DC Will Give You $50 to Plant a Tree!

This spring, Casey Trees and the district are teeming up to offer $50 rebates for planting large shade trees (such as oak, elm, or maple) on residential lots in DC. They'll also send you a free watering bag. How could you go wrong?
More info at:
www.caseytrees.org/pdfs/Spring%20Tree%20Rebate%20031208.pdf

Turn out the Lights: Office Bathroom Edition

I used to work in an office on a large, shared floor. The women's room there had about ten stalls, and there was almost always at least one person in there. Now, I work in an office on a smaller floor, and our bathroom only has two stalls. It's rare that someone else is in there when I enter or leave, so I always turn the light off. I kept hoping the rest of the women would catch on and turn off the light when they exited, but each time I went in there, the room would be empty and the light would be on.... sigh....

UNTIL TODAY! Finally, someone other than myself has taken up the fight! When I entered the bathroom today (in the afternoon, so I know I wasn't the first one in there), the light was off! VICTORY!

Anyway, the point is: the turn-off-the-light-if-no-one-is-in-the-room rule applies even to public rooms like your office bathroom.

Good for AU!

American University going greener!

Timely Musings on World Energy Use

Today I read an article about how the most recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) could have miscalculated the ability of technological advances to help stabilize carbon dioxide emissions.

The IPCC was created to investigate global warming, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Their findings were that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” In addition to researching the problem of warming they developed the most sophisticated climate models to date, and ran several scenarios. The goal was to determine what role governments would need to play to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and prevent catastrophe. These models were developed by top scientists, and basically are a carbon-focused version of the IPAT equation. In truth, there is nothing basic about them. They analyze the incredibly complex relationship between hundreds of different variables, such as variations in weather, changes in the economy, changes in energy consumption worldwide, re-forestation and deforestation, and the advances in technology that would increase energy efficiency.

           

The authors of the article I read today argue that “two-thirds or more of all the energy efficiency improvements and decarbonization of energy supply required to stabilize greenhouse gases is already built into the IPCC reference scenarios. This is because the scenarios assume a certain amount of spontaneous technological change and related decarbonization. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

In layman’s terms, the authors suspect that the climate models estimated that better technology would make us far more efficient faster than it is reasonable to expect, and diminished the sheer amount of technological change necessary to curb warming. Therefore, the IPCC figured that the successor to the Kyoto Protocol would not need to be as strict as it should be to prevent serious losses due to the consequences of climate change. This is troubling because the U.S. is already balking at the IPCC’s allegedly watered-down recommendations.

Further challenges to the successor of Kyoto because there is still debate as to whether it is right for developed nations to require less developed nations to sign on to the next emissions protocol. Already countries such as the U.S. say they will not sign such an agreement unless the entire globe is willing to sign on, while developing nations argue that they will not be able to increase their standard of living and eradicate poverty under such strict emissions rules. This is a timely question while all our attention is focused on China and the upcoming Olympics. China’s rapid industrialization is bringing wealth and hope to China’s poor, however it is decimating their environment and ours. Every ten days a new coal-fired power plant opens in China, sending sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other biproducts of coal combustion around southeast Asia and to the western U.S. This pollution is causing acid rain to fall in the U.S., seriously damaging ecosystems. It also has major consequences for human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over two million people suffer premature death each year because of poor air quality.

As time goes on it seems less and less likely that the global south will remain exempt from carbon dioxide emission regulations. Initially it was argued that even though nations like China and India were developing rapidly, it would be several years until these countries surpassed emissions giant the U.S., and could be exempted from the next major protocol. The IPCC forecasted that China would not pass the U.S. in total carbon emissions until 2020; however, China surpassed the U.S. in 2006, and by a whopping 8%. It appears that we have reached the point in world history where the relative wealth or development of a nation can no longer be taken into account when drafting carbon dioxide regulations. Furthermore, we can no longer ignore the global problem of air pollution. In the U.S., under the Acid Rain Program, we have reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40% (below 1990 levels) and the NOX Budget Trading Program has reduced NO_X levels by 74% (below 1990 levels). It is possible to achieve the same results overseas, but only if countries with the technology send it overseas, at a price developing countries can afford.

To bring this back to the Olympics, and the recent media coverage of protests, I’d like to point out that environmental abuses in China have garnered relatively little press. (One exception is this article from Fox News.) I understand that violations against the most basic human rights may take higher priority than the environment, but to me the right to breathe clean air seems to be one of the most important and basic human rights. Furthermore, I am disappointed by the lack of coverage of the IOC’s efforts to green (or in truth not green) the games. In 2004, China wanted to make “being green” one of the 3 main themes of this year’s games, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. The Olympic Torch relay will release over 11 million pounds of carbon dioxide, and the air travel of athletes, coaches, and spectators will only add to the Olympic footprint. I am sure that with all the new buildings and other infrastructure being built for the games some sustainable technology is being incorporated, but I certainly haven’t read anything about it. I wish the media would broaden their focus on abuses in China’s strict society, and drop the environmentalists a bone.

New York Times article on China and coal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all

EPA Clean Air Markets Division Annual Reports: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html

Eco-Week at AU

For those in the Washington DC area, here is the schedule for Eco-week at American University-

Here's the full schedule:

Mon. 8-9:30 "How to Live Sustainably in College" in the GARC (Letts Hall)

Tues. 7-8 Corporate Responsibility Panel in Ward 1

Wed. 5:30-9:30 Environmental Films in the Weschler Theatre

8 "Purchasing Campaign Successes" and update from Bill Mayer (the head librarian) and Chris Lewis (member of the Library Green Team) in the Weschler Theatre

Thurs. afternoon Quad events (tye-dying, popcorn machine, a rock climbing wall)

7-8 EJ Panel on Mountaintop Removal in the Battelle Atrium

9-11 Open Mics Open Minds in the Battelle Atrium

Sat. 9:30 Pontoon Ride and Picnic

If you are interested in going on the pontoon ride, we'll have a sign up at events during the week.

E-mail us at au_eco_sense@yahoo.com with any questions.

This message is forwarded from Eco-Sense- Scott

The Oil Economy Outrage

This post begins by exploring the relationship between the U.S. economy and worldwide oil consumption, and then explores the environmental implications of how we measure world economies today.

I believe this country is in a recession. I believe that the media’s effective dodging of the issue out of fear is only worsening the problem. And I believe it is going to get worse, and spread around the world. Why? For those of you who don’t realize, oil is the basis for our economy. It takes fossil fuel to create about 75% of the energy that runs everything. The mining equipment for ore runs on oil. The chainsaw to cut timber runs on oil. Machines running on gasoline plant and harvest the food you eat and the cotton you wear. Then, it takes more energy (provided by fossil fuels) to turn raw goods into the manufactured products we hold so dear. Fossil fuels ship these goods to the store where you buy them, and in most cases gasoline brings the items to your home. Finally, more often than not, it takes energy for you to enjoy these products. (Playing your new radio, watching the new plasma TV, running your new washer and dryer, etc.) Oh, and by the way, plastics are basically made of oil. In short, there is not a step in the creation of goods in which fossil fuel does not play a vital role.

What does this have to do with a recession? Fossil fuels are not a renewable resource. What we have on the planet right now is all we are ever going to have;* we are not getting any more. Now, I’m sure you studied supply and demand in school: when the supply of a good (fossil fuels) is decreasing (from powering our lives), and the demand is increasing (i.e. population expansion and industrialization in developing countries) the price is bound to go up. We’re in a recession? No wonder! We based our entire economy on a commodity that, even if the price dips for a short time, is destined to continue to become more and more expensive until we run out. What’s the answer? Increased energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy technology. Use less gas, people!

If we want to continue to have healthy and sustainable growth, we need to move away from an economy based on a resource that will run out. It is hard to put a definite answer on how long we have until fossil fuels effectively run out, but regardless of the time frame, we know it will happen eventually.** I do not see why the time frame should even matter. If we do not change over our economy now, we will be leaving the problem to our children, or at the least our grandchildren. Plus, making changes now while we have the benefit of making a gradual and planned transition will be significantly easier and cheaper than it will be in a few decades when it becomes a crisis.

Another reason to use less energy: every time you fill up your car or turn on a light, you are sending your hard earned money to the pocket of some oil company CEO. Just today an article was published reporting on Congress’s recent meeting with top oil execs. What transpired? Oil execs (who made $123 billion*** last year) deny that they are responsible for gas prices being so high. That is partially true. As previously mentioned, gas prices will consistently rise in the future. However, the billions of dollars in tax breaks given to oil companies also have something to do with gas prices. These tax breaks give the oil companies an artificial advantage over renewable energy producers. What’s to be done? Use less gas! The oil lobby is strong, and not filling up on Tuesday or Wednesday, or going to Shell vs. Mobile or Exxon vs. BP is not going to make them care about what the cost of gas is doing to American families. Doing any errands you can on foot or by bike, or buying more efficient appliances and vehicles is the most effective way to bring about change. Turning off lights that aren’t in use, or using better light bulbs will make a difference. Building your own solar generator for as little as $300 and using it to charge your laptop and cell phones will make a difference. I offer this from a purely economical stance; benefit to the environment, decrease of carbon emissions and healthier air to breathe aside. Take a stand, and stop the rich from getting richer.

While we’re on the topic, I would also like to question for a moment the idea that our GDP even needs to increase. Here in the U.S., we’ve been taught for years that economic growth, and an increase in GDP is not only a good thing, but absolutely necessary for us to continue to improve our quality of life and maintain our standard of living. We have been raised to listen to the news, hear that our GDP is up however many percentage points from the previous year, and thank our wonderful politicians and businessmen for bringing economic growth.

Now, GDP is not just a tool for measuring the “strength” of an economy. GDP is the estimated value of all goods and services produced over a period of time, most often a calendar year. That means that when the GDP goes up, it is because we have produced more goods and services than we did before. Do you recognize the environmental implications of this? If we produce more goods (and all services depend to some extent on goods) then we are using more stuff than the year before. Each year we are extracting more from the earth than the year before, and creating more trash. Of course, the environmental impact does not affect GDP for years or even generations. But are we so arrogant as to feel that we are entitled to extract everything we can from the planet, leaving the consequences to future generations?

Now, it may sound radical, but what if…. our GDP stayed exactly the same every year. Don’t panic! Most Americans (and other global citizens) turn a bit anxious and queasy at this proposition, but hear me out. If GDP is the same, and each year we produce the same amount of stuff as the year before, and items are recycled or safely returned to the earth, we have no global footprint. We live in harmony with the earth, and our economy acts more like a biological system. If efficiency of energy production, use, and recycling of materials increases, it is possible to even increase our standard of living while our GDP may stay the same.

Another flaw of GDP is the way it is currently calculated. Say a company manufactures a product, any product will do. The amount of product produced and sold counts towards the GDP. Now, say the factory has an accident, and a few thousand gallons of gasoline or some toxic chemical are released into the stream adjacent to the factory. The dollars that the factory spends on cleaning up the spill are also counted towards the GDP. Another example is a company that manufactures a faulty device that results in injury. The sale of the device counts towards GDP, as well as the medical costs of the injured. GDP does not distinguish between positive or negative goods and services. GDP should be calculated differently, so that dollars spent on fixing problems are subtracted from GDP. This has been proposed by many economists, and they suggest redefining GDP and changing its name to Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).

For More Information:
Extremely important and influential (and unbiased) article “The End of Cheap Oil” http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:76wKCOFm9MkJ:www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/Documents/SAmerican.pdf
Excellent link on the economics of Oil: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
Good site discussing how long we have till we run out of fossil fuel: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
Herman Daly’s seminal work on no-growth economies: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
A scientist’s musings on the no-growth economy: http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1158
More on re-defining GDP and GPI: http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
*Unless we perfect space travel, and go to another planet that has carbon-based life, and find that that life has not used up all their fossil fuels too. I mean it’s possible…
**Fossil fuels will not literally run out in the same sense that your car will run out of gas and stall. They will simply decrease in volume and increase in price to such a degree that they will effectively run out. At that point, it will be costly and difficult to switch over technology. If we can change the foundation of our economy now, we will be significantly better off in the long run.
***123 billion? Do you have any idea how much that is? To put it in perspective, it has been estimated that there are 100 billion STARS IN OUR GALAXY. A billion M&Ms candies laid out touching but not overlapping would cover over 6 ½ acres. (My own calculation.)

Earth Day

Earth Day

Hi, today, I am a friend of Scott and Katie, who have graciously allowed me to guest-blog, today. Personally, I think saving the environment is important. Hell, I would take a bullet for the environment, if asked. Seeing how Earth Day is coming rather quickly on April 22, I wanted to express some simple tips to help make the world a better place:

Stop eating. Why waste our precious resources? Remember, plants feel pain, too.

If you are going to protest for the environment, make sure to encourage the police to use biodegradable clubs when they beat you.

Walking around naked saves heavily on clothing materials, as well as uses less water and detergent. Unfortunately, your hospital and legal bills will probably increase.

Exercise is another waste of precious resources. Don't go to football practice, walk, have sex. Just sit there.

Pee down your shower drain. It will save a gallon of water. Pooping down your shower drain will result in hilarity.

Buy more expensive cleaning and paper products. Clearly, if it is more expensive, it must be more environmentally friendly.

Remember Al Gore is the greatest of all environmentalists! Especially when he’s flying his private jet.

Do you really need that daily shower? Really?

What car would Jesus drive? Probably a Hummer, because Jesus was sweet.

Recycled paper bags, while less effective, are more environmentally friendly condoms.

Don't conform. Refuse to pay people in cash or credit cards, because both use our plastic and paper resources. Who cares if people call you a "terrorist", even if you are one?

Remember, when other people are not environmentally perfect, make sure to call them out on it. You are, and they'll really appreciate the reminder.

Reading these helpful hints wastes electricity. Stop reading this, and turn off your computer and your lights, you callous bastard.

April Fools!