Archive for the ‘climate change’ Category
3 easy energy choices
1. CFL light bulbs. This one is a no-brainer. Modern compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) are cheap, energy efficient, and they produce high quality light. (But don’t take my word for it, read this review in Popular Mechanics.) The beauty of the CFL is two-fold: first, they use 25% as much energy as their incandescent cousins. If you replace your most-used lights, this can lead to significant monthly savings on your energy bill. Additionally, the bulbs last much longer–8000 hrs or more (compared to 1000 hours for incandescents). And at only $2-4/bulb, you are saving on bulb replacement costs as well!
There’s really no excuse for keeping your old fashioned light bulbs. Go to the ecoLightBulbStore and order a dozen bulbs. Or check out your local hardware store, as CFLs are now very common and easy to find. As a final added bonus for all you Wisconsin locals, you can get a rebate of $2/bulb from Focus on Energy!
2. Ride a bike. If you live in anything resembling a city, your life will be greatly improved with the addition of a bicycle. Any destination within 5 miles of your home is easily accessible by bike. With a little careful planning, you can greatly reduce the amount of driving you do on a daily basis. Plus it’s great exercise!
Now for a few minor caveats: First, do not mistake the two-wheeled junk heaps at Target, K-Mart or Walmart for a bicycle. They most certainly are not. If you want to buy a bicycle, you must go to a bike shop. A brand new bicycle will cost $300-500. This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind that a well maintained bike will easily last 10 years or more. A used bicycle will cost $100-200, and if you buy it from a reputable used bike shop you will likely end up with a great bargain.
Bicycles, like cars, require regular maintenance. You can easily perform this maintenance yourself with a few tools and a little know-how. This is why you bought your bicycle at a bike shop–they will happily instruct you on how to oil a chain, adjust your brakes, and add air to your tires.
Finally, buy a helmet and front & rear lights. Don’t take unnecessary chances!
3. Opt-in for green electricity. Many utilities offer voluntary programs for customers to pay a little more on their bill to support green energy projects. Here in Milwaukee, WE Energies offers their Energy for Tomorrow program. I pay an extra 1 cent per kWh of electricity which goes to fund projects like wind turbines and biofuels in the region. I know that MG&E (in Madison, WI) offers a similar program, and chances are that your local utility does as well.
These programs serve a few purposes: most importantly, they support projects that reduce the environmental impact of generating electricity. As an added bonus, it serves to remind you to conserve electricity by gently pinching your wallet every month. It also demonstrates to utilities, politicians, and the public that there is a very real demand for green energy.
Don’t delay. Make a change today. Here you have three easy ways to make an appreciable difference in your personal impact on energy resources and environmental impact. Pick one that you like and make the change today. Or be a super all-star and do two or three. We simply can’t wait for top-down government regulations to reverse the trend of environmentally costly energy. We can all take action today and drive change from bottom up.
Filed under climate change, culture, energy : Comments (2) : Apr 18th, 2007
Step it Up 2007
There’s a national rally happening this weekend to draw attention to climate change and tell our elected representatives to Step it Up!
I will be attending the local rally in Milwaukee, but there are literally thousands of similar events taking place all over the U.S. Chances are that there is something going on in your home town. (And if there’s not then you can start your own!)
We’re past debating whether global climate change is happening or whether humans are to blame. It’s time we take action. Please join me!
Filed under climate change, culture, energy, politics : Comments (2) : Apr 10th, 2007
Change
Some fear it, some embrace it, all experience it. Success in life and business is often linked with the ability to anticipate, drive, and adapt to change. I’ve seen this first hand at work–the difference between people who resist change and those who embrace it is striking. I would not have a job if my company had resisted change in its 100+ year history.
In politics, change is central to the eternal clash between the two main parties. In the most classical sense, the goal of conservative politics is to seek to avoid change and maintain the status quo. (Note that the current Party of Bush has largely abandoned the classical conservative vision.) A liberal, then, tries to bring about change and move a society forward. (Note also that the current Party of Pelosi doesn’t really have a guiding philosophy at the moment, making comparison difficult)
I trust most readers will agree that we are in a period of significant global change. The last two decades have seen fundamental shifts in global power (goodbye, cold war), economic power (hello, China, India, Russia, Brazil), technology (see: internet), and demographics (the old people are really piling up). Add to this the coming changes in energy resources and global climate change, and you’ve got the recipe for a rather tumultuous future.
Now comes the punch line: we must embrace change. We can’t succeed as a nation if we futilely resist change.
Case in point: energy. Every time I hear a hack-pundit explaining that ethanol, or biodiesel, or hybrid technology is too expensive, I cry a little on the inside. Each of these comparisons rests on the notion that gasoline will eternally be available for a few dollars a gallon. I don’t think I am alone in pointing out that this reasoning is flawed. Likewise, I take quarrel with the notion that we can’t afford to expand our existing (and very limited) public transportation system. The end of affordably driving a personal automobile every day are drawing nigh. Finally, consider the question of global climate change. Similar to the arguments above, we’ve heard that curbing the emissions of green house gases is too expensive or not feasible. I hate to rain on the fairy tale parade, but dealing with the effects of climate change isn’t going to come cheap.
Change is coming, whether we invite it or not. We can make proactive decisions to adapt gracefully, or we can resist change and make it painful when it eventually comes. I tend to believe in the former.
[I found this image on my computer, but I have no idea where I got it. Sorry to post without giving credit to the artist!]
Filed under climate change, culture, energy, politics : Comments (0) : Apr 9th, 2007
Conservation, conservation, conservation
It’s the 10,000lb elephant in the discussion of global climate change and renewable energy. It’s not politically popular. (I hear echoes of Dick Cheney: “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”) It’s not easy to monetize or enforce. Yet realistically, conservation is by far our greatest untapped energy resource in the U.S. today.
One of my pet peeves when debating our energy policy and its global ramifications is the classic complaint “we can’t afford to clean up our energy supply. The only way to reduce green house gas emissions is to raise taxes!” It’s ever so disheartening to find that so many of our fearless leaders in Washington are so clueless about the realities of energy policy. There are exactly two ways to reduce green house gas emissions but we only think about the first. 1) Change the energy source. 2) Reduce the energy demand.
Here’s the beauty of conservation: it’s cheaper than free! If we can make incremental changes to our homes, cars, cities, and overall lifestyle, we will collectively save billions of dollars while reducing pollution and green house gas emissions.
But wait! It gets better: due to the extraction, transportation, and distribution needs in our national energy system, conservation actually has a multiplicative effect. Saving 100 kilowatt/hours of electricity at my home is equivalent to 105 kilowatt/hours of electricity at thepower plant , which is equivalent to 160 kilowatt/hours of coal at the plant, which is equivalent to 200 kilowatt/hours of coal still in the ground. (This is an example for electricity; the reader can perform a similar calculation for gasoline.) By simply reducing my demand, I multiplied my energy savings by a factor of two!
Conservation is not an overnight change. It is a gradual process of shifting priorities and shifting cultural values and norms. It can start in simple ways, like replacing yourincandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent , washing your laundry in cold water, or using fans instead of an air conditioner during cooler days in the summer. Larger changes might be an increase in public transportation or a vigorous car-pooling initiative paired with the addition of HOV lanes, consumers buying local foods and products, or using smart landscaping to take advantage of passive solar energy. The next step in this progression is a rebirth in city living–by far the least energy intensive–and gradual elimination of the bedroom suburb.
You’ll notice that exactly zero of the initiatives mentioned above require raising taxes or significant capital investment. These are all things that we could be doing today. The biggest limitation thus far is a vacuum of leadership at the federal and state level when it comes to conservation. Jimmy Carter had it right when he asked us all to conserve to soften the spike in oil prices. And guess what? It worked.
Filed under climate change, culture, energy : Comments (0) : Apr 7th, 2007
Global Climate Change
I’ve been in an ongoing debate about global climate change with a friend of mine, and I decided to try to summarize my position in a succicnt set of arguments. I encouraged him, and I encourage you the reader, to identify which points (if any) you disagree with. Put your comments in the response section.
Argument I
A. The scientific method is the best method we have found thus far to explain the natural world. It is based on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments, so it removes personal bias from the equation.
B. The peer review process is the best method we have found thus far to validate scientific research papers and ensure that they follow the spirit of the scientific method.
C. There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that the earth is experiencing a period of significant climate change.
D. Of these papers, many go further to conclude that human influence is causing this climate change.
E. There are zero peer reviewed scientific papers that explicitly conclude that humans do not have an influence on this observed climate change.
THEREFORE As an academic, I find the overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic global climate change compelling and believe it to be the best theory to date.
Argument II
A. The scientific method is the best method we have found thus far to explain the natural world. It is based on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments, so it removes personal bias from the equation.
B. The IPCC is a composed of scientists from around the world tasked with developing scientific consensus on global climate change.
C. The IPCC recently released the summary for policy makers based on their soon to be published full report.
D. This summary concluded that global climate change is very real and it is 90% likely that it is caused by humans.
E. The IPCC has no motivation to mislead people with their reports or, more importantly, their summary for policy makers. (No one benefits from global climate change.)
F. There is no evidence to suggest that the IPCC is engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to mislead or obfuscate the truth.
THEREFORE I accept the conclusions drawn by the IPCC and it’s latest report.
Argument III
A. Global climate change is a very big problem to deal with.
B. We (the scientific community) may be completely wrong about global warming. We’ve been wrong before.
C. The longer we wait to develop strategies to deal with global climate change, the larger the problem grows.
D. If we are not wrong about global climate change, it is very very foolish to ignore the problem (as the problem will continue to grow).
E. Responding to the problem of global climate change does not necessarily lead to economic slow-down.
F. There are many ways we can respond, each with an economic cost. Some estimates actually suggest an economic advantage to responding to global climate change. (i.e. building wind farms adds more jobs per MW than coal plants, at approximately equal cost to the customer.)
THEREFORE since we will never be 100% certain, we must act on the best available evidence and respond to global climate change.
Argument IV
A. We live in a complex and globally interdependent civilization.
B. There are some problems that are too large in scope to be dealt with on an person by person basis. (National defense being a great example).
C. Global climate change is one such problem. It is too large a problem to be dealt with exclusively by individuals.
THEREFORE we must act globally to respond to the problem of global climate change.
. . .
There you have it. My position on global climate neatly summed up in 4 short arguments.
Filed under climate change : Comments (1) : Feb 22nd, 2007
IPCC
The IPCC just released its fourth assessment of global climate change. In the 6 years since their last assessment was released, scientists around the world have developed a much better understanding of the subject.
As a responsible citizen, please take a moment to read the report so you can make informed decisions and help inform your fellow man. For your convenience, here is a link to the summary for lawmakers [PDF] that provides the important points without getting too bogged down in details.
In a nutshell, we are far past the point of questioning whether global climate change is happening. It is. So too are we past the point of questioning whether humans are causing it. We are. Now we need to think long and hard about what actions we can take and policies we can adopt to mitigate this potentially catastrophic global change.
This must be at the forefront of policy debate as we swing into the election season. It’s too important to ignore or pass on to the next generation.
Filed under climate change : Comments (0) : Feb 2nd, 2007
US-CAP
What does it mean when a group of major international companies band together to drive policy about global climate change? It means we’ve finally turned the corner. Although the Whitehouse and Congress are still stuck in the 1970s, the very same corporations that helped drive us into this mess are actively searching for a path to get out. This is a Good Thing.
For every blow-hard conservative who said it couldn’t be done, it’s too expensive, we can’t compete globally, we need to wait for technology, etc. etc. I point to the US-CAP as proof positive that we can, and must, change our climate policy. This isn’t some pink-o hippie liberal Birkenstock think tank. This is Caterpillar. GE. DuPont. BP. Not exactly the first names you think of when you think about policy reform. (Seriously, go read their report.)
But these companies have realized a very important fact: we can’t delay any longer. Corporations are lawfully bound to increase shareholder value, which is very difficult to do when the global economy starts to crumble under the weight ofcatastrophic climate change. This isn’t about feel-good PR or green-washing. This is the real deal, where the rubber meets the road, when we stop passing the buck and step up to the table.
Is it going to be easy? No.
Is it going to be free? No.
Are we going to make some bonehead decisions in the interim that will seem foolish in 25 years? Probably.
But we must do something, we must act now, and we must show our fearless leaders in Washington that cheap talk and election games just aren’t going to cut it anymore. 2007 is the projected year for global peak oil. Let’s make 2007 the year when we finally start to turn things around.
US-CAP is a promising start.
Filed under climate change, energy : Comments (0) : Jan 29th, 2007
