Robert Cramer & Bridgett Murray

Robert M. Culbert

Lois-Ellin Datta (4)

Electra de Peyster & Palmer E. DePeyster

Alan & Mary T. Douglass

Hans Dumoulin

Katie & Brad Dunn

Farmers Irrigation District

Barbara & Peter B. Fleming (5), inmemory of John Denver

W. Kent Ford III

Mary & Tim Furst

Jack W.L. Goering

Sadja Greenwood, in honor of AmoryLovins

Sally Haines & Tom Levy

Mimi & W. Scott Harlan

Shawn & William Harris

Gary & Rae Ann Hassell

Hope Hughes Pressman

Russell M. Jaffe & Rebecca Sylvan

James Jarvis

William Joseph

William A. Kint, in memory of Philip A.Kint

Linda & Robion C. Kirby

Bernice & Charles C. Klosterman

Suzanne M. Lamb

Carol Langner & Fritz Fritschel

Brian Larson & Renae Kofford

Anna L. Lawson

William B. Lazar

Shanda K. LeVan

Meg Macleod

Ruth & Don Marsh

Michael A. Mayhew

McKinstry Company CharitableFoundation

Brenda & Gregory McMillan, in honor ofTim Martin

Craig A. Melby (6)

Maeona Mendelson

Elenora & David A. Miller

Louise M. Moody

Mary Sue & William F. Morrill

Joyce & F. Joseph Murphy

Helle O. Nielsen

Patricia & Calvin C. Nolen

Ed Nystrom, in honor of Sandra Nystrom

Patricia O’Brien

Pam & Thomas Parsons

Christine Perala Gardiner & JohnGardiner, in memory of DonellaMeadows

Irma Prodinger

Barbara B. Quirk, in honor of Howard E.Quirk

Joseph K. L. & Xiaomei Li Reckford Fundof the Triangle Community Foundation

Joanna Reese

Susan Sanzone Fauver & ScribnerFauver, in honor and, in memory ofDana Meadows

Linda & John Sawyer

Dagmar Scharn & Paul Langsfeld

Marilyn & Michael G. Schooling

Daniel V. Schroeder

Ilsa Setziol

Hal Shepherd in honor of Ben Shepard

Barbara & Marc Slovak

Robert P. Smet

The Rudolph Steiner Foundation

James Stevens

Brian T. Sullivan

Textron Charitable Trust

Hallie & Joel Tilmant

The Norman & Carol Traeger Foundation,Inc.

Luis Ugalde

Heather & Gary L. Vaughn

Sacha & Craig Wade

Susan & Seward Weber

Hal Weckler, in memory of Ellen Weckler

Betty J. Weiss

Margaret & William E. Westerbeck

Margot & Scott D. Wilcox

The Williams Companies, Inc.

Roy W. Wood

Elizabeth & John G.Yingling

ASSOC I ATES $1–$99 Scott Abercrombie

Deanne L. Adams

Mary Ahearn

Melody & John B. Allison

Dr. & Mrs. John R. Anderson

Anita & Keith A. Anderson

Margaret Ann & Donald W. Anderson

David Andri

Anonymous (31)

Liam Antrim & Pamela A. Maurides

Jonathan R. Archer

E. Coury Armstrong

IN STITUTE SUPP ORTERS

p a ge 29F a l l 2 0 0 1

p a ge 30p a ge 30

Elaine Armstrong

Jim Arnold Jr.

Peter Asmus

Atis Zviedris Sustainable Energy

Jonathan Augello

Aurora Energy

John C. Austin

William A. Ayres

Grace & Bryan T. Bailey (8), in memory ofJohn Denver

Joan Baird

Mary-Lane Baker

Kurt Ballash

Bank of America Foundation

Paula Barclay & Collyer Kelling

Joyce & Gerald C. Barker

Zenobia Barlow

Larry B. Barrett

Della Jo & Anthony Barrett

Bill Barringer

Joanne & Richard H. Barsanti

Paul Bartch

Richard E. Baruch

Stacy Basham-Wagner & Robert O. Wagner

Janice B. Baty

Kurt G. Benedict

Robert J. Berman

Robert Black

George Blakey

Jaime J Blanco

John Bliese

Oliver R. Bock & Deirdre A. Stegman

Mary & Thomas G. Boman

Ursula & Theodore T. Boutmy

Jean & Ernest E. Boyce

BP Amoco Foundation, Inc.

Margaret & Thomas Bradylong

Paul E. Braese

Barbara Brahm (3)

Muriel Brainard

Margaret & Ronald Brand

Louise Brodman

Robert A. Brown

Jane & Donald McCarty Brown Jr.

Maggie & Bill Brunner

Pat Bryant

Alana C. Buckley & Alan T. Buckley

Steven A. Budas & Gail L. Irish

Pierre Bull, in honor of American LandStewards

Elaine & Bruce W. Burley

Diane & Frank J. Busateri Jr (3)

Judith A. Byrns & Joe L. Bergquist

Garret Bywaters

Ruth & Ralph N. Calkins

Gregorio M. Camacho II

Cambridge Energy Research Assoc

Catherine Carter

Duke Castle

Donald Cefaloni

Steve & Rosalind Chapman

Carmen & Jefferson Whitfield Chase

Harvey Chess

Lynn R. Chong

Clanton & Associates, Inc.

John Clark, in honor of John Andrew Clark

Linda M. Clark

Joan & Ken K. Clayborn

Dr. & Mrs. John C. Cobb

Russell A. Cohen

Robert Cohen

Wendy Lu & William D. Coiner

Clark Cole

David Collins

Neil B. Conklin

Consolidated Manufacturing, inc.

Alan J Cook Jr.

Hugh & Judith Corrigan

Larry Crenshaw

Kip & Hilary L. Crosby

E. J. Crowe

Richard L. Cunningham

Carlos da Costa

Richard Darling

Tane Datta

Mary Catherine & Ruben M. Davalos

Bruce Davies

James R. Dean

Lee DeBaillie

Keith Den Besten

Andrea M. Dermody

Marilyn & Robert A. Derrickson Jr

Alison C. & A. Gardner Dee DeWitt III

David & Donna Dobkin

Elizabeth & David S. Dodson Gray, in memoryof Dana Meadows

Mark F. Dreessen

Rob Dryden

Sharon P. Eakes

Pam & Kirk Ebertz

Rebecca S. Echols

Elizabeth A. Eckes

Ecobank Mali

Munemi & Kevin J. Eigel Diane & Allan Eisenman Polly & John M. Ely Jr.Emanon, Inc.Energy Conservation Associates Energy Center of Wisconsin Elizabeth & Eric K. Ericson, in memory of

John Ericson

Perry H. Eubank

Kim and Marshall Evans (2) Securing theFuture Campaign

John Ewer

Robert Fairchild

David Fallow

Kristin & John R. Fasana

Fieldbrook C.S.D.

Rosann Fillmore

Shawn Fitzgibbons

Rebecca L. Flora

Tammie & Arthur Y. Fong

Charles E. Ford & Elaine Katz

Tad S. Foster

Bob Fox

Lester N. Freed

Robert Fried

Mark Friedman (2)

Noreen E Furness-Moore

Marjorie & Brian Gaffikin (2)

Amanda C. Galtman

Mark Gardiner

Rich Garigen

Louis Gelwicks

Carol N. Gerlitz & William A. Braddock

Phillip Gibson

Elena & Dan W. Gibson

R. Paul Gillespie

David & Mary Gillespie

Ann & Harold Gilliam

Suzanne Golembieski, in memory of ChrisSmith

Robert G. Good & Susan M. Schickler

Lilly F. Goodman

Robert E Graetz

Graham Greene

Julie & Roger Grette

Julie Grimme

Rod Groomes

Josef Gruber

Joyce & Paul D. Gudat

Benita Hack

Eldon Haines & Linda Rose

Cralle & David R. Hall

Elaine Halsey

John Handley

Ladislav Hanka

Kelly L. Harris

Nancy & John Haslip

Neva Hassanein

Chris Hayes

Thomas Heinemann

Louis R. Hellwig

Phil Henke

Wava & Reese H. Henry

Dennis Heritage

Genie & Keith B. Hibbard, in memory of Mrs.Georgia Bengtson

Craig Hibberd

James J. Higgins

Richard C. Hill

Marc & Colleen P. Himebaugh

Alice Hine

Richard Hitchingham

Nicolette Hodgson

Judy & Michael A. Hohmann

Carolyn Holland & Michael S. Carbary

Patricia & Jerald J. Holland

Mr. & Mrs. William E. Holman

Bonny & Dwight Holmes, in honor of DouglasHolmes

Stuart B. Holoman

David Holubetz

Linda L. Holup & David Revell

Justin Hospital

Sam Howell & M. Clare Paris

Kaki Hunter

William Hurrle

David W. Inouye

Curt Jacquot

John G. Jennings III

Mason Jensen

Jimmy Johnson

Judith N. Jones

Kitty & Dick Jordan

Dana Judy & Susan A. Weisner

David G. Karpinski

David Kastor

David Kaufman

Eric Kay

Tara Keairnes

John W. Kehoe

Kathleen & R. Reed Kelley

Raymond Kennedy

Anne & Erik M. Kindblom

Fred Kirschenmann

Philip W. Klein

Nelly & Craig S. Klein, in honor of John Denver

Jeffrey P. Knight

Greg Knittl

Deron L. Kosoff

Werner Krag

Judy & Ken E. Kraus

Jill Krebs

Sue & George A. Kresovich

Natasha Kuperman, in honor of AlexandraKuperman

Jaan Laaspere & Amy Stringer

Dorothy & Richard D. Lamm

Joseph K. Landsman, in memory of Sonia andHarry Landsman

p a ge 31

George Sandy Lawrence & Barbara JeanSchickler

Denia & Paul R. Layton, in memory of HollySowerwine

Laytonville Co Water District

Jonnie & William S. Lazarus

Cathryn & Eric T. Lee

Dick Lee

Leger Wanaselja Architecture

Kathy Lener

Mimi & Dan Leslie

Jo Lewis

Michael Lind

Deborah K. Lindell & Donald Lee Butler

Roger Lippman

Carole Lomond

Randi Lowenthal

Jean MacGregor

Randy Mack

Janet & William G. Madill

William & Mary Makofske

Patricia & Donald R. Malberg

George Malburg

Russell Malley & Tynka L. Dees

Mark Marcoplos

Jan & Art Martin

Marcia & Stephen P. Martinson

Holly & Stephen A. Massey

James I. Masters

Thomas Maufer

Henry & Willa Mauro

Dorothy & Mike McCarter

John McClaughry

Rick McConn

Andrew S. McDonald

Edward McGarrity

James McGreen

Joshua McIntyre

Dale A. McMillen

Allison & Michael Thomas McPherson

James E. Mennick

Keith R. Merkel

Nation Meyer

Bonnie & Peter A. Meyer

Elizabeth & James Mijanovich

Charles & Kathleen Milikin

Peter M. Miller & Anne M. Schonfield

Jodie Mitchell

Max Mitchell & Kim Fine

John Moody Kahoun

Moorhead Public Service Peg Moran Harold B. Mosher Tatyana & Milton Moss Shannon & Gary E. Mueller, in honor of

Christopher J. Mueller

David Mueller

Philipp Muessig

Paul Murray

Nelson Breech Nave

Joanna L. Nelson

Virginia Newman

Emily & John W. Newton

Cindy & Steve Nicholson

Diane Nilsson, in memory of John Denver

Karen G. Noble

Jack M. Nottingham

Elizabeth Nystedt Fletcher & Richard A.Fletcher

Robert R. O’Brien

Marcia & Mike O'Connor

Ruthanne & William E. O’Neill

Barbara & Kevin O’Reilly

Robert Odland

Kimberly L. Orr

Douglas Porter Owen

Bill Palmisano

Robert H. Palrud

Paragon Homes Limited

Charles D. Parent

Wylie B. Pearce

Clayton Pederson

Nicola Peill Ph.D. (2)

Larry D. Pelter

John Pennington

Edwin M. Perkins

John Peschon

Donald H. Peterson

Thomas L. Pettit

Joe Pignotti

Elaine & Steve Pike

Richard F. Plage

John Platt & Lisa Heilbron (2)

David & Judy A. Pluta

Susan E. Pokorny

Gary Don Popken

John Pound

Donna Power

Richard H. Pree

Michael Prichard

Roger Pritchard

Ross Pumfrey

Shanna Ratner

Jennifer Reid Smith

Mary S. Reilly & Greg C. Putalik

Philip B. Reinhart

Douglas & Jean M. Rhinehart

Kerry Richardson

Al Richardson

Leonard Rifas & Mizue Fujinuma

F. Don Riggs

David Rindlaub

Barbara Rishel

Robin & David S. Rittenhouse

Jody & John N. Roberts

Sandra Roberts & David Rhoads

William T. Roberts

G. Greig Robertson

Ted Robinowitsh

Jill Robinson

Paula & James Rogers

Zella & Judith A. Rohrbaugh

Anna & Jonathan M. Rosen, in memory ofShirley T. Rosen

Stan & Lorraine Rosenberg

Mark Rousseau

Henry A. Roy

Dana Roze

Joanna E. Rueter, in memory of Sarah H.Nomer

Rural Ministry Office

Lillian & Robert J. Russo

Ladd D. Rutherford

Ann & Loren L. Saari, in memory of HarleyGibson

Catherine I. Sandell

Lisa & Stephen D. Sarfaty

John A. Satterwhite

Marshall Saufley

Giorgio Scaglia

Mark Schaefer

Judith Schector

Lynn C. Scheffey

Joyce & David L. Schmoeger

Paul J. Schneller

James & Ann T. Schulz

Jon R. Schutz

James A. Schwarber

Betty Schwimmer & John Rubel, in memory ofDr. David Schwimmer

Dave Sebek

Linda & David D. Selbert (2)

Andrew M. Shapiro

Charles A. Shapiro

Philip T. Shepard

Bill Shirley

Jerry Shue & Barbara A. Webb

Anthony Simmonds

Louise & John W. Singleton

James Skinner

Ron Smaron

Leslie Ann Smith & Alexander McGregor, inmemory of Dorcas H. McDonald

Eric Parkman Smith

Eileen Roberta Smith

Frank Marsh Smith & Linda Paige Burns

Louise & Florian R. Smoczynski

Jeff Snyder

Keith Snyder

Tony Solgard

Gail & Gregory C. Speer

Elizabeth B. Spettigue

Brion Sprinsock & Kristine A. Albrecht

Mark S. Squillace

St. Louis County Property Mngmnt

Dan & Theresa Stack

Edward J. Stapper (2)

James H. Starr

Henry & Helen Stephenson

Deborah & David P. Stephenson

Judith H. Sterling, in memory of Mac Sterling

Richard D. Stern

Mildred E. Stevens & Jean Barrieu Stevens(2)

Edna J. Stokes (2)

Penny & Ron G. Stover

William C. Stuef

Donald D. Sutton

Ann & Roger H. Sweet

Ruth & Lyle A.Taylor

Susan & Eric F.Thacher

Center for Theology & Land

Stephen Thomas

Brittony Thomas

Evelyn Thompson, in memory of GeorgiaBengtson

Mary & Harold W.Thompson

Erin M.Thornley & Joseph T. Parisi

David H.Tier

Eric Tingstad

Suzanne & Robert K.Toji

Lynn & John A.Townsend, in memory of Mrs.Georgia Bengtson

Terry & Gary Trauner

Scott M.Tundermann

David Tupper

United Way of King County/Microsoft (2)

Van Der Ryn Architects

David & Doris V. Van Saun

Ann & John B. Vautour

Nancy & Tom Vineski

Dianne Vivian

Patti M. Vogelaar Flynn & Jerome D. Flynn

Robert & Sonia Vogl

William Von Lackum II

Jacobus Vrolijk

Ruth Shanti Wagner

Mary M. Walker

Janelle & Gary J. Walter, in memory of PaulWalter

Richard C. Walters

Dick Wanderscheid

David A. Warner

p a ge 31F a l l 2 0 0 1

p a ge 32p a ge 32

Dolores K. Watson

Richard A. Weaver

Richard A. Weigel

James S. Weinberg & Mary Beth Cysewski

Carroll A. Weinberg

Azar & Christopher J. Weixelman

Rick Weyerhaeuser

James & Eileen M. Whipple

Osgood & Barbara Whittemore

Roy O Williams

LaVerne A. Williams

Terry Wilson

Herbert R. Wiser

Matt Worswick

Peggy M. Wrenn

Kathleen M.Young

Gabriel Zimmerman

Seyburn Zorthian

Shuyee & Roger L. Zuehlke, in memory ofJohn Denver

DONORS TO THE ERI C KON-HE I M F ELLOWSH I P FUND, I NMEMORY OF ERI C KONHE I M Clinton Bailey

Carter & Suzanne F. Bales

Stephen W. Biegel

Rita & Frank Castagna

Lina & Aron Castro

David N. Deutsch & Co. LLC

Mary K. Dougherty & Erik Neumann

Jaren & Bruce Ducker

Lynn Eaton Jackson & Kirkman Jackson

Fensterstock & Partners LLP

Fisher Development, Inc.

Honey S. Fishman

Robert & Joyce Menschel Family Foundation

Ronald A. Galotti

Jennifer & P.M. Gibbons

Gloria Gilbert Stoga & Alan J. Stoga

Mr. & Mrs. Roger A. Goldman

Richard C. Griggs

Rosetta W. Harris Charitable Lead Trust A

Caroline P. Hirsch Foundation

Jane & Joseph Kasov

Paul O. Koether

Barbara Kolb & Seymour August

Colleen & Bud Konheim (2)

Dalia & Laurence C. Leeds

Richard H. Leeds

Robert L. Lenzner

Lisa & Jonathan A. Lucas

Allen J. Noveck

Dorothy R. Pace

Powers Global Strategies LLC

Nan W. Puryear

Jean & Dan I. Rather

Estelle & Steven J. Rose

Philip S. Schlein

Michael Shina

Philip Silber

Stef & KC, Inc.

Carola Stoner Mach

UNITE!

Mariana Verkerk

Mary & Kenneth H. Walker

DONORS TO THE PH I LL I PAUST I N SEMMER MEMORI ALI NTERNSH I P FUND*Colleen K. Abernethy, in memory of Eleanor

Velie

Donna Rae & John K. Akers, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Christy K. Anderson & James M. Funk, inmemory of Eleanor Velie

Patricia & Kamel Aossey, in memory of PhillipAustin Semmer

Virginia Baggenstoss, in memory of EleanorVelie

Virginia Baggenstoss, in memory of PhillipAustin Semmer

Connie & Stan Bicek, in memory of EleanorVelie

Carole & William Birch, in memory of EleanorVelie

Betty & Robert F. Campion, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Susan & Robert E. Casey, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Barbara & Stephen J. Crandall, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Virginia L. Cunningham, in memory of EleanorVelie

Mary & Richard D. Eide, in memory of EleanorVelie

Genevieve & Hubert G. Ferguson, in memoryof Eleanor Velie

Ron Fosburgh, in memory of Eleanor Velie

General Mills Foundation, in memory ofPhillip Austin Semmer

Stanley Gilbertson, in memory of EleanorVelie

Nancy & Michael F. Grein, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Margaret B. Hughes, in memory of EleanorVelie

Miriam J. Kelen, in memory of Eleanor velie

Bonnie J. Lord & Donald B. Jenkins, in memoryof Eleanor Velie

Richard B. Maland, in memory of EleanorVelie and, in honor of Phillip A. Semmer

Beatrice E. Maland & Nancy J. Green, inmemory of Eleanor Velie

Lavone Maland, in memory of Eleanor Velie

Meridian Manor, in memory of Eleanor Velie

Jean & James P. Mulvahill, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Alison & Richard R. Roach, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Anne Scheitlin Johnson, in memory of EleanorVelie

Jane & Gary J. Schroeher, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Joan & Phillip G. Semmer, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Elizabeth J. Semmer, in memory of EleanorVelie

Paul G. Semmer, in memory of Eleanor Velie

Nancy & Richard B. Solum, in memory ofEleanor Velie

Martha W. Velie, in memory of Ellie Velie and,in honor of Joan and Phil Semmer

Smoky & Jim Wetherbe, in memory of PhillipAustin Semmer

Wendy & Gary K. Wold, in memory of EleanorVelie

*Many recent gifts to the Semmer MemorialInternship Fund were given in memory ofPhillip’s grandmother, Eleanor Velie, whopassed away in May. RMItes join inexpressing our sympathy to the extendedSemmer family.

PATRONS $1000–$9999 John T. Getz, in memory of John Denver

SPONSORS $100–$999 Aish Hatorah

Sarah Jane Amoroso, in memory of JohnDenver

Ellen Bigelow, in loving memory of JohnDenver

Paulette & Mel Blumenthal

Susan Coit

Gail Cottingham Koch

Barbara & Peter B. Fleming, in memory ofJohn Denver

Alexandra & C.Thomas Fuller

Edwin C. Glickman, in memory of John Denver

Ted L. Goudvis

Jane Ellen Hamilton

Sandy & Charles Israel

Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey D.J. Kallenberg

Sara & Robert J. Keckeisen, in honor of thelife & message of John Denver

Lori Ohlson

ASSOC I ATES $1–$99 Grace & Bryan T. Bailey (8), in memory of

John Denver

Meta P. Barton

Rex L. Bavousett & Jan A. Moore

Barbara Dodge Bennett, in memory of LeslieFrancis

Annalisa M. Berns, in memory of John Denver

Rebecca A. Biscaro, in memory of JohnDenver

Sheilah Bryan

Shelley Burke

Diane & Frank J. Busateri Jr (3)

Cathryn and Thomas F. Crum

Robert Dorsey

Diane C. Eskew, in memory of John Denver

Edith B. Fehr

Verena Frei Bishop, in memory of John Denver

Alexandria Z. Gelencser, in memory of JohnDenver

Cathryn M. Harrison, in memory of JohnDenver

Nancy & Randall L. Kreager, in memory ofJohn Denver

Geoffrey H. Lester

Denison Levy

Anne M. Mickle, in memory of John Denver

Kerry & Ricki R. Newman to continue thedreams of John Denver

Kathleen & Burton D. Olshan

Patricia & Ronni R. Ridenour, in memory ofJohn Denver

Margaret & James M. Robb, in honor ofMiriam H. Sinclair

Judith J. Schramm

Joyce & Chuck Shenk

Ruth Ann & James L. Sherman

Fatha & Charles W. Swope, in memory oftheir nephew John Denver

Edith & George Wombwell, in memory of JohnDenver

Shuyee & Roger L. Zuehlke, in memory ofJohn Denver

WIN D STAR LA N DC O N SERVA N CY

D O N ORS

We also want tothank those indi-viduals who havecontributed toR MI throughEarth S hare, thecombined

Federal C a mpaign, and otherworkplace charit able progra ms. Ifyou would like to have R MI as acharit able option in your work-place ca mpaign, please cont actour D evelopment D epart ment,(970/927-3851).

what color blouse or towels yoursister likes.

We think we have an answer thatcould help you, your friends,your relatives, and our earth.

Consider giving gifts to Rocky MountainInstitute. Your gifts to RMI would honoryour friends and relatives by providing con-tinuing financial assistance for research,strategic influence, and outreach and edu-cation about sustainable solutions toenergy, water, transportation, climate, secu-rity, and green building development.

We’ll send you a packet in early Decemberthat will include everything for easy giftgiving to RMI. We’ll also send a card to theperson(s) in whose name you are donating.

In other news, to encourage visits to ourwebsite, we’re offering prizes to a fewlucky clickers. Recently, we began printingnumbers on the upper right hand corner ofthe mailing label on this newsletter. Findthe number, then go to our website atwww.rmi.org and click under theannouncement for the fall newsletter(you’ll see it). Look at the list of numbersthere. If your number matches any of thoselisted on the website, you are a winner!

To claim your prize (which could be RMImerchandise or publications), please callCharmaine Boudreaux at 970-927-3851,email her at charmain@rmi.org, or writeher at 1739 Snowmass Creek Road,Snowmass, CO 81654.

A lexis Karolides, a senior consultant for RMI’s GreenDevelopment Services, is getting her chance to walkthe walk and talk the talk. Alexis and her husband,

artist and builder Douglas Hill, are setting out to build their ownhome. Alexis, an architect, is designing the house partly aroundmaterials they have salvaged from demolished buildings.

Alexis can trace both her inclination to be an architect and heraffinity for conservation to her background. She grew up in RiverFalls, Wisconsin, on the Minnesota border. Her mother was anartist; her father, an English professor at the University ofWisconsin’s River Falls campus. Both were born into immigrantfamilies around the time of the Great Depression; they knew thevalue of saving resources. They also passed on a penchant for cre-ativity that showed up later in life.

Though Alexis grew up with a wide spectrum of interests, sheloved physics, and that became her major. Her undergraduatethesis was on solar and alternative energy, where she ran acrossthe writings of one Amory Lovins, about something called the“Soft Path.”

Physics satisfied her analytical side, but she wanted to go beyondthe theoretical world of the physics lab. Exploring further, shedecided to study architecture, because it would allow her to con-tinue to be analytical while also drawing on her creativity.

“I thought I’d be able to affect theworld in a more visible, immediateway,” she says.

Alexis and Doug quickly discoveredthat building a house near Aspen has aunique aspect. Because large luxury houses are being torn downto make room for even larger luxury houses, a huge amount ofdemolition debris ends up at the Pitkin County Landfill. A goodshare of it is reusable. To someone with Alexis’s sensibilities, thesematerials are begging to be reincarnated.

“When I see Douglas fir beams being ground up for compost andmarble slabs going into the landfill, it violates my sense of ethics,”she says. Doug has salvaged 180 such beams that would other-wise have gone to the landfill, as well as solid wood cabinets anddoors, wood and tile flooring, and countless other items.

Alexis and Doug’s house will feature straw-bale walls, solar-heatedradiant floors, and some of those Douglas fir beams overhead.Alexis drafted the first plan for the house some time ago, but thedesign keeps evolving.

“They say the hardest thing for an architect to do is to design herown house,” she says. “And it’s true. Just when you think youhave it designed, you find some more materials.”

—Jeremy Heiman

st a f f spotlig ht: Alexis K a rolides

S everal days ago Ishared an idea withmy colleagues at

RMI about sending holidaycards (including a reply enve-lope) in early December toRMI donors and friends. Suchmailings had been successfulin raising funds for other organi-zations where I had worked.

Most looked at me as if I’d lost my marbles.Or at least thought I was very crass.

As we talked, however, the idea of encour-aging alternative holiday gift giving becameattractive. We all know how tough it is tocome up with gift ideas for our friends andrelatives.

Like us, you have probably found yourselftrying to remember whether you gave yourfather a shirt or a tie last Christmas. Or

H e arty Th a nks To AllD ale Levy, D evelop m ent Director

p a ge 33F a l l 2 0 0 1

p a ge 34

D efenders of polluting industriescontinue to score politically byportraying environmental protec-

tion as harmful to economic growth andjobs. Environmental stewardship and arobust economy go together more oftenthan not, and are in fact, virtually symbi-otic. In recent years, however, advocates ofenvironmental protection have begun torealize they have a golden opportunity toturn the tables on their opponents byallying themselves with the principal source

of economic growth and jobs in the UnitedStates: small businesses.

The nation’s booming small business sectornow generates half of the private grossdomestic product, half of all U.S. salesactivity, and half of all private sectoroutput. In 1999, Americans started900,000 new small businesses. Today,amazingly, one in twelve Americans istrying to start a new business.

Just as RMI Solutions regularly tells the sto-ries of those really big firms shifting thebusiness paradigm, there are dozens ofexamples of small businesses working for abetter economy while changing industry.T/J Technologies of Ann Arbor, Michigan,for example, is a small research companythat develops environment-friendly mate-rials for electrochemical storage devicessuch as ultracapacitors, lithium-ion bat-teries, and fuel cells. The firm’s devicesdeliver more energy with less weight insmaller packages. In each of the past fouryears, the company’s revenues have dou-bled.

GreenDisk is a small business in Redmond,Washington, founded by Center for SmallBusiness and the Environment (CSBE)member David Beschen. David saw thatthe top-quality diskettes in boxes of unsold,unused software could be salvaged andreused. GreenDisk now offers renewed andreused disks through major office supplycatalogs.

The nation’s first (and still only) environ-mental management system integratedwith sustainability concepts was developedby Rejuvenation, Inc. (www.rejuvenation.-com), a lamp and fixture company based inPortland, Ore. now employing over 200 inmanufacturing and retail operations. RMI’sChristopher Juniper was the project’s leadconsultant, supported by funding from theOregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality—a good model for public/privatecollaboration that breaks new ground for allbusinesses, large and small.

Small businesses provide about 75 percentof the net new jobs and more than half ofall private-sector jobs in America. Many ofthe nation’s leading small businesses are

profiting and growing through dramaticgains in resource productivity achievedby innovative technologies—both theirown inventions and the rapid deploy-ment of green technologies developedby others.

Because they are small and frequentlynew, these entrepreneurs are not captivesof the old industrial order; they are its“marketplace critics.” Like environmentaladvocates, they object to public policiesand regulations that unfairly favor (and sub-sidize) older, bigger and dirtier businessesand that consequently act as barriers toinnovation. Herein lies the basis of collabo-ration.

Environmental advocates, with their formi-dable political skills, can help small busi-nesses overcome these barriers. For theirpart, small businesses can help environ-mental advocates win the “economicsversus the environment” debate. Workingin alliance, they will be able to:

Reframe the question. The debate that’sneeded is about the best interests of busi-ness. Is it defending old inefficient indus-tries that are in decline? Or is itchampioning new efficient industries thatare rising?

Change the cast of characters. This newdebate is not between businesspeople andenvironmentalists. It’s between two com-

Ten S m allBusiness Keys to

N atura lC a pit a lism B y B yron Kennard

BUSIN ESS

peting groups of business advocates, onerepresenting the past and one repre-senting the future.

Control the rhetoric. The “spottedowls versus jobs” formulation puts envi-ronmentalists at a disadvantage. The“efficiency versus inefficiency” formula-tion turns the tables, putting polluters ata rhetorical disadvantage.

Maximize credibility. It’s tough to suc-ceed in small business and tougher still tolaunch an innovation, but these smallbusinesspeople are profiting and growingwhile doing the right thing environmen-tally. They speak with a credibility fewcan match.

Introduce “real world” proof.Evidence brought to the table by smallbusiness is neither theoretical nor aca-demic nor futuristic. These firms aremaking and selling real products and, inthe process, creating real jobs andgreener products.

Politicize the message from thebottom up. While there’s not a powerplant or oil refinery in every nook andcranny of America, there are small busi-nesses. When they speak out, their voicesare heard in city councils, county com-missions, and state legislatures—and inCongress.

Broaden and strengthen the move-ment. As clean new industries grow, itwill be in their self-interest to supportorganizations working for similar objec-tives. Environmental groups should wel-come them to become members,sponsors and donors, and to look for howthey can help businesses with ideas andpolitical support.

Ride the wave of new technology.Since the pace of technological innova-tion continues to quicken, there’s pres-sure (and opportunity) to become greenerand greener (i.e. more and more prof-itable). The public sector should be har-nessed to provide all the help possible for

small businesses to survive on the“bleeding” edge.

Fuse two great sources of politicalactivism. Like environmentalists, smallbusinesspeople constitute a large, activeand influential voting bloc. Nearly a thirdof all small business owners andemployees who voted in 1998 reportedthey volunteered on behalf of a politicalcandidate, and 36 percent said they con-tributed financially to a candidate.

Combine two powerful mystiques.Americans revere small business becauseit embodies such admired values as hardwork, thrift, pluck, and ingenuity.Americans venerate the natural environ-ment. Combine the mystique of smallbusiness with that of the environmentand the result is a 21st Century alchemy:countless new green companies withtechnologies that create jobs, build a sus-tainable prosperity, and protect theplanet.

Both small businesses and the environ-ment would benefit tremendously if gov-ernment and society recognized andappreciated the symbiosis between thetwo. Small business operators just wantto make a living, and onerous govern-ment regulations can be an impedimentto this goal. Time spent monitoring andrecord-keeping, obtaining permits andcompleting reports, etc., is time takenaway from the business. Often, regula-tions are difficult to find, understand, andstay on top of, which exacerbates theproblem. Incentives and education are abetter policy choice; many localeconomies have, like Pittsburgh PA,implemented programs to link small busi-nesses with advanced technologies.

CSBE is working to induce political col-laboration between the small businesscommunity and environmentalists in sup-port of public policy goals that profitsmall businesses and help protect theenvironment. The Center’s present

agenda includes:

• Small Businesses in California. Tohelp small businesses in California sur-mount the state’s energy crisis, thissummer we established a CSBECalifornia Energy Project, based in LosAngeles. The project strives to add astrong small business component to thewide variety of remedial efforts nowunderway or proposed.

• U.S. National Energy Plan (NEP).The administration’s proposed NEP advo-cates strengthening the EPA’s Energy Starprogram overall, but does not highlightthe needs of small business. We recom-mend that the NEP include an assess-ment of commercial products/equipmenttargeted to small business needs and notyet labeled by Energy Star.

• In addition, a one-time-only federal taxcredit for small business purchases ofenergy efficient equipment is needed.Such a tax credit could be based uponpurchases of Energy Star-labeled prod-ucts. (Energy Star identifies hundreds ofenergy efficient office and consumerproducts.)

• We also recommend that SBA loan pro-grams be modified to provide both newloans and refinancing options for smallbusinesses that purchase or lease EnergyStar related products, as well as requiringnew construction and remodelingfinanced by SBA to specify or requireEnergy Star’s new construction standards.

Byron Kennard is the Executive Directorof The Center for Small Business and theEnvironment (CSBE). CSBE helps smallbusinesses be more environmentallyresponsible (see www. aboutcsbe.org).Also see “In Business—CreatingSustainable Enterprises andCommunities” (www.inbusiness.org).

p a ge 35F a l l 2 0 0 1

Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xvii #3/Fall 2001Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xvii #3/Fall 2001

NON-PROFIT ORGU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT #43GWS, CO

Rocky Mountain Institute

1739 Snowmass Creek Road

Snowmass, CO 81654-9199c h a n g e s e r v i c e r e q u e s t e d

RMISolutionsRMISolutionsn e w s l e t t e r

IN SID E: • R MI’s Thou g hts on 11 Sep t. • Energy: R MI’s N aval Adventures• O ther Voices: Eric Rasm ussen on 11 Sep t. • Perspectives: ‘Gone Fission’• Bulm ers: An Ap ple A D ay • Byron Kenn ard on S m all Businesses • AskRocky: A Let ter Fro m Down Under • R MI’s United N ations Report • Wh atAre You Doin g?

Printed on New Leaf 60# EcoOffset White. 100% post-consumer waste. Processed chlorine-free.