BigBelly trash compactors that is. What’s that you say? You don’t know what a BigBelly is, other than the thing that seems to sit on your father in law’s middle? Well friends, a BigBelly is a trash compactor that holds five times the trash of a normal can. And Seattle - which had three in March of 2008 - is about to be getting 20 more.

First, some history. I wrote about the BigBelly in March of 2008 here in the DJC after meeting

James Poss at the Globe 2008 conference, photo by Katie Zemtseff

its inventor, James Poss, at the Globe Conference in Vancouver, B.C. The BigBelly uses a solar panel to create energy, which it then uses to compact the trash inside it. This means waste haulers have to pick them up less often, which means the people paying haulers save money.

In 2008, Poss said the cans cost between $3,000 and $4,000 but pay for themselves quickly. Poss also said Seattle is a great climate for these things, because they work on ambient light, which exists when it is cloudy or rainy.

In Seattle, the 20 BigBellys will be placed along Third Avenue between Stewart and University streets by the Metropolitan Improvement District and Seattle Public Utilities. There will supposedly be a celebration at the first installation tomorrow (Saturday) from 10:30 to 11 a.m. at the west side of Third Avenue near the Stewart Street intersection.

Now, 20 BigBellys (which at $3,000 a pop totals $60,000) may seem like a big deal. But it’s not. Not when you compare it to Philadelphia, that is, which has replaced 700 downtown garbage cans with 500 BigBellys, according to the AP story which ran in the DJC last week. The story says the cans cost between $3,195 and $3,995 each (do the math, even at the lower end, it cost Philly about $1.6 million) but should save $875,000 per year, basically paying for itself in two years and then continuing to save money after. A press release for the MID says Philly plans to save $13 million over the next 10 years from the compactors

The BigBelly in action

and recycling containers that will go next to them.

The story says the cans in Philly will be emptied five times a week as opposed to 19 times for a regular trash can. The cans also have a wireless monitoring system to tell the city when they are full.

But here’s the interesting part: how many cans has Seattle been testing for over a year now? Three. How many cans did Philly test for a year before ordering 700? Three. I’m sure part of that difference has to do with the fact that Philly got some sort of a grant (the story doesn’t say what) for installations. But I think it still underscores how cautious Seattle is about making big decisions. Is Seattle too cautious here or is it smart not to jump into something like this too quick? (If you want to read the negative perspective of BigBelly, check out EcoMetro here.)

The AP story says Philly’s not the only one with BigBelly fever. Boston has 160, says they aren’t concentrated enough and wants more. Entities in New York are using 100. Chicago has 60, and they are being used in parts of Australia, Israel and France.

Seems like somebody at least thinks they’re a good concept.

And even if if weren’t a good concept, the BigBelly sure inspires some great quotes. When I spoke with Poss for the 2008 article, he described BigBelly as “carpooling for trash.”

And the AP story says Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter inititially asked, “What? Who’s got a big belly?” when he was introduced to the devices.

What do you think? Is there enough of a payoff for Seattle to invest in more of these or is our system just fine the way it is?

Hang onto your hats Seattle, our neighbor Vancouver, B.C., is gearing up to require all private developments in the city meet LEED silver.

Does this news make you go doe-eyed and giggly or does it stop your heart like a cold shower in January?

Either way, take a deep breath. It isn’t going to happen anytime soon in Seattle.

Diane Sugimura, director of the Seattle Department of Planning and Development, said Seattle is “looking at a wide range of things” to make buildings more efficient and will be watching Vancouver closely to see how it works with the planned LEED policy and developers. So it is a possibility, but not in the near future. Seattle also tends to take its time with these decisions, so there will most likely be a long lead time, should it ever come to be.

In Vancouver though, Brent Toderian, director of planning for the city, is instigating some major changes. To read Toderian’s blog, press here.

(more…)

In the last year, I have attended both Globe2008, presented by the Globe Foundation, and Greenbuild, presented by the U.S. Green Building Council. Though both are international events billed as convergent conferences for business and sustainability, I have to say if there’s anyone keeping score, Globe is clearly the winner.

Point 1 - Media Room. As a member of the media it makes sense that I start in the obvious spot. Greenbuild had a small media room with three outlet connections and free WiFi. Globe had a spacious media room with multiple computers, outlets, Internet connections, refreshments and paid WiFi. I’ll take computers over free Internet any day.

Point 2 - Crowds. Both conferences featured long lines for registration, but only Greenbuild kept audience members waiting for hours in theirs. The Starbucks line in Chicago also took 30 minutes to get through, if you were lucky. The Starbucks line at Globe took 2 minutes. Greenbuild fed attendees lunch, which at times, took around an hour to serve. Globe made attendees buy their own, but took no time. Greenbuild was also so crowded at times, it was overpowering, though that energy did make certain events highly charged.

Point 3 - Attitude. In my November article here I report on a number of audience concerns including Greenbuild’s being too touchy-feely and commercialized. I heard none of this at Globe. Instead, I heard a business-focused way of addressing problems like planning for a different future, and keeping a business or government viable in a changing market. In short, Greenbuild celebrated success, Globe looked at what needs to be fixed.

Point 4 - Star headliners.The USGBC wins this one easily, with Bill Clinton and Paul Hawken as headlining acts. Globe had Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia; Prince Philippe of Belgium; and a number of international ministers.

Like all events, there are some extenuating circumstances. Greenbuild was originally supposed to be in Los Angles and was switched a year before the date, to Chicago. I’m also guessing Greenbuild had a larger attendance, as it had 23,000 people and Globe won’t yet release attendance numbers. A Globe representative did confirm its attendence was well over 10,000. Globe also is a biennial conference, giving planners more time to nail down the details, while Greenbuild is every year.

Nevertheless, there are some lessons there on how to best manage a conference. Even self proscribed climate change skeptic Peter Foster of Ontario’s the Financial Post said it was well organized.

The interesting question will be to see how Living Future, the local Cascadia chapter of the USGBC’s annual conference, fares in Vancouver in a month. If it’s anything like last year’s inaugural conference, it will be less frenetic than Greenbuild and a bit more free than Globe. For that, we’ll just have to wait and see. I’ll cross my fingers if you do…..

Cars, cars and more cars were on the Globe2008 trade show floor, from the buyable 2008 Chevy Malibu Hybrid to Toyota’s futuristic Hybrid X concept car.

As far as fun goes, the Hybrid X was clearly the star of the show. Its design is sleek and sexy with eye-catching seats, steering wheel and lines that made conference attendees gawk and press their noses up against the car’s window panes. But much to the dismay of gawkers asking when they could purchase it, the car will not be manufactured. For more information and pictures, press here.

Other cars at the event looked similar to what you’d see on the road but featured hybrid, fuel cell and cellulosic ethanol propulsion systems. The Ford Focus fuel cell vehicles are hybrid electric fuel cell cars that never use a drop of gas. Ford made 30 of them in 2004 that are currently being tested in different climates like Florida, Michigan, and British Columbia. The hope is to eventually mass produce them.

If cars aren’t your dig, there are always electric scooters and bikes that plug into your wall. Canadian company Ecodrive Technology Group was exhibiting different models.

Other cars from Volkswagon, Chevrolet, General Motors and Peugeot were displayed.

Cars like this will help move the auto industry away from being petroleum-based, said Beth Lowery, vice president for environmental energy with GM’s global operations. And those cars will get more important as the world’s population grows, she said. Today, there are 6.6 billion people in the world and 890 million vehicles, she said, but by 2020, there will be 7.5 billion people and at least 1.1 billion cars.

Lowery also advocated for international and market-based regulations that could be applied on an economy-wide basis, rather than state standards, which impede the auto industry’s ability “to improve our technologies globally,” she said.

What do you think? Will the auto industry ever totally move away from petroleum? Are you despairing that you will never buy the Hybrid X or is its design just too odd? Let us know!

Globe2008, a conference dedicated to “developing the business of the environment” is under way in Vancouver, B.C., and its star openers spoke this morning at an opening plenary.

One of those speakers, Prince Philippe of Belgium, asked whether questions of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, could be better answered by an international organization that has the power to set standards across international boundaries. The force could act as an environment-focused NATO, coincidentally headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.

“It could even be said that we need a global governance to tackle the global challenge of climate change in a globalized world,” he said. “In the Belgian view, a UN environmental organization would help us to achieve these goals in time.”

Globalization of environmental problems, and understanding how personal actions affect people in other parts of the world is a hot topic. As environmental awareness grows, so has awareness about how things that seem positive, like biofuel crop growth or recycling your electronics, can have negative environmental effects elsewhere in the world.

A great example of the difficulties of meeting giant goals like getting to carbon neutrality is online in The New Yorker’s Feb. 25 edition here.

Another topic Philippe touched on is the zero emission Princess Elisabeth Antarctic Polar Station, currently under construction. He said the station, named after his daughter, is a premier example of rethinking traditional buildings and spaces.

Once complete, the station will be a base for field research and exploration. The station is billed as a “zero emission” project, as it plans to use 100 percent renewable energy. For more information on the station or the project team, press here.

Other speakers at the opening plenary were Gordon Campbell, premier of British Columbia; and Beth Lowery, vice president of environment energy at General Motors. Dianne Dillon-Ridgeley, director of Interface in Atlanta moderated the discussion. Other topics touched on included the future of green cars, how business can work better with government to create envrionmentally-friendly advances, and the need to move quickly.