I’m spending some time decompressing from CleanMed 2012 earlier this week; reflecting on what I learned, who I met, what I saw and how it changed me. From what I could tell, the conference was yet another rousing success. Attendance was high and everyone there was extremely engaged, passionate and knowledgeable. That’s great news for an industry that has such a big impact on the environment.

I was still suffering from a 2011 Aspen Environment Forum hangover, which distorted my view a bit. I found myself constantly comparing CleanMed to the Aspen Environment Forum, which is completely unfair and misguided.  They are two totally different animals geared towards achieving very different objectives.

At the Aspen Environment Form, nearly every session and subsequent conversation was really high-level, which is to say the focus was more about theories and ideas and less about strategies and actions. That’s not to say there weren’t tangible takeaways from Aspen. There were, but I found myself thinking about ideas that were pretty tough to wrap your head around: how can and will the earth’s population growth impact our lives, or why Gross Domestic Product is a bad measure of how our economy grows and what a new, better metric should include. It was big, heady stuff, and in most cases I couldn’t necessarily put much to use right away. I loved it nevertheless and hope to get back there soon…it’s Aspen, after all!

CleanMed = Implementation + Networking

CleanMed, on the other hand, seemed to focus on two things: implementation and networking. Sessions (at least those that I attended) zeroed in on what healthcare facilities should be doing and how they should be doing it. Topics ran the gamut and included such concepts as greening the operating room, reducing water consumption, composting, safer chemicals, energy conservation, employee engagement, etc. etc. A lot was covered, and it was the brass tacks of greening a hospital. I found myself taking copious notes on many tried and true strategies for success. It was, in most cases, really rich content that is immediately applicable in our work.

The other focus was networking. During the two and a half days, over nine hours wasn’t “programmed”. Such an approach allowed attendees to dive a bit deeper in their conversations. We were able to share stories about what was working, what wasn’t, and generally kick around ideas about how to be more effective in our work. Every time I spoke with another someone, the conversation was always meaningful and illuminating. Time after time, I was impressed with everyone I talked with, regardless of where they were from or what their job title was.

Major Takeaway #1: Mission Alignment

One theme came up time and time again: sustainability initiatives align with their nearly every organization’s mission to improve health. Many unintended consequences of running a healthcare facility negatively effect human health. To name just a few (and there are many): air pollution, food insecurity, aggravated pre-existing conditions, increases in infectious diseases, obesity, and death. Yes, even death. There are clear connections to all of them, and it was refreshing to hear so many healthcare professionals not only acknowledging those connections, but also strategizing about how to lessen their negative impacts. One shining example was Jeffrey Thompson, CEO of Gundersen Lutheran in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I was thoroughly impressed with his vision and tenacity for greening their hospital.

Major Takeaway #2: Energy is King

The sessions that drew the most attention were typically focused in some way on reducing energy consumption. This is no surprise given the industry’s operational requirements (you can’t exactly send everyone home at 5pm and shut everything down). Hospitals have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and carbon dioxide emissions of commercial office buildings, and the EPA estimates that a $1 savings in a hospital’s annual energy costs equates to an increase of $20 in annual revenue, based on a 5 percent net operating margin. Not a bad exchange rate.

Further underscoring the importance of energy efficiency, energy costs are going nowhere but up, which presents a significant risk to a hospital’s bottom-line. And oh, by the way, the majority of the energy being purchased is emitting some pretty unhealthy stuff, which is contrary to the mission of these facilities (see takeaway #1). The good news is that there are so many opportunities to conserve energy, and many of them require no investment whatsoever.

Major Takeaway #3: From Greenhorn to Green Expert

The differences between where hospitals are in their sustainability journey is pretty stark. I met several people who were just getting their initiatives off the ground while others had been taking strides for several years. The greenhorns were busy developing strategic plans and picking low-hanging fruit while the green experts were contemplating the installation of a co-generation plant onsite. Despite the varied levels of experience, everyone felt there was more to do in their institution.

Finally…

When it was all said and done, I was really glad that I went. I have fifteen pages of notes that either reinforce what we’re already doing or are full of new ideas, new strategies and new approaches to greening the industry. I’m really excited to sit down with our friends at The Nebraska Medical Center (and anyone else in the industry that’s interested) to talk about where they want to go next.

The healthcare industry is in flux right now (for a variety of reasons). As it evolves into its new state of being, it’s clear that many in the industry are looking at sustainability as a means by which to achieve their organizational objectives. The connections are clear, the mission-imperative is there, and the business case is rock solid. Which makes me wonder, if you’re a leader and decision-maker in the healthcare industry and you’re not seriously contemplating how to take advantage of the opportunity, what are you waiting for?

I read a recent article from All Things D in which Arik Hesseldahl described a revelation he had during a lunch meeting with former Intel CIO (and current manger of Intel’s Data Center and Connected Systems group) Diane Bryant.

In the article, Hesseldahl describes Intel’s recently announced Romley generation of its Xeon processors. The Romley chips are both 80 percent faster and 50 percent more energy efficient that the previous generation Nehalem chips. Bryant was in New York promoting these new chips prior to her lunch with Hesseldahl. During the lunch, Hesseldahl cites a J.P. Morgan survey of one hundred CIOs in large companies showing that 91 percent did not expect to upgrade their data centers with the Romley chips.

Bryant responds by pointing out that she recently visited a customer who is one of the world’s largest 100 companies. At that particular customer, she notes, 36 percent of the chips in its data center were more than four years (or two chip generations) old. But that group of chips was consuming 65 percent of the data center’s power, while providing only four percent of the computing power. 

Bryant’s counterpoint to Hesseldahl’s argument that the Romley chips might not be the game changer CIOs are looking for to upgrade their data centers shows that a simple calculation can reveal extraordinary inefficiencies in data centers. In the case of Bryant’s example, replacing the older chips will not only boost the data center’s speed and efficiency, it will also reduce the amount of energy needed to cool the computer towers.

So think about your data center’s age, capability, and efficiency sort of like a dog’s age. A dog that is five years old is actually about 35 in “dog years.” Similarly, your four-year-old data crunchers are probably about 80 years old in “computer years.” You might consider boosting your computing power and efficiency, and reducing energy expenses and emissions, by making a data center upgrade.

We are immensely excited to report that three schools from the Omaha Public Schools were nominated by the Nebraska Department of Education to be Green Ribbon Schools. They are King Science & Technology Magnet Center, Lothrop Science and Technology Magnet Center, and Miller Park Elementary. All three are now eligible to be among the 50 schools that will be named as Green Ribbon Schools by the U.S. Department of Education on April 22.

This is the pilot year for the Green Ribbon Schools program, which rewards schools that meet criteria in three goals:

1. The school facility (grounds and building) has a “net zero” environmental impact;
2. The school environment has a “net positive” impact on the health and performance of students and staff members; and
3. The school’s graduates are environmentally literate.

We have been working with the Omaha Public Schools on their Green Schools Initiative for almost three years now and couldn’t be more impressed with the great progress the district has made. We’re helping the district with initiatives that run the gamut of sustainability programs: energy efficiency and conservation, waste reduction, water, recycling, and engagement at all levels. A few examples of the district’s achievements:

• energy costs in 2011 were $730,000 below what the district paid in 2010
• the district-wide average ENERGY STAR rating has climbed ten points in the last twelve months
• there are now 20 buildings with ENERGY STAR ratings 75 or higher, up from seven just over a year ago
• over 85% of schools have active green teams
• district progress towards achieving many of its other goals can be seen on the OPS Tracker Tool

We are immensely familiar with each of the three OPS schools and are so proud they’ve been nominated. They have been leaders in the the OPS Green Schools Initiative and deserve every bit of recogntion they are receiving. Quick highlights from their Green Ribbon applications:

King has an excellent focus on science and the environmental through its magnet curriculum.

Lothrop has one of the district’s only cafeteria waste composting programs and is a two-time winner of the Green Omaha Coalition‘s Green Schools Award.

I have been really excited about all the momentum towards creating a more livable, resilient Omaha as of late. My beautiful wife and I moved to Omaha in 2000 fresh out of college and have seen the city really make some strides over the years. We’re not originally from Omaha but now don’t foresee a scenario where we leave; It’s home and we want nothing more than to see it get better and better.

Downtown Omaha (home)

One of the biggest opportunities for improvement is in how Omaha develops to be more vibrant, dense, walkable, and sustainable. Since the 1950′s we haven’t done very well. One clear sign of our failure: in 1950 our population’s density was 6,171 per square mile. Today it’s around 3,489. Much like every other city in the United States we’ve sprawled, and we’re less connected, spending more time in our cars and in our (typically over-sized) houses, driving more, emitting more, weighing more, and putting the City into a financially and environmentally unsustainable position.

Thanks to Omaha by Design and the Greater Omaha Young Professionals, I had the opportunity to attend a Strong Towns Curbside Chat last week in Omaha. Executive Director Chuck Marohn’s two-hour presentation painted a bleak picture of how we (the U.S.) have dived deeply into unsustainable debt in order to fund our horizontal growth. Without going into all the details, our current development system relies on constant growth to sustain itself, and that constant growth puts us deeper and deeper into the hole.

Chuck walked us through several compelling graphs (I’m a sucker for charts, graphs, info-graphics and charticles), but the one that’s really stuck with me is the graph below showing how Omaha has grown since World War II. In essence, Omaha’s population has grown about 90%, our urbanized area has grown 250% and our street length has grown a whopping 325%. Sustainable trends? I’m thinking no.

Omaha's Post-WWII Growth (courtesy Strong Towns)

If we continue developing the way we have for the last 60+ years, we are in deep, deep trouble. Fortunately, I’m hopeful and confident that we can reverse this trend, but it’s not going to be easy. It seems there are four primary players that can affect meaningful change: planners, developers, citizens, and elected and appointed officials. I know many of Omaha’s Planning Department staff, and I really believe that they “get it”. I worry, however, that the institutional momentum at City Hall is too much for them to overcome. They are critical players in the system, though, and must do what is in the best interest of the City.

Developers worry me. They develop for profit, plain and simple, and only a few Omaha developers have figured out that there is a business opportunity in developing our city in a sustainable way (e.g. Noddle Development, Urban Village, and BlueStone  are three good , albeit not perfect, examples of visionary developers in Omaha). But I’m not exactly oozing confidence that the rest of the development community is there, or even close. As Marohn reported during the Curbside Chat, between 1990 and 2005, U.S. consumer spending per capita rose 14% (inflation adjusted), yet national retail space per capita rose 100%. He also noted the U.S. has six times the retail space per capita of any European country. Sustainable trends? Ummmm, no.

Then there are citizens and elected and appointed officials. I run in circles that can largely be considered “believers”. If asked whether or not we need to alter our current development patterns, they will largely say yes and may have some ideas on what sustainable development looks like. But they are in the minority. With that said, I don’t think this issue is partisan. No matter how you look at it, our current path is unsustainable fiscally and environmentally. I firmly believe it’s just a matter of educating the average citizen on the issue and asking them to advocate for smarter development. This leads us to our elected and appointed officials. If citizens get educated and then activate, I would like to think our officials will follow. Am I naive? Maybe a little, but I also think that pushing for smarter development is an easier decision than some of the other challenges these officials face.

So where does this leave us?

I honestly believe that we’re set up nicely to make some significant and meaningful progress, and there are several important things happening that put me in my “happy place”. First, the Omaha’s Planning Department is getting ready to finalize and release an update to its Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and Daniel and I have been fortunate to be on the Core Committee for the TMP update. It’s a pretty well-done plan (thanks AECOM) that has prioritized some great projects that will really move the needle. There are two key questions, though: 1) how can we obtain a reliable and dedicated funding source for active transportation projects, and 2) will the plan actually be followed and implemented or will planners and other officials relent to business-as-usual when analyzing, critiquing, improving and approving development projects? I believe the second question is more important, and I think time will tell whether or not the plan has any impact.

Another important plan is the Environmental Element, which was added to the City’s master plan a few years ago. After several years of community-wide work in developing the plan, the Environmental Element spells out several hundred strategies in the areas of the Natural Environment, Building Construction, Resource Conservation, Community Health, and Urban Form and Transportation. Once again, it’s a plan, albeit a very aggressive one, and its effectiveness depends entirely on how well it is followed.

One good sign that the TMP and Environmental Element are making a difference  was the recent announcement that the City is planning (pending approvals) to turn two terrible one-way streets (19th and 20th Streets just north of Cuming) into two-way streets; a really smart thing to do as they are both ridiculously oversized for an at-risk mixed-use community in north Omaha. It’s a manifestation of precisely what the TMP and Environmental Element are prescribing.

And finally, Mode Shift Omaha, a group of citizens advocating for a more resilient and responsive transportation system, is really starting to take root and find its legs. This is exactly the kind of group that can help educate the public and hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for following the two aforementioned plans. Mode Shift is doing great work, and I’m excited to see how much of an impact they will have.

As evidenced by a recent brief exchange between Chuck Marohn and an anonymous Omahan that attended the Curbside Chat, the evolution to a more fiscally and environmentally sustainable development pattern is immensely difficult. We’re fighting decades of bad decisions and institutional momentum. BUT, we’re making progress, and I’m hopeful that the pace of progress will hasten and Omaha will become an even stronger, more resilient city. Dare I say a “strong town”?

When it comes down to it, we really don’t have a choice. Economic and environmental factors will make the decision for us and we’ll be left to react. I would rather we were proactive and took the bull by the horns. Let’s do this.

Onward and upward.

VERDIS GROUP SEEKS SUMMER INTERNSHIP CANDIDATES

Verdis Group, LLC is seeking qualified individuals for a summer internship. Ideal candidates will likely be nearing the completion of their secondary education, be adept at managing multiple responsibilities simultaneously, have wizard-like data analysis and writing skills, and have a passion for sustainability.

SUMMARY
The skills and abilities necessary to sufficiently perform the duties are varied and require the individual to be adept at many tasks. The position requires flexibility, attention to detail, and enthusiasm for the work.  Generally speaking, the Intern will provide support in a variety of ways to Verdis Group senior staff and principals.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
Under the direction of the Principals of Verdis Group, the Intern may perform the following tasks:

1. Data Analysis: Conducts a variety of different numerical and theoretical analyses at the direction of senior staff. Collecting, managing, tracking and summarizing data is an important component of the Intern’s job duties.
2. Writing: Preparing communications that are intended for a variety of different audiences, including both internal and external parties. Contributes technical writing to client reports. Write portions of client reports as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Principals. Other report editing and formatting as deemed necessary.
3. Strategy: Involved in organizational discussions intended to identify strategies that help clients be more sustainable.
4. Miscellaneous Project Work: Provide assistance as needed on client projects, to include but not limited to: research, report writing, data collection, meeting facilitation, taking minutes, disseminating information, preparing presentations, brainstorming recommendations, and general project management.
5. Administrative Duties: General administrative duties may include scheduling meetings, purchasing office supplies and equipment, data collection and entry, maintaining adequate electronic and hard copy filing systems, running errands, preparing correspondence, editing and formatting documents and presentations, arranging travel, and other duties as assigned.
6. Continuous Learning: Stay on top of industry news in order to serve the clients with the most up to date practices
7. General Management: Assist senior staff with miscellaneous duties including but not limited to marketing efforts, financial analysis, and business logistics.
8. Other duties as assigned.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES:

1. Thorough and accurate in all duties and responsibilities.  Attention to detail is a key component of the Internship position.
2. Ability to think critically, problem solve and trouble-shoot issues.
3. Excellent planning organizational skills and an ability to prioritize and manage multiple duties and tasks simultaneously.
4. Ability to collect, organize, input and analyze data in an extremely accurate and efficient manner.
5. Knowledge of sustainable best practices as they pertain to businesses, organizations and communities.
6. Skilled in using Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Apple software.
7. Communication skills both written and oral.
8. Skilled in demonstrating cooperation and professionalism.
9. Ability to work well with minimal supervision in a team-oriented environment.
10. Ability to effectively work and interact with various cultures and ethnicities.

SCHEDULE
Our internship program consists of 25–29 hours per week over the course of the summer. Precise dates for the start and completion of the internship are flexible. Future employment beyond the summer internship is not guaranteed and is dependent upon organizational needs and job performance.

COMPENSATION
Compensation is $10–12/hour commensurate with experience.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All individuals interested in being considered for this position should submit the following information:

1. A letter of interest not to exceed two pages.
2. Curriculum Vitae or resume.
3. List of three references, at least one of which must be from a previous relevant employer.
4. Any availability limitations (e.g. other employment that may conflict with availability to complete the duties of each project).

Interested parties should send the requested information to Craig Moody via email at craig@verdisgroup.com. All submissions must be received by Verdis Group no later than April 13, 2012.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Craig Moody, Principal
Verdis Group, LLC
1516 Cuming Street
Omaha, NE 68102

Click here for a pdf of the posting.

The Harvard Business Review recently published a short article summarizing some recent developments in the area of eco-labeling. Andrew Winston’s story emphasizes that we may be at a crossroads in the practice of putting labels on products to indicate how sustainable they are. First off, he notes that GM recently announced a program to provide eco-labels on some Chevrolet models while UK retail giant Tesco reversed its four-year program of putting carbon labels on its products.

The opposite actions of these two companies highlights the fact that eco-labeling, as a practice that has been exploding in the past few years, may be reaching a cooling or maturation stage as companies learn more about the investment and purpose behind such labels. Winston pinpoints a few important questions that should be asked when developing eco-labels, and companies are beginning to realize the answers to these questions means that not everything needs a label, nor should every label provide the same data to customers.

The five questions Winston lists (paraphrased here) are:

1. Does this product even need an eco-label?
2. What should the eco-label communicate?
3. Is a label capable of communicating the relevant information about a product’s sustainability?
4. How much work needs to be done to develop the information in the label?
5. Will a customer understand or even care about the information?

As it turns out, companies are starting to learn that some low-impact products (like a pack of gum) may not be appropriate for an eco-label, while other products (like a car or television) probably benefit from eco-labels. Even then, figuring out the exact information to put on the label is difficult. Think about the information in a nutrition label, which is standardized and mandatory. Is it easy to read? Is it the right information? Do people even pay attention to them or do they affect consumer choices?

A sample nutrition facts label, with instructions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Standards for nutrition and financial accounting have been developing for decades, or even centuries. We are still in the dawn of eco-labeling. The article points out that right now we know a lot more about the stages in products’ life cycles that have a heavy impact on the environment than we do about the size and character of that impact. The tools are likely to keep improving, and more data will certainly become available as companies invest more money in researching the sustainability aspects of their products.

Winston concludes by making the point that business to business sales are driving much of the move to improved eco-labeling. Much of the research and work that takes place is opaque to individual consumers. The outcome is that companies end up making a lot of decisions for consumers before a product even gets to the shelf. Based on our experience as a company helping organizations sustain behavioral changes among employees, I can certainly say that everything companies can do to make the decision simpler for consumers is a good thing. Of course, that is only the case assuming that companies make decisions that are truly good for the environment, because greenwashing is the enemy of true.green.

As you watch the video, here are a few questions to think about:

• Is this a realistic portrayal of where we are?
• If so, what opportunities are there for us today?
• If not, what alternative do you think is most likely?

I’d love to discuss the implications the information in this video presents for businesses, communities and individuals. I see great potential and opportunity as our energy sources and world change. The question is, how will we engage those changes?

Omaha’s downtown parking system is poised to undergo some significant changes, as reported today by the Omaha World Herald. In short, the City’s parking consultant, Walker Parking Consultants, found the following:

• that city-owned garages aren’t used enough, are too expensive, and are losing money
• drivers circle endlessly after 5pm and on the weekends to search for free on-street parking
• city management of downtown parking is fragmented (Public Works manages the curbside meters while the golf division of the Parks and Recreation Department manages the garages. Yes, you read that right, the golf division.)

Naturally, Walker’s recommendations respond to their findings. Their primary recommendations:

• lower rates at city-owned garages
• eliminate time limits on how long cars can be parked at meters
• decrease hourly meter rates in low-demand areas and increase rates in high-demand locations
• expand meter enforcement hours
• attach credit card devices to parking meters
• consider a “graduated system” of parking ticket fines

While I’m totally in favor of decreasing the amount of time that people dawdle around in their car looking for a spot (full disclosure: I do it too), I’m hopeful that these soon-to-come and much needed changes to the system are but one piece in a much more complicated puzzle. I haven’t seen the study, but my assumption is that it assumes the number of cars that head downtown on your average Friday night will likely stay the same or increase in the years to come. That’s probably true, unfortunately, but planners need to be thinking about different ways of getting Omahans to their downtown destination. The good news: they are.

The City is about to wrap up its Transportation Master Plan, which, among many other things, considers transportation demand management strategies that get people out of their cars and onto bikes, busses and their feet. This idea that Omahans are addicted to their cars and unwilling to use public transportation or some other mode of transport is hogwash, and given the anticipated climb in gas prices this summer (five bucks per gallon, anyone?), we should expect people to be searching for alternatives to driving alone in their good ol’ reliable Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

Finally, I want to be clear about one thing: there is NOT a lack of parking downtown. The study found that only 54 percent of available parking in the Old Market is used on a busy evening. For those of you complaining about parking downtown, try finding an affordable and available spot in Chicago, Boston, or any other major metropolitan city. We all collectively need to change our expectations a bit. It’s not reasonable to expect to arrive at your destination five minutes before the curtain goes up and expect a free spot right in front of the door.