Tag Archives: Sustainability

What I’ve Been Reading Lately

You can likely expect some sort of coherent write-up on some of the following articles of recent interest to me:

I see a link between all three items that I hope to expand upon soon, but wanted to put these out there as topics for consideration.

Followup: Diversity in the Energy Market

In sort of a screwball way, an article in today’s Seattle Times follows up on one of the questions I asked when writing "Diversity in the Energy Market":

[. . .]wouldn’t it be interesting if tomorrow morning, the likes of Shell or BP stood up and said they wanted to eliminate all coal-fired power plants from the face of the earth while preserving the jobs that those plants provide?

The article, which talks about national contribution to the climate change problem and asserts that the biggest culprit in rising carbon emissions is coal-fired power plants, gives an interesting point of view about eliminating coal as a power source:

States that shun coal — Vermont, Idaho, California, Rhode Island — and turn to nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas, produce the least carbon dioxide but often at higher costs for consumers.

It’s unfair to pin all the blame on the coal-using states, said Washington, D.C., lawyer Jeffrey Holmstead, who as an attorney at Bracewell Giuliani represents coal-intensive utilities and refineries. Holmstead is the former Bush administration air-pollution regulator who ruled that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant, a decision that was overturned recently by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Coal-fired generation is the most economical, least expensive way to produce power almost anywhere in the world," he said. He argued that outlawing such plants would have little overall impact globally; however, the U.S. has long been the leading global source of carbon emissions.

It’s perhaps this last point that is the most important, though my original comment was cast on the international stage. The issue here isn’t really pointing fingers; Washington might be doing better than, say, Idaho, but it’s not about gloating. It’s about realizing that we, as a global community, need to think about the solutions to these problems. If that means that we get to eliminate the top two- or three-worst polluting energy generation sources, great.

Diversity in the Energy Market

Today’s New York Times finds an article on where wind power is headed; it’s part of "The Energy Challenge" series of articles, covering ways in which the world is and isn’t moving towards sustainability. The article discusses how wind power and tax credits have become symbiotic; if Congress chooses not to continue tax credits for wind power, we may find that that alternative energy source no longer sees new plant production.

Wind energy holds a very small niche in the overall energy production picture for the United States, covering only 1% of total generative capacity; it is very much a part of the idea of diversifying our energy resource pools by taking on a large number of small projects in alternative energy. Other efforts have focused on such resources as tidal power (power generated by tidal forces on the ocean floor), biomass power (usually via methane generation), and, of course, solar power. The energy industry is very diversified as it attempts to find these alternatives; what’s funny is that none of them (to my knowledge) have committed to completely eliminating particular forms of energy production, such as coal or nuclear plants. I do not call such a plan practical, necessarily, since a lot of our energy production is tied up in such resources, but wouldn’t it be interesting if tomorrow morning, the likes of Shell or BP stood up and said they wanted to eliminate all coal-fired power plants from the face of the earth while preserving the jobs that those plants provide?

Sustainablity: Sheepwalked?

Seth Godin’s blog has an article on what he calls "Sheepwalking", which Godin defines as "the outcome of hiring people who have been raised to be obedient and giving them a braindead job and enough fear to keep them in line." He then proceeds to give several examples of what sheepwalking looks like and discusses how to change the situation.

This got me thinking a bit about the turnaround that we’re beginning to see in the popular media – being "green" and "sustainable" is becoming the latest rage, with more and more news articles published every week on the subject, some giving examples of citizens who are lowering their carbon footprint with very simple changes to their lives. But to what extent does this reflect change?

Let’s redefine "sheepwalking" a bit. If sheepwalking were instead "the outcome of being obedient to the status quo, giving them many reinforcements that the status quo is correct and enough fear to believe that the status quo should never change", what does this say about sustainability, its proponents, and its detractors? How does this change the image of someone who believes that global warming is a myth perpetrated by liberals, or the environmentalist who has gotten rid of their car in an effort to reduce their impact?

The interesting part about this is that, with "being green" becoming a new expectation ingrained in our collective consciousness, we are, in fact, stuck between two status quos: that of maintaining what we know to be tradition and that of beginning to change our impact on the planet. Are we being sheepwalked either way? Fear is used to propel both viewpoints, and the reliance of both viewpoints on groups that are obedient to those ideals is nothing to cough at. What’s going on as we continue to see this shift? Are we simply sheep being herded in another direction, or is this a true revolution?

Where we’ve been…

2006 was a banner year in increasing awareness about sustainability, the importance and significant impact of energy policy, and increasing governmental support for sustainable approaches to living. Actually, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times beat me to calling 2006 the year of green:

“. . . I think the most important thing to happen this past year was that living and thinking ‘green’ – that is, mobilizing for the environmental/energy challenge we now face – hit Main Street.

“No more. We reached a tipping point this year – where living, acting, designing, investing and manufacturing green came to be understood by a critical mass of citizens, entrepreneurs and officials as the most patriotic, capitalistic, geopolitical, healthy, and competitive thing they could do. Hence my own motto: ‘Green is the new red, white, and blue.'”

– “And the Color of the Year Is…”, The New York Times, Friday, December 22, 2006, Page A31

2006 was the year when biodiesel saw drastic increases in popularity; when Wal-Mart began to sell compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs); when the Environmental Protection Agency, for the first time in years, rethought the way it assessed automobile fuel efficiency; when awareness no longer confined itself to a select group.

Up to this point, issues of how we spent our energy resources were on the back burner and not widely understood. No longer can this remain true after the spotlight has focused so squarely on what sustainability means and what still needs to be done.

Personal Energy and Sustainability

Allow me, if you will, to digress a bit from what we typically call “energy”. Certainly, Sean and I write a lot about solar power, geothermal power, energy incentives, carbon offset programs, and all the rest – but there’s another crucial component in the move towards sustainable action that seems overlooked, perhaps because it’s not well-defined (or even really mentioned) under the heading of “sustainability” or “the green revolution”.

After working at Evergreen’s Writing Center for several years in various roles, as a writing tutor and now as their Information Technology Manager, there has been one thing that has been hammered home to me about the way people write: we go through cycles. Now, I don’t mean “cycles” in the sense of write/review/rewrite/review/repeat, though that’s certainly an important one; the one I mention here is the energy carried by the writer that exhibits itself in their writing. For several months, the energy that I have that allows me to write about a topic and to feel like writing has been almost nonexistent (which explains why none of my blogs have been updated in a while).

A lot of being able to practice sustainability has to do with managing your own beliefs and manifesting your energies towards creating a better world for everyone else and a more healthy, enjoyable environment for yourself. I’ve been doing this a bit lately by trying to get rid of things – part of it is spring cleaning (a little early), but part of it is my dissatisfaction with my material approach to life. Of course, I say this realizing that I am very materialistic and that attempting to minimize that impact can be hard if not impossible in your mid-twenties.

My energy towards writing, I believe, is beginning to creep upwards again; as a writer at heart and as someone who knows that writing will always be central to my life in some form, this is encouraging and invigorating. My energy towards sustainability and thinking about ways to further enhance my own work never faltered. As we exit 2006 and enter 2007, I can only hope that the sustainability movement gains even more momentum. This momentum, in part, will be widely due to the efforts of people like Sean, myself, and you.

Sustainability and Travel

Road going off into the distanceRecently, I had the opportunity to take a vacation in the form of a road trip from Olympia, WA to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks in Wyoming. While traveling, I had several chances to think about sustainability and how action on trips can help to reduce the impact of your travels.

When traveling, of course, you’re basically required to expend more in the form of energy than you would otherwise, whether that’s gasoline in your car (or the plane you fly on), the energy expended to check into a hotel, use their resources, and check out, or the energy to simply pack your bag and leave in the first place. Inevitably, you increase your footprint in the world, at least temporarily. So what can you do to help negate that increased footprint?

It seems unreasonable to simply say “don’t ever travel anywhere for any reason, since it results in more waste and energy expended”. Instead, here are some suggestions:

  • If you intend to stay longer than a single night in any one hotel, keep the “do not disturb” sign on your door. This stops housekeeping from cleaning your room daily – you can always reuse towels and sleep on the same sheets. You’re saving some small amount of water and electricity by not needing clean linens daily.
  • Recycle when recycling is available. If it’s not available and it’s practical to do so, carry recyclables with you until you find someplace that does recycle.
  • Pick lodgings that are dedicated to reducing their own footprint through internal sustainability programs. Quite a few of these establishments now exist – you just have to look for them.
  • Consider purchasing a carbon offset for your trip. Expedia has now partnered with TerraPass to offer these offsets when Expedia users purchase plane tickets. There are, of course, many other offset services and sustainability charities worthy of a donation to help compensate for your increased footprint.

What’s Your Ecological Footprint?

Take the quiz at ecofoot.org and post it as a comment. My results are as follows:

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 3.7
GOODS/SERVICES 2.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 13

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.9 PLANETS.

Climbing Up On the Energy Soapbox

As Sean Rees announced earlier, he and I have started up our own environmental advocacy blog, the Energy Soapbox. The link has been in my sidebar for a couple days, but I wanted to give a small amount of background.

I’ve been really interested for quite a while in the ideas of sustainability and have written some stuff on the idea in the past on this blog. I decided it was perhaps time to make a more concerted approach to talking about the issue, which is why I became one of the founding Soapbox authors. I’m hoping to look at the issue of sustainability and try to begin to answer some of the questions outlined on my initial post:

We are beginning to see a new generation of children who grew up with technology, who have far better grasp of it than our parents and grandparents (and perhaps even we) ever will.

How do we address this? What does it take to make environmental awareness and stewardship a reality? Where is the current energy policy of the United States lacking, and how do we change it for the better?

I might even add to that list:

  • How do technology (specificaly, computer) advocates reconcile the conflict between utilizing computers and the waste they cause?
  • Is it possible to have a substantial impact on energy usage without a significant change in living habits or equipment (water heaters, thermostat settings, etc.)?
  • How do we create a positive message about sustainability in a world surrounded by negativities?
  • Is sustainability always the correct approach?

These are things I will be considering and writing about. See you there!