Top 10 TED Talks - 8 - Just the Facts on Climate Change

Coming into the home stretch on our Top 10 TED Talks for the Sustainability minded, we have James Hansen describing very clearly what is going on with our climate -- Spoiler Alert, it is changing in ways that are not good.

This talk is really, really informative, and Hansen is one of the top researches in his field.  That being said, make sure you have had plenty of coffee, because it is just a little dry.



This one speaks for itself, I think.  The case is pretty clear.  The timing was serendipitous for him too, because he sounds like an oracle when he talks about droughts in the bread basket.

Top 10 TED Talks - 3 - Learning the Limits

Limits are frequently the theme of Sustainability conversations, and my third Top 10 TED Talk is precisely about the limits of environmental stability.  Johan Rockstrom, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, discusses his work identifying exactly what the environmental limits are, and where we are in relation to those limits.  Rockstrom lead a group of researches in developing 9 "planetary life support systems" that are being stressed by human activity, and the limits of how much we can stress them before they collapse.  The good news is, we've only crossed three of those limits!  I think you can infer the bad news.

Rockstrom is both informative and persuasive, and uses some theatrical tropes and props to help get his points across.  It is a very effective description of what exactly is meant by existing within the limits of a healthy planet.

Nuclear Energy is Not a Sustainable Solution

Image via Wikipedia

The debate on nuclear energy as an alternative to coal has gained momentum in the aftermath of the catastrophe in Fukushima. Despite the fact that the damaged nuclear reactors are not yet contained, and it may yet take weeks of hard work to get the cooling systems running again (Reuters), proponents of nuclear energy are already claiming that this disaster is proof of how safe fission energy generation is.  The strongest proponents of nuclear energy these days are some of its earliest enemies: environmentalists.  Curbing carbon emissions, the argument goes, is more important than anything else, and nuclear power is supposedly carbon neutral.

Claiming that this disaster (which now seems to be leaching extremely radioactive water in every direction) proves the safety of nuclear energy is quite simply absurd.  First of all, it is premature since the extent of the damage is yet unknown and the disaster is by no means over.  Furthermore, it grossly downplays the role that luck had to play in the narrow avoidance of a meltdown (not to diminish in any way the hard work of those involved in containing the disaster).  As Elizabeth Kolbert argued quite elegantly in "The Nuclear Risk," The New Yorker, March 28 2011, the simple fact is that nuclear energy generation has never been as safe as we have been pretending.  In reality, we have been extremely lucky so far, and we are ourselves only one or two natural disasters away from a nuclear catastrophe of horrific proportions.  Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, provides an excellent case against nuclear energy in this guest post on Green Tech Media, focusing on safety as well as financial feasibility.

Even setting aside the safety argument, however, nuclear energy does not make sense on a purely carbon emissions basis either.  First off, nuclear is not carbon neutral: all nuclear power plants must be backed up by another form of generation, because they require backup power to avoid a meltdown during any generation downtime.  The embodied energy in a plant is also significant, and is many times more than wind generation.  Still, considering only these factors the carbon emissions per kwh are minuscule compared to coal based plants.

But there is one simple fact that really shoots the net carbon emissions of nuclear energy through the roof: nuclear waste is a powerful weapon.  My father in law was the first to point out to me that military organizations around the world burn massive amounts of fuel in their efforts to secure nuclear waste and track down any waste which has evaded security efforts.  In any honest assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy, we must consider at least some portion of the emissions of the military. When one considers that the US military alone burns about 395,000 barrels of oil every single day moving people and materiel around the globe (and the number one thing by weight that they move is more fuel), that contribution is clearly significant.

Ultimately, nuclear energy is not a good solution, short term or long term, to climate change.  The risk to human health in the form of potential radiation and weaponization is always downplayed by nuclear advocates, and the carbon footprint is never accounted for properly.  None of the arguments for investing in nuclear energy will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Related articles

• The incalculable cost of nuclear power | Thomas Noyes (guardian.co.uk)

8 in a Million - a Quick Lesson in Atmospheric Science

Image via Wikipedia

Re-Posted from the iPinion Syndicate

It is widely known that the ozone layer, part of the stratosphere, filters ultraviolet radiation out of sunlight.  Without this filtering, life as we know it could not exist: UV light is much higher energy than visible sunlight: it breaks chemical bonds, excites particles and heats them up, and generally messes with everything that it touches.  So the ozone is pretty important.


A slightly lesser known fact, however, is that ozone makes up only about 40 parts per billion (ppb) of the earth’s atmosphere.  That means that for every billion molecules of gas in the air, only 40 are that special UV collecting combination of three oxygen atoms.  Even at its highest concentration, in the lower portion of the stratosphere which is named after it, ozone accounts for only about 8 parts per million (ppm).  Now, while that is an order of magnitude more concentrated than the rest of the atmosphere, it is still only 0.0008%.  And yet, this tiny, minuscule amount of O3 filters about 98% of the UV light that is emitted by the sun, thus saving the life of everything on earth every day.


Recently a skeptical acquaintance asked if I really believed in “that global warming stuff.”  I informed him that in fact I did, and he proceeded to ask me if I knew how much CO2 was actually in the atmosphere.  I did not have the number memorized, but I knew it was very small.  “Less than .05%” he informed me (to be a bit more precise, it is about 385ppm).  He continued “do you really expect me to believe that that tiny amount of stuff is going to change the temperature of the entire earth?”  Without quick access to my facts, all I could do was weakly say “yes, but I can’t really explain why right now.”


Well, now that I have been able to go back over my notes and do some more research, I can boldly say (and I hope my skeptical friend gets to read this) “yes, I expect you to believe it, because if such a tiny amount of gas couldn’t absorb so much energy, we would all be dead.”  If 8ppm of O3 can absorb 98% of UV energy, then is it really so hard to believe that 385ppm of CO2 could absorb a significant amount of the infrared energy that the earth emits?  Greenhouse gasses (GHGs) like CO2 absorb much of the earth’s energy, and they scatter it all around.  Some of it warms the atmosphere, some is emitted out into space, and some emitted back to the earth.  The more GHGs there are, the more of that energy is trapped and emitted back to the earth.


It has been estimated that in recent history the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 2ppm every year, due almost entirely to humans burning fossil fuels.  That may not seem like much, but that means an increase of 8ppm (which, if you remember, is the maximum concentration of ozone) every four years.  I don’t think many climate scientists are suggesting that some catastrophic event is going to end the human race over night, or even in a decade or two, but it does seem reasonable that increasing green house gas emissions steadily over a long period of time will result, in that long period of time, in a warmer planet.


Just 8 ozone particles in a million units, just 0.0008% of gas molecules make this planet habitable.  In atmospheric science, numbers that tiny are not only significant, they tend to describe the most significant phenomena of all.

Electic Vehicles: the Pros and Cons and Pros and Cons...

Image via Wikipedia

Re-Posted From the iPinion Syndicate

It’s  complicated.  Cars are complicated.  First, we want to stop burning fossil fuels, and for most of us the gasoline going into our tank is the only fuel that we actually come into contact with directly.  You can look at a light bulb glowing and think abstractly about coal burning in a far off plant, but when you refuel your car you can smell it.  So most of us have a visceral feeling about how our cars use fossil fuels which is somewhat disproportional to the actual carbon emissions they generate.  Cars get vilified more than A/C units, even though cooling big office buildings generates much more pollution.  Not to downplay the carbon emissions from cars; transportation (as a whole) is still among the top 3 sources of green house gasses.  The result, however, is that we tend to feel worse about our cars than anything else.


Still, most of us can’t get around without a car.  In other words, we want to be better but we feel like we can’t.  Enter the electric vehicle; drive all you want and never deal with gasoline again.  The trouble is, you haven’t actually solved the problem.  Now your car is just one more light bulb; you plug it in and it juices itself up, but you are really just burning the fuel somewhere else.  All you have done is stopped smelling it.


So we’re back to feeling like there is nothing we can do, right?  Well... maybe.  There is one thing that electric cars can do which conventional cars cannot, and never will.  They can get their energy from anywhere.  Most places in the US coal is the only option for energy generation, so that point can seem moot, but it isn’t.  Where I live in the Pacific North West for example, a substantial percentage of the power comes from hydroelectric plants, so driving an electric car up here is really vastly more sustainable than an internal combustion vehicle.


In many states like California, the legislature has made a commitment (and appears to be keeping it against all odds) to steadily increase the percentage of energy production from renewable sources.  So if you buy an EV in CA, it will get greener every year.  That is a really big deal when you think about the fact that the sustainability movement is gaining steam.  If more states commit to green energy, then EVs are suddenly a really great alternative.


However, when you really think about it, why does transportation require any energy at all?  Sure, it is just about impossible to imagine getting across the country without burning fuel, but why is it that most of us can’t imagine getting to the grocery store and back without driving a car?  Or to work?  Or just out to a restaurant?  Have we forgotten how to walk?  Does anyone own a bike anymore and use it to get places, not just to exercise?  Have middle class white people forgotten how to ride buses?  It certainly seems so.

Image via Wikipedia

Of course this is not true.  Some of us still use the bus.  Some of us bike.  Some of us, even in LA, walk (I did when I lived there).  Some people do it just because it is convenient, or they even enjoy it.  Some people walk into town without even thinking about the fact that they are saving the planet, maybe without even believing in global warming.  The fact is, once you get out of your car, you realize that life is more fun when you’re not driving.  Every time you walk instead of driving, you are choosing not to burn that fuel at all, which is much better than burning it somewhere else.  In other words, the simplest solution is avoiding cars and the complications that they bring entirely.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Grid sets electric cars' green standard (sfgate.com)

An(other) Inconvenient Truth

Re-posted from the iPinion Syndicate

For greenhouse gases, like so many other things in our environment, too little and too much are equally problematic.  Life is a balancing act, a tightrope walk, and anything which tips the balance one way or the other can lead to a show stopping, devastating end.  Take salt, for example: you can’t live without it, but as any sailor knows drinking salt water will kill you quicker than thirst.

Image via Wikipedia

Similarly, greenhouse gases play an important role in keeping the earth at temperatures that can sustain life.  Too little means too cold, and too much too hot.  No one (who understands it) questions the physics behind the greenhouse effect, and no one questions that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this was discovered long ago and has been tested repeatedly since.  Starting with the industrial revolution, we have been pumping extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, more every year, and primarily carbon dioxide.  The results: this summer is the hottest summer in the history of humans
recording temperatures on a global scale, with all of the crop failures and droughts that that record implies.  So why don’t we just stop generating carbon dioxide?


Well, the answer to that question is the ‘other’ inconvenient truth alluded to in the title of this column: fossil fuels are awesome.  As a friend of mine who is an engineer explained it to me: there is no other convenient way that we can store so much energy in such a tiny volume.  And it is not for a lack of trying, believe me.

Image via Wikipedia

Battery technology gets better every year, but even the most efficient electric vehicles rarely get more than 100 miles on a single charge.  The average gas burner, on the other hand, can generally go 3 times as far on one full tank of fuel.  As another example, solar technology and wind turbines (so far) cannot compete with coal power plants for energy output, and have pretty serious hurdles to overcome in the area of consistency.  So while these sources are sustainable, infinitely cleaner, and overwhelmingly more efficient, when the desired result is a light bulb that comes on at the same intensity every time you flip that switch, coal is what provides the consistency to your grid.  That is why roughly 2/3 of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels, and less than 1/10 from renewable, sustainable sources.


We can generate energy in much more efficient ways than by burning fossil fuels, which waste massive amount of energy in powering the grid.  Hydroelectric plants, for example, are supremely efficient, generate plenty of energy, produce absolutely no pollution at all, and require less maintenance.  The only downside is that the water supply is somewhat seasonal (which is usually evened out by dams), and there is no way to store excess energy.


If you were tasked with designing a system to store excess energy for later use, you would be hard pressed to come up with something as efficient (at storing energy), compact, transportable, and with such longevity as gasoline or coal.  That is precisely why we are having such a hard time kicking our habit of burning through fossil fuels to run our increasingly high power life styles.  When it comes down to it, it is very very difficult to generate the same amount of on-demand electricity with the same consistency and move the same amount of freight without burning fossil fuels.  So what can we possibly do?  The short answer: use less energy, reduce the amount of stuff we ship.


In the long term, it may be possible to generate the same amount of energy that we use today without emitting carbon dioxide, but it is not going to happen this year, next, or next decade most likely.  So in the interim, reducing energy demand is the only way that we can reign in our run away greenhouse gas emissions.  Living a more energy efficient lifestyle, in other words, is the only thing that will keep us balanced on the tight rope.

Image via Wikipedia

One Thing You Can Do For Free

Image via Wikipedia

Re-Posted From iPinion Syndicate

Whether trying to cut costs or carbon emissions, more people are attempting to reduce their energy consumption every day.  Most energy saving measures require some up front cost to initiate, and some can be extremely expensive.  Although any good measure will pay for itself in energy savings over time, it can be difficult to come up with the capital to get the ball rolling.  I love finding and sharing the things that are relatively cheap to implement, and my favorite energy saving measure are the ones that, like all the best things in life, are free.


With that in mind, here is one thing that anyone can do to reduce their energy consumption, which should save money without costing a dime: dress for the season.  You have probably heard this one before, but it is worth repeating.


For most of us, the single biggest consumer of energy in our lives is the space we live in.  This includes the electricity used to keep our food cold, the energy used to heat it up again, used to heat our water, run our computers and entertainment systems, light our dark rooms and dry our wet clothes.  All of the above combined, however, is less (for most homes) than the energy used to heat our spaces in the winter and cool them in the summer.


Of course, to reduce your heating and cooling load, most people will tell you to replace your old windows, which is phenomenally expensive.  But there is something much simpler, immediately effective, and free that you can do, which is heat and cool your spaces just a little less.  You may think that a few degrees on the thermostat won't make much of a difference, but consider this: heat flows from a warmer space to a cooler space, which is obvious, but it flows faster the greater the difference in temperature between the two spaces.  Each extra degree of difference requires more energy than the last, so the bigger the difference the more energy it takes to maintain a conditioned space.


In other words, the colder it is outside the more energy you are saving by turning your thermostat down just a little.  I don't want to ask you to sacrifice comfort, however, so that is where dressing for the season comes in.  Bundle up, grab a blanket, and turn the thermostat down as low as you can safely and comfortably manage.  Wear layers, use slippers or woolly socks, and find comfortable sweats and long underwear.  You will probably still need heat if you live north of about 35 degrees latitude or in higher elevations, but every degree helps.


Similarly, the hotter it is outside, the more energy it takes to cool your house down.  So in the summer, instead of bundling up take it off.  Light linen clothes, fewer layers, or a swim suit with a light shirt or wrap may make it comfortable to open the windows instead of cranking the AC.  When your kids complain that they don’t want to see you in your bathing suit all the time, calmly explain to them that you are saving the planet by embarrassing them in front of their friends.  Also, leaving windows open at night (if it does not sacrifice security) and closed during the hottest part of the day can reduce your cooling load.  Finally, during the hottest part of the day try getting out of the house completely.  Find a shady place, preferably near a body of water, and try to enjoy the summer sun.


It may sound like sacrifice on the face of it, but you might be surprised to find that when the ambient air is a little colder, standing next to the stove makes you feel even warmer than if the thermostat were set at 70.  Similarly, a breeze blowing the curtains can be more refreshing than a sealed room conditioned to ideal temperatures.  This is because the contrast is very pleasing to our senses.  When the room is stable at the ideal temperature, that simply becomes the new baseline.


There are of course a number of things you can do to improve your home’s ability to retain heat, but pretty much every single one will cost you something.  Many utility companies offer home owners free energy audits which recommend specific measures, so you can evaluate what you can afford, what is worth it, and what you can possibly save up for.  And while you are saving up for those measures, you can pocket a buck or two by dressing inside more like you would outside.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ComEd Takes Proactive Measures to Prepare for High Temperatures (prnewswire.com)
• Energy Saving Tips for Less Expensive Summer Living (saving-energy.suite101.com)
• ComEd Offers Cool Ways to Combat Heat and Lower Electricity Bills (prnewswire.com)
• Summer's Heat is Here - Stay Cool with Tips from NSTAR (eon.businesswire.com)
• Live Green, Save Green(SM) Identifies Ways to Help Reduce Energy Bills During Summer Heat (prnewswire.com)

Paul Krugman explains Environmental Economics: a good read

Image via Wikipedia

My mother sent me an article from the April 11 issue of NY Times Magazine (which I do not subscribe to) by Paul Krugman entitled "Green Economics - How we can Afford to Tackle Climate Change."  There was not really anything in the article that was news to me (I studied the relationship between sustainability and economics in a course at UCLA), but it was a very concise explanation of the strange arranged marriage between economics and climate science.  I highly recommend giving it a read, for anyone who is either interested in or confused by how these issues interrelate.

I have a lot of respect for Krugman, who is particularly good at explaining complex economic models in layman's terms (he is also particularly good at explaining them in academic terms, and received a Nobel Prize for his efforts).  And after reading this article, I must say, I have changed my mind about one thing: I previously stated that Carbon Credit Markets (CCMs) don't do anything, and after reading this article I understand two ways in which they could.  When I talked about CCMs in my previous blog post, I suggested that the cap and trade model which was so loved by businesses and politicians alike was really just a more palatable version of mandated carbon reductions or pollution taxes, except the money goes to the private sector instead of the public.  While that is still true, I see now that as a virtue of being more palatable they are more likely to make it into law and to be accepted by businesses.

Furthermore, even though the trading of Carbon Credits benefits private companies rather than government programs for environmental concerns, as Krugman points out, these credits could be auctioned off instead of being just handed out, which could result in some government revenue for environmental projects and programs.

Most importantly, however, Krugman dispels the myth that capping emissions through government mandate would be 'ruinous' to our economy, as we hear over and over again in the media.  Just as the scientific community generally agrees that global warming due to the green house gas effect is real, so too apparently do economists agree generally that our economy, both as a nation and as a planet, would do just fine with mandated carbon emission reductions.  Basically they all say it would slow growth a little, and enough to make it important to consider the alternatives, but not nearly enough to be 'ruinous.'

So then, from an economic point of view, we stand to lose a little from acting to stop climate change.  What a good economist does next is weigh that loss against possible scenarios of ignoring climate change.  So, what happens if we don't do anything?  Business As Usual?  The answer: potential for massive disruption of every market around the world.  If you believe that the scientists are right about global warming, the cost of inaction obviously outweighs any costs of curbing climate change.  Even if you are not convinced that global warming is real, if you believe there is a chance it is real, the potential cost of inaction is a very heavy risk compared to the alternative that reducing emissions will hurt a very small amount.  If you, on the other hand, are absolutely convinced that global warming is a giant hoax then I probably cannot say anything to convince you otherwise.

I, for my part, am never 100% sure of anything.  I am 99.9% sure that the sun will come up tomorrow.  I'm 99% sure that global warming is real (I can't read every study and check every single fact), 98% sure that human actions are causing global warming and human actions can reduce it.  I think anyone who is not willing to hear arguments that they don't agree with and never allows their mind to be changed is at least a little foolish.  So if you are pretty sure that I am wrong about global warming, but you are not a fool, I ask you this question: how sure are you, and at what point is it worth gambling with our future?  If a possible negative outcome is too terrible, I think there is a point at which it is not worth gambling no matter what the odds.  Krugman, in his article, paraphrases Martin Weitzman (a prominent environmental economist at Harvard): "it's the non-negligible probability of utter disaster that should dominate our policy analysis."

In summation: the risks of inaction are too great, the costs of action are low, and the longer we wait the more difficult the situation becomes.  Scientists agree that there is a problem, economists agree we can afford to fix it (or at least start to mitigate it), and now all we need to do is agree that it should be done.

Indoor Air Quality, Allergies and Air Purifiers

Although Los Angeles is not exactly known for its fantastic air quality (read: LA air sucks), the move to a colder climate and relocation to the Willamette Valley (which is known for it's many species of face itching sneeze making grasses) has somewhat inflamed the allergies of my wife and I.  That being said, we have been very active recently trying to minimize our exposure to allergens and keep our indoor air as clean as humanly possible.

Indoor Air Quality is a section of green building that is often overlooked by most people (though architects and building professionals are likely to spend a good deal of time thinking about it).  It is not as flashy an issue as global warming, habitat destruction, etc.  But it is very important to our health and well being, and our ability to be productive and happy.  As an allergy sufferer I can tell you, if you are not breathing properly when you sleep you feel like a zombie the following day, and all productivity and hope of happiness goes out the window.  All you can do is shuffle along and think about biting anyone who gets close to you.  In our research, we were somewhat surprised to discover that the air purifier we had been using was not actually doing anything useful.

HEPA filters are extremely efficient at arresting tiny particles in the air, measuring only micrometers in diameter.  It is illegal for filters to be advertised as HEPA if they are not capable of arresting those tiny particles.  However, for some unfathomable reason, cheaper filters which do not arrest any allergen particles at all can be called "HEPA Type," "99% HEPA," or "HEPA like."  The Hunter purifier which Courtney bought many years ago was just such a product.  So, we concluded that we needed a new one, with a "true HEPA" filter this time.  Although I generally advocate getting stuff used as often as possible, when it comes to an issue of personal health you get the best product available.

In researching air purifiers before making a purchase, we were shocked to discover that the Ionic Air Cleaner types were basically worse than useless for allergy sufferers.  They mask odors and make the air smell fresher by producing Ozone (O3).  Now, while Ozone is a great thing in the upper atmosphere, where it filters UV light from the sun, here in the atmosphere that we breath Ozone is a very, very bad thing.  It is toxic to pretty much all living things, including plants, animals and us.  And while a little Ozone won't kill you, it will irritate your lungs and sinuses, exacerbating any symptoms of respiratory tract infection or allergic reactions.  So in other words, they make your allergies and your indoor air quality worse.  As if that wasn't bad enough, Ozone in the troposphere (where we live) is a green house gas, and unlike CO2 and other green house gasses, it can react with other pollutants to generate more Ozone in a cyclical reaction.  In case you didn't get the message, do not purchase Ionic Air Purifiers or Air Cleaners, they are all but evil.

In summation: if you want an air purifier, get a true HEPA filter sized to the room that it will be in.  Courtney and I got a Honeywell 50250 Round Air Purifier for the living room, and a smaller, quieter Honeywell 17000 HEPA QuietCare Air Purifier for the bedroom.  Both came with permanent true HEPA filters.  We have been sleeping much easier since.  I really cannot overemphasize how awesome these things are.  Since we purchased ours, we can't smell the cats litter box except for two seconds right after an "event," we don't have to dust as often, and I wake up feeling like a real human being, even when I forget to take my Aller-tec.

Aside from the air purifiers, we have a Dyson Ball vacuum with a HEPA filter, several house plants that filter specific VOCs out of the air (see this website), and do everything we can to reduce the amount of dust and other allergens in our home.  It is a constant battle, but for now one we are winning quite decisively.  Unfortunately, running two fans 24-7 means more energy consumption, but since our local utility (SUB) generates 80% of its energy from hydro-electric, I don't feel quite so bad about it.

Editing this, I realize that there are a lot of ads in this post, but learning how to control my allergies was a struggle for me, and I think that promoting the products that I found most useful in controlling my symptoms is an important thing to do.  So I am unashamed about all the ads in this post, in other words.  And no, I don't work for Honeywell (though if they wanted to pay me for the plugs I wouldn't complain).

The Failure of Zero Sum Carbon Credit Markets

In light of the recent scandals of scammers ripping off companies for millions of dollars worth of carbon credits, I thought it would be good timing to drag up this notion from a paper I wrote while in college.

Carbon Credit Markets don't actually do anything.  Before you grab your pitchfork, hear me out.  Businesses and governments rave about CCMs and the great good they are doing.  They talk about how much they have accomplished with these markets, and how much they have reduced carbon emissions.  However, a common sense analysis shows that the markets don't do anything at all, and in some ways could actually be slowing things down.

First of all, the Carbon Credit Market does not exist naturally.  A CCM only exists when there is a mandatory government regulation on emissions.  The government says that all companies have to reduce carbon emissions by x% by this date.  So, it is the regulation that results in the carbon gas reductions, not the market.  Then what does the market do?  Well some companies aren't going to make the required reduction by that deadline, and others will surpass it.  The CCM allows manufacturers who cannot meet the mandated reductions to purchase offsets against their failures to avoid paying fines.  And who do they purchase these credits from?  From people who exceed the required reductions.

This market may create an incentive for innovators to exceed the reductions, but guarantees that these innovations will not have a net positive effect at the same time, because exceeding the reductions is only incentivized to the extent that the overall mandated reduction is not met.  In other words: good companies only do better than expected to the extent that bad companies don't play along.  Therefore it is a zero sum market with no tangible positive result.

One of the reasons that this whole scam is so well loved by businesses, by the way, is that the value of  a carbon credit must be lower than the cost of paying the equivalent in fines.  Otherwise the company would just pay the fine instead.  This has two results: the financial penalty for companies that don't meet the reductions is softened (which is bad), and that financial penalty is sent to the shareholders of the good companies instead of a dedicated government fund (which is bad if you are a socialist and good if you are a conservative capitalist).

Personally, I think that the companies that don't meet required reductions should just be fined, and the fines should be earmarked for specific green projects.  You could still encourage exceeding mandated reductions with tax incentives.  But ultimately, it just rubs me the wrong way when people claim that the Carbon Credit Markets are doing so much good in the fight against global warming, when it is the mandated reduction that is doing all the heavy lifting.  The CCM is just a PR trick, because our culture prefers the word 'market' to the word 'mandate.'

I'm back! (where was I?)

Sorry to my many followers (that is, my family and a few old friends) for failing to post for so long. Lets face it, if there isn't money on the table it's hard to be reliable. So where was I for so long? Aside from the many illegitimate excuses for not blogging, there were a few good reasons (still trying to decide if being really sick was an excuse or a reason). Among them, I have been devouring the new LEED 2009 reference guide: "Green Building Design and Construction." I don't think I could explain it without boring the bejesus out of anyone who is not a LEED AP, but there are a lot of really good and important improvements in the new system.

That being said, I was very saddened today by a post on Boing Boing (the most read blog) about ClimateCounts, a dubiously motivated non-profit that rates fortune 500 companies on their 'greenness.' What saddened me was not the post, but the absolutely defeatist comments from the BB readers:

• "The very idea of "green" capitalism is a logical fallacy, and most of these companies have historically atrocious records of polluting the globe and abusing human rights. Those scores are useless, completely and uncompromisingly so."
• "The bottom line is that most of what we do to assuage our own environmental damage is pointless unless we are living off the grid in the woods growing our own food organically and wearing animal skins."

This pessimism about environmental issues is not serving anyone. It is probably true that these companies have a history of being environmental monsters, but does that mean change is impossible? Of course not. They may be reluctant, but many are making changes, and even incremental changes have a positive effect. And while I would agree that the fisrt marriage of capitalism and 'green' was nothing but pure marketing hogwash, I would not agree that green capitalism is a logical fallacy (and just to be a jerk, which logical fallacy would that be? post hoc? slipperty slope? hmmm...).

Capitalism is about economics, the green movement is about sustainability. Their goals might seem contradictory at times, but in reality they are two completely different fields which can be made to work together. The absurdity of the above argument is clear if you replace capitalism with other economic regimes: the statements 'green socialism is a fallacy,' and 'green mutualism is a fallacy' just don't make any sense. Economics and sustainability are not mutually exclusive in any way.

I am also a little tired of the concept that in order to be green you have to live in the wilderness, off the grid, and make clothes from the skin of dead animals (I wonder if that poster was imagining skins of domesticated food stock or hunting for those skins, either way not necessarily more sustainable than cotton fiber). Quite frankly, there isn't room in the wilderness for every person alive to have their own acre of farmable land, and there isn't enough natural groundwater to support that many farms indefinitely.

For better or worse, over half of the world's population are now city people, and that is why cities have become the focus of most green movements. We need a lot of infrastructure to support our current population, and spreading people out into the woods would mean more of that infrastructure, and all of it less efficient. That is why focusing on green development, renewable resources and sustainable energy is so important, and why this defeatist claptrap about it all being pointless is so damaging.

I admit that things look pretty bleak when you get down to it: CO2 has a long life in the atmosphere (exact numbers are difficult to come by) so even if we stopped burning anything right now, we would not reach stability for at least 50 years. Mercury has a much, much longer life in the oceans (it can cycle through the food chain many, many times before anything like safe deposition). But how could it possibly help to throw in the towel? So the solution isn't simple, isn't easy, and won't happen overnight. All the more reason to roll up our sleeves and get started.

Food: greens and beans, part 1

I intend to post a lot about cooking on this blog, because I love to cook. It is extremely pertinent to a discussion about going green too, because large scale food production is responsible for more green house gas emissions than all of the cars on the road. By a lot. So for anyone who has never heard the link between going green and food, here is a brief overview.

What does food have to do with being green? Well, a lot. For one thing, cows produce methane, which is a green house gas. All animals produce methane actually (including us), but cows produce more than most. Also, because we eat so very much beef in this country, we have developed a lot of unsustainable practices to get that much beef to market. For an intro, see Farmer in Chief by Michael Pollan, an open letter to the new president about food production in this country.

Now I am not one of those conspiracy theorists who think that big business and big brother are evil, I recognize that today's problems all stem from the solutions to yesterday's problems. We have intensive, unsustainable agriculture right now because previous generations were trying to solve the problems of food shortages and hunger. But the fact is that now, we face new problems and need new solutions.

So what can we do? Well, lets start from the easiest and work our way up to the hardest adjustments that we can make to do our part.

For one, we can eat chicken instead of beef every so often. Without getting too technical on you, chicken is the most environmentally friendly meat. Next, in the same vein, we can eat vegetarian once in a while. If you like Indian food, this should be a snap. In India, they have been working on their vegetarian recipes for about two thousand years, and they've gotten pretty good at it.

Third, we can try eating vegan a few times. This is harder, because for people who are used to eating animal products with every meal (even most veggie meals have butter, cheese or milk), most vegan food tastes like cardboard. But try different places, different recipes, and well really just keep trying! And also, don't try so hard. Pasta with olive oil and spices, tossed with some grilled or fried vegetables and a little sea salt is a quick, easy, and delicious vegan dish, for example (I love sea salt, maybe it deserves its own post...).

You've probably heard this a thousand times in some form, but if everybody would do these three basic things on a regular basis, it would have a huge impact. There are a few more difficult/ intensive things that we can do as well, but I will post that stuff later, in part 2.