Feb 16

Is It Time To REThink Our Man Made World?

Uncategorized No Comments »

The REThink Project

I wonder a great deal. I wonder why are things the way they are? What forces at play make things the way they are? Why can’t they be different, why can’t things be better?

We stand on the shoulders of all those that came before us.  The way we live, the lifestyle we have, what is possible and what is not possible is a construct of what we believe. What we believe to be true, not true and what we think is possible and not possible is the reality we forge.

The world I live in today, in Upstate New York, United States of America, in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st Century is chock full of man made systems.  Systems of roads and bridges to transport me, my family and all the stuff I consume.  Systems of power plants and electric transmission wires to produce and deliver the electricity I use to take for granted. These are man made systems that allow for our material success in the material world. There are also grander, more powerful natural systems that generate and sustain the life support systems for all life on this magnificent planet.

I read Einstein’s words in many places now-a-days that “we can’t solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created it.” Consciousness in this regard is thought. To move forward, we must transcend. The same is true with the saying “if you keep doing what you have done, you will keep getting what you got.” Not sure who said that one but it is in the same vein as Einstein’s words.  There is also, “continuing to do the same things expecting different results is the definition of insanity.”

So many of us want so much to live in greater harmony with natural systems. By learning from natural systems and working to mimic them, we move forward on the path to sustainability.

The world I live in is rooted in man made systems. These systems were devised decades and even a century or more ago. When these systems were devised, the level of consciousness was not where it is today. Everything has unintended consequences. That is the basis of what Einstein was talking about for what you can’t perceive, doesn’t exist – it is not comprehendible. It is only when you change your thinking that you may begin to perceive it. That change in perception ushers in the ability, or context, to perceive and then comprehend. It is by transcending the current level of thought that you expand into a new, higher level of thought. One in which solutions to problems can be had.

It is in this vein that I bring to you, REThink.  REThink is a duel purpose word. REThink is to re-think- or take another look at a topic, issue, problem or solution in a new context, within a new paradigm, or through a new lens or different worldview. RE is an acronym for Renewable Energy. So the second meaning is Renewable Energy Thinking – comprehending renewable energy under new constructs, different paradigms or with a worldview that values all life, believes in human ingenuity to solve complex problems that moves the human experience forward and upward.

Our existence is by design, but our continued success it is not a foregone conclusion.  Our ability to survive and prosper is not guaranteed. Our past actions create our current results which affect our current situation that place before us a set of choices we believe are within our ability to take. This is true individually and collectively.

I believe we are stuck. Our paradigms have gotten us so far in this experiment of life on Earth. To many, nothing is wrong. To others what is wrong is the desire of people like myself who are passionate about the need for change, for expansion, for renewal and considerable rethinking of the man made systems that have been created for they have reached limits. They don’t comprehend the limits that I see all too readily. They are staring me straight in the face encouraging me to act.

Here are a few areas ripe for REThinking:

REThink Energy

REThink Fossil Fuels

REThink Efficiency

REThink Nature

REThink Wetlands

REThink Water

REThink Transportation

REThink Housing

REThink Consumption

REThink Agriculture

REThink Consciousness

REThink Spirituality

REThink Community

REThink Business

REThink Hot Water

REThink Refrigeration

REThink Heating, Cooling and Ventilation

REThink Cooking

REThink Cleaning

REThink Electricity

REThink Building

REThink Everything

I will dive into each one and more, putting the topic through a lens of REThinking the topic. What underlying assumptions may not be valid any longer? The lens will be a different worldview than the one that originally perceived the topic or is at the mainstream today about the topic. What topics are you interested in REThinking?

Tagged with: • •
Feb 07

Climate Change…. Entertaining?

Uncategorized No Comments »

I’m a big fan of Dave Matthews Band. Funny thing is I listen to music often but don’t really listen, if you know what I mean. I was in my car, listening to Dive-In, from Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King.  This was probably the one-hundredth time listening to this song.  This time I had a light bulb go off in my head after hearing “I think the suns a little brighter today.. Smile and watch the icicles melt away and see the water rising…”

HEY- Dave’s singing about global warming!!!  Ah… Duh. No kidding you say.

Sometimes I am slow (really slow) on the uptake.

Dave Matthews Band – Dive In (Lyrics)

I saw a man on the side of the road

with a sign that read ‘will work for food’

Tried to look busy, ’til the light turned green


I saw a bear on TV and his friends were all drowning

cause their homes were turning to water

A strange, kinda sad, big old bear

surely would happily eat me

he’d tear me to pieces that bear


Wake up sleepy head

I think the suns a little brighter today

Smile and watch the icicles melt away and see the water rising…


Summers here to stay, and all those summer games will last forever

Go down to the shore, kick off your shoes, dive in the empty ocean.


Tell me everything will be OK if I just stay on my knees and keep praying

Believing in something

Tell me everything is all taken care of by those qualified to take care of it all.


Wake up sleepy head

I think the suns a little brighter today

Smile and watch the icicles melt away and see the waters rising


Summers here to stay, and that sweet summer breeze will blow forever

Go down to the shore, kick off your shoes, dive in the empty ocean

One day, do you think we’ll wake up in a world on it’s way to getting better?

and if so can you tell me

how?


I have been thinking that lately the blood is increasing

the tourniquets not keeping hold in spite of our twisting

though we would like to believe we are

we are not in control

though we would love to believe


Wake up sleepy head

I think the suns a little brighter today

Smile and watch the icicles melt away and see the water rising…

Summers here to stay, and those sweet summer girls will dance forever

Go down to the shore, kick off your shoes, dive in the empty ocean.

Tagged with: •
Feb 02

E-readers vs. Paper Books – Green Your Choice

Resource Musings No Comments »

For Christmas this year my wife gave me a Kindle – one of the new “e-readers”. Being the technology junkie that I am, and knowing how much I enjoy reading, she thought this was a match made in heaven and was very excited to give it to me. She told me that all the information she had read on the Internet stated that e-readers were more environmentally friendly than paper books. I do admit that I like the Kindle but in my own research on the subject of e-readers vs. paper books, I found the information somewhat lacking, so I am going to give you my own take on the subject.

Both have impacts. Both are resource intensive to produce. There are arguments on both sides claiming that each is better than the other from a resource impact standpoint.

Instead of making a claim of which is better, I instead will point out what is rarely pointed out in the great debate of e-readers vs. paper books – a list of what is involved in the manufacturing of a book and putting it in the hands of the reader and what is involved in manufacturing an e-reader and the e-reader infrastructure needed to supply its user with content.

A lot is involved to produce everything we consume today- including books and e-book readers. Consider this a technologist/green-loving guys’ public service announcement…

It is from the pragmatic realization that no one will be swayed from reading paper books to becoming an avid e-book consumer if they value everything about a paper book. My goal is to have you make new choices in how you consume paper-based content. For the techie folks who love electronic gadgets and wholeheartedly embrace electronic content, my goal is to offer you a new paradigm on what to consider in consuming an e- reader and its content. Whichever one you choose it should be done with an eye toward doing so with the least impact.

A look behind the cover on the steps to print a book

Book production

  • Materials for ink production
  • Wood extraction from forests for paper production
  • Transportation of raw materials to manufacturing facility
  • Paper production
  • Ink production
  • Book manufacturing – printing and binding process
  • Transportation to warehouse/distribution/shipping facility
  • Buyer transportation to the bookstore or delivery – processing and resource usage to receive shipped book

A look inside the e-reader – what it takes to make an electronic reader and provide access to digital content

E-book production

  • Materials extraction and mining
  • Transportation of raw materials to processing facilities
  • Manufacturing of components and parts (case, electronics, storage, battery, screen)
  • Transportation of components and parts to factory for assembly, testing, packaging
  • Transportation to warehouse/distribution facility
  • Sale processing and shipment to retailer
  • Buyer transportation to purchase device or delivery resource usage
  • Electricity consumption from use (direct and battery charging)
  • Electricity and resource use of e-book store infrastructure
    • Electricity to run and cool the Data Center
    • Usage of  and impact of using WIFI and Internet network or cellular carrier network used to send Econtent
    • Server resource usage to store electronic copy of book and run ebookstore
      • Don’t forget the resource impact on the manufacturing of storage and computer systems used in the overall system delivery chain of reader and electronic content

Okay, so it’s pretty obvious that both platforms have an impact and use significant resources as part of the production and transportation of the product. Like I thought, I convinced no one to switch allegiances. Let’s then focus on the mindset best geared to reducing the impact of your preference.

Best practice – paper books

  • Frequent your local libraries by bike or public transportation
  • Reuse – buy a used book, sell it back when you are done
  • Buy a book made from recycled paper
  • Buy a book using paper from certified forests (specifically the Forest Stewardship Council)
  • For every book you buy- go to ecolibris.net and balance your purchase by planting trees on your behalf

Best practice – e-book

  • Only consume Ematerial exclusively – stop buying hardcopy whenever possible (continuing to consume hardcopy content when Eversions exist defeats the purpose of any impact advantage an e-book reader would have)
  • Power the device off when you aren’t using it
  • Use renewable energy to charge the e-reader
  • Sell, gift or recycle the e-reader when you want to replace it
  • Choose a future e-reader based on the least comparable impact it has from a materials, manufacturing and electricity use standpoint

There is even more detail to go into regarding HOW to do some of these things. Ask me how and I will help figure out the best way to do it with the least impact.

With the recent news that Apple is entering the ebook reader and ebookstore space, it makes this debate even more relevant. If the success of iPod’s and iPhone’s are any indication, millions upon millions of people will be putting iPad’s in their hands and consuming ebook content.

Happy reading.

Tagged with: • • •
Dec 28

Top down or bottom up: One or the other or both?

Carbon Footprint, Politics No Comments »

Last month Sarah Palin wrote an oped in the Washington Post urging Pres. Obama to boycott Copenhagen. “Without trustworthy science,” also calling it “politicized science” and “agenda-driven science,” it’s not worth it for the U.S. to cut a deal, which would amount to a “job-loss program,” she wrote.

In her article, she acknowledges the retreating sea-ice off Alaska’s coast, thawing permafrost and coastal erosion. “We recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends . . . .”

With half the population and half of Congress agreeing with her thinking, short-term economics and short-term elections will continue to rule the day. And any shift at the national-policy level, for better or worse, will shift back with every election cycle. Washington is not likely to lead on this issue, will likely never get out ahead of us.  But they will follow the market forces that affect their local constituents.

Some things you can legislate, but can’t enforce adequately – like residential recycling, the speed limit, keeping your paint cans out of the town dump. There are many pressure points to create change, and regulations are one of them, though don’t always guarantee outcomes.

Some things regulate well from the top-down: exposing the public to radiation and no longer developing on wetlands. Some of these could be stronger, like limiting commercial carbon emissions, but nevertheless, these are natural top-down regulations.

Successful bottom-up movements leading to regulations include standards for drinking water and town-wide waste recycling, which is pretty much a norm for all garbage collecting, both things that didn’t really exist only 20 years ago.

Some studies claim that top-down costs more for industry and related markets than bottom-up movements. Partly because top-down happens rather quickly, bottom-up usually happens over a long, developing span of time. Incentives like taxes or fines play a role in outcomes and costs as well. Also, bottom-up grassroots movements that succeed also sustain themselves for the long term, since they come into their own with support already in place.

Human beings are in the unique position, for the first time in the history of the planet, to save or destroy the planet. No other species has had this position. It’s simply a choice we must make as a race. At the moment, it’s highly unlikely top-down regulation will mandate buying a Prius, installing solar power, or taking public transportation. It’s going to require leadership from the bottom, from those who care and understand about creating the infrastructure to make these changes

The more I watch Congress, or international politics, the more I see that little will change on a national or international level among industrial countries. We must lead the way from the bottom. The best things we can do, as individuals, is to do our thing, stay our course, talk it up, communicate together. No matter is too small during the holidays or any time. At home or at work or with family or wherever, every green act you do, everything you purchase, every comment you make sends a message. Send the right message.

Dec 20

The Red Herring of Hydrogen

Resource Musings No Comments »

Proponents of the hydrogen economy insist that hydrogen is the straightest path to the promised land of sustainable energy. But hydrogen has its opponents too, more than any other of the prominent renewable strategies.

For starters, hydrogen is not a source of energy — H2 is a carrier. Nor is it natural, like, say, the sun, or the wind, or the power of a waterfall. The beauty of hydrogen energy is that its byproduct is clean, drinkable water. Can’t beat that. But its inefficiency – current technology often uses more energy to create hydrogen-based energy systems than the system yields – still needs to be resolved.

An upstate New York hydrogen fuel cell company that seeks to penetrate the residential market – that is, equip homes with individual hydrogen fuel cell systems – relies on natural gas to unleash the hydrogen. That seems like two steps back for one step forward. It might be. In fact, if the market was to take off today, it the company’s wildest dreams were realized and they sold millions of hydrogen fuel cells to millions of residents and commercial buildings, well, then, we just might end up using more fossil-fueled natural gas than we do now. Maybe not, but it’s certainly not a road we should be going down given that it looks a lot like the road we’re trying to exit.

However, it’s not a mission we should entirely abort. Particularly since there is science that might be able to resolve the most troubling part of the hydrogen equation. For example, we can build renewable systems to harness the energy to produce the hydrogen. Still sounds like we’re chasing our tail, and we kind of are, but this tail-chasing has a potentially promising outcome.

MIT researchers have worked out a way to use sunlight to pull hydrogen out of water.  They separate H2 from water using solar panels. So H2 gets created during the day and stored in a fuel cell. At night, the electricity is created from H2 running through a fuel cell, combined with the oxygen “waste” created during the day, which creates a byproduct of water. The water is now the feedstock that starts the process all over again when the sun rises. This closed loop – energy tail-wagging – is an exciting prospect.

What we need to keep in mind is that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It’s a constant. It changes states, or transforms, but it doesn’t disappear. Take oil and natural gas for example: when these fuels are burned during the combustion process to make electricity, it produces heat to turn a turbine. The energy byproduct, or the transformed material, is carbon dioxide plus a few other poisonous gasses. We only recently learned – last 30 years or so — that these carbon-based fuels have consequences. And now we find ourselves in a climate and energy crisis, with few people understanding the severity of the crises. And even if they did: we know smoking causes cancer, but that hasn’t stopped the western world from lighting up. It’s all too addicting to suddenly stop now.

Dec 18

Our Children, Their Future – What Government And Parenthood Have In Common

Politics, Resource Musings No Comments »

Society makes choices. Collectively we move forward or we don’t. There is no inherent gurantee our future will be a better one. It is all based on the choices we make individually that role up
collectively to where, we, as humans on this magnificent planet, build the future we create based on our actions today.

Government is a collection of people — some elected, some appointed — who pay attention to where society is going. Government is not inherently bad. Though there is a common mindset that this is so.

Buzz words like “big government” and “socialism” sound the alarm. Yet we take the work for granted and miss the point: like our roads, police, public schools and universities, the public library, water and sewer, and on and on.

I liken government to parenthood and the society as a whole as the children. Some things need to be done for our own good. Unwieldy children don’t want rules, think they know everything and can do without the parent (government).

Hence, we have rules (i.e laws). If people could be entrusted to do what’s right for the greater good, then we’d need less laws. But that, unfortunately, is not the case.  Teenage children are invincible and feel immortal. There level of maturity is questionable at times. Should a 16 year old be able to
stay out with friends till midnight or later? Should we condone teenage drinking?

We can all do a lot as individuals to make a difference in this world. Those of us that take the responsibility each of us have for our consumption and the fallout from that consumption. Basing your purchase decisions and lifestyle on the value of minimizing our impact on the ecosystem that sustains our existence. It matters for our kids. How we live today, the decision we make in the here and now effects the future more profoundly than most of us can comprehend.

As individuals we can do a lot, but only so much. Leadership can steer us in the right direction and bring society economies of scale by encouraging behaviors that enhance society and our ability to increase the chances of a resource plentiful future.

Our current trajectory is not guaranteeing a resource plentiful future for our children and those that will follow. Those that work to discredit the messengers and confuse the public and frame the debate in favor of do nothing when it comes to climate change are the unruly teenagers who prefer to not be parented.

The free-market economy — more like economic anarchy — does not inherently move the economy and culture toward the best interest of the people or culture. It moves blindly, driven by profit, not the interest of people or the planet, usually seeking the lowest commom denominator to maximize profit. With the right nudge from government, the market can shift to a desired direction, while maintaining the spirit of the free market.

Government, then has the moral obligation to make hard choices. To see the bigger picture and long term benefits for a better tomorrow. Just as parents make the hard choices in raising their children. The child might not like the discipline the parent envokes on their child — but it is in their best interest they do.

We cannot change the past, but we can know the past. We cannot know the future but our actions today shape the future we will have.  Action to change how we move ourselves and the goods that make up our economy,  how we build the buildings we live, work and play in and the consumption of resources to heat and cool these buildings, not to mention the food production systems are all needed for our collective best interest. Not for today, but for your kids and their kids, and on
and on, down the line of future human existence.

Dec 17

Copenhagen, Sure, But It’s Up to Us Individually

Uncategorized No Comments »

All the superpower governments of the earth are in Copenhagen to negotiate large, complex treaties that mandate carbon output, which have implications for pretty much every aspect of an economy, a culture, and  life in the respective countries.

But all that could be made moot by us. We can change world energy on our own, decrease the carbon footprint as a grassroots project from the bottom up.

If each us, or even a quarter of us, installed solar panels on our roofs, and reduced our dependency on the grid by say, 40% to 50%, if a quarter of us did that, then we’d create a critical mass movement that would grow exponentially.

We could tilt on its head a local power plant by getting, say, a fifth of a local town to shift to solar. That would garner some local attention in the community, force some changes with the local company in terms of more generous compliance rules and regs, grab the attention of local politicos, and thus begin a mass movement. Scales of economy would kick in with costs. And who knows what contagious behavior would occur one town over, and the town over from that.

Before you know it, we’d have real policy change on a local level. And that’s how real change sticks, when it’s bottom up.

So lets broadcast, tell our neighbors, tell your aunt, tell co-workers. Yes, let’s hope good things come from the worldwide summit in Copenhagen. But really the true summit is in each of our neighborhoods, and it’s convening now.

Policy Level

As Al Gore says, “We have at our fingertips all of the tools we need to solve three or four climate crises, and we only need to solve one.”

While we force change on-the-ground level, the macro promises can follow. And while they discuss such policies in Copenhagen, there are a few zany geo-engineering ideas tossed about that hopefully never see the light of day from the authors of

SuperFreakonomics, who think a technology will come along that will simply wipe out the current carbon problem. They offer some suggestions.

-       A large man-made system that would force the deep cold water to the top of the ocean, a constant rotation so that we’re drawing the coolness of the deep water to the surface.

-       After volcanic eruptions, the sulfur dioxide reflects sunlight for months, creating a cooling effect. We should mimic that by shooting large amounts of sulfur dioxide 18 miles into the sky.

-       A massive amount of boats with the technology to create cloud cover over the ocean.

Critics are quick to debunk these ideas, but it does show ingenuity. Given the efforts any one of these would take, wouldn’t it be easier to give thousands and thousands of homes and businesses their own individual means to generate clean power?  Changing how we generate power is the solution. Conjuring up a magic bullet that keeps our behaviors the same is like doing the same thing and expecting different results… isn’t that the definition of insanity?

Tagged with: • • • • •
Dec 14

The enemies within

Politics No Comments »

I share this information below because it’s important to know how the other side thinks. It helps shape our case when debating the issue.

“. . . . That’s why I recently joined in cosponsoring legislation that will increase access to domestic supplies, expand the nation’s refinery capacity, and promote market-based alternatives for our energy future. Importantly, the bill includes key provisions of my legislation designed to improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new refineries. . . .”

That’s Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the current ranking member.

He calls global warming “a hoax.”

He said he would attend the Climate Conference in Copenhagen to make sure that the U.S. – specifically John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, the current chair of the committee —  does not make commitments he objects to, which is basically any commitment.

From an oped of his:  “No matter how many times Gore and others say the science is settled on human-caused global warming, it’s not.”

From an oped of his in The Oklahoman challenging the focus of Earth Day: “Despite spending enormous sums of money on massive advertising campaigns promoting the false notion that man-made greenhouse gases threaten our very existence, the American public remains unconvinced that climate change is a pressing concern . . . . . Therefore, the question must be asked on this, the 39th anniversary of Earth Day: at what expense are we ignoring many of the most pressing issues, environment in particular, to advocate for action on extremely costly policies that will have almost no impact on Earth’s climate?”

From another oped:

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress seem too narrowly focused on pushing the agenda of the so-called environmental community. That agenda focuses obsessively on global warming and it involves job-killing regulations that would dramatically expand the government’s power, with no impact on climate change.”

From his web site:  “Jim has also been a champion for restoring common sense and sound science to important environmental and regulatory issues like clean air mandates, wetlands, and endangered species.”

Other random quotes from him:

“You would think that, instead of considering legislation that would raise the cost of gas at the pump, Congress would have spent its time doing everything in its power to bring down the price at the pump. “

. . . . According to the Energy Information Agency, the average American consumes 500 gallons of gasoline every year and the average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year. At $4.00 a gallon, people are spending $2000 a year on gas – and those are hard-earned, after-tax dollars. Even so, these national averages don’t tell the whole story. The gasoline price increases resulting from the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would have had a more harmful impact in the nation’s rural areas, like Oklahoma, where people must drive more than in heavily populated states. “

Inhofe, who has been elected three times to the Senate and will likely continue winning as long as he runs (he’s 75 years old), recently issued a U.S. Senate Minority Report titled “More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

Along with is usual claims, he quotes dozens of scientists with ambiguous credits, like “published over 200 scientific papers” to validate his science.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” -

A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”

I just wanted to remind everyone what we are up against. Now let’s get back to work.

Dec 13

Coke’s Environmental Plan: Ruin the Earth Slower than Before

Uncategorized No Comments »

Coca-Cola Company has a goal to improve its water efficiency by 20 percent in the next three years, saving 50 million liters of water annually, the equivalent of 20,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. They hope to reduce carbon emissions by 5% in the next six years, which they say is about 2 million metric tons of carbon, or, the same as planting 600,000 trees. They also intend to create water-use standards for their sugar suppliers.

Clearly, water is a concern for Coca-Cola. In ’07, they sold 68 million cans of Coke, 35 million of Diet Coke and 103 million of My Coke. That’s a lot of water (go ahead and convert it to gallons).

Hence, they’ve teamed up with WWF – interesting bedfellows – for a $20 million dollar project to do some of the stuff noted in the first paragraph.

While a NY Times article said all kinds of gushy things about them on a recent opinion page – accolades abound in other places for Coke’s water program — the only thing worth noting is that they’re out to save themselves. Like the father who gets a community service award for coaching little league for nine years. That’s not community service, he was there to coach his son.

And $20 million? That’s probably a smaller percentage of what I spent on my neighbor’s daughter’s girl scout cookies against my annual net income. I’m just saying.

But, encouragingly, this kind of thing wasn’t happening 10 years ago. If it was, it was purely a PR move. And this is partially a PR move. But the message is the important difference. Coke is saying that this matters to its own survival. They’re not pretending that they’re doing it because they are good citizens – though they pepper us with that too – but they’re claiming it’s important to their business. Their environmental effort is aligned with their business model, which resonates with share holders, which is all good. And it’s going on across most, if not all Fortune 1000 companies.

But for Coke, and all the other conglomerates, this is one little baby toe inside a giant carbon footprint. For we all can imagine the life span of a Coke can from birth to death: the material of the can, the print of the design, the shipping, the factories, the disposal, etc.

It was only five years ago when a 10-day march in India from one Coke bottling plant to another – 150 miles away – drew thousands to rally against Coke for sucking up its water supply and polluting their communities. “Drinking Coke is like drinking farmers’ blood,” said one marcher. India has revoked plant licenses due to drought. Yet at the same time, to the dismay of villagers, governments like China and India hand out environmental awards to the local factories.

The WWF and Coke program has a five-point mission:

1 Conserve the world’s important freshwater basins. They have targeted six areas around the world.

2 Improve water efficiency inside Coke.

3 Reduce the company’s carbon emissions

4 Promote sustainable agriculture. Why this? Because agriculture (sugar cane in this case) uses a large portion of the world’s water supply – 70%, according to Coke.

5 Inspire a global movement to conserve water

You can’t argue with any of these goals, except, of course, the irony of the source – Coca-Cola — which happens to be a deplorable offender and that it needs to create these goals.

They will continue to ravage and plunder the earth, but at a 5% slower pace. So it’s a game we’re still losing, only a drop slower.

To take a giant leap, we need to ask ourselves the point of a company like Coke. It’s an unnecessary product, an unhealthy indulgence, a psychologically addictive vice, a blemish on capitalism’s better intentions. It’s inherent of any company to fight for its survival, but it may incumbent upon us – as part of our strategic effort to save the planet –  that we recognize and “out” the conglomerates that prosper at our expense

Perhaps we need to aim higher. Yes, companies like Coca-Cola are heading in the right direction, saying the right green things, and following up slowly. Ultimately, though, they need to be pressured into standing up and saying, “We manufacture artificial sugar water, we know we’re a parasitic corporation, and we have a five-year plan to re-employ our workforce as we dwindle down to nothing.”

Dec 05

Everyone cries economics, unless it’s convenient

Carbon Footprint No Comments »

There are 22,000 buildings in New York City. Some, including the City, claim that these buildings account for 80 percent of total carbon emissions (alternative-transportation advocates would probably argue that autos are responsible for more than the unclaimed 20%, but that’s splitting hairs).  The city’s mayor wants to reduce the city’s total emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Sounds like too little too late, but it’s something.

His recent proposal was to conduct energy-audits of all buildings more than 50,000 square feet, determine how to make them more energy efficient, and then for the owners to pay for some of those changes. He was forced to drop the part of the proposal that calls for building owners to make the recommended changes. You could imagine the roar of opposition from building owners, who see no financial benefit in any of this.

“Where’s the economics?” they cried. “We don’t have the money for this.”

The proposal didn’t even require the owners to make all the changes, but only the changes that would save them enough money on their energy bill after five years to make back what they spent. Apparently that’s asking too much.

So now the mayor wants to push for the energy audits, and not require building owners to do what the report recommends. That much seems to be acceptable to building owner organizations. And that’s a heck of a start. For one thing, the audits will recommend what owners and tenants can do to reduce their energy use – new windows, new boilers, insulation, etc.  (Of course there are plenty of building owners opposed to paying for the audit. After all, why do they care about their carbon footprint? Let someone else deal with it.)

While it might not change the behavior of building owners, it might affect the behavior of the tenants. Good information like this is bound to raise consciousness, lead to new behavior and possibly real energy reduction.

(Sadly, the media reporting on this topic, like all the mainstream reporting on any energy-related issue, including the NY Times in this case,  never touches the real impact –  what it means to our future planet. Instead, the focus is on what it means to the city’s economics, the jobs it might create, the political fallout, etc.)

Enough of big picture policy-talk looking down from the Hubble. Let’s get closer to the planet and look at one person: my friend. My friend took the bus from Boston’s Chinatown to New York’s Chinatown for $15 on Thanksgiving weekend. That means he saved on gas money, no wear and tear on the car, no tolls, he got to read, nap, listen to music, meet someone new – and yes, save the world a little pollution. The outcome: he’ll never do it again. Too much hassle, not worth the effort, he thinks he caught a cold from the people, etc. I didn’t get into a debate with him. In fact, I can understand: We’re American. We need convenience, we come first and everything else second. So I didn’t argue.

But after reading about the New York City building energy issue, and then talking to my friend, I thought: these are people somewhat tuned in. These are people who understand the issue, but still don’t feel engaged. What about the billions who are unaware of the issue, and have not even reached the starting point to form a judgment?

Which leaves those of us who care to take this on by ourselves, to continue to raise the alarms louder, until everyone can hear it – even the deaf ones — and then we raise it louder so that they can’t hear anything else, until every sound they hear is the sound of the planet suffocating.

Too  often those are the only sounds I hear.

Tagged with: •
Previous Entries
preload preload preload