Comments bhurley has made

Great advice

This list pretty much mirrors everything I did during my nearly 30 years of living in apartments. I had a collection of compact fluorescents, low-flow showerhead, faucet aerator, etc., and each time I moved into a new apartment I spent a few hours installing them all and putting the old incandescents, shower head, etc. into a box so they'd be easy to replace again when I moved. Landlords can be picky and set restrictions on what you can and cannot install, but one of my landlords allowed me to install electronic setback thermostats, whch saved lots of energy over the five years I lived in that place.

For laundry, I hung my wash outside except during winter or in the few places where the landlord forbid it; in those cases I used indoor drying racks, which worked fine for everything except flannel sheets. I lived for 30 years without a dryer, no problem. I do have one now because the only place we can fit drying racks in our house is the basement, and it's too damp down there for clothes to dry; even with a dehumidifier running it can take a week for clothes to dry out.On Umbra on being an energy-efficient renter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 15 Responses

Urban composting

After 10 years in rural Vermont where composting was second nature, I moved to a city. It turns out that my city (Montreal) subsidizes the cost of plastic compost bins, so we picked up one last year. I was amazed at how efficient those bins are at turning kitchen scraps into compost -- the scraps we put in there about two weeks ago are already close to being finished compost, and we ended up getting a second bin to allow a full batch to finish while we add material to the other bin. Between recycling and composting our weekly trash for two people consists of one or two kitchen size garbage bags.

The biggest challenge at the beginning was finding some soil or finished compost to get the process going. Bagged topsoil or compost tends to be fairly sterile, most of the microbes don't survive, and we had to dig some soil from a local park (shhhhh!) to get things really going. But once the composting process starts you can use your own finished compost to get the next batch going.On How to start composting posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Other ideas

Some kids will listen to a heart-to-heart and others will just roll their eyes. My stepdaughter (now 18) is in the latter category, and uses every opportunity to negate our environmentally conscious behaviors: she buys her own industrial laundry soap so she won't have to use our "green" brand; she tosses trash on the sidewalk or in the street; keeps the thermostat in her room set at 80 degrees, day and night, all winter; takes 35-minute showers and frequent hot baths; goes through three rolls of toilet paper a day (for what I don't want to know); and never turns off lights or the television. Talking to her doesn't change anything, her behavior is part of her extended teenage rebellion that she's inflicted on us since age 12. In cases like that, one approach is to make her pay for her energy use. She gets a monthly child support check from her stepfather, and we recently started deducting a portion of it to cover her extravagant energy use (our electricity bill doubled when she moved in with us). That got her attention.On Umbra on long, hot showers posted 1 year, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Texas is big on renewables already

Last year Texas surpassed California as the United States' largest producer of electricity generated by wind power, and Texas hosts the world's single largest operating wind farm, the 735-Megawatt Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center.

So it's not a big surprise that the polls show support for solar power but just remember that historically people almost always react differently to real increases in their electric bills (even a dollar a month) than they do to a hypothetical question on a poll.On Hard sell? Maybe not posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

And then run it on renewable power!

To make it really green, that server should run on green power. And In fact, there are a bunch of green server hosts springing up who do just that...I stumbled across this Green Server Directory recently and they have links to a number of green hosting companies, some of which run directly on renewable energy and some of which buy "green power" from the grid or carbon offsets.

I predict that more and more sites will put the "this site runs on green power" logo (and it would be great if some organization would create a standard logo, much as the WC3 or W3C or whatever it is created standard logos for compliance with Web standards. And if that logo links to the green server directory I think you'll start seeing a lot of people switching over to green servers.On British-built server up for big award posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Number crunchers

I work for an environmental consulting firm that gets much of its work through government contracts, and we have quite a few statisticians on our staff. What I would do is this: first find out which agencies (both in the US and internationally) are doing the work you're interested in, and then start calling them to find out who their contractors are. Much of the statistical analysis is likely to be done by contractors, and if you can get a job with one of them you'll be set. Also check out larger NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy and the IUCN; they probably have a need for statisticians to analyze the mountains of data they collect.On I thought the green job market was hot! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 31 Responses

Brilliantly said

PBrazelton, your comment was possibly the most eloquent and cogent argument I've ever read on the Gristmill. Thank you.On Salon dishes out Grist-like advice posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

Re: older workers in "dirty" industries

In your specific case, laboratory skills are in fact much sought-after in some environmental fields; you could probably find a job in a government agency or an environmental consulting firm, and you probably wouldn't have to take a pay cut. Furthermore, some industrial companies are actively engaged in pursuits such as "green chemistry" that could significantly reduce their impact on the environment and make them less "dirty." You seem to be equating "green job" with working for an environmental organization, but in fact there are many truly green jobs in industry and government.On I thought the green job market was hot! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 31 Responses

Good advice on the cover letter

When I was hiring people (something I'm not directly involved in anymore), we placed great emphasis on the cover letter. We looked for people who wrote well, who expressed themselves clearly, and who gave us a "guided tour" of the key points of their resume that jibed with the requirements of the job we were advertising.

In my own job-hunting, I've always avoided the "obituary style" resume that simply lists my jobs from most recent to oldest, but instead organize my resume according to skill or topic area (writing, editing, project management, etc.) and tailor that to each job I'm applying for. That has always worked well for me.

Another tip: if the job advertisement says "no phone calls, please," don't call. Some "experts" advise that you call anyway to show how eager and interested your are, but when I was hiring, anyone who called us had their resume taken out of the pile and thrown in the recycling bin, because they had just demonstrated that they couldn't follow instructions!On I thought the green job market was hot! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 31 Responses

Thanks alot, Ralph!

We have Nader to thank for the first four years of the Bush presidency. I can't imagine the next race will be anywhere near as close, but man, if it does end up looking close and if he does decide to run again, those of use who care about the environment, social justice, and peace will have to do everything in our legal power to stop him. If he really cared about the issues he purports to care about, he'd step out of the way. The stakes are too high; the world cannot afford another four or eight years of rule by Bush's cronies.On Friggin' Nader posted 2 years, 9 months ago 26 Responses

Readily available

Bart Anderson wrote: One observation - almost all the links cited are behind paywalls. This means that most Web readers are shut out from this information which is critical for understanding global warming and our survival.

These are mainstream scientific publications; Scientific American and Science can be found in almost any good public library, and Nature can be found in any university science library. I agree that it would be nice to be able just click and see the references, but it costs money to print magazines and pay editors. Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth DVD isn't free. On Says smart stuff posted 2 years, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Some rays of hope

Here in Québec I don't get the same impression. The big farmers' markets in Montréal are thriving and full of local produce (the Jean-Talon market, where I shop, was so overcrowded with people this summer that we chose to do our shopping before 9am on weekdays, and never on weekends). The Marché des Saveurs, which carrries only artisan food products made in Québec, successfully fought off an attempt by the SAQ (state liquor store) to stop it from selling Québec-made wines and ciders, and community-supported agriculture projects appear to be gaining support as well.

In the case above, I don't think the federal regulations were necessarily designed with "mega-producers in mind." Could it be instead that they were designed with public safety in mind? People have been eating meat from "uninspected abbatoirs" for centuries, often with no ill effects but sometimes with deadly consequences.On Calls the Mounties -- someone's enjoying locally raised meat in rural Ontario posted 3 years ago 28 Responses

Urban heat islands

(That's what UHI stands for, "urban heat islands.") There have been several strong studies in the past 5-10 years that pretty conclusively showed that the warming is still statistically significant when you remove UHI effects from the record...I can't remember the authors off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure one of the papers was by Tom Karl and his colleagues at NCDC.  You could look those up and cite them as well...I don't think any serious climatologists would claim anymore that the warming is an artifact of urban areas expanding around previously rural weather stations.On 'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is posted 3 years, 1 month ago 59 Responses

Check out Québec!

The province of Québec provides a good example of what a bike-friendly culture could be like in North America. According to the latest "state of the bike" survey published in Vélo Mag (Québec's magazine for bicycling enthusiasts), Québec has 4,200 miles of bike paths or designated bike lanes. Bike ownership per capita is double that of the United States, with 760 bikes per 1,000 inhabitants -- on par with Germany. In the Plateau region of Montréal, an impressive 6.5% of all trips are made by bike. Vélo Québec estimates that the roughly 205 million miles that Québec residents ride each year avoids 76,000 tons of CO2.

The crown jewel of Québec's bike system is La Route Verte, with more than 2,200 miles of bike paths that run through many of the most picturesque regions of the province. It's safe and well-maintained, and a joy to ride on.

The City of Montréal has several times been voted the most bike-friendly city in North America by Bicycling magazine, despite the fact that our roads are even worse than Seattle's (I've ridden in both cities, so I know). Montréal also boasts La Maison des cyclistes, a three-story oasis for bikers where you can find maps, guides, decent bistro food, bike gear, and free air for your tires.

When your trusty steed bites the dust or you want to upgrade, you can call Eco-Vélo, a local nonprofit that trains disadvantaged youth to refurbish used bikes. It has trained 350 kids so far and sells 1,000 refurbished bikes each year to Montréalers. You see Eco-Vélos everywhere, it's a heartwarming sight.

Maybe it's our more European perspective, or the huge immigrant population, or the fact that gasoline's more expensive here, or maybe we just need to burn off the fat we've gained from eating all that poutine, but in any event Québec has a remarkably strong biking culture. I'm happy to be part of it.On Bicycling highs posted 3 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses

okay, but...

Lindzen is actually one of the skeptics' strongest voices, as he's a well-respected climatologist. I remember seeing a debate between him and Steve Schneider years ago at MIT, and both of them were very impressive. I don't think anyone came away from that debate feeling sure where the right answers lay.

Lindzen and the other skeptics use the issue of consensus to their advantage: "yes, 5,000 climatologists could be wrong." Conservatives tend to like that kind of underdog scenario where one lone cowboy stands holding the flag of Truth, and so they tend to be swayed by skeptical points of view even when they aren't supported by coal and oil dollars.

The other point is that the strict definition of "consensus" really means 100% agreement, which of course is never going to happen in any science, much less a complex one like climatology. There will always be a few holdouts, so true consensus is impossible. I prefer saying there's a "majority opinion" based on increasingly strong evidence, that we're in for some very rough sailing ahead.On Lindzen: dishonest; News anchors: stupid posted 3 years, 5 months ago 20 Responses

The review is online now!

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131On Jim Hansen in NY Review of Books posted 3 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

Some good related reading

I just finished reading "Endurance," by Alfred Lansing, which describes the epic journey of Ernest Shackleton and crew in their failed attempt to cross Antarctica in 1914. These guys spent two years in the most brutal conditions imaginable (bitter cold, blizzards, freezing rain, freezing ocean spray, you name it), and they survived just fine without synthetic clothes, sleeping bags, and other equipment.

Other proponents of natural fibers include Alexandra and Garret Conover, who have spent many years winter hiking and camping in Maine, Labrador, and the Arctic wearing natural materials -- even cotton! Their Snow Walker's Companion is worth reading.On Wool and silk pass the test posted 3 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

More Vermont and Maine

As someone who moved to Canada after living in Vermont for 10 years I can't say I think Burlington's anything like Canada (nor is it anything like the rest of Vermont for that matter), but it is a nice city.

Let's see, August in New England to me would be best spent either in northern Vermont or way downeast in Maine (northeast of Acadia National Park) to avoid the crowds. Don't even think of going to Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, or Nantucket...save those for the off-season. Coastal Maine is delightful in August if you go far enough from Boston to be off the beaten path. I know a few well-hidden places farther south on the coast, but ain't talking about 'em in public!

Vermont is nice in summer too, but can be hot and muggy in August unless you're up in the mountains. In general it's not as overrun with tourists that time of year as the seacoast is.

Another spot to check out is far southwestern Rhode Island. The Wood River is one of the nicest canoeing streams in all of New England, with clear brown (tannin-tinted) water and lots of lovely scenery.

Happy nuptuals!
On What's to do in New England? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

coming of age

Environmentalism is essentially where race relations were in the early 1960s: today many environmentalists still view corporations as monolithically bad, just as many Whites stereotyped Blacks as monolithically inferior, stupid, or indolent. It's so easy, and so immature, to paint corporations as villains or the enemy; so much harder and yet so necessary to view them as complex collections of imperfect human beings no different from ourselves.On Corporations going green: The fifth horseman or the winning horse? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 12 Responses

The only thing that bothers me

Really, the only thing that makes my hair stand on end in all this is when people use "ecology" or "ecologist" when they mean "environment" or "environmentalist." Such as "hey, this new product is good for the ecology" or "ecologists oppose lower gas taxes" etc....it's like people who say "expresso" instead of "espresso," only worse.On The biggest environmental dilemma posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Another bit of advice

One thing I've learned from more than 20 years of working in environmental fields is that, depending on the kind of work you're looking for, you don't necessarily need an advanced degree. I have a B.A. in environmental science, but I've never felt handicapped by my lack of a Master's or PhD. If I had gone into research, of course then I would have needed to further my studies, but I've worked as an environmental educator; grants and contracts administrator; field operations manager for Earthwatch Institute; program manager for a large multi-state environmental Americorps project; environmental journalist; and currently as a writer, editor, and project manager for a large environmental consulting firm. Once you get started, most employees tend to value experience more than academic degrees. A lot of people I meet who are considering going into an environmental field assume that you need an advanced degree, but it isn't always so. It's true that some environmental organizations and firms won't even look at your résumé if you don't have at least a Master's, but my view is that I wouldn't want to work for such a close-minded organization anyway.On An eco-career guru answers reader mail posted 3 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

Not a lifestyle shift

To be honest, I think that trying to slow climate change through "lifestyle shifts" and changes in personal behavior is not going to get you very far. People are not going to do it, not in the numbers that would be needed to make a difference. Getting back to the smoking analogy: look at how many people continue to smoke despite knowing full well what the consequences might be. Same goes for the obesity "epidemic." If we can't solve those problems through trying to change personal behavior, how can we hope to address climate change that way?

I really think the solution is to use tools like appliance and fuel-economy standards to ensure that nobody has a choice but to buy energy-efficient equipment, and to support the growth of new technologies that will allow people to continue with their current lifestyles while emitting drastically less CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

One reason environmentalists tend to lose credibility on the climate issue is that many environmentalists use climate change as way to push other green agendas like vegetarianism or reverting to simpler, less materialistic lifestyles. That's just not going to work for most people. My teenage stepdaughter keeps the thermostat in her bedroom turned to 85, refuses to put anything in the recycling bin, takes baths instead of showers, forgets to turn off the hot water tap in the bathroom when she leaves for school in the morning, and lusts after SUVs and gas-guzzling muscle cars. She doesn't care one whit about climate change or energy use, and I don't think there's anything we could say or show her that would change that (and believe me we've tried). I may be wrong, but I suspect she's a pretty typical North American. Do you really think you'll be able to change millions of people like that by asking them to change their lifestyle?On Kickstarting social change posted 3 years, 8 months ago 30 Responses

A few other useful links

Also check out this page on EPA's site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/VisitorCenterOutdoorEnthusiasts.html

and

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsFisheriesInland.htmlOn Hunting and fishing groups are increasingly vocal about global warming posted 3 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

individual pursuits

Off the top of my head, I would think the loss of "community" and the decline in civic engagement have more to do with the following:

1. With services widely available to anyone who can afford them, we don't really need our neighbors and community members anymore. We can take care of ourselves on our own. In the past people needed to build relationships with their neighbors and the wider community to help with barn-raisings, the harvest, etc.; now we just hire a contractor or go to the grocery store. The relationship most of us have with the larger community is now one-way: it provides services, we use them. I don't think sprawl has anything to do with that.

2. Television and the internet engage people's time after work, and for families the extracurricular activities of their kids (soccer, theater, etc.) engage their time on weekends. Who has time to get involved in their community? It's just not a priority anymore, mainly because of point number 1 above.
   

Second Nature

Yes, I think the trick is to show these technologies and behaviors in an offhand way without drawing attention to them, so they're seen as a normal everyday part of life.

There's a tiny NGO in Boston called "Second Nature" which used to describe its mission as working to make environmentally sustainable behavior second nature--something that people don't even think about because it is so deeply ingrained in them. I've always liked that concept.On Could TV and film be the key to the renewable energy revolution? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Brad

The moral of the story: Put positive examples of renewable energy up on the big screen and hybrid vehicles in TV shows. The revolution must be televised

The problem with this approach is that it's too obviously preachy. When some tough cigar-smoking macho cowboy steps into a Prius instead of a Hummer onscreen, people's BS meters go off and they feel like they're being force-fed a message.

I think it would be hard to subtly work in images of wind farms or solar collectors into mainstream Hollywood movies. And besides, most people don't really care about energy or how it's produced...they're only interested in what they can do with it. If you can design energy-efficient products that are so cool that everyone wants one, and you happen to show some of those products in movies, that might help increase their use. But I think that strategy would work better for efficient cars than, say, efficient refrigerators.

The way I see it, there are three options for increase the use of renewables and energy-efficient equipment: 1) make it cool, so people want to use it (this is why more people buy Priuses than hybrid Civics); 2) make it cheaper so people buy it on the basis of price (this is why more people buy regular cars than hybrids); 3) make it the only option available (which requires standards or regulation).On Could TV and film be the key to the renewable energy revolution? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

We applaud

Or at least I do. The more mainstream you can make environmental protection, the better off the environment is. I don't care if it's Proctor and Gamble or Exxon/Mobil, if they do something to encourage more responsible environmental behavior by consumers, how can that be bad?

I've had bad luck with trying to wash my clothes in cold water; none of the "eco-friendly" detergents I've tried does a good job and I end up having to wash some clothes twice, using more water and more energy. If Tide's making something that works in cold water, I'll try it. (Of course cold-water All has been around for decades, too, so this product is really nothing new, is it?)On Is P&G's Tide Coldwater just more greenwashing? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

New paper sees problems with biodiesel and ethanol

Press release published today by Cornell University:

Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

• corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;

• switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and

• wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

• soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and

• sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
On Biodiversivist posted 4 years, 4 months ago 24 Responses

Uncertainty

amazingdrx wrote: This is equivalent to the talking point that evolution is just a "theory".  Global climate change from fossil fuel combustion is just a "theory".

Even the "skeptics" agree that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause global warming; there is virtual consensus on that matter even from the most prominent skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels.

There are really just two areas of uncertainty: 1) to what extent will the climate change in response to a given increase in GHGs, and 2) what will be the effects of those changes? There is real uncertainty in those areas, and denying it erodes the credibility of environmentalists.

Scientists are still learning how the climate systems works and haven't yet discovered all of its influences. Just a few years ago, for example, a study published in Nature provided evidence for very long-term (~3,000 year) cycles in climate that are related to the relative strength of tides (which in turn are based on long-term changes in the relative positions of the Earth, Moon, and Sun over thousands of years). When tides are strong, there's a lot of vertical mixing that brings cool water to the surface, with a cooling effect on global climate. When tides are weak, there's less mixing and the climate warms. This cycle was only discovered four or five years ago. Nobody knows if there are other natural cycles waiting to discovered that may amplify or counteract global warming from fossil fuels. To claim that we fully understand how the Earth's climate system works is hubris. The climate models do a very good job, but modelers are the first to admit that some of what goes on in their models is "black box" guesswork.

I'm only pointing this out to argue that we should accept the fact that there is uncertainty around projections of global warming. But there is no logical reason to cite the existence of uncertainty as grounds for doing nothing. Uncertainty is a necessary ingredient of risk. Without uncertainty there is zero risk. Politicians understand this, but they still cite uncertainty whenever they want to avoid undertaking some policy that's likely to result in them not getting re-elected.

I think that instead of trying to pretend that there is no uncertainty in future projections of global warming, we should be calling politicians out on the fallacy of their argument that the existence of uncertainty somehow negates risk and can be used to justify a policy of inaction. Policy makers make decisions to act in the face of uncertainty every day.
On Samuelson takes a swing at global warming posted 4 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Exhibitionism

Britain because ... they had already decided to make cuts. Hey, they still cut their emissions.

I thought the story was that Britain's emission reductions were due mainly to the "dash for gas" that occurred when the newly privatized electricity industry dumped coal power and switched to natural gas?

Anyway, I think most governments set greenhouse gas targets and pledges without understanding that they cannot control emissions with any precision. To promise that you'll reduce emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by such-and-such a year is plain silly, because emissions are so closely tied to things that are impossible or difficult to control, such as the weather, the economy, and fuel prices. That's why Kyoto's targets are averaged over a several-year period.On Samuelson takes a swing at global warming posted 4 years, 5 months ago 14 Responses

The emissions are the real problem

While I know Volkswagen and other car companies are working to clean up their diesel cars, diesel is still a bad environmental choice compared with conventional gasoline cars because of the particulates and other conventional pollutants--regardless of whether you're burning biodiesel or conventional.

Those of us who are concerned about climate change tend to view diesel favorably because it's so fuel-efficient, but that's like saying nuclear power is good because it doesn't emit carbon. The particulate emissions from diesel represent a serious public health threat in terms of increasing the risks of cancer and heart disease, and there are probably significant non-human environmental impacts as well. Until clean diesel engines are commercially available, I'd steer clear of it. Check out either EPA's Green Car Guide or ACEEE's Green Guide for more information.On Biodiversivist posted 4 years, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Kyoto was always intended as a first step

jdhlax, you're absolutely correct about Kyoto, but it was basically developed as a politically feasible first step. The Kyoto Protocol falls under the umbrella of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (which the US did sign under the Bush père administration), which commits its parties to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Kyoto was always intended as just the first small step toward meeting the convention's aim. Unfortunately even that small step met with big resistance from some countries, including most obviously the US.

As you point out, there's no simple solution to climate change, and everyone has to do his or her part.On The Piltz Effect posted 4 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

But the reality is...

...that as Andy says, over 50 percent of our electricity is currently produced by coal. And with the Bush administration in office I doubt that's going to change significantly anytime soon. Renewables apart from hydropower still provide only a tiny fraction of the United States' total supply of electric power.

There are regions of the US where electricity is produced much less carbon-intensively, such as the Pacific Northwest (lots of hydro) and Maine (biofuels such as wood). A move toward electric vehicles might be a good environmental decision in regions like that.On Friedman drives home the geo-green point. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Nice dreams, indeed

When I was living with a girlfriend, who later became my wife, I bought her flowers one Friday evening on my way home from work. That worked out so well that I did it again the following Friday evening. The Friday after that, I arrived home empty-handed. "Where are my flowers?" she demanded.

The point is that humans develop expectations quickly and don't give them up easily. We are not good at self-denial. The responses above are eerily similar to the the Religious Right's belief that encouraging abstinence is the way to control teenage pregnancy and AIDs. Nice dream, but it ain't working. You can raise awareness all you want to, but in the heat of the moment, hormone-crazed teenagers are still going to jump into bed with each other.

Similarly, you can expend a lot of energy trying to convince people to give up technologies like automobiles and electric appliances, but I don't think you'll get very far.

Why not use technology as a tool for reaching your goal of reducing consumption and living more lightly? Why not say, okay, if people are going to keep using electric light bulbs, let's make sure they use light bulbs that use 1/3 the electricity of an incandescent? Or, if we accept the idea that people are not going to stop using electricity, why not try to improve and promote technologies that can provide clean power, like photovoltaics and wind? Or, if we agree that most people are not going to give up their personal cars, why not work to encourage the development of cars that don't pollute--or at least don't pollute as much?

We have to look beyond the all-or-nothing mentality. Technology is not the solution to environmental problems: it is one of many, all of which must pursued simultaneously. Nobody's saying, "hey, let's just stand by and wait for technology to fix everything." I think the message is more like "hey, let's look for ways for technology to help us reduce consumption and pollution." And at the same time, we have to work to reduce consumption in other ways, through other means.On Just disapproving of society's direction isn't enough. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

I should hasten to add...

...that Bush's policies didn't actually cause greenhouse gas emissions to decline, they just slowed the rate of growth.

U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 18 percent from 1990-2003, the most recent year for which complete data are available.(clicking on that link goes to a PDF, but it's less than a megabyte) Bush's programs helped keep that increase from becoming larger, but didn't lead to a net reduction in emissions. On Words of hope from President Bush posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

We need everyone at the table

I think there's evidence that indigenous cultures haven't always lived as harmoniously with their surroundings as we'd like to think. As Gunter Pauli likes to say: "Give a man a fish, and he will have food for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will overfish." I think it's in our basic nature to live unsustainably; we're like rock lichens, which ultimately pollute their environment so much that their offspring cannot survive and they are replaced by mosses. The difference between us and the lichens is that, as sentient and presumably intelligent beings, we should be able to see the danger coming and avert it. But that's not easy; humans are hard-wired to prefer short-term personal gain over long-term collective good. In order to transcend this fundamental aspect of our nature and take another step forward in our cultural evolution, we need everybody at the table -- from radical liberals to radical conservatives and everything in between. You can't hope to protect the environment if you make environmentalism a private club for liberals only. In America, that means closing the door to 50 percent or more of the population, at least based on what we saw in the last election. That's insane. If you really want to protect the environment, you need everyone's participation, regardless of their political persuasion. We need to try to see each other as people, working toward a common goal, rather than as faceless members of some group whose ideology we disagree with.

I've voted for only one Republican in my life (James Jeffords of Vermont, who turned out to not be a Republican after all!) and I find most conservative views to be disturbing, yet I'd be willing to put aside whatever predjudices and dislikes I may have about conservatives and work with them if I thought such cooperation might lead to a better environment. And I think it would. We need more environmentalists in this world, whatever their political persuasion.On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

I hope it's not a losing battle

It's a brave act for a Hatfield to wade into a den of McCoys and speak his mind. You have my respect.

Sure, it would be a better world if liberal environmentalists could be inclusive and open-minded enough to welcome conservative environmentalists to the fold, but I have my doubts.

Most "isms," including environmentalism, tend to attract absolutists who see the world in black and white: Corporations are evil, conservatives are heartless souls driven only by short-term self-interest, etc., we know the drill. Fortunately not all liberal environmentalists meet this description, but plenty of them do, and I doubt those people are going to drop their predjudices or listen to reasoned arguments anytime soon.

What you need to do is find people who truly care about the environment, people for whom the end (environmental protection) is more important than the means, and who aren't so wedded to their ideologies that they can't compromise or see things in shades of grey. On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

Longstanding passion

I haven't seen this new presentation yet; I'm sure it's brilliant, but Al Gore has been giving passionate speeches about climate change for a long time now. I went to see him talk at Harvard University two or three times during the early 1990s, and he was very dynamic even then...bounding around on the stage, shouting, even whipping off his belt at one point to illustrate a sinusoid curve.

I think he simply played the good solidier as vice president...that was Clinton's show, not his, and he kept his emotions more under wraps. And then, running for President he probably figured he needed to appear "presidential" and not go off screaming like Howard Dean. But I think what we're seeing now is the real Al Gore again...something we haven't seen since he was a senator.On Gore is transforming into fiery climate evangelist posted 4 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

How's that again?

jdhlax wrote: It's true that the emissions from diesel engines pollute more than those of gasoline engines, but that's only because the pollution caused by refining gasoline occurs at the refineries.

Gosh, that runs completely counter to every source I've seen on the subject. My understanding, based on publications and emissions tests by EPA and environmental groups, is that the tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates from diesel vehicles (no matter whether they burn biodiesel or petro-diesel) are much higher than those of gasoline vehicles. And because those tailpipe emissions occur in areas where people live, walk, and work, they represent a significant risk to human health.On New diesel design inspired by tropical fish. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Bikeshare versus carshare

I think carshare may work where bikesharing doesn't. Here in Montréal, we have Communauto, which has been around since 1994 and judging by the number of their cars I see around the city, it's still going strong. I have friends who have used it; I think ithe concept could work in almost any city with a good public transit system and scarce or expensive parking.

I think one of the reasons bike-sharing programs don't work so well is that, as you pointed out, most people who are likely to use a bike can already afford one of their own...you can get a useable secondhand bike for as little as $20. But a car is a different matter. There are lots of people who can't afford to buy a car (or who choose to not spend the money) but who need one occasionally. Carsharing programs are ideal for those folks. I don't think carsharing will ever grow to be huge, at least not in North America, but I think it'll always have a niche.On Do they ever really work? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Morning Becomes Electric?

Hmmm, I remember some years back an ardent (and bearded) environmentalist told me that electric rechargeable razors were actually a better environmental choice than standard replaceable-blade safety razors, based on the research he'd seen.

Probably, though, it works out the same as disposable versus cloth diapers: there's no significant difference in environmental impact between the two. With electric rechargeable razors, you don't have the packaging and waste associated with replaceable blades. But you have the nickel-cadmium batteries, which eventually die and end up in the landfill, and you have the more materials-intensive body of the electric razor itself. And of course there's the electricity use.

I switched to an electric last year mainly because I was fed up with the escalating cost of replacement blades for standard safety razors. The razor manufacturers use the same economic model that computer printer makers do: charge peanuts for the razor (or printer) itself, and make your money on the blades (or ink cartridges). I still think I made the right environmental choice too, given that the packaging and materials use of replacement blades adds up over the years, but who knows?

Straight razors are scary, and you can't take 'em on an airplane, so they're not the most practical choice.On Umbra on shaving posted 4 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses

hybrids

It reminds me of all the reports that the Toyota Prius does not always get its advertised fuel economy, especially for people who don't live in cities (the Prius's system is designed to get the best economy in city driving).

People who are considering the Prius might instead want to consider a Toyota Matrix or an Echo (or, here in Canada, the Echo Hatchback), both of which get very respectable gas mileage for a sticker price at least $10,000 below that of a Prius, and then donating the $10,000 they saved to an environmental group or the Democratic Party. I think that strategy could actually have more tangible benefits for the environment than buying a hybrid.On Hybrid buses posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

Small correction to my previous comment

I meant to say "increased rate of growth in CO2 concentration" not "emissions." There's a big difference.

Anyway, I think the reason the Times hasn't said anything about it recently is that the story isn't substantially different from what they reported last March.On The story The New York Times didn't cover posted 5 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses