Tag Archives: Sustainability

Tibet: Culture On the Rails

One thing that often isn’t thought about when you hear about sustainability is something that native cultures have been fighting for for hundreds of years: cultural sustainability. In today’s world, the word “sustainability” almost automatically means environmental sustainability: our ability to create new solutions in the spheres of energy and natural resources while preserving our surroundings. Perhaps more important to our way of life, however, is cultural sustainability: the preservation of native cultures and ideas, of stories and the history of peoples.

This month’s Wired covers the new “Train to the Roof of the World“, a rail connection between Mainland China and Tibet intended to strengthen China’s political control over this controversial region. This railway is hailed as an engineering feat, but what does it do for the environmental and cultural sustainability of Tibet? Continue reading →

A Ridiculous Amount of Safety

The New York Times talks today about investment going into New Orleans to protect it from future Category Five hurricanes. Hurricane Katrina has certainly made a few records and turned several million heads; it is the rallying cry for the rebuilding of one of this nation’s most culturally diverse and festive cities. There are competing interests here, but none stands to waste taxpayer money as much as protecting New Orleans from Category Five hurricanes.

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale defines a Category Five hurricane as follows:

Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required.

— The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
Accessed November 28, 2005

Now, The New York Times reports that citizens of New Orleans are insisting upon a newer, better protection system that will ensure that the city remains intact:

Most Category 5 proposals for New Orleans include devices to close seaward passageways like the Rigolets and gates at the mouths of today’s drainage and navigation canals. Jurjen Battjes, a professor of civil engineering at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and an expert on levee systems, said that approach had worked well in his country. “You don’t want to let your enemy invade deeply into your territory,” Professor Battjes said. “Close your fence at the outside.”

Current levees can be made higher and stronger, and any new system might also include internal levees that would prevent a breach in one spot from swamping large stretches of the city, said Thomas F. Wolff, an associate professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at Michigan State University. Levees, Professor Wolff said, are known as “series systems,” which he compared to “Christmas tree lights from the 1950’s – when one goes out, they all go out.”

“For Category 5 Safety, Levees Are Piece of a $32 Billion Pie”
Accessed November 28, 2005

We cannot protect against an undefined threat. Much the same knee-jerk reaction was made after September 11th: products to protect against terrorism and an ongoing drive to secure the country against terrorist threats costs taxpayers untold amounts of money that would be far better invested in, say, paying down the national debt.

New Orleans cannot protect against something that is, by definition, destructive. Certainly, the amount of destruction can be minimized, but with global warming a fast-approaching issue, there is no way of knowing when, where, or how badly the next Category Five hurricane will hit. New Orleans is better off investing in sustainable building practices and a sound evacuation plan for situations where major disasters threaten the city. The same can be said for industrialized nations across the globe. Rather than waste taxpayer money working on a flood protection system that won’t work when it’s absolutely critical, restore what’s there and use the money to redefine what New Orleans means in the eyes of the American public.

Slipping Backwards (and not in a good way)

I am an outspoken proponent of high gas prices. So, therefore, when NWCN tells me that gas prices are coming back down, I get frustrated.

Why am I against low gas prices? A few reasons, though don’t expect these to be well-explained:

  • Gas fails to reflect “true cost”. “True cost” is my name for what is usually coined “social cost“, or the actual, social consequences of the manufacture and sale of a particular commodity. A good example from the Wikipedia article linked to above:

    Negative externalities (external costs) lead to an over-production of those goods that have a high social cost. For example, the logging of trees for timber may result in society losing a recreation area, shade, beauty, and air quality, but this loss is usually not quantified and included in the price of the timber that is made from the trees. As a result, individual entities in the marketplace have no incentive to factor in these externalities. More of this activity is performed than would be if its cost had a true accounting.

    The same can be said for the production of petroleum; we don’t consider the loss of precious natural resources or the pollution cost in refinement (not to mention social consequences that stem from refinement, the economic costs required to transport petroleum, etc.). If these were accounted for, the cost of gasoline would be much higher.

  • Low gas prices promote fuel-inefficent vehicles. Keeping gas prices low offer no disincentive for the purchase of sport utility vehicles or other cars with very low MPG ratings (sports or “exotic” cars in particular); certainly, while those who can afford an SUV can likely afford higher gas prices, keeping those prices low isn’t likely to make people think about the amount of money they waste on gas instead of taking a number of measures to lower fuel cost.
  • Low gas prices only prolong our dependence on oil. Now, I’m not one of those “we must abolish oil usage yesterday” freaks, though I do believe that we have to conserve our natural resources as best as possible for future generations. The development of alternative energy, whether that be biodiesel, electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, or fuel cell vehicles, is a worthwhile exercise in preserving our children’s future. It doesn’t matter where the solution comes from; fuel/electric hybrids are a great first step for transportation, but they are not the end-all of energy problems. They are also only one of many possible solutions.
  • As long as the “panic mentality” of high gas prices is maintained, no progress in bettering the world can be made. The issue of high gas prices affects far more than cars. It also has direct impact on the overall costs of running businesses, the ability of groups to cope with emergencies, and, rather indirectly, the development of community. That last point is a rather interesting one — so long as we can travel far on low gas prices, we aren’t as likely to pursue options that develop community: carpooling, living closer to an urban center, reducing the amount of distance between us and our everyday destinations (work, the grocery store, the bakery, the mall).

I admit, I drive a hybrid; I do this because of some of the reasons above, but also because I like to keep my costs low (and driving a hybrid car does, in fact, help me do this). I hope I will continue to drive hybrids as my primary vehicle for as long as I can drive.

Bus Systems and Alternative Fuels

By way of Green Car Congress’ article, Seattle: Diesel Hybrid Buses with GM Drive Falling Short on Fuel Economy, I’ve learned a little about King County’s Metro Transit bus lines that I didn’t know before. Metro isn’t particularly unique in Western Washington for using hybrids; Olympia’s Intercity Transit runs at least one electric-gas hybrid bus, and most of their buses are fuelled with biodiesel. According to their Meet the Fleet page, they use 435,889 gallons of biodiesel and 92,779 gallons of gasoline per year; through simple arithmetic, 83% of the fuel they use is biodiesel. Certainly nothing to cough at.

Intercity Transit also provides more information on their Environment pages.

Hybrid SUVs

Ford has come up with an exellent oxymoron: a hybrid SUV, specifically a hybrid version of their Escape model. There’s a Ford SUV cartoon posted on suvsuck.org that’s interesting in the face of this announcement (mirrored locally):

It’s pretty much well-known that SUVs aren’t very good environmentally, so this might take a chunk out of it, but the likelyhood is that people who already own SUVs will simply buy the normal model (and the same is true of others who are looking for SUVs). This is more a “feather in the hat” of Ford, and it’s fairly unlikely given the current state of the SUV market that anyone will care about the hybrid version beyond the usual intrigue over what they percieve as an oddity on the roads.The better (and far more admirable) approach on Ford’s part would be to scrap the Escape entirely and only market the Escape Hybrid version. This might lose them some customers, but I’m wondering how many people would really notice such a switch and be compelled to buy one regardless of whether it was “good for the environment”. This assumes, of course, that people don’t care too much about the slight differences between the two versions.

Overall, my reaction is negative: there’s far too many downfalls to buying an SUV that this is only a minor tweak. It does nothing to improve the fact that, in a high-speed collision between a compact car and an SUV, the people in the SUV are far more likely to survive. It does nothing to improve Ford’s bad environmental image, and means nothing if they refuse to follow up with higher MPG ratings or hybrid versions of other vehicles across their expansive brand line. Really, what is this but an attempt to enter into an unestablished SUV market that probably doesn’t need establishing?

Raving about the Prius

Anyone who doesn’t care about advocacy for a cleaner environment can probably skip this entry (he says with tongue in cheek).

Okay, so I admit that the 2004 Toyota Prius is now my hybrid car of choice. It’s got the highest ratings through Car and Driver, some damned good safety ratings from Consumer Reports (last I checked, at least), and has some really interesting statistics. I particularly like the dashboard. Coool.

A really, really nice Prius site is john1701a.com. John was once an owner of a 2001 Prius but now owns a 2004 Prius. Of particular interest to me were the Prius Misconceptions, the Prius Selling Points document (PDF), and the Prius Info Sheet (also PDF). The Selling Points document still seems to reflect the 2001 Prius, but seems like it’s still applicable to the 2004.

In addition, there are IntelliChoice reviews, a US Department of Energy article on the Prius’ technology, and a review from The Car Connection.

Bottom line: test drive, anyone?

Update (11:46PM): I got bored and priced my ideal Prius through toyota.com, just for fun. Never let it be said I had nothing better to do.

MSRP
4-Dr Gas/Elec ECVT (1224) $20,295
Delivery, Processing and Handling Fee $515
Exterior / InteriorSeaside pearl (08S2)/ Ivory/brown (FA08)
OptionsPackage #7 (AM) includes: Intermittent Rear Window Wiper, Driver & front passenger
seat-mounted side airbags and front & rear side curtain airbags, Smart Keyless Entry
System, Vehicle Stability Control, front foglamps, HID headlamps, 50 state emissions		 $2,255
Total MSRP $23,065

Hydrogen in California

In California, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-7-04 on April 20, establishing a California Hydrogen Highways Network. It’s been reasonably well known since the Governor took office that he would be big on environmental issues (the clue was his conversion of his Hummer to hydrogen fuel, not to mention that it was a campaign pledge), but is this too big of a leap?

Hybrid gas/electric cars are all the rage at the moment (my particular favorite is the Toyota Prius 2004, highly rated by Consumer Reports, though the Honda Civic Hybrid is also very interesting). Hydrogen, however, has some concerns, such as reliability, accessibility, and safety (specifically, some concerns I seem to remember reading about surrounding the volatility of hydrogen causing highly inconvenient explosions — I could be wrong). Oh — not to mention cost issues. In fact, there was a story by Reuters in March of last year that suggests that hybrids are far more efficient in the long run.

The Governor has taken the first step to help the infrastructure of possible hydrogen-based transportation; the question in my mind: is this a waste of time and money?