Steve Nicholas, one of the most constant faces in Seattle sustainability politics, has left the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. In fact, he’s even leaving the state!

That’s right. Nicholas, who has been the director of OSE for eight years (longer than the mayor has been mayor), will begin a new job in Montpelier, Vt. in October as director of climate programs at the Institute for Sustainable Communities.

His spot will be filled, as in interim position, by Michael Mann, the deputy director of the Office of Policy and Management. Mann recently led the department’s Transportation and Infrastructure Team. 

Sadly, Nicholas has already left the building and I have no forwarding address. But what I can tell you is back in 2001, when he had just been appointed the office’s first director, Nicholas told the DJC here, “My goal is to work the Office of Sustainability out of existence in 10 years.”

Back then, the article reads:

“If, on the other hand, his office becomes a “repository for all things sustainable. That’s an abject failure,” he says.”

A lot of things have changed since that article. But some things haven’t changed. The office is still around. The city is still looking at a streamlined permitting process for green buildings. We’re still wrestling with the word ’sustainability.’

Readers, it hasn’t been 10 years yet — only eight. But what do you think the office has accomplished in that time? Has Seattle done everything it could to encourage sustainable development, living, business etc., in eight years or not? And is the mayor’s office a repository for all things sustainable or slowly being worked out of existence? What do you think are the biggest green development changes in that time?

Oh, and if anyone has Steve’s e-mail, tell him I’m lookin’ for him!

For more DJC articles on Steve Nicholas, see this article he wrote for us in 2004, this one he wrote in 2005, this one he wrote in 2002, this one about the mayor’s crusade for trees, and this one about smart growth.

Last week, I mentioned Seattle’s new green building task force. Their job is to figure out how to make Seattle’s buildings (both old and new) 20 percent more efficient by 2020. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to tell me (and possibly them) what you want to see.

The team is discussed in an article today in the DJC. The story discusses multiple viewpoints: Ash Awad of McKinstry thinks Seattle is behind New York City and Chicago in some ways in energy efficient programs and incentives, and the task force can help shore up that deficiency. Douglas Howe of Touchstone is concerned about maintaining Seattle’s commercial viability.

But there are 50 people on the task force. Doesn’t that mean there are (honestly) going to be 50 different opinions? Especially when the force is looking at everything from density bonuses and expedited permits to green investment funds and “carbon feebates.”

So how about you, 51st task force member? Does one of these ideas strike you as being better? What would it take to get you to update or upgrade a building or system, and would any of these ideas do it?

For those of who who have already taken the efficiency plunge, don’t look so smug. Mark Frankel, technical director of the New Buildings Institute and task force member, said there isn’t a building in Seattle that couldn’t improve its energy efficiency, even by commisioning alone. Hemmmmm.

In other news, MarketWatch has a story on how the Electrical Contractor Magazine’s 2008 Profile of the Electrical Contractor says almost half of electrical contractors used green or sustainable feature. For more go here.

The New York Time’s Dot Earth covers what Google’s energy czar thinks we should do about energy in America.

EcoMetro Seattle has a post on green fabrics appearing on Project Runway (for any fashion geeks out there).

JetsonGreen has two Puget Sound area stories, including an announcement of a green open house in Mt. Baker tomorrow.