[Save] Fwd: Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging the Planet

[Manshi Low]

Very interesting article about the state of U.S. -- not published here 
though, but by The Guardian (UK).

Happy Holidays!

Manshi

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-hgci-envre117 at calists.harvard.edu 
>[mailto:owner-hgci-envre117 at calists.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Dan Baw
>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:25 PM
>To: Maggie Husak; hgci-envre117 at calists.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: ENVR E-117 Fwd: Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging thePlanet
>
>Looks to me like the answer to this is for all you northeasterners to move 
>to the UK ;-)
>
>  Merry Christmas back at ya ... DB
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>Jack asked me to forward this along to everyone.
>
>Have a wonderful holiday season!
>
>Best,
>
>Maggie
>
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:54:07 -0500
>To: maggie_husak at harvard.edu
>From: John Spengler <spengler at hsph.harvard.edu>
>Subject: Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging the Planet
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-rc6-soc_rev_06
>         (1.208-2003-09-19-exp) on sherri.harvard.edu
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=4.5 tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST
>         autolearn=no version=2.60-rc6-soc_rev_06
>
>Please forward to staff and night school students.
>
>
>X-Sender: cameron at storm.rmi.org
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:32:09 -0700
>To: spengler at hsph.harvard.edu, Maureen Blaufuss 
><maureen_blaufuss at harvard.edu>,
>        <ynishiok at hsph.harvard.edu>,
>         "Zachary Zevitas" <zachary at sciencenetwork.com>,
>        <ZevitasC at VOLPE.DOT.GOV>
>From: Cameron Burns <cameron at rmi.org>
>Subject: might be worth sharing with the class....
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hsph.harvard.edu id 
>hA7HUksp020554
>
>EM1ers,
>Some of the population estimates make this a pretty chilling article.
>Cam
>
>
>
>
>Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging the Planet
>by Matthew Engel
>Published on 10/24/03 by the Guardian/UK
>
>America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, the
>population has risen by 100 million since 1970 and when an area three times
>the size of Britain was recently opened up for mining, drilling, logging and
>road building, no one took much notice. What does the Bush administration
>do? It ignores all attempts to curb environmental damage.
>
>On the map of the United States, just below halfway down the east coast, you
>can see a series of islets, in the shape of a hooked nose. These are the
>Outer Banks, barrier islands - sun-kissed in summer, storm-tossed in
>winter - that stretch for 100 miles and more, protecting the main coastline
>of the state of North Carolina. They are built, quite literally, on shifting
>sands.
>
>Twenty years ago, these were, by all accounts, magical places, hard to reach
>and discovered only by the adventurous and discerning. They are still fairly
>magical, at least the seemingly endless stretch of unspoiled beach is. It is
>the lure of that which causes the traffic jams on the only two bridges every
>Saturday throughout the summer. The narrow strip of land behind the beach,
>however, has been built up with enormous holiday homes, costing up to $2m
>(£1.2m) each. And prices rose by 15-20% (25% for those on the ocean front)
>in 2002 alone, according to one agent.
>
>This is what local agents call "a very nice market", and last month their
>area had a week of free worldwide publicity. Hurricane Isabel swept in,
>washing out much of the islands' only road and picking up motels from their
>foundations and tossing them, according to one report, "like cigarette
>butts". One island was turned into several islets, with a whole town,
>Hatteras Village, being cut off from the rest of the US - for ever, if
>nature has its way.
>
>Residents, journalists reported, were in shock. Many scientists were not.
>Speaking well before Isabel, Dr Orrin Pilkey, professor emeritus of geology
>at Duke University in North Carolina, described the Outer Banks property
>boom to me as "a form of societal madness". "I wouldn't buy a house on the
>front row of the Outer Banks. Or the second," agreed Dr Stephen Leatherman,
>who is such a connoisseur of American coastlines that he is known as Dr
>Beach.
>
>For the market is not the only thing that has been rising round here. Like
>other experts, Pilkey expects the Atlantic to inundate the existing beaches
>"within two to four generations". Normally, that would be no problem for the
>sands, which would simply regroup and re-form further back. Unfortunately,
>that is no longer possible: the $2m houses are in the way. According to
>Pilkey, the government will either have to build millions of dollars worth
>of seawall, which will destroy the beach anyway, or demolish the houses.
>"Coastal scientists from abroad come here and just shake their heads in
>disbelief," he says.
>
>The madness of the Outer Banks seems like a symptom of, and a metaphor for,
>something far broader: the US is in denial about what is, beyond any
>question, potentially its most dangerous enemy. While millions of words have
>been written every day for the past two years about the threat from vengeful
>Islamic terrorists, the threat from a vengeful Nature has been almost wholly
>ignored. Yet the likelihood of multiple attacks in the future is far more
>certain.
>
>Earlier this year, just before he was fired as environment minister, Michael
>Meacher gave a speech in Newcastle, saying: "There is a lot wrong with our
>world. But it is not as bad as people think. It is actually worse." He
>listed five threats to the survival of the planet: lack of fresh water,
>destruction of forest and crop land, global warming, overuse of natural
>resources and the continuing rise in the population. What Meacher could not
>say, or he would have been booted out more quickly, was that the US is a
>world leader in hastening each of these five crises, bringing its gargantuan
>appetite to the business of ravaging the planet. American politicians do not
>talk this way. Even Al Gore, supposedly the most committed environmentalist
>in world politics, kept quiet about the subject when chasing the presidency
>in 2000.
>
>Those of us without a degree in climatology can have no sensible opinion on
>the truth about climate change, except to sense that the weather does seem
>to have become a little weird lately. Yet in America the subject has become
>politicized, with rightwing commentators decrying global warming as "bogus
>science". They gloated when it snowed unusually hard in Washington last
>winter (failing to notice the absence of snow in Alaska). When the dissident
>"good news" scientist Bjorn Lomborg spoke to a conservative Washington
>thinktank he was applauded not merely rapturously, but fawningly.
>
>While newspapers report that Kilimanjaro's icecap is melting and Greenland's
>glaciers are crumbling, the US government has been telling its scientific
>advisers to do more research before it can consider any action to restrict
>greenhouse gases; the scientists reported back that they had done all the
>research. The attitude of the White House to global warming was summed up by
>the online journalist Mickey Kaus as: "It's not true! It's not true! And we
>can't do anything about it!" What terrifies all American politicians, deep
>down, is that it is true and that they could do something about it, but at
>horrendous cost to American industry and lifestyle.
>
>In the meantime, all American consumers have been asked to do is to buy Ben
>& Jerry's One Sweet Whirled ice cream, ensuring that a portion of Unilever's
>profits go towards "global warming initiatives". Wow!
>
>Potential Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination have been
>testing environmental issues a little in the past few weeks. Some activists
>are hopeful that the newly elected Governor Schwarzenegger of California is
>genuinely interested. But, in truth, despite the Soviet-style politicization
>of science, serious national debate on the issue ceased years ago.
>
>Of course, nimbyism is alive and well. And, sure, there are localized
>battles between greens and their corporate enemies: towns in Alabama try to
>resist corporate poisoning; contests go on to preserve the habitats of
>everything from the grizzly bear to rare types of fly; Californians hug
>trees to stop new housing estates. Sometimes the greenies win, though they
>have been losing with increasing frequency, especially if Washington happens
>to be involved. These fights, even in agglomeration, are not the real issue
>Day after day across America the green agenda is being lost - and then,
>usually, being buried under concrete.
>
>"We're waging a war on the environment, a very successful one," says Paul
>Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University. "This
>nation is devouring itself," according to Phil Clapp of the National
>Environmental Trust. These are voices that have almost ceased to be heard in
>the US. Yet with each passing day, the gap between the US and the rest of
>the planet widens. To take the figure most often trotted out: Americans
>contribute a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. To meet the
>seemingly modest Kyoto objective of reducing emissions to 7% below their
>1990 levels by 2012, they would actually (due to growth) have to cut back by
>a third. For the Bush White House, this is not even on the horizon, never
>mind the agenda.
>
>Why has the leader of the free world opted out? The first reason lies deep
>in the national psyche. The old world developed on the basis of a
>coalition - uneasy but understood - between humanity and its surroundings.
>The settlement of the US was based on conquest, not just of the indigenous
>peoples, but also of the terrain. It appears to be, thus far, one of the
>great success stories of modern history.
>
>"Remember, this country is built very heavily on the frontier ethic," says
>Clapp. "How America moved west was to exhaust the land and move on. The
>original settlers, such as the Jefferson family, moved westward because
>families like theirs planted tobacco in tidewater Virginia and exhausted the
>soil. My own ancestors did the same in Indiana."
>
>Americans made crops grow in places that are entirely arid. They built
>dams - about 250,000 of them. They built great cities, with skyscrapers and
>symphony orchestras, in places that appeared barely habitable. They shifted
>rivers, even reversed their flow. "It's the American belief that with enough
>hard work and perseverance anything - be it a force of nature, a country or
>a disease - can be vanquished," says Clapp. "It's a country founded on the
>idea of no limits. The essence of environmentalism is that there are indeed
>limits. It's one of the reasons environmentalism is a stronger ethic in
>Europe than in the US."
>
>There is a second reason: the staggering population growth of the US. It is
>approaching 300 million, having gone up from 200 million in 1970, which was
>around the time President Nixon set up a commission to consider the issue,
>the last time any US administration has dared think about it. A million new
>legal migrants are coming in every year (never mind illegals), and the US
>Census Bureau projections for 2050, merely half a lifetime away, is 420
>million. This is a rate of increase far beyond anything else in the
>developed world, and not far behind Brazil, India, or indeed Mexico.
>
>This issue is political dynamite, although not for quite the same reasons as
>in Britain. Almost every political group is split on the issue, including
>the far right (torn between overt xenophobes such as Pat Buchanan and the
>free marketeers), the labor movement and the environmentalists. The belief
>that the US is the best country in the world is a cornerstone of national
>self-belief, and many Americans still, wholeheartedly, want others to share
>it. They also want cheap labor to cut the sugar cane, pluck the chickens,
>pick the oranges, mow the lawns and make the beds.
>
>But the dynamite is most potent among the Hispanic community, the group who
>will probably decide the destiny of future presidential elections and who do
>not wish to be told their relatives will not be allowed in or, if illegal,
>seriously harassed. "Neither party wants to say we should change immigration
>policy," says John Haaga of the independent Population Reference Bureau.
>"The phrase being used is 'Hispandering'". Yet extra Americans are not just
>a problem for the US: they are, in the eyes of many environmentalists, a
>problem for the world because migrants, in a short span of time, take on
>American consumption patterns. "Not only don't we have a population policy,"
>says Ehrlich, "we don't have a consumption policy either. We are the most
>overpopulated country in the world. It's not the number of people. It's
>their consumption." Ehrlich may be wrong. It is, though. somewhat surprising
>that the federal government's four million employees do not appear to
>include anyone charged with even thinking about this issue.
>
>This brings us to the third factor: the Bush administration, the first
>government in modern history which has systematically disavowed the systems
>of checks and controls that have governed environmental policy since it
>burst into western political consciousness a generation ago. It would be
>ludicrous to suggest that Bush is responsible for what is happening to the
>American environment. The crisis is far more deep-seated than that, and the
>federal government is too far removed from the minutiae of daily life.
>
>But the Bushies have perfected a technique of announcing regular edicts
>(often late on a Friday afternoon) rolling back environmental control,
>usually while pretending to do the opposite. Morale among civil servants at
>the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington was already close to
>rock-bottom even before its moderate leader, Christine Todd Whitman, finally
>threw in her hand in May. Gossip round town was that she had endured two
>years of private humiliation at the hands of the White House. Few
>environmentalists have great hopes for her announced successor, the governor
>of Utah, Mike Leavitt.
>
>What is really alarming is the intellectual atmosphere in Washington. You
>can attend seminars debunking scientific eco-orthodoxy almost every week.
>Early in the year, there was much favorable publicity for a new work Global
>Warming and Other Eco-myths, produced by the Competitive Enterprise
>Institute, an organization reputedly funded by multinational corporations.
>Outside Washington, it can be far nastier. "I've never threatened anyone in
>my life," a conservation activist in Montana complained to the Guardian. "I
>do know, though, that I have gotten very ugly threats left on my telephone
>answering machine over the past year, and twice had to scour my sidewalk in
>front of the building to erase the dead body chalk outlines."
>
>Out in the west, words such as enviro-whackos are popularized by rightwing
>radio hosts such as the ex-Watergate conspirator Gordon Liddy, who passes on
>to his millions of listeners the message that global warming is a lie. "I
>commute in a three-quarter-tonne capacity Chevrolet Silverado HD," he
>swanked in his latest book. "Four-wheel drive, off-road equipped, extended
>curb pickup truck, powered by a 300hp, overhead valve, turbo supercharged
>diesel engine with 520lb-feet of torque... It has lights all over it so
>everyone can see me coming and get out of the way. If someone in a little
>government-mandated car hits me, it is all over - for him." Fuel economy in
>American vehicles hit a 22-year low in 2002.
>
>In this country, green-minded people can't even trust the good guys. The
>Nature Conservancy, the US's largest environmental group with a million
>members - with a role not unlike Britain's National Trust - was the subject
>of an exhaustive exposé in the Washington Post in May, accusing it of
>sanctioning deals to build "opulent houses on fragile grasslands" and
>drilling for gas under the last breeding ground of the Attwater's Prairie
>Chicken, whose numbers have dwindled to just dozens.
>
>On April 22, 1970 more than 20 million people attended the first-ever Earth
>Day. In New York, Fifth Avenue was closed to traffic and 100,000 people
>attended an ecology fair in Central Park. The Republican governor of New
>York wore a Save the Earth button, and Senator John Tower, another
>Republican, told an audience of Texan oilmen: "Recent efforts on the part of
>the private sector show promise for pollution abatement and control. Such
>efforts are in our own best interests..."
>
>So what happened next? The problem for the green movement was not what went
>wrong, but what went right. Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, said: "In
>the 1970s, the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people
>are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked on
>now." The famine never came. And after the oil crisis came and went, and
>Americans began to tire of the gloom-filled, eco-oriented presidency of
>Jimmy Carter, they turned instead to Ronald Reagan, who proposed simple
>solutions of tax cuts and deregulation and, lo, the world got more cheerful
>With doomsday postponed indefinitely, the politics of the Reagan years have
>lingered.
>
>Some activists remain bitter about the Clinton White House, which was only
>patchily interested in green issues. "It left a bad taste in the mouth of
>the environmental community," says Tim Wirth, a former senator and one-time
>Clinton official. "They trimmed their sails over and over again. The old
>House speaker, Tip O'Neill, had a very important political aphorism: 'Yer
>dance with the person who brung yer.' They never did." This bitterness was
>one of the factors that led to the hefty third-party vote for Ralph Nader in
>2000, which proved disastrous for Al Gore, the inhibited environmentalist.
>
>In the three years since then, Bush has danced like a dervish with the folks
>who brung him. Yet, even now, no one dare say out loud that they are against
>environmentalism: the political wisdom is that the subject can be a voting
>issue among the suburban moms, ferrying the kids around to baseball practice
>in their own Chevrolet Silverados. Instead, the big corporations and their
>political allies have - brilliantly - manipulated the forces that the
>eco-warriors themselves unleashed and turned them back on their creators.
>"In the 80s they took all the techniques of citizen advocacy groups and
>professionalized them," explains Phil Clapp. "That's when you saw the
>proliferation of lobbyists in Washington. The environmental community never
>retooled to meet the challenge. They had developed the techniques, but were
>still doing them in a PTA bake-sale kind of way."
>
>Thus every new measure passed to favor business interests and ease up on
>pollution regulations is presented in an eco-friendly, sugar-coated,
>summer's morning kind of way, such as Clear Skies, the weakening of the
>Clean Air Act. The House of Representatives has just passed the Healthy
>Forests Restoration Act, presented by the president as an anti-forest fire
>measure. Opponents say it is simply a gift to the timber industry that will
>make it extremely difficult to stop the felling of old-growth trees. Another
>technique is to announce, with great fanfare, initiatives that everyone can
>applaud, such as a recent one for hydrogen-based cars. We can expect more of
>these as November 2004 draws closer. When they are scaled back, or delayed,
>or dropped, there is less publicity. It is a habit that runs in the family.
>Governor Jeb Bush's grand scheme to save the Florida Everglades was much
>applauded; the delay from 2006 to 2016 was little noticed.
>
>Even now the White House does not win all its battles. In the Senate, where
>a small group of greenish New England Republicans has a potential blocking
>veto, there are moves to compromise on the forests bill. The New England
>Republicans were largely responsible for Bush's inability to push through
>his plan to allow oil drilling in the Alaskan wildlife reserve.
>Occasionally, there is good news: some of the small dams that have impeded
>the life-cycle of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout are being demolished;
>there are reports of a new alliance between the old enemies, ranchers and
>greenies, in New Mexico; renewable energy is under discussion. But some of
>their policies are already having their effect. Carol Browner, Clinton's
>head of the EPA, claims the Bush administration has set back the campaign to
>cut industrial pollution in ways that will last for decades.
>
>"This administration has sent a signal to the polluting community, 'You can
>get away with bad habits'," says Browner. "State governments in the
>north-east were much tougher, so the north-eastern power stations upgraded
>their emissions standards in the 90s whereas the mid-west guys, who are
>their competitors, didn't. Now they're not enforcing the law."
>
>"So what they're saying to the companies is: 'Don't go early, don't comply
>with the law first. The rules might change.' Even a company that wants to do
>the right thing has to look at its bottom line. If they get into a situation
>like this, they think: 'We spent $1bn to meet the requirements and our
>competitors didn't. Yeah, great. We're not going to do that again.'"
>
>Under Bush, the lack of interest at every level has at last come into
>balance. The US is equally unconcerned globally, federally, statewide and
>locally. The environmentalists' macro-gloom has been off-beam before, of
>course. Perhaps global warming is a myth; perhaps the CEI is right and there
>will be a blue revolution in water use to complement the green revolution.
>There is probably just as much as chance that the next big surprise will be
>a thrilling one - the arrival of nuclear cold fusion to solve the energy
>dilemma, say - as a disaster. Maybe biotechnology, pesticides, natural gas
>and American ingenuity and optimism will indeed see everything right. It
>does seem like a curiously reckless gamble for the US to be taking, though,
>staking the future of the planet on the spin of nature's roulette wheel.
>
>But it is only a bigger version of the bet being taken by the home-buyers of
>North Carolina. In a country supposedly distrustful of government, the Outer
>Bankers have remarkable faith in their leaders' ability to see them seem
>right. Post-Isabel, a group of residents there wrote a letter demanding
>government action so they can protect their livelihoods and families
>"without the fear of every hurricane or nor 'easter cutting us off from the
>rest of the world". Quite. Who would imagine that in the 21st century the
>most powerful empire the world has ever known could still be threatened by
>enemies as pathetically old-fashioned as wind and tide?
>
>Orrin Pilkey thinks it quite possible that sea levels might rise to the
>point where the Outer Banks will be a minor detail. "We're not going to be
>worried about North Carolina. We're going to be worrying about Manhattan."
>Still, macro-catastrophe may never happen. The micro-catastrophe, however,
>already has: the US is an aesthetic disaster area.
>
>If you fly from Washington to Boston, there are now almost no open spaces
>below. This is increasingly true in a big U covering both coasts and the
>sunbelt. In the south-west, the main growth area, bungalows spread for miles
>over what a decade ago was virgin desert. The population of Arizona
>increased 40% in the 1990s, that of next-door Nevada 66%. That's, as Natalie
>Merchant sang, "...the sprawl that keeps crawling its way, 'bout a thousand
>miles a day", which is not much of an exaggeration.
>
>Every day 5,000 new houses go up in America. Many of these fit the American
>appetite for size, however small the plot: "McMansions", as they are known.
>The very word suburb is now old-hat. The reality of life for many people now
>is the "exurb", which can be dozens of miles from the city on which it
>depends. In places such as California, exurban life is the only affordable
>option for most young couples and recent migrants.
>
>These communities are rarely gated but often walled, creating a vague
>illusion of security and ensuring that the residents have to drive to a
>shop, even if there happens to be one 50 yards away. Naturally, they have to
>drive everywhere else. In August it was announced that the number of cars in
>the US (1.9 per household) now actually exceeded the number of drivers
>(1.75).
>
>In many places - especially those growing the fastest - developers have to
>deal only with the little councils in the towns they are taking over. There
>are often minimal requirements to provide any kind of infrastructure, such
>as sewage or schools, to service these new communities. The rules for
>building houses in the computer game Sim City are stricter than those that
>apply in most areas of the Sun Belt. Too late, some parts of the country
>have concluded that this is untenable. The buzz-phrase is "smart growth",
>which means no more than the kind of forethought before building that has
>been routine in Europe for half a century. Even the Environmental Protection
>Agency is not above being helpful: its policies for making use of brownfield
>sites have seen people moving, improbably, back into the center of cities
>such as Pittsburgh.
>
>But where it matters, no one is talking strategy. "In the really
>fast-growing states, the pace of development is such that they can build
>huge numbers of houses without anyone considering what it means for the
>infrastructure," says Marya Morris of the American Planning Association. In
>California, more than perhaps any other state, there is a debate. But while
>people talk, developers act: a city catering for up to 70,000 people will
>soon arise at the foot of the Tehachapi Mountains. According to the Los
>Angeles Times, it would effectively close the gap between Los Angeles and
>Bakersfield, theoretically 111 miles away. "Southern California is coming
>over the hill," said one resident.
>
>Americans still have a presumption of infinite space. But I have made a
>curious and mildly embarrassing discovery. In states such as Maryland and
>Ohio, the pattern of settlement in supposedly rural areas is such that it
>can actually be quite difficult to find a discreet spot away from housing to
>stop the car and have a pee. Amid the wide-open spaces of Texas, it can be
>worse: the gap between Dallas and Waco is a 100-mile strip mall. The
>concepts of townscape and landscape seem non-existent: there is land that
>has been developed and land that hasn't - yet.
>
>And yet. Time and again, around the US, one is struck by the stunning beauty
>of the landscape, not in the obvious places, but in corners that few
>Americans will have heard of: amazing rivers such as the Pearl in Louisiana,
>or the Choptank in Maryland or the Lost River in West Virginia; the
>Chocolate Mountains and the San Diego back country in California; the bits
>that are left of the Outer Banks...
>
>And equally one is struck by the sheer horrendousness of what man has done
>in the century or so since he seriously got to work over here. In the
>context of ages, the white man is merely a hotel guest in this continent: he
>has smashed the furniture and smeared excrement on the walls. He appears to
>be looking forward to his next night's stay with relish.
>
>Of course, there are still huge tracts of untouched and largely unpopulated
>land: in the Great Plains, where people are leaving, in the mountains,
>deserts and Arctic tundra. But last spring, in another of Washington's
>Friday night announcements, the Department of the Interior announced - no,
>whispered - that it was removing more than 200m acres that it owned from
>"further wilderness study", enabling those areas to be opened for mining,
>drilling, logging or road-building. That's an area three times the size of
>Britain. The New York Times did write a trenchant editorial; otherwise the
>response was minimal.
>
>Not long ago I went for a walk in the Vallecito Mountains in California.
>After a while, I got myself into a position where the contours of the land
>blotted out everything and, after the noise of a plane had died away, there
>was no sight or sound at all that was not produced by nature. This lasted
>about a minute. Then, from somewhere, a motorcycle roared into earshot.
>
>Sure, there are still places in this vast country where it is possible to
>escape, but they get harder and harder to find except for the fit, the
>adventurous and those unencumbered by children or jobs. Most Americans don't
>live that way. And nowhere now is entirely safe from being ravaged,
>sometimes in ways that prejudice the future of the whole planet. Al-Qaida
>and the Iraqi bombers have no need to bother. America is destroying itself.
>
>
>© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
>
>
>
>--
>
>Cameron M. Burns
>Communications
>cameron at rmi.org
>
>Rocky Mountain Institute
>1739 Snowmass Creek Road
>Snowmass  CO  81654-9199
>
>(970) 927-7338 (direct)
>
>(970) 927-3851 general
>(970) 927-3420 fax
>http://rmi.org <http://rmi.org/>
>
>
>
>John Spengler
>Akira Yamaguchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation
>Exposure, Epidemiology and Risk Program
>Department of Environmental Health
>Harvard School of Public Health
>P. O. Box 15677
>Landmark Center, Room 406 WEST
>401 Park Drive
>Boston, MA  02215
>TEL:    617-384-8810
>FAX:    617-384-8819
>Email: spengler at hsph.harvard.edu
>
>
>Maggie Husak
>Coordinator of Finance and Administration
>Harvard Green Campus Initiative
>46 Blackstone Street
>Cambridge, MA 02139
>
>(ph)    617-496-1278
>(f)     617-495-9409
>(e)     maggie_husak at harvard.edu
>(w)     http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu 
><http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/>
>