A triumvirate team of Developer/Sustainability-Consultant, Architect, and General Contractor engaged in creating a standard plan prototype house for infill lots in downtown Phoenix. The three main goals were to:

1. Create a prototype house inspired by the “case-study” homes of the 1960’s, designed with time and place in mind, and to the highest standard of sustainability possible.
2. Create a low- to mid-cost home with high design, quality, and sustainability.
3. Create a design that may be replicated for any typical lot within Phoenix.

The team processed six versions of the design. They tested, energy-modeled, and priced each to find an optimal balance between design, performance, and cost.

The two-bedroom home is designed to fit on any typical downtown lot. The ultimate goal is to improve existing neighborhoods by building homes where derelict sites currently exist.

The home surpassed LEED Platinum certification and provided a blower test rating of .68 ACH50. The 1500 square foot house uses about 6000 kWh (about $700 worth) of electricity per year offset by a 3.6 kW photovoltaic system to create a net-positive energy house.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Vali Homes Prototype I

Net Zero Energy Building Certified

Living Building Challenge 3.0

Performance Areas
Place • Energy • Beauty

Place 

Recognizing the huge issues sprawl brings to cities such as Phoenix, the team also realized single family homes are the dominant housing form being constructed. This inspired the team to create a demonstration project to showcase better design and construction practices.

The project site was empty prior to construction, considered a “missing tooth” of the surrounding 1970’s suburban neighborhood. Because it was empty, the land was often used as an informal landfill and had trash on site. Because the landowner did not live in the neighborhood, there was no regular maintenance of the trash or landscape. Many of the neighbors felt the site was neglected and a blight for their community.

All landscaping is native desert species requiring little to no water use (after a one year establishment period) and little maintenance. All plant choices are located within 100 miles of the site. Native desert landscaping requires regular watering for 300-400 days before it can survive on rainfall alone. All watering occurred though an automated drip irrigation system.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Energy

The estimated annual energy consumption for the home during the design phase was 6500 kWh. After the PV panels were installed, the measured energy use was 5334 kWh, while the measured onsite generation was 5720 kWh. By the end of the performance period, the home had generated 107% of its energy use onsite.

Net Zero Energy Design Strategies

Reduce Energy Through Building Envelope

One major design strategy was to reduce energy use by means of thorough insulation. Additionally, measures were taken to limit infiltration in order to further reduce unwanted heat transfer. Materials were selected based on thermal properties, cost, and ease of installation, maintenance, and proper disposal.

• Utilized Passive House energy modeling software to test various building envelope solutions and cross-checked each solution for cost-benefit analysis.
• 2×6 wall and 18” deep wood truss roof construction completely filled with blow-in cellulose insulation.
• Use of advanced framing techniques to reduce amount of lumber used by approximately 20% when compared to conventional framing.
• The cellulose insulation was chosen for its:
  • 100% recycled content and near zero carbon footprint.
  • Increased R-value over typical fiberglass insulation with less air flow.
  • Ability to be blown into place to fit around ducts and pipes effectively.
  • Ability to be recycled and efficiency of material use (far less waste created when compared to conventional insulation)
• 1” rigid insulation installed between the exterior sheathing and wall cladding system to reduce thermal heat gain and further insulate the building envelope.
• Tightly sealed building envelope including vapor barrier beneath the slab, sealing all floor penetrations, house-wrap tape sealant, and gaskets at all openings.
• Blower door test provided rating of .68 ACH50.
• Utilized wood doors with aluminum cladding to help reduce thermal heat gain.
• Developed a vented bent-metal pan cladding system that sheds its own heat.
  • Creates zero construction waste as each piece is cut-to-length.
  • Extremely durable (rust protects steel in Phoenix region), zero maintenance.
  • 1” profile creates vented skin system to separate exterior temperature from interior.
  • Low cost & 100% recyclable.

Reduce Energy Use Through Appliances

Another concurrent design strategy used to help the home achieve Net Zero Energy was the reduction of energy use via efficient appliances and mechanical systems.

• A heat recovery ventilator produces 24-hour air exchange while maintaining 90% HVAC energy.
• Heat-pump water heater uses 1/3 as much energy as the conventional type, and acts as a half-ton A/C unit when operating (about 2-3 hours per day)
• HVAC system is a ductless mini-split system to deliver air directly to living areas within the house. The entire system utilizes less than 12 amps when fully operational.
• Ductless HVAC eliminates ducts in ceiling to ensure maximum insulation.
• All kitchen appliances are low-energy use (ENERGY STAR at minimum).

Design Process and Building Orientation

The team identified the importance of an integrated design process from the outset and made use of building orientation to help meet the goal of Net Zero Energy.

• Inclusionary Team Design Process including Owner, Sustainability Consultant, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Structural Engineer, General Contractor, and all sub-contractors.
• Several forms of energy calculation processes were used including using Passive House software to study cost versus benefit for each design decision.
• House was intentionally oriented on a north-south axis. There is zero east-west fenestration in order to reduce heat load.
• 100% shading on all glass during the four hottest summer months.
• Open plan to minimize HVAC components.
• Trees sited on east and west sides of house to shade the building.
• Flat roof for easy PV system installation.

On-Site Energy Systems

The on-site energy is provided by roof-mounted photovoltaic panels and is supplemented via a grid connection.

• 3.6 kW PV system, roof-mounted.
• System is grid-connected.
• No energy storage system.
• 100%+ annual energy is offset by the PV system, transferred to utility grid.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Beauty

The idea for this project, and for future homes to be built on other sites, was to create a design in the mindset of the case-study homes of the 1960’s – something visionary, stark, and simple. Though rather than copy the case-study home types, the team aimed to create something more specific for the current time and place, with much greater sustainability in mind.

The prototype project is meant to be as affordable as possible. To achieve that aim, the design needed to be as simple as possible. Within that simplicity, the team honed the design to produce human delight with pattern, color, sacred geometry, and biophilic elements and principals.

Pattern

The steel cladding on the exterior of the building is a slightly customized bent metal pan system of various widths to create visual variety. The majority of the cladding was intentionally designed to be rusted metal set in a “random” pattern for a variety of reasons.

The texture is rich and mimics patterns on local rock and ground cover. The material, left to naturally patina in this way, helps to blend it with the site, which was covered with local granite gravel paving.

The material itself is a reminder of the area’s mining and agricultural past. Rust is often seen on the oldest remaining buildings in the city.

Of course, durability is a key feature. But over time, the material changes, allowing the home to take on different appearances. In this region, mill finish steel left to rust lasts a minimum of 50 years even with a 20 gauge bent pan.

The varied widths and “random” pattern provide a biophilic interpretation into natural patterns.

The screen wall around the courtyard is created with a carefully placed set of horizontals, also with a variety of sized elements set in a seemingly “random” pattern to create a biophilic interpretation of natural patterns.

The colored glass wall at the back of the house is painted with a random pattern of bubbles.

Color

The exterior cladding includes a few colored panels to break up the biophilic pattern further.

The green color is derived from the native Palo Verde tree. Its bark is green and allows the tree’s skin to photosynthesize – something very unique to the plants in this region.

The “random” pattern of the green panels mimics the way a multi-trunked Palo Verde tree can look against a backdrop.

Two glass panels were added behind the house to provide a view to a colored wall plane.

Sacred Geometry

There are several areas that utilize geometries that are immediately recognizable and appreciated by the human eye.

The entire house in elevation from the street is made up of two rectangles of 10’x20’ that make up the 40’ long elevation.

The constant 8’ height of the interior of the space is meant to be comfortably proportioned and sized.

The three white walls, not connected to the side walls, at the exterior elevation (one at the living room and one at each of the two bedrooms) are each exactly 8’x8’.

There is another white wall at the interior that is disconnected from the side wall and also exactly 8’x8’.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Biophilia

Every living space has multiple openings to collect changing light patterns throughout the day.

Every living space has views to native landscaping.

The front courtyard provides a “refuge” and “prospect” for the living space to put occupants at ease by providing protection with a view of the surrounding area.

The green painted glass with bubble pattern mimics the way mud dries in the desert.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Inspiration + Education

Prior to construction, the team attended a neighborhood meeting to present the design and sustainability strategies of the house to the community. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. People seemed excited about two aspects of the project.

1. They were very happy to see that the previously empty lot in their neighborhood would now be filled with a house for ownership. The lot had always contained a fair bit of trash that people would leave there or that the wind would blow onto the property. Sometimes people would also park their cars on the lot, creating an eyesore for the neighborhood.
2. Several community members were very interested in the sustainability features we were employing, particularly the goal of net-zero energy usage. There was a bit of discussion and brainstorming about how the team could achieve this goal.

The team provided a “reader’s digest” version of the design and building technologies that it planned to employ to accomplish the challenging goals. The neighborhood seemed pleased with the proposed solutions.

While aesthetics were discussed, the neighbors were less interested in discussing this aspect. However, they were also very happy the house would be limited to one story in height. The entire neighborhood is one story, and they saw the design as fitting in well with the scale and housing types of the community.

The team conducted several open house events before the house sold. All of them were tours given by both the developer/sustainability consultant and the architect. The tour guides verbally conveyed information on the building technologies, energy savings, and net-positive energy aspects of the house while showing the visitors the building technologies, including the solar PV array on the roof (seen from across the street). In particular, there was discussion around the use of advanced framing techniques, increased insulation, and the tightly sealed house-wrap system. There was also discussion around the need for and positive aspects of the heat recovery ventilator (HRV) equipment within the house. The vented steel skin system was a highlight; it is completely recyclable, requires no maintenance, and will last for a minimum of 50 years.

Announcements for the house were published through the team’s websites, Facebook page, and local websites/Facebook pages for people interested in sustainability and architecture. All three Open Houses were open to the general public and free of charge.

In May 2009, San Juan County Building Department issued Final Occupancy Permits for Common Ground, Lopez Community Land Trust’s fourth affordable housing neighborhood and their first net-zero energy neighborhood in the state of Washington. Common Ground consists of 11 single-family affordable homes. Additionally, LCLT built an office and two affordable rental units. The 11 homes are under a cooperative ownership model and governed by a 198-year ground lease, which includes an equity limitation formula; this assures the homes remain permanently affordable.

LCLT initiated the project because affordable housing is key to sustaining a strong, viable community. The team was inspired to build a net-zero neighborhood after reading a speech by William McDonough, a world-renowned architect, designer and author of the book Cradle to Cradle, a manifesto that called for the transformation of human industry through ecologically intelligent design.

Lopez Island faces unique economic challenges. Salaries and wages contribute only 33% to household incomes in San Juan County compared with 61% statewide. 45% of household income within the county comes from investment income. This pattern of income gives Lopez Island a high cost of living (especially housing costs) coupled with low wages.

In 2006, LCLT convened a three-day design charrette. Over thirty practitioners from northwestern Washington offered their in-kind services. The charrette team consisted of future residents, architects, planners, builders, county officials, water and energy consultants, attorneys, and permaculture designers. For the final design, LCLT hired Mithun, a leading architectural firm in sustainable design. LCLT served as manager, developer and owner through the design and construction phases. Common Ground members, LCLT and designers worked collaboratively throughout the design and building phases.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Common Ground

Net Zero Energy Building Certified

Living Building Challenge 3.0

Performance Areas
Place • Energy • Beauty

Place 

The site was chosen for its horizon-to-horizon sun access for maximizing solar energy, close proximity (walking and biking distance) to Lopez Village where there is access to the medical clinic, post office, grocery stores, community center, farmers market and other essential services. With a gentle slope to the southeast, the site lends itself well to solar access. The soils were poor, containing only a few inches of top soil and mostly a clay silt content, but soils were enhanced where the gardens are located and utmost care was taken to preserve what little top soil was disturbed. A pond was constructed in the lowest section of the land for storm water and irrigation collection.

Innovations

Rainwater is used in the homes for washing clothes and flushing toilets. The units contain earthen plasters and straw bales for insulation, evacuated tube solar water heaters, and a 3-kilowatt photovoltaic system for each house.

Lessons Learned

Earthen plasters and straw bale construction were very time and labor intensive.

Introducing rainwater in the houses is an ongoing expense because of the back flow preventers.

Earthen plasters were not properly prepared and caused moisture issues, which showed up a few years later. These had to be remedied, which added to the already high cost.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Energy 

Net zero energy was established as a core design principle for Common Ground in March 2006 during the initial design charrette, making the community an early pioneer in this groundbreaking concept and reality. Extensive consideration was given to achieving the net zero goal through the design and construction process. Given the early date in the overall narrative of net zero energy, the team had to arrive at a number of guiding principles and expectations on their own, including assumptions about occupant loads – there were few examples, definitions, or frameworks to look to at the time.

Later in 2006, LCLT contracted with Dana Brandt of Ecotech Energy Systems to further evaluate the net zero energy concept. Using recorded data from three existing LCLT communities and information from existing “net-zero energy home” projects, an energy requirement estimate for Common Ground was made. LCLT reviewed the information and determined there was a good chance of meeting the net-zero energy goal. The team researched further, finessed the information, and then adjusted as needed given the budget, skills and timeline. Design development continued as building plans were created by Mithun, the project design architect.

A key element of the project was to work in harmony with the natural gifts of the site: sun, wind, water, and materials. The site has excellent solar exposure, and the home designs orient towards a partially passive approach in heating, ventilation, and hot water. This aspect is a standout feature of Common Ground compared to other net zero energy projects, which tend to rely on more mechanical approaches.

Common Ground was designed to gain a significant portion of its heating needs directly from the sun, and retain the gained heat in a highly insulated, well sealed envelope. The homes are oriented with their lengths on the east-west axis, substantial glazing is placed on the south façade to maximize solar gain, and a high south facing clerestory with operable windows high and low assist with wind and stack driven ventilation. Thermal retention inside the homes was provided by an insulated concrete slab and by the heavy stucco finish, which was placed over the straw bales.

The building walls and ceiling are highly insulated. The north, east, and west walls are built with straw bales, which resulted in R-34 to R-42 – double the level required by code. The south walls were R-21 2×6 stud construction, insulated with blown in cellulose. The ceiling was a combination of cathedral (insulated with spray foam) and dropped sections (insulated with blown in cellulose), both insulated to R-50.

Windows are fiberglass, argon filled, low-e coated, and double paned. Glazing was specified to maximize solar gain for south, west, and east facing windows and maximize retention on the north facade. On the north walls, the team selected windows with a 0.27 U factor, a SHGC of 0.28 and a VT rating of 0.49 with double glazing with insulated spacers (“super spacers”). Windows on the south, west and east walls have a 0.31 U factor, a SHGC of 0.61 and a VT rating of 0.63 with double glazing with insulated spacers.

The homes were performance tested using a blower door and infrared camera.

Initial calculations suggested that about 40-50% of the unit heating could be provided through passive solar gain, based on the home design. At the time of design and construction, mini split systems were untested regionally and not well known, and ground source heat pumps were cost prohibitive. Given the expected passive solar performance of the home, the team determined electric resistance heating, though inefficient, to be an acceptable mechanical heating system for the homes. Since initial occupancy, two of the certified homes (units F and I) have been retrofitted with mini split ductless heat pumps. Whole house fans provide supplemental ventilation.

The project’s approach of maximizing direct sun energy continues with the hot water system, which includes evacuated solar thermal tubes to provide 65-75% of the needed hot water for each home. Each home has its own hot water system, including a Thermomax evacuated tube array and a hot water storage tank, which includes an electric resistance element to provide any hot water needed that the array isn’t able to supply. The tube arrays are mounted on the individual home rooftops.

Energy Star appliances were chosen throughout. As LED lighting has become commonplace, it has made its way into most fixtures. In practice, the community is very environmentally oriented, which helps raise consciousness and expectation for keeping loads low.

The homes’ energy demands are offset by individual ground mounted 3-kilowatt arrays. These arrays are collocated on the south edge of the site – while they appear to be one large array, they are in fact eleven separate arrays mounted side by side. Each 3 kW array is comprised of 15 Evergreen 205 Watt Modules, making 165 solar panels in total for the supply to 11 homes. A grid-intertie SMA 3000 string inverter converts the direct current (DC) electricity from that array’s solar panels to 240 volt alternating current (AC) electricity. The AC electricity from each inverter is passed through a production meter, and then connects to each home’s electrical panel.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Beauty

Beauty and inspiration were guiding principles for this project. The Common Ground homes are located in the San Juan Islands, considered the crown jewels of the Pacific Northwest. The site is just east of the Salish Sea, where the Olympic range can be seen in the distance. The team wanted to celebrate place and have the buildings reflect that beauty.

Common Ground utilized the unique sculptability of straw bale and plasters for beauty and inspiration. Homeowners, interns and volunteers were excited about sculpting in the straw bales and plaster. “Truth Windows” were one of the primary sources of inspiration.

An entire visiting delegation from Thailand made a comparable “Tree of Life,” and a Maori delegation contributed its indigenous design for Life.

Photo: Courtesy of Sandy Bishop

Photo: Courtesy of Juan Hernandez

Inspiration + Education

The homes will, in measurable ways, promote energy and water independence while preserving the rural character of the site and improve the natural diversity and habitat of site, situation, and surroundings through permaculture practices. These beautiful homes reduce the use of resources by utilizing small, efficient footprints. Six of the homes are 740 square feet, four are 876 square feet, and there are even two studio rentals available at 412 square feet each. Local lumber was milled for key features, including door trim, adding to the site-specific identity of the homes. Numerous parties volunteered their time, labor, and services to help make this project a reality.

During a 3-day design charrette in the spring of 2006, LCLT gained essential development expertise from over thirty practitioners who offered their in-kind services. The team consisted of eight architects, along with several planners, builders, county officials, water and energy consultants, attorneys, and permaculture designers. Their participation set a framework for Sustainable Community Homes.

Some of LCLT’s Guiding Principles:

• Demonstrate good design and appropriate building in an age of climate change
• Make development decisions based on sustainability while assuring decisions are fair, cost effective and subjected to a predictable process
• Model buildings and infrastructure on natural systems in which there is little to no waste
• Utilize energy efficiency and renewable energy to produce net zero energy homes
• Foster distinctive, aesthetically pleasing homes with a strong sense of place
• Recognize the importance of natural beauty, and critical environmental areas in all final design schematics
• Encourage community collaboration in building through sweat equity and intern opportunities
• Plan to share knowledge by updating the manual
• Create a walkable neighborhood that fits with the existing mixed-use neighborhood, and address alternative transportation choices

“Common Ground is about reinventing the American Dream. In the years ahead, Americans will be compelled to shed some deeply ingrained habits of material consumption. These adjustments can be endured, nay, embraced, if people are confident that the country is headed to a more fulfilling transformation. I believe this transformation is fundamentally about discovering what it means to be truly human, not as ‘consumers’ but citizens, neighbors, friends, co-creators of a compelling new story that embraces social justice and a healthy planet. It’s about smaller footprints and larger lives.”

-Chris Greacen, resident of Common Ground

Reveal, a program run by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), aims to make commercial buildings’ energy use more transparent and therefore broaden people’s access to information in the corporate sphere. By labeling a particular building’s electricity consumption, Reveal targets an invisible and oft-hidden component of physical structures. The Reveal label brings forward numerics and data in an easily accessible manner so that a building becomes imprinted–quite literally–with its own energy footprint.

Reveal does not designate any renewable energy requirement. Instead, the immediate goal is transparency, with the understanding that labeling keeps a building’s energy use in the forefront of employees’, executives’, consumers’, and citizens’ minds alike. Following on such transparency, many companies and owners may voluntarily choose to invest in renewable energy and thereby improve their Reveal label. Reveal, therefore, is a vital ingredient of the renewable energy economy, a stepping-stone to forthright and honest business relations that millions of citizens desire.

Beyond a building’s energy use, a Reveal label also designates the building type, location, local climate region, and square footage. In addition, it denotes a building’s energy use as compared to an average building of its type, plus the building’s renewable energy production as a percentage of its total energy use. Going above and beyond mere numbers, the Reveal label marks a building’s place in its local environment as well as in the energy economy as a whole.

Make no mistake–Reveal carries the potential to transform the urban environment. By imagining a city in which all buildings display their energy use, Reveal shapes a future where the grid is smart, energy sources are renewable, and builders committed to reducing their footprint.

We sat down with Brendan Cook, manager of the Reveal program at the ILFI, to find out about how the label works.

Question: What is the purpose of Reveal?
Brendan Cook: Reveal is a transparency label for buildings. It is meant to share buildings’ energy consumption with the world.

Q: Why make a building-specific energy tool?
BC: The Reveal label will educate stakeholders about your building’s performance, boosting its visibility, transparency and sustainability profile. More and more, buildings’ energy use is as much a part of their profile as the design and location.  Be a leader! Reveal is a simple, easy tool to communicate your building’s energy efficiency profile.

Q: Can you explain what an EUI means?
BC: An EUI (Energy Use Intensity) is a metric designed to measure and compare energy efficiency by looking at the amount of energy used (in kBtu) per square foot per year (kBtu/ft2/year).  To get this figure, you need your total building energy use for one year and the size of the project in square feet.

Q: What is the potential for the Reveal program?
BC: There are three main reasons to pursue Reveal:

1. It’s an excellent marketing tool and an ILFI-verified program.
2. Understanding EUI drives change and highlights your project’s efficiency.
3. It’s affordable!

Cities, companies and nonprofits are all looking for benchmarking programs for energy efficiency. The potential for Reveal to grow is huge!

Q: How many Reveal labels are there?
BC: There are 29 as of our launch.

Q: What are the largest projects you’re working on?
BC: The Edith Green Wendall Wyatt Federal Building, Vestas America HQ, and all ILFI-Certified NZEB/Energy Petal and LBC Projects.

Q: Can you share an inspiring anecdote about a company that recently applied for a Reveal label?
BC: Here’s an account from Glumac, one of our Reveal partners:

With a mission to deliver “Green Buildings that Work,” Glumac happily agreed to partner with ILFI to help test out its new REVEAL label for energy efficient building performance.

Glumac actively tracks post-occupancy building energy and water use data from its projects and analyzes it to inform new designs. The firm believes the REVEAL label aligns with its design philosophy. Justin Di Palo of Glumac explains, “As an engineer and energy analyst, measurement and verification are my feedback loop. Without real data on building performance, it’s nearly impossible to calibrate and optimize our design and modeling processes, strategies, and techniques.” The firm finds the REVEAL label especially important in providing a third-party verification of its projects’ building performance. “Having a third party review our results and help provide a sole source to define the actual building EUIs adds tremendous credibility to the results and claims we market for our past projects,” says Mitch Dec, Senior Energy Analyst at Glumac.

The firm has submitted two high performing buildings, including the Vestas North American Headquarters and the GSA Edith Green Wendell Wyatt administration building. The owners are proud of their buildings’ accomplishments including a deep renovation of an existing building and LEED Platinum certification. The GSA building in particular boasts an on-going Energy Star score of 99. They see the extra marketing benefit that the REVEAL label brings.

Q: What have been the most impressive results of Reveal so far?
BC: The ease of understanding and recognition that it’s a useful market tool with excellent design.

Photo: Vestas Headquarters, Courtesy of Glumac

Net zero energy is quickly becoming a sought-after goal for many buildings worldwide. The media focuses primarily on commercial buildings, but there are a number of innovative homeowners who seek to reduce demand on the earth’s natural resources. Residential net zero energy buildings are examples of what is possible when homeowners and designers look at how to reduce energy demands of buildings. The following stories showcase innovative projects and explore the steps that each project took to become one of the most efficient buildings in the world.

zHome

Launched in 2006, the zHome project has been a market catalyst for deeply sustainable, climate-neutral homes for everyday people. Born out of years of small improvements in green building performance, the creators sought to revolutionize the paradigm for residential construction. The project was conceived in 2005 by Brad Liljequist, while on sabbatical from his role as green building and urban design consultant. Liljequist was inspired by the groundbreaking British restorative communities of BedZED and the Hockerton Housing Project, as well as the University of Nottingham Jubilee campus. The City of Issaquah, where zHome is located, has long been a regional leader in sustainability.

Photo Courtesy of zHome

Willowbrook House

Set on a slope above the street, the Willowbrook House in Austin, Texas, is one of the most energy-efficient residential structures in the United States. Originally built in 1948 in a post-WWII neighborhood with mid-century flair, this 2,100-square-foot Net Zero Energy-certified building is the residence of a family of four. Owners Sunshine and Emily Mathon sought a larger home for their growing family that could produce enough energy to sustain itself. They undertook an extensive retrofitting of the building, using reclaimed wood and focusing on water efficiency.

Photo: Courtesy of Willowbrook House

Zero Energy House

The Zero Energy House (ZEH) is a 2,361-square-foot certified Net Zero Energy Building in Auckland, New Zealand—the first of its kind in the country. Located on a brownfield site, the two-story structure features passive housing design. It was designed for comfort based on room use and building orientation. Design professionals Shay Brazier and Jo Woods are the owners of the house. The bedrooms and living area are positioned on the north side of the house for better solar exposure, whereas the kitchen and bathrooms occupy the south side of the lot. Adjacent to the living block is the play and work block, which are connected by an entryway featuring a workshop and garage. The pitched-roof house takes a simple form, evoking coastal California bungalows and the old state houses of New Zealand. The exterior is made of unfinished Macrocarpa weatherboards, which give the structure a rustic sensibility. Reclaimed catamaran boat beams are used for the interior.

Photo Left: Courtesy of Zero Energy House
Photo Right: Courtesy of Todd Eyre

Mission Zero House

Located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mission Zero House is a historic preservation of a 1,500-square-foot 1901 folk-Victorian residence, and one of the first homes to receive ILFI’s Net Zero Energy Building Certification. The two-story house features reclaimed materials, restored wood clapboard siding, a full-width front porch, spindle posts, and a cut-stone foundation. Owners Matt and Kelly Grocoff set out to create a space that met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, and to reimagine the character of a “green” house. The Ann Arbor Historic District Commission approved the home’s solar array, which did not affect or damage the building. The visible PV panels add a clear contrast to the traditional house frame.

Photo: Courtesy of Kevin Miyazaki

Zero Cottage

Zero Cottage is the result of a deep-green study of compact, sustainable urban design. Composed of an 1,141-square-foot loft residence and wood-shop, Zero Cottage is a fits a renovated, historic, Edwardian-style townhouse into an active, mixed-use neighborhood. The Zero Cottage started as a passive house project and contributes to the ongoing vitality of San Francisco’s Mission District neighborhood; blending work-space with a compact, highly functional studio. The cottage is capped by a rooftop deck replete with solar panels and space for gardening and relaxing.

Photo: Courtesy of Zero Cottage

Originally published in Rolling Stone

It’s obvious how this should end. You’ve got the richest industry on earth, fossil fuel, up against some college kids, some professors, a few environmentalists, a few brave scientists.

And it’s worse than that. The college students want their universities to divest from fossil fuel – to sell off their stock in Exxon and Shell and the rest in an effort to combat global warming. But those universities, and their boards, have deep ties to the one percent: combined, their endowments are worth $400 billion, and at Harvard, say, the five folks who run the portfolio make as much money as the entire faculty combined.

Oh, and remember – this is supposed to be an apathetic college generation. The veteran leader Ralph Nader, in a speech in Boston last year, said kids today were more passive than any he’d seen in 45 years. “Nothing changes if you don’t have fire in your belly,” he said. “You are a generation without even embers in your belly.”

But here’s my bet: the kids are going to win, and when they do, it’s going to matter. In fact, with Washington blocked, campuses are suddenly a front line in the climate fight – a place to stand up to a status quo that is wrecking the planet. The campaign to demand divestment from fossil fuel stock emerged from nowhere in late fall to suddenly become the largest student movement in decades. Already it’s drawing widespread media attention; already churches and city governments are joining students in the fight.  It’s where the action all of a sudden is.

I had a front row seat to watch this explosion – actually, I was up on stage, on a nationwide tour that sold out concert halls across the country early this winter. With a bevy of progressive heroes (author Naomi Klein, indigenous activist Winona LaDuke, filmmaker Josh Fox, Hip Hop Caucus founder Lennox Yearwood) and with Rolling Stone as a media sponsor, we took our biodiesel tour bus from Seattle to Atlanta, Maine to Utah, trying to spark a new front in the climate fight. Unknowingly, we’d timed this DoTheMath tour pretty well: Post-Sandy, as the hottest year in American history was drawing to a close, we had no trouble finding allies. In fact, we were serving less as a virus then as a vector, letting activists glimpse their emerging strength. Every night, kids from a dozen local colleges would shout out their resolve, and then gather in “Aftermath” parties to get down to organizing.

By the time we finally finished, in December in Salt Lake City, 192 college campuses had active divestment fights underway, a number that’s since grown to 256. And people were noticing. On the Senate floor, Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse told his colleagues that “as Congress sleepwalks, Americans actually are taking action on their own. These students are imploring their schools to weigh the real cost of climate change against the drive for more financial returns, and divest from the polluters.” The New York Times, in what became the week’s most e-mailed story in the paper of record, said the campaign could “force climate change back on to the nation’s political agenda.” A few days later, Time magazine ended its account of the mushrooming movement like this: “University presidents who don’t fall in line should get used to hearing protests outside their offices. Just like their forerunners in the apartheid battles of the 1980s, these climate activists won’t stop until they win.”

We even had some early victories. Three colleges – Unity in Maine, Hampshire in Massachusetts and Sterling College in Vermont – purged their portfolios of fossil fuel stocks. Three days before Christmas, Seattle mayor Mike McGinn announced city funds would no longer be invested in fossil fuel companies, and asked the heads of the city’s pension fund to follow his lead. Citing the rising sea levels that threatened city’s neighborhoods, he said, “I believe that Seattle ought to discourage these companies from extracting that fossil fuel, and divesting the pension fund from these companies is one way we can do that.”

The logic of divestment couldn’t be simpler: if it’s wrong to wreck the climate, it’s wrong to profit from that wreckage. The fossil fuel industry, as I showed in Rolling Stone last summer, has five times as much carbon in its reserves as even the most conservative governments on earth say is safe to burn – but on the current course, it will be burned, tanking the planet. The hope is that divestment is one way to weaken those companies – financially, but even more politically. If institutions like colleges and churches turn them into pariahs, their two-decade old chokehold on politics in DC and other capitals will start to slip. Think about, for instance, the waning influence of the tobacco lobby – or the fact that the firm making Bushmaster rifles shut down within days of the Newtown massacre, after the California Teachers Pension Fund demanded the change. “Many of America’s leading institutions are dozing on the issue of climate,” says Robert Massie, head of the New Economics Institute. “The fossil fuel divestment campaign must become the early morning trumpet call that summons us all to our feet.”

It won’t be an easy fight in most places, of course. At Harvard, say, 72 percent of the student body voted to demand divestment, only to have the university respond in the most patronizing possible fashion two days later: “We always appreciate hearing from students about their viewpoints, but Harvard is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels.” But one of the Harvard student organizers responded with just the right mix of pepper and politeness: “The president is going to have to change her mind, because we’re not changing ours,” sophomore Alli Welton said. “Climate change is a matter of life or death for millions and millions of people.”

And it’s that simple truth that, over the next few semesters, will help students overwhelm boards of trustees and reluctant presidents. This movement didn’t come out of nowhere, after all – despite Nader’s pessimism, if you knew where to look, you could see the pot boiling for several years. On hundreds of campuses, students had persuaded their administrations to build green buildings and bike paths; tens of thousands of students had traveled to Washington for giant Powershift conventions to learn how to lobby on global warming. And since there’s no longer anything theoretical about climate change, this movement’s not going to dissipate – with each new storm and drought, it will gain tragic power.

In fact, if you sit down and game out the future, you start to realize that students, faculty, and engaged alumni have a surprisingly good hand. Trustees and presidents may resist at first – they are, almost by definition, pillars of the status quo. But universities, in the end, are one of the few places in our civilization where reason still stands a good chance of prevailing over power (especially since students are establishing some power of their own as they organize). And here’s where reason inevitably leads:

1) Universities need to lead because they are where we first found out about climate change. It was in physics labs and on university supercomputers that the realization we were in trouble first dawned a generation ago. By this point the proverbial man in the street can see their predictions coming sadly true: It wasn’t just Sandy, though there’s no doubt that the image of the cold Atlantic pouring into the New York subways had imprinted the new fragility of western civilization on many minds. (If that radical rag Business Week used the headline “It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” then you knew the message was getting through.) But everywhere we went across the nation on our tour, people had their own stories. In the Pacific Northwest, where we began, ocean acidification is so advanced that oyster farmers are in despair; in Nebraska, the week we arrived, scientists determined that exactly 100 percent of the state was now in “severe drought.” Hell, we got to Colorado in early December, and the night we arrived a raging wildfire high in the Rockies forced the evacuation of 500 homes. In December. In the Rockies.

All this means that climate is no longer a fringe concern. Seventy-four percent of Americans said global warming was affecting the weather.  On campus, opinion is near-unanimous. “For one of my classes I just did a poll,” says Stanford freshman Sophie Harrison, a leader in the divestment fight. “Out of 200 people I only found three who didn’t believe in climate change.”

Meanwhile, the scientists keep pushing their research forward. Twenty-five years ago, they were predicting the trouble we’re seeing now; when they look forward another quarter century, things get truly scary – and academics get much less academic. In the past, just a lonely few, like NASA’s James Hansen, were willing to go to jail, but in November, the premier scientific journal, Nature, published a commentary urging all climate scientists to “be arrested if necessary” because “this is not only the crisis of your lives – it is also the crisis of our species’ existence.” In December, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union where most of the year’s cutting-edge climate studies are released, one panel examined the question “Is Earth Fucked?” The scientist leading the session finished by saying probably – but “if a global environmental movement develops that is strong enough, that has the potential to have a bigger impact in a timely manner.” Make of it what you will: The American scientist who has spent the most time on the melting ice of Greenland, Ohio State’s Jason Box, took to the stage at our Columbus tour stop to demand OSU and other colleges divest.

So when, for instance, Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust says “our most effective impact on climate change” will come from “what we do with our teaching, our research. . . the students who may be the heads of the EPA or all kinds of organizations,” it’s partly true – that scholarship is important. But it’s also clearly not doing the job alone, since the temperature keeps going up.

Universities have in fact already gone well beyond scholarship in the climate fight. As veteran student organizer Maura Cowley points out, 738 colleges from Adams State to Yeshiva University have already signed the “President’s Climate Commitment,” pledging that their campuses will go carbon-neutral because they are “deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming.” The commitment is more than rhetorical – open up almost any college web page and you’ll find a tab for “sustainability,” with the PR office lauding the latest effort to install solar panels or convert to a pedestrian campus. “You can’t walk 20 steps on the Stanford campus without seeing a recycling station,” says Harrison. “I’ve been very impressed with all of that, which is why it seems so illogical they’re invested in fossil fuel.” Exactly – if you’re committed to greening your campus, why wouldn’t you be committed to greening your portfolio, too? Why is the heating system for the new arts center a proper target for environmental concern, but not the $50 million sitting in Peabody Coal, where it helps support climate-denying think tanks and reality-denying Congressmen?

Hence divestment. Sometimes, colleges can exert influence without selling stock – on many issues, like sweatshop labor, they may have been smarter to keep their stock, so they could use their position as shareholders to influence corporate decision-making. “But when we were talking about sweatshops, it wasn’t because we were opposed to t-shirts. We just needed some changes in how companies operated,” says Klein. Adds Dan Apfel, who as head of the Responsible Endowments Coalition has coordinated much of the emerging divestment furor, “If you’re Apple, we want you to produce your computers in ways that are good. But we like computers. The fossil fuel industry, though – its existence is fundamentally against our existence. We can’t change them by investing in them, because they’re not going to write off reserves. There’s no way they can be made sustainable, in the same way tobacco can’t be made healthy.”

2) Universities understand math, and in this case the math about who’s to blame is Q.E.D. clear. It points straight at the fossil fuel companies.

By now, most activists know the three numbers I outlined in this magazine last summer, in a piece that immediately went viral: If we’re to hold planetary warming to the two degrees that the world’s governments have said is the absolute red line, we can only burn 565 more gigatons of carbon – but the fossil fuel companies, private and state-owned, have 2795 gigatons of carbon in their reserves. That is, they have five times the coal and oil and gas needed to roast the earth, and they fully intend to burn it – in fact, a company like Exxon boasts about spending a hundred million dollars a day looking for more hydrocarbons, all the fracking gas and Arctic oil and tar sands crude they can find. “The math is so irrefutable,” says Klein, the veteran anti-corporate activist who’s been helping lead the fight. “The fossil fuel companies haven’t even bothered to dispute it. And coming to the issue with numbers like that, putting them in an academic context, that’s radical. It makes it hard for the boards of trustees – who after all are supposed to be numbers people – to deal with. Suddenly it’s the students who are the number crunchers, and the idealistic fantasists are the bank presidents on the board who don’t want to deal with the reality staring them in the face.”

It’s not as if all of us who use fossil fuel aren’t implicated – flying to Florida for spring break fills the sky with carbon. But it’s only the fossil fuel industry that lobbies round the clock to make sure nothing ever changes. “We’ve figured out the root of the problem by this point,” says Maura Cowley, who as head of the Energy Action Coalition has been coordinating student environmental efforts for years. Individual action matters, but systemic change – things like a serious price on carbon that the industry has blocked for years – is all that can really turn the tide in the short window the science of climate still leaves open. “Going after them directly feels seriously good,” says Cowley.

3) Faced with this kind of irrefutable evidence, colleges have led in the past, conceding that their endowments, in extreme cases, can’t seek merely to maximize returns.

In the 1980s, 156 colleges divested from companies that did business in apartheid South Africa, a stand that Nelson Mandela credited with providing a great boost to the liberation struggle. “I remember those days well,” says James Powell, who served as president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed College. “Trustees at first said our only job was to maximize returns, that we don’t do anything else.  They had to be persuaded there were some practices colleges simply shouldn’t be associated with, things that involved the oppression of people.” Since then, colleges have taken stances with their endowments on issues from Sudan to sweatshops. When Harvard divested from tobacco stocks in 1990, then-president Derek Bok said the university did not want “to be associated with companies whose products create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to other human beings.” Given that the most recent data indicates fossil fuel pollution could kill 100 million by 2030, the coal, oil and gas industry would seem to pass that test pretty easily; it’s also on the edge of setting off the 6th great extinction crisis, so everyone over in the biology lab studying non-human beings has a stake too. Here’s how Desmond Tutu, Mandela’s partner in the liberation of South Africa, put it in a video he made for the DotheMath tour: “The corporations understood the logic of money even when they weren’t swayed by the dictates of morality,” the Nobel Peace Prize-winner explained. “Climate change is a deeply moral issue, too, of course. Here in Africa, we see the dreadful suffering of people from worsening drought, from rising food prices, from floods, even though they’ve done nothing to cause the situation. Once again, we can join together as a world and put pressure where it counts.” Or, you know, not.

4) And it’s not just people at a distance who are in trouble here, though so far they’ve borne the brunt – young people, the kind of people you mostly find on campuses, are the next chief victims of climate change.

Let’s assume the average age of a college trustee is 60, meaning he or she has another two decades on this planet; they may shuffle off to the great class reunion in the sky before climate change becomes unbearable to well-off First Worlders. But your average student has six decades ahead – and scientists say that at our current pace of unrestricted warming, we could see the planet’s temperature rise 6 degrees Celsius in that stretch, with consequences best described as science fiction. “By the time we’re ready to have kids, buy a home – it’s already a radically different world if we don’t put the brakes on as quickly as possible,” says Cowley, the national student organizer. “It’s difficult to plan your life as a young person right now – by the time we get to 2050, we don’t even know where we’re going to get our food.”

It’s not like administrators, faced with global warming, are deciding for themselves. Carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere a century on average, which means, according to the modeling team at Climate Interactive, that “by the time a 55-year-old college president who insists today that a portfolio requires fossil fuel investment reaches the age of retirement, only 11 percent of the CO2 released during the class of 2016′s education will have left the atmosphere.” In fact, says former college president Powell, such an analysis suggests trustees have a quasi-legal duty to do all they can about climate change: “The board is supposed to make sure that the endowment allows for intergenerational equity, that the students who are going to Oberlin in 2075 get as much benefit from it as those there now. But with global warming, you’re guaranteeing a diminution of quality of life decades out.”

At the very least, it feels bad – like the opposite of what college trustees are supposed to be doing. “I see this generation being betrayed on every front,” says Klein. “Youth without a future – that’s how they feel about the economy. And they when they understand that thanks to climate change they may literally be facing no future, it makes them really, really angry, as well it should.” The good news is, lots of people are already reaching across those generational lines. “Sometimes it’s dangerous to separate it by generations,” says Alex Leff, a freshman at Hampshire College, which effectively divested this spring.  “My family always said, ‘You kids have to do something about this.’ I really reject that – what if we dismiss it too, and say it’s a job for our kids?  Youth can’t be the only ones driving this – it helps a lot to see our elders doing their part too.” So at college after college, professors (many of whom were in college during past divestment fights) are signing petitions and joining marches. Alumni are starting to pitch in too – these are early days, but campuses report letters arriving from donors asking if they’re planning to do the right thing.

5) And in this case, they can do the right thing without great cost.

College trustees, of course, are thinking about their endowments. They worry that they’ll lose money if they do divest – that if they can’t park their money in Exxon et al., their yields may dwindle.

The fear is almost certainly overstated – energy stocks have outperformed the market index the last few years, but lag if you take the last 30 as a whole. Stephen Mulkey is president of Unity College in Maine, which became the first college in the nation to officially divest its fossil fuel holdings. He stood up to give the news in front of the thousands that crowded into Portland’s State Theater for that stop on our roadshow, an electric moment that brought the throng to its feet. “You don’t have to do it overnight,” he pointed out – indeed, campaign organizers have asked only that colleges pledge to sell their shares, and then spend the next five years winding down their positions so they don’t have to sell in a fire sale. “There’s abundant academic literature showing that social screening such as this, given the most likely market conditions in the near future, will not result in poor performance. You’re not divesting and then just forgoing those profits – you divest from BP and invest in something else. You reanalyze your portfolio.” In fact, there’s been one academic study of the effects of divesting, and it shows the “theoretical return penalty” at 0.0034 percent, which is the same as “almost none.”

At some schools, some of the money can be re-invested in the college itself – in making the kind of green improvements that save substantial sums. Mark Orlowski, head of the Sustainable Endowments Institute, just published a report showing that the average annual return on investment for a thousand efficiency projects at campuses across the country was just under 30 percent, which makes the stock market look anemic. “College trustees often think of a new lighting system as an ‘expense,’ not an investment, but it’s not,” he says. “If you invest a million and can expect to clear $2.8 million over the next decade, that’s the definition of fiduciary soundness.” At colleges – and elsewhere – the potential for significant reinvestment is large: the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, for instance, is considering urging its pension fund to divest a billion dollars. That could do some serious re-greening.

It’s also possible that the insights into the future supplied by aroused student activists might actually make for savvy investing advice. As hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who has advised trustees to divest their stock, put it, “From a selfish point of view, it’s very good for colleges that they know something about the future that others don’t. Because investing is not about what’s happened in the past – all prices are really anticipations of what’s going to happen in the future. As soon as the trouble we face is really common knowledge it’s going to be reflected in the price. But it’s not reflected in the price yet.”

Steyer’s a good investor – his net worth puts him on the Fortune 400 list, meaning he’s worth far more than most college endowments. What he’s saying is: Colleges are lucky to have physics departments not just because physics is a good thing. In a sense, universities have insider information – they know how bad global warming is going to be, and hence can get the hell out of fossil fuel stocks before, not after, governments intervene to make them keep their reserves underground. “Once the scientific research filters into the minds of investors around the world, the price won’t stand,” he says. But since the average investor relies on, say, the Wall Street Journal, which has served as an unending mouthpiece for climate denial, colleges have the advantage.  “The only way you gain an investing advantage over the rest of the world is when you have an edge.” As for those who think they’ll wait until the last minute, just before the carbon bubble bursts, “That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. No one ever gets out at the top. It’s worth missing another couple of good years of Exxon to avoid what’s coming.”

In the face of logic like that, an increasing number of colleges seem determined to at least engage the debate. For instance, my employer, Vermont’s Middlebury College, which always ranks in the top five liberal arts colleges in the country, has held a series of panel discussions and open debates this month and its trustees expect to make a decision in the spring. And since Middlebury was the first college in the country with an environmental studies department, its student body, faculty and ranks of alumni are filled with people who recognize the potential power of the gesture. Similar discussions are underway at Bates, Bowdoin, Bryn Mawr, Earlham, Pitzer. But it’s not just small liberal arts schools. Students at the University of New Hampshire delivered a thousand signatures to the president before Christmas demanding divestment; at the neighboring University of Vermont, state legislators have begun pressing for action, at the urging of a big student campaign. At Cal, the student senate has backed divestment by a wide margin; UNC students outdid their Harvard counterparts, voting 77 percent for divestment.

So let’s imagine for a moment that students and their allies are able to convince many colleges and universities to do the right thing. Especially for those who sign on fairly quickly, and with a minimum of rancor, there could be real advantages. “After we divested,” said Mulkey of Unity College, “we started receiving donations online. We’re seen an uptick in our inquiries from students. I think that will transform into an improvement in enrollment. That’s not why we did it, but it’s a fact.” Powell, recalling the moment when Oberlin divested its apartheid stock, says, “I definitely feel it rallies people behind their alma mater.  Whenever there’s change – abolishing fraternities, going co-ed – there’s always the worry the alumni won’t like change. We see over and over again that these claims are false – you may take a hit for a year or two, but in the end you’re changing with the world.” Some alumni, says Klein, “may be resentful. But for many more, it will be exciting. Suddenly the university they came from is not just a site of nostalgia, but a place where they can have an influence on the future.”

That influence could be decisive, too. Less in financial terms, though the $400 billion in American college endowments is no small sum, than in political and cultural ones. A college is where a society thinks about itself, after all; if suddenly those collections of knowledge denounce the fossil fuel industry for what it is, a rogue force outlaw against the laws of physics, it will make a difference. Fossil fuel companies care a lot about image, after all – it’s what makes it easy for them to exert their political control. It’s why they run those back-to-back-to-back TV ads about “clean coal,” those endless commercials with the polar bears and the drilling rigs. Colleges could strip them of their social license, and if they lead, others will follow. “The speed at which this campaign has spread is causing ripples in the investment community,” said Andy Behar, the CEO of As You Sow, a campaign partner that promotes environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy. “We anticipate more ‘carbon free’ investment options coming onto the market over the coming months for endowments, foundations, and other institutional investors who want to move investment dollars to build a clean energy future.” Already, at least two major Christian denominations have announced they’ll consider resolutions to withdraw their money. One could imagine the fossil fuel industry as the new tobacco, humbled enough that it actually has to come to the bargaining table in D.C. and a dozen other crucial capitals.

On other campuses, it will go less smoothly; in some places, doubtless, colleges will go to war with themselves, with trustees hunkered down against the increasingly strident demands of students and faculty. But even in those cases, the fight will be valuable, educating each new incoming class about the culprits behind climate change. It’s hard to imagine that it’s all just a short-lived fad. “Global warming is not going away in anyone’s lifetime,” says Powell – and from now on, each superstorm, each megadrought will become a moral challenge to the university brand, a reminder that one’s education or one’s salary is being paid for with the not-so-gradual extinction of the planet’s possibilities. Students, I think, are determined to believe in the colleges they love – but they’re also up to the fight. At Pennsylvania’s Swarthmore, for instance, they’ve been demanding divestment for more than a year without luck. “Particularly at small liberal arts schools, students are conditioned to believe that college boards and administrators will always do what’s right – that if we just dialogue with administrators enough, they’ll come around,” says Hannah Jones, who graduated from Swarthmore last spring. But in fact, even at a school like Swarthmore with a deep Quaker tradition, “the administration and the board are part of an institutional hierarchy designed to support the status quo,” so “it’s up to students, faculty, and alumni to build power and to apply pressure in a way that demands bold, swift action.” And as students learn to build those campaigns, knowledge spreads quickly. Swarthmore students, for instance, are hosting a ‘convergence’ this week for activists from many campuses; for those who can’t make the trip, gofossilfree.org has become a kind of clearinghouse for videos, manifestos, essays, updates.

It’s not perhaps a militant generation – maybe that was what struck Nader, more used to the uprisings of the 1960s with their broad themes of cultural liberation. But in the wake of Occupy, many young people are drawing connections. “We want to make sure we don’t just get divestment, but that we build real political power across wide coalitions,” says Jones. And if you’re a college administrator, you should probably fear folks who know how to use YouTube, Twitter and Facebook better than you do; “militant” sounds good, but “persistent,” “organized” and “committed” are probably a deeper threat to the status quo. And you can prove it by watching the same students running divestment campaigns quickly joining the larger environmental movement: all of a sudden, they’re helping run the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, or working hard with their Appalachian allies in the fight against mountaintop removal coal mining.

The fossil fuel industry may be dominant in the larger world, but on campus, it’s coming up against some of its first effective opposition. Global warming has become a key topic in every discipline from theology to psychology to accounting, from engineering and anthropology to political science. It’s the greatest intellectual and moral problem in human history – which, if you think about it, is precisely the reason we have colleges and universities.

The End of the Internal Combustion Engine and the rapidly approaching Fossil-Fuel-Free World

 A couple years ago, I began to discuss the idea that the end of the internal combustion era was finally in sight, along with the overall rapid decline of a fossil fuel– driven world.  I think some folks felt it was a premature pronouncement—yet in more recent days, the prediction has begun to pick up momentum.  Recent climate talks, scandals by Volkswagen and the emergence of ever-more electric vehicle platforms have combined to give further weight to my prediction.  To be clear—I think we will see the end of fossil fuels as the predominant fuel source for the world within our lifetime—and the reign of the internal combustion engine has a scant two decades left.

 There are several trends to look at:

The Rise of Electric and the Fall of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)

The electric car has gone from a liability to an asset.

I bought my first electric car nearly twenty years ago—the Corbin Sparrow. It was cool looking but spent more time in the garage than on the road—it was bleeding edge and mostly bleeding. Now I have a Tesla, and apart from being too pricey (the only thing wrong with it), it is without a doubt the best car I have ever experienced in nearly every way possible. It seats seven, has nearly as much storage as a minivan, goes 0-60 in under five seconds, and is absolutely quiet. It receives upgrades with wireless software downloads and keeps getting better the longer I have it. At a Tesla Super Charger Station, a car can charge to full 260-mile range in 20 minutes for free. I haven’t been to a smelly, polluting gas station in over a year.  Once the cost of a Tesla becomes equal in price to a gas engine (only a few years away), it’s game over.

The price of renewable energy has dropped precipitously and improved dramatically—when I designed my first net zero home for a client a decade ago solar panels were 9-11% efficient versus 20% efficient and are now about ¼ the cost per installed watt as they were back then.  Those are impressive gains and I predict there will be similar jumps ahead. Forget about the difference in batteries for both cars and homes! Tesla’s Powerwall lithium ion batteries are vastly superior to the polluting and inefficient lead-acid and nickel-metal-hydride batteries that were the go-to solution for decades. In the last couple of years, significant progress on battery development has began to open up exciting new possibilities.

While too many Americans are still in denial about climate change, the ranks of the ignorant and foolish are quickly diminishing under the undeniable weight of evidence that climate change is both happening at an alarming rate—and definitely caused by human activity. From the papal encyclical to the global COP 21 agreements and the rise of the divestment movement, momentum is finally shifting to act on climate change.

In the end, like too many things, it is money—not altruism—that will result in sudden positive shifts in the world’s energy paradigm. History has been clear on this front in so many ways—when presented with a better paradigm and equal (or even nearly equal) costs, people rapidly and willingly dump the old paradigm for the better. Once a trend even begins to become inevitable, the market begins to shift, and the underlying infrastructure that has subsidized the current paradigm quickly dissolve and further hastens the change. As quickly as the horse and buggy was replaced by the ICE automobile, so too will electric cars and renewable energy replace ICE engines, coal, diesel, and petroleum. We will be leaving (thankfully) a lot of oil in the ground.

I believe that in less than two decades, internal combustion engines in cars will feel about as relevant as Betamax cassette tapes (for those who remember them), and there will be a rapid and sudden shift in the market after a short (10-15 year) transition period starting about now. Toyota, Volkswagen, Chevy, Ford—they are all racing to get into the electric car game. Alternative vehicles and micro cars like the Renault Twizy, electric bikes, better public transportation and self-driving vehicles will further drive a stake into the old ways. Lastly and significantly, changes in driving patterns and more walkable and bikeable cities mean that more and more people will simply do without a car, which is an even better step. Car ownership is no longer the rite of passage for young Americans that it used to be.

Solar has reached grid parity in many markets around the world and in a few US markets like Hawaii and Alaska, and the economics will shift for most of the world within the next decade. Much like electric cars—the result of using solar is infinitely better as an experience—so that once it is equal in price, it’s the end of the road for “conventional” fossil fuels.

Solar City’s business model is proving highly profitable, allowing for solar deployment without upfront capital by building owners in markets where they operate. Payback times are dropping fast, and the price for a net-zero home system is now no larger than the price of a good automobile. There is a lot of work to do to change our grids and utility systems, but I think the transition will be swift and positive. Imagine a world without air pollution, oil spills, strip coal mining, and deadly foreign wars propped up by the necessity of a giant military industrial complex. You can see why there were so many efforts for so long to squash and hinder progress in renewables.

The following chart explains my predictions of our rapid change to the new energy paradigm globally.

Energy Prediction Timelines

Between now and 2030, two major changes in technology and a third overarching change in multiple technologies completely change the energy game.

1. Automakers begin to dump the ICE engine and as uptake continues, the entire petroleum and ICE infrastructure begins to fall apart rapidly. Cars have short lifespans—so as cars are pulled from the road, they aren’t replaced. Petroleum use, while still necessary for air travel, begins a rapid slide to obscurity. RIP!
2. Photovoltaics and wind (and a few other sources) become cheaper than fossil fuel resource extraction everywhere, and the market simply folds on coal and natural gas and is quickly made up by renewables. As renewable market share increases and economies of scale and competition kick into high gear, they will continue to improve in both economics and efficiency. By 2040 the fossil fuel era of humanity comes to an end, and by 2050 fossil fuel accounts for a fraction of global energy use.
3. Overall global energy use will continue to decline—even as the planet adds two billion more people in the timeframe shown in the graph. Continued rapid improvements in energy efficiency and incredible new ways to understand and interface with energy result in radical improvements. Other changes include the rise of computers that use a fraction of the energy with significantly more computing power, appliances and equipment that also are radically more efficient—huge improvements in lighting, building design, building envelopes, and improvements by industry in all sectors. We’ll have 20% more people by 2050 and use 20-30% less energy than we do now overall—and 80% will come from renewables.

Other energy predictions include:

• An abandonment of nuclear energy as unsafe, immoral, and economically backwards.

• A wholesale change in how our cities function that de-emphasizes the car and instead prioritizes human locomotion and public transportation.

• A moratorium on large-scale hydroelectric systems that are ecologically damaging, and the rewilding of rivers worldwide. As current major dams reach their useful lifespan, they will simply be decommissioned and never replaced again.

A lot can happen in the next few decades, and big questions remain. What will happen when the world’s energy is democratized? How will traditional energy players adapt? How will utilities change over the next few decades? How will government policies help or hinder the transition?

What can we all do to hasten the change to this future?

Personal Divestment

The fossil fuel divestment movement is growing rapidly around the world as institutions and organizations agree to purge their investment assets, including stocks, bonds, and investment funds from companies that are directly tied to the fossil fuel industry. Since 2014, several hundred organizations have made significant pledges that now total over $50 billion and growing. Divestment helps shine a light on the contributions of this industry to climate change and stigmatizes further investment into unsustainable energy sources.

But divestment isn’t just for large organizations. All of us can join in and begin to divest as individuals and grow the momentum to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels from our lives.

***Create a cool sticker for Personal Divestment –

“I’m Divesting from Fossil Fuels and Investing in a Living Future”***

Here are a few things you can do to personally divest:

Step One – Lobby your employer to divest from fossil fuels for all of its assets.

Step Two – Divest all your personal investments from fossil fuels, including where you bank and which credit cards you use. Many large financial institutions have ties to entities you likely don’t support! Check out the ILFI credit card from Beneficial State Bank for a better option, and consider putting your money into funds that support renewables: http://fossilfreeindexes.com

Step Three – Purchase 100% of your electricity from green energy sources. Many utilities offer a green energy purchase option.

Step Four – Trade in your gasoline car an electric vehicle or better yet a bicycle!  Stop buying petroleum directly. My family has gone all electric, and it’s been liberating to not have to go to the pump!

Step Five – Buy a solar array for all your home’s power needs.

Step Six – Live locally and give up flying. I’m nowhere near to being able to do this, but for many it can be a significant step, since flying consumes so much fossil fuel.

For more information on the divestment movement:

http://divestinvest.org

http://350.org/category/topic/divestment/

http://gofossilfree.org

Editor’s Note: The following excerpt is a chapter from the Power of Zero, the latest release from Ecotone Publishing.

Net Zero Energy — the first stage in a transformation toward a carbon-free future.

Net zero energy (NZE) buildings, though compelling and meaningful, are just a beginning. We are only in the earliest days of a revolution in net zero energy design and technology. The energy use intensity (EUI) of net zero energy buildings will continue to drop, the efficiency and output of renewable resources will increase, and the cost of design, construction and operation will decrease, making net zero energy projects more common. New net zero energy design ideas and technologies will evolve, and enable new pathways for achieving this vital concept. It is critical to understand, however, that net zero energy buildings, and even net zero energy communities, do not eliminate fossil fuel usage. Net zero energy buildings are not a universal solution—they are just a component. In order to free ourselves from fossil fuels, we need a deeply integrated revolution in buildings, transportation, and the power grid.

So what advancements are on the horizon?

David & Lucile Packard Foundation Headquarters, Los Altos, CA Photo: Courtesy of Jeremy Bitterman

Net Zero Energy Building and Designs — The Next Generation

The boundaries of passive and active systems blur

As knowledge of net zero design spreads, the duality between “passive” and “active” approaches is fading. Net zero energy buildings are partially built on the heritage of passive solar buildings of the 1970s, which—at least from a heating and cooling standpoint—relied on simple thermal gain and storage. As the net zero revolution began, sophisticated technologies—for example, heat pumps and LED lighting—dominated the discussion.

Today, however, the best net zero energy buildings seamlessly combine both passive and active design concepts. In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to describe net zero energy buildings in those terms. For example, the Bullitt Center utilizes a highly sophisticated software program. Using real-time weather data to open and close windows depending on wind direction, the building is naturally cooled and ventilated based on thermal comfort needs. Windows also allow passive solar gain, but only during cooler months, and only if the computerized system opens the exterior shades. The passive solar gain typically contributes to only a portion of the building’s heat, which is supplemented by the heat pump system. Are these systems active or passive? Because they are thoughtfully designed with an attention to naturally occurring assets, these systems uproot traditional categorization. Moving into the future, sensitively designed systems that take maximum advantage of nature’s gifts will become the norm.

Micro heat pumps

The revolution in heat pump technology will continue, with a new focus on micro systems. Such systems allow appropriate load matching for buildings with excellent thermal envelopes that have low heating and cooling demand. Sanden, a major automobile heat pump and air conditioner manufacturer, recently entered the building market, suggesting a renewed interest in this sector.

Elimination of high-GWP compression gases from heat pumps

Today, high global warming-potential compression gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), are used in heat pumps. These substances have the potential to leak, creating an additional impact on the climate. The shift from combustion- to heat pump-based heating systems must be accompanied by a shift to CO2 as the primary compression gas for heat pumps, lest we simply replace one problematic gas for another. Thankfully, this shift away from global warming-causing compression gases has begun.

High-performance windows become the norm

Windows that are typically used in net zero energy buildings, with U-values in the 0.20s, are fairly custom, though they have high price tags. However, as glazing and window technology matures, and especially as jurisdictions begin to codify lower U-values for the purpose of energy management, these windows will become much more prevalent, similar to the switchover to low-E glass that happened a decade ago.

Dedicated focus on high energy use sectors

Certain very high EUI building types—hospitals, restaurants, factories, data centers, and supermarkets in particular—lag behind other sectors in the adoption of innovative technologies. These commercial buildings use vastly more energy per square foot than primary buildings like homes and offices. The energy modeling for one potential net zero energy building found that heat from refrigerators to went outdoors, instead of using it resourcefully for internal heating. In restaurants, stoves are often run at one hundred percent despite the actual need, and the heat pump revolution has yet to arrive to kitchen equipment. Technologies such as CO2 heat pumps, which produce much higher-temperature water than conventional heat pumps, suggest that new approaches are on the horizon.

Revolution in retrofit technologies

Shy of a complete building overhaul, it can be challenging to deeply retrofit a building for very low energy use. However, strides are being made to streamline the retrofit process and reduce costs. Thermal imaging cameras, a critical tool in understanding building heat and cold leakage, are now radically cheaper, and soon should become a standard toolbox item. Heat recovery ventilators, an obscure and rarely seen item in the past, are now available readily available and significantly cheaper than before. Further,the introduction of vacuum insulation panels, from manufacturers such as Panasonic, offer extremely high R-values per inch.

Revolution in building-mounted renewables

The cost of solar panels has been dropping significantly, suggesting a maturing of the technology, and other elements of solar installation are coming to the fore as the technology becomes more commonplace. Better integration of solar applications during the design process, particularly to facilitate mounting, will bring solar costs down even further. At the same time, panel efficiency continues to increase—just several years ago, 15 percent was standard. Today, twenty percent is now available in the marketplace, while 40 percent has been achieved in laboratory conditions. These performance improvements may seem small, but improvements average about five percent each year, which is quite significant over time.

A much deeper revolution in solar generation is brewing with thin-film, omnidirectional solar cells. Ideally these will absorb the sun’s energy with less regard for solar angle, and will be installed as a wrapped skin, perhaps in lieu of paint. This technology will transform building energy generation again, with much higher levels of building production because panels can be placed in a much broader array of locations, including walls.

Revolution in energy storage

Finally, Tesla and the automotive sector are leading an ongoing transformation in electrical storage. This technology brings us back to the roots of net zero buildings—the off-the-grid passive buildings of the 1970s. This technology could significantly decrease the electric grid as individual buildings become more autonomous in their use and production of energy.

View from the top of the Bullitt Center in Seattle, WA Photo: Courtesy of Nic Lehoux

Why do African American families use less energy than white households, but pay more for it—literally and figuratively? It’s true. The average African American family emits 20% less carbon dioxide than the average white household does, yet we are more susceptible to increases in energy and water costs that result from climate change. As extreme weather events like blizzards, droughts, and heat waves become almost routine, more and more black families can’t afford to heat and cool their homes. Communities of color also pay more of the hidden costs of our fossil-fuel based economy. Climate change has an outsized impact on the health and economic security of African American families, who are far more likely to breathe polluted air and live next to sources of pollution like coal plants.

But today, a revolution in clean energy gives us the chance to correct this injustice and level the playing field for communities of color. For decades, renewable energy was out of reach for most Americans. Only the wealthiest could afford innovations like solar panels and electric cars. Not anymore. Now clean energy sources like solar and wind are not only economical—they’re huge cost-savers for businesses and families alike.

In less than a decade, the United States has multiplied its production of wind power threefold, and solar power more than twentyfold. In many places, clean energy is already cheaper than conventional power. Further, consumers have more choice and more control over how much energy they use through smartphone apps and new technology. But we still have a long way to go.

Every American deserves access to clean, affordable energy. If we transition to an economy that’s fueled by 50% clean energy by 2030, electric bills in the United States will be reduced by more than $40 billion. Subsequently, families would see their disposable income increase by as much as $650 annually. The biggest beneficiaries would be low-income families, who spend a much greater share of their income on electricity than higher income households do. Just imagine: millions of Americans would no longer be at the mercy of their utility bills. Black families in particular would have a brighter and more secure energy story to tell.

Investing in clean energy does more than save money on bills—it also creates jobs that communities of color sorely need. Last year the solar industry added jobs 12 times faster than the overall economy. More than twice as many Americans now work in the solar industry than in coal mining—and a quarter of workers in the solar industry are people of color. When these clean energy jobs are created—which they absolutely must be—we have an opportunity to make sure that these are good-paying jobs and that they are available to communities of color.

In the Washington, DC, area, Mark Davis created WDC Solar to provide low-income citizens of Washington, DC, with a solar program. Since 2012, WDC has installed more than 125 solar systems in DC through tax credits and private funds, at no cost to low-income homeowners with good credit. Through his partnership with DC Sustainable Energy Utility, Mark started a program that has funded solar panel installation provided funding to install panels on more than 300 homes. And once the panels are installed, the extra power results in a profit every month—money going back into the community he’s working to transform. Mark is just getting started; this year he plans on launching programs in New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

While Mark is training a new solar work force and bringing solar to the DC community, Wahleah Johns is working to bring clean energy to places that often times don’t even have electricity. Wahleah, a member of the Navajo (Dine) tribe and the community of Forest Lake atop Black Mesa, Arizona, has been advocating for native communities to diversify to renewable energy for the last decade. As a tribal member of the Navajo Nation, she’s watched resources from tribal homelands provides cheap electricity for California, Nevada, and Arizona, while her people are left to deal with pollution and dwindling water.

Working with the Black Mesa Water Coalition and Navajo Green Economy Coalition, Wahleah helped win legislative victories protecting groundwater, expanding green jobs, and advancing environmental justice. As vice chair of the Navajo Green Economy Commission, Wahleah develops economic opportunities in clean energy and traditional economic practices on the Navajo reservation.

Wahleah’s community education efforts helped establish a Just Transition Fund through the California Public Utilities Commission. This fund provides $4 million to renewable energy development on tribal lands. Wahleah helps bring solar to reservation schools and communities, and is developing a residential solar program for the 50% of Navajo Nation residents who don’t have access to electricity.

The clean energy revolution is an incredible opportunity to give African Americans a better, more just seat at the table in our new economy. Now more than ever we must seize the opportunity to reverse energy injustice and shift power to the very communities that have historically been left out.

At Green For All we see a number of ways in which we can drive this investment. There is a tremendous opportunity held within the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent clean power plan implementation at the state level. States will be developing and implementing plans to bring down carbon in the coming months and years. We must ensure that as we look at curbing carbon, we do so in a way that drives growth across green sectors, and focuses investments in the communities most impacted by carbon and pollution. We also believe strongly that polluting industries should pay for the privilege of dumping carbon into the atmosphere. In California, the value collected from the cap-and-trade system has created a fund that has been used for everything from free solar panels for low-income families, to free bus passes for youth and seniors, to millions of dollars for new affordable housing. We must cap carbon (and make sure there are environmental protections for all communities in those programs), and we can’t give away that value; we must invest in our communities.

The clean power movement is gaining steam—now is the time for us to make our voices heard. Investing in clean energy will lower our energy bills, improve the health of black communities, and create more, better-paying jobs for people of color. Now that’s real power. Throughout our network, we see individuals, businesses and organizations committed to people and the planet. We need to re-up our investment in these people and follow their lead to a future that is truly green for all.

The Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation (ICECF), with the help of the International Living Future Institute, has launched a Net Zero Energy Building Program full of great incentives to help projects realize their potential in high performance buildings. The Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) Certification Program at ILFI is the only performance-based certification for buildings of its type. Utilizing Living Building Challenge concepts, the NZEB certification takes regenerative ideas of place, beauty and education to showcase expanded possibilities for net zero energy buildings. In a common theme, ILFI and ICECF seek to support high performance projects, leading the paradigm shift in building resiliency and efficiency. The program intends to fund projects with excellent models, efficient design and performance data. Net Zero Energy Buildings are no longer a thing of the future, but achievable, visible and accessible to communities around the world. Flagship projects, such as the Bullitt Center, have the power change the status quo of the built environment.

Under the Foundation’s Net Zero Energy Building Program, grants are awarded to support new construction as well as retrofit projects that achieve site net zero energy performance over the course of a year, with the intention to become Living Building Challenge or Net Zero Energy Building certified. To be eligible for consideration, projects must be located in Illinois, own their space, may not have started construction and be a 501(c)3 charitable organization, unit of local government, college or university. Similar to ILFI’s NZEB requirements, the projects must demonstrate net zero energy performance over the course of a year (and continue to perform), as well as provide real time data to demonstrate their Net Zero Energy performance. Preference is given to projects that incorporate natural areas and have a strong educational mission.

The maximum grant award per project will be up to $1 million and payment will be performance-based. Grants will cover part of the NZEB, Energy Petal and LBC certification fees for selected projects. The Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation is now accepting Request for Ideas. Applications will be accepted in June for the July 19 competitive grant cycle.

To apply, visit: http://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/net-zero-energy-building-program/

In the northern Alberta community of Little Buffalo, population 500, a 20.8 kW solar installation has been set up to power the First Nation’s health center, and to send additional energy back to the grid. In 2011, this community grappled with one of the largest oil spills in Alberta’s history. Today, the community deals with contaminated water, polluted air and a compromised landscape, but the people of Little Buffalo have chosen to forge a new future and to become powered by the sun.

The traditional territory of my ancestors and my Nation of the Lubicon Cree covers approximately 10,000 square kilometers of low-lying trees, forests, rivers, plains, and wetlands—which we call muskeg—in northern Alberta. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations survived by living off the land—hunting, fishing, and trapping throughout the region. I remember going out on the trapline when the water was still good to drink. But as oil and gas have come through the territory, all of this has changed. For three decades, our territory has undergone massive oil and gas development without the consent of the people and without recognition of our treaty & Indigenous rights, which are protected under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

Currently there are more than 2,600 oil and gas wells in our traditional territories. Over 1,400 square kilometers of leases have been granted for tar sands development in Lubicon territory, and almost 70% of the remaining land has been leased for future development. Our way of life is being replaced by industrial landscapes, polluted and drained watersheds, and contaminated air—it’s very much a crisis situation.

Where there once was self-sufficiency, we are experiencing increased dependency on social services, as families are no longer able to sustain themselves in what was once a healthy environment with clean air, clean water, medicines, berries, and plants from the Boreal. We are seeing elevated rates of cancers and respiratory illnesses as a consequence of the toxic gases in the air and water. And while over $14 billion in oil and gas revenues have been taken from our traditional territory, our community lives in extreme poverty and still lacks basic medical services and running water.

Unceded Territory

In 1899, when Treaty 8 was officially signed in northern Alberta, treaty commissioners overlooked the Lubicon Cree due to their remote and hard-to-reach territory. The Lubicon people therefore never ceded their traditional territory to the Crown. This has led to a precarious and unstable relationship with both the provincial and federal governments as both have continuously undermined the sovereignty of the Lubicon people. For decades the Lubicon have tried to settle these outstanding land disputes, but unfortunately it serves the government’s interests to keep the Lubicon land claim outstanding due to the territory’s rich oil and gas deposits.

When the construction of an all-weather road began in the early 1970s, the Lubicon people started to contest the encroachment of their traditional territory as multinational corporations began to exploit the land. For the 14 years that followed, the Lubicon attempted to assert their rights through various court proceedings at both the provincial and federal levels. By 1988, the Lubicon concluded that it was necessary to use other means of direct action so their voices and message would be heard.

On October 15, 1988, the Lubicon people erected a peaceful blockade, which was successful in stopping oil exploitation of the territory for six days. Only then did Alberta Premier Don Getty meet with the Lubicon chief and agree to a 243-kilometer reserve under the Grimshaw Accord.

Despite this agreement, the Canadian government offered the Lubicon substandard conditions in the land settlement agreement. Even Premier Getty described the offer as “deficient in the area of providing economic stability for the future.”

Unfortunately, due to the take-it-or-leave-it approach of the federal government, the land claim negotiations continued from 1989 until 2003, when the talks broke down completely and both parties walked away from the table. To this day, the Lubicon Cree have been unable to settle a land claim, which has drastically hindered their ability to protect themselves and their traditional territory from further exploitation and destruction.

Canada’s treatment of the Lubicon has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations, and UN Special Rapporteur Miloon Kothari has called for a moratorium on oil and gas in Lubicon territory. On March 26, 1990, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Canada’s failure to recognize and protect Lubicon land rights violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee again called on Canada to address outstanding land claims in Lubicon territory before granting further licences for economic exploitation, yet this resource extraction is still happening.

The Rainbow Pipeline Rupture

On April 29, 2011, a rupture in the Rainbow Pipeline resulted in a spill of about 4.5 million liters (1.2 million gallons) of oil in the Cree Lubicon territory—one of the biggest oil spills in Alberta’s history. When the pipeline broke, oil flowed into the forest, but the majority of it was soaked up into the muskeg, which is like peatland moss and takes thousands of years to be generated. The muskeg is not an isolated system. It’s not “stagnant water,” as the government claims. It’s actually a living, breathing ecosystem that supports life and is connected to all the water in the region.

On the first day of the spill, the nearby school was not notified. When students started to feel sick, they were evacuated from the school under the assumption that it was a propane leak. When they got outside into the field, they realized that the problem was throughout the community.

During the first week of the spill, community members experienced physical symptoms: their eyes burned; they had headaches; they felt nauseated. We were told that air quality was not a problem. Alberta Environment didn’t actually come into the community until six days after the spill, so people were left to wonder what they should do and whether pregnant women and small children should even be in the community. At the very least, the government that grants permits for oil and gas development, often without the consent of the people, has an obligation to take care of those whom they are directly putting at risk.

The Future of Extraction

The Rainbow Pipeline spill is now 45 years old. When it broke in 2006, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board stated that stress and corrosion in the pipeline’s infrastructure contributed to the spill. Five years later, 5 million liters spilled in our traditional territory again. We’re also seeing pipeline breaks like this in other parts of North America, from Kalamazoo, Michigan, to the Kinder-Morgan spill along the West Coast. Will it ever end?

How many more communities have to be put at risk because of this type of development, and who is really benefiting? What are we leaving to future generations?

For over a century now, the Lubicon Cree’s rights have been neither protected nor respected. For decades, the Lubicon have led local, national, and international lobbying efforts to fight for what is inherently theirs and to protect their right to their land and to clean air and water. Despite years of raising awareness and increasing exposure, the Lubicon people still wait for justice. However, over the past decade of speaking out and demanding justice, I have seen a great shift in how our struggles are perceived. Now people from all walks of life are beginning to stand together and seek justice for those first and foremost impacted on the frontlines of environmental destruction. Now more than ever, people are working together as we know that the fate of humanity is wrapped up in our collective fight for a better, more just world for all.

First Nation communities have been on the front lines of resource extraction for far too long, and we have paid dearly for the price of humanity’s addiction to oil, but we also see a way out of the crisis we are currently facing in Alberta and around the world.  We need to shift away from a fossil-fuel-based system and to push for renewable energy systems that enable us to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining.

Communities like Little Buffalo are refusing to be victimized by the game of fossil fuel roulette and are leading the way toward energy independence—making The Leap toward a new future that some of the world’s leading thinkers say everyone else must follow.

The Clean Energy Revolution

Although Alberta is the oil capital of Canada, solar energy is taking off in the province. Albertans want to see change, and solar is huge part of making that change happen— but we need to demand this change. A just transition needs to happen not only in communities that can afford renewable technology but it must happen and begin in communities facing the brunt of the environmental, social, and health implications from the extractive industry and climate change. I think it is time for this change to be made across the planet, especially in places like the Alberta tar sands.

Most of this solar installation was done by community members who have never installed a solar project before. Now they can use these new skills to install more solar projects around Alberta. However, these types of renewable energy projects shouldn’t rest on the shoulders of communities to implement alone; instead, they should be supported by governments around the world that have chosen to subsidize the aging fossil fuel industry for decades. Countries like Canada need to accelerate the transition from destructive, climate-polluting energy sources like the tar sands toward the green, just energy economy that so many of our communities so desperately want and need to see. Canada should set a goal and commit to generating 100% of its power through renewable energy, as outlined in the recent report of 100% Renewables.

Energy democracy can be built through the decentralization of our energy grid so that people are no longer subject to the woes of the boom-and-bust economies of fossil fuels and so that the oil and gas lobby no longer runs our governments. The fossil fuel regime makes us think that we need to remain dependent, but when we decentralize our power we create energy independence in our communities and countries.

Even in the heart of the tar sands, we can build a different kind of economy with clean energy and green jobs without compromising our families and communities. But a just transition needs to prioritize communities like First Nations that are already impacted by dirty fossil fuels. A just transition means our communities will no longer be sacrifice zones.

We are seeing Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike galvanized by the sun. Please stand with us—and help build a positive, solution-based economy across this globe. We must do it now, without waiting for governments to decide to do this for us. We must separate oil and state, which is driving us to the brink of climate catastrophe. Every person and every roof can be a part of the solar solution.

The solar panels in my community will still be standing even when the last oil project is finished. Panel by panel, communities will show politicians what true leadership looks like. We’ve been looking down for far too long and digging at the bottom of the barrel for dirty fossil fuels. We must now turn our gaze toward the sun and realize the true energy potential that is available to us here and now. We must choose to build healthy and vibrant communities before it is too late.