Going Green
A Dangerous Disconnect
5/11/2010
By: Green Grandpa
Economists had been warning us for some time that there was a dangerous disconnect between the prices of homes and the basic fundamentals that typically rule the housing market. Increases in home prices typically keep pace with increases in wages, but in recent years home prices increased by 45%, while wages for the same period only increased by 10%. The result was that for the first time individuals at the median household income level couldn’t afford to buy a home.
The rest of the story we are all painfully aware of; in order to qualify buyers for loans financial institutions loosened credit regulations and encouraged risky loans. Many of the home loans were based on introductory teaser instruments, like low introductory interest rates, or even interest only payment plans. And the public responded like drunken sailors on shore leave, buying more house then they could afford. When the party ended and the public sobered up to the reality that their lifestyle was financially unsustainable, foreclosures on homes soared. The result is that now the supply of homes exceeds demand, and home values have declined significantly. In the 1980s Japan had a similar housing bubble burst, and their home values fell 65% or more, finally stabilizing at pre-boom levels - right where they should have been all along.
Unfortunately, we are not only living beyond our financial means, but we are also living beyond our ecological means. Since the late 1970s, annual demand on resources is exceeding what Earth can regenerate each year. It now takes the Earth one year and five months to regenerate what we use in a year. It is a course as disastrous as what led to the housing bubble burst, but with significantly more dangerous consequences.
[ 0 ] Comments
|
 |
Reducing Your "VMT" or Vehicle Miles Traveled
1/19/2010
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Addressing Climate is Like Building a Cathedral
10/1/2009
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Farmers Market Fan
5/22/2009
[ 3 ] Comments
|
|
|
Not the Vampires of my Youth
3/6/2009
By: Green Grandpa
It seems like all kids go through some phase where they are convinced that there are monsters under the bed or in the closet. I did. My children did. And my grandchildren will probably suffer the same fate. Thanks to watching a few inappropriate movies and aided by my older brother’s teasing, my big fear when the lights went out were vampires. I never resorted to taking garlic to bed with me, but I certainly did pull the covers over my head (like that was going to present the bloodsucking Count with any obstacle). My mom and dad would offer reassurances. My brother would just use my phobia to torment me, slowly opening the bedroom door so that the hinge squeaked, and then saying in a fake Bella Lugosi accent “I want to drink your blood.”
A couple of weeks ago driving home from work I was listening to NPR and a piece on - get this - “vampire current” aired. As Yogi Berra would say, déjà vu all over again. Fortunately, it is not the only-goes-out-at-night variety that haunted my childhood bedroom, but instead the term refers to the electricity being used by household appliances even when in an idle state. Also known as phantom current or electrical trickle, vampire current accounts for 5 - 10% of the electricity that we use in our homes and it accounts for about 1% of the world’s CO2 emissions. It comes from a number of appliances that have standby mode. Yes, even when some appliances are “off” they pull electrical current – as much as 40% of the current they use when fully operational.
Just as there are some proven methods to detect a vampire (e.g., no image in the mirror), there are clues you can use to tell if your electrical appliance is sinister.If it has a remote control, external power supply, digital display, LED, digital clock, battery charger, or soft touch key pad - look out. But the best way to tell if you appliance pulls vampire power is to use a device like the Kill-a-Watt meter. Just plug this baby into the wall then plug your appliance into it, and if it is drawing current in the off mode, then it will reveal it to you as quickly as exposing the Count to sunlight.
Eradicating vampire current does not require driving a wooden stake into your appliance. Simply unplug it or use a power strip or surge protector with an on/off switch.
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
No Bailout Plan for Climate Change
1/12/2009
By: Green Grandpa
Climate scientists can say with 90% certainty that the climate is warming and that the warming is caused by human activity. So answer me this: how in good conscience can anyone who claims to be a “conservative” embrace a political platform that says they don’t believe in climate change because there is a 10% probability that the scientists got it wrong? That form of “conservative prudence” sounds suspiciously similar to the underlying rationale that is behind the collapse of the housing market. The inane chant of “Drill, baby drill”,could very well be “Spend, baby spend.” It is promoting an ethic of live for today and don’t worry about tomorrow. If really played right, we won’t even be around to have to clean up the mess; it will be someone else’s problem. Of course that assumes that someone will be around to clean-up the mess. I have no doubt that the planet will be around, but will humans? Nature favors species that fit in. When a species doesn’t fit in it gets kicked out (evidently this rule of nature does not apply to the CEOs of failed financial institutions or the American auto industry). If you listen to the climate change denial rhetoric of charlatan “conservatives” what they are really telling you to do is the fiscal equivalent of playing the lottery. Hey, don’t set aside any funds for your children’s college tuition, a down payment for a home, or your retirement. Take those funds and get that big screen TV, and hope you hit the lottery to take care of those future needs. The problem is that once we pass the tipping point on the climate, there is no bailout plan.
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Need to Shed 1.8 Tons!
11/3/2008
By: Green Grandpa
There is an interesting book that I recommend titled The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Michael Brower and Warren Leon. The authors claim that the most important choice you can make in your impact on the environment is living as close to where you work as possible. After journaling my driving habits for three weeks I am discovering that there is great wisdom in this advice.
In my last post I set a goal of reducing the average number of miles I drive from 350 to 255. The 95 mile savings worked out to eliminating one ton of CO2 from my carbon footprint. To keep myself honest and analyze my driving habitats more closely I decided to journal my daily driving by entering my mileage into a spreadsheet. I’ve used the journal technique before for nutritional purposes and it makes you very aware of what you are doing.
In week one, I drove 270.6 miles. 100% of my driving was work related. I missed my target by only 15.5 miles. I would have made the target, but I helped out a colleague by driving them to the airport on the last day and it did me in.
In week two, I drove 344.3 miles. 83% of my driving was work related. One day alone had me driving 161 miles on a work related out-of-town trip. The good news on the long trip was that I also had three others sharing the ride with me.
In week three, I drove a whopping 384.1 miles. The difference was that 57% was work related, and 43% was personal. Again, I had a long out-of-town business trip. The personal mileage got goosed because of a series of appointments and a family event that had me on the road more than normal. This was not a typical week.
Before I began this exercise I thought I was driving significantly more for personal reasons. That is clearly not the case. In the past three weeks I drove a total of 999 miles. If you treat the two out-of-town trips and airport trip as aberrant activities and subtract them from the total, I drove a total of 482.8 miles just going to and from work. Almost 50% of my time on the road is, pardon the pun, being driven by where I live.
If I could just walk or safely bike to work my average of driving 350 miles a week would be reduced by 168 miles. That would be the equivalent of shedding 1.8 tons off my carbon footprint.
Unfortunately, in today’s economic climate moving closer to work doesn’t seem like a viable option. I am just going to have to keep plugging away using other alternatives, like riding the bus.
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
I Can't Drive 65!
9/19/2008
By: Green Grandpa
Please accept my apologies if you have ever had the misfortune of being in traffic behind me. I drive slowly compared to other drivers. I brake slowly. I accelerate slowly. I don’t like driving over 65 mph, even when the limit is posted at higher speeds. It’s not an age thing. It’s a hyper-mileage thing. I have been obsessed with my mpg for a couple of years now. Right now I am averaging 56 mpg. I’ve gotten as high as 60 mpg. Yes, I am bragging.
Unfortunately, I can’t brag about the average amount of miles I drive every week. According to the EPA, 233 miles is about the average driving distance for most Americans on a weekly basis. I am averaging 350 miles per week. That’s close to 35% above the average. Commuting to and from work on weekdays accounts for 46% of the miles I drive. I have to admit I can’t be as precise about where I am driving the rest of the time, probably taking grandkids for root beer floats.
I have an annual carbon footprint of approximately 10.3 tons. That is 50% lower then the US average per capita, but not as low as other industrialized nations like Germany’s per capita of 9.7 tons, or Sweden’s per capita of 5.9 tons. So, I have set a goal of seeing how hard it will be for me to shed myself of 4.4 tons of annual CO2 emissions. Look, I know it’s possible - but I want to prove that you can significantly lower your emissions by simply picking some low hanging fruit.
Using the EPA carbon calculator if I can find a way to shave 95 miles a week off my odometer it will count for 1 ton against my ultimate CO2 reduction target of 4.4 tons.
350 miles per week minus 95 puts my total mileage ceiling at 255 miles per week. 255 miles a week equates to an average of about 36 miles a day. That’s enough to get me back and forth to work on a daily basis, with a little extra thrown in for the odd errand. The balance of 72 miles for root beer float excursions on the weekend seems adequate for most weeks, and if I am extra prudent with my weekday driving I could boost that by a few more miles.
Hey, if I can pull off shaving 95 miles of driving per week I will have my annual CO2 emission rate down to 9.3 tons. Goodbye Germany. Lookout
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Beat Sweden!
8/20/2008
By: Green Grandpa
I ran across an interesting study out of the
Looking at countries is also instructive. In 2004 typical
So enough with the economics lecture Gramps, what’s your point? My point is that I want to believe that I can maintain a reasonable quality of life and shrink my CO2 footprint. What I am wrestling with is what my target goal should be. Using my trusty Environmental Protection Agency carbon calculator I determined that my personal carbon emissions are 10.3 tons annually. Not bad compared to the rest of
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Guest Blogger: A Message for Generation X
7/30/2008
That being said, as a Junior, I wonder about how much of my beliefs I will maintain. My parents are only 50, but I have friends with parents pushing 65, and I think about how much they left behind in the 60s. My friends brag about how their parents went to
I’m not saying that my friend’s parents should still be sitting on grassy hills listening to Bob Dylan. I just feel like the inspiring magic of the 60s revolution got lost somewhere. All I hope is that we maintain that spark after graduation, because then we could have a real fighting chance at fixing climate change. It is our responsibility as adults to read about Arctic ice shelves and polar bears, to talk about flooding in
When I am a parent, I want to be able to explain to my kids exactly what happened and exactly what I did to help fix it. More importantly, I want to tell them exactly what I am doing now and what they can do too. I don’t want my kids to look up at me with disappointment because all I can tell them about is the battle I once tried to fight when I was 20.
[ 1 ] Comments
|
|
|
What's My Weight?
6/26/2008
By: Green Grandpa
Carbon calculators are the equivalent of a set of bathroom scales for anyone interested in shrinking their carbon footprint. Speaking of bathroom scales have you checked them out lately? There are traditional scales that measure weight, and then there are bathroom scales that measure your weight and send a mild electrical current through your body to calculate your percentage of body fat. Just like bathroom scales, carbon calculators can be either simple or complex tools.
All carbon calculators will require you to enter some data about the things in your life that generate greenhouse gases, like the transportation you use, the size of home you live in, and the type and amount of power you consume. Simple carbon calculators make this process very straightforward without you having to do much preparation by asking you to respond to questions by selecting from a range of answers that most closely describe your circumstances. The complex carbon calculators are going to require you to assemble quite a bit of information before you begin entering data.
Take electrical usage for example. A simple carbon calculator will ask, “What is your average monthly electrical bill? Choose from the following: 0 - $25; $25 - $50; etc.” A complex calculator will ask you how many kilowatt hours of electricity you use in a year, and require you to dig through your bill file or access your account on-line to gather the information. For my purposes I believe that a simple calculator will serve me just fine. Besides, the idea of sorting through old utility bills is not something I really want to do.
Ah, but which simple calculator should I use? Even among the simple models there is a varying degree of complexity. Here is an example of what I like to refer to as a basic simple calculator that essentially just deals with transportation and energy use at home to calculate your emissions impact.
MSN Green
http://green.msn.com/tools/calculator.aspx
Then there are what I call advanced simple calculators that throw in a few more wrinkles and layers into the calculations. In addition to transportation and home energy use, the advanced simple calculators begin to look at recycling and even eating habits. These are two advanced simple calculators that I found interesting:
EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html
The Nature Conservancy
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
Now, let’s plug in my data and see how the results compare using the different calculators:
Basic Simple Calculations
MSN Green - 6.25 tons per year
Advance Simple Calculations
EPA - 10.3 tons per year
The Nature Conservancy - 23 tons per year
Holy cow, that’s a range of 16.75 tons. Why such a wide range results for the same individual?
All of three of these carbon calculators take into account what state you live in and assign an emissions multiplier to each utility according to the CO2 emissions intensity. In Indiana 95% of our electricity comes from coal fired electrical generators, which means that the carbon calculators will rate us higher for CO2 emissions than a state with a less polluting source of electricity for the equivalent amount of kilowatts used. For example using the MSN Green calculator if I simply change my residence from
So which is the more accurate carbon calculator? Rather then accuracy I think it is fairer to think of these calculating tools as a relative way to look at your impact, rather than some highly reliable measurement tool. It is sort of like standing on a scale and not really knowing if it is calibrated correctly, but even with that uncertainty still being able to determine if you are gaining or losing weight. In that regard, I don’t think it really matters which carbon calculator you use. Just choose one and use it as your benchmark.
My choice is the EPA’s model, and according to this calculator my carbon footprint is a nice big 10.3 tons per year. By US standards it is actually not bad, but by global standards it’s... well, let’s just say I need to shed a few tons.
Next step - set a goal, and develop a plan of action.
[ 0 ] Comments
|
|
|
Low Carbon Diet
6/6/2008
By: Green Grandpa
Several years ago I allowed myself to get lazy and grow fat. How fat did I get? Well, to be truthful I couldn’t see my feet when standing because my belly stuck out too far. My wife told me that I looked like I was in the last trimester of pregnancy. That observation stung and motivated me to do something about the weight gain. My wife and I joined a gym, hired a personal trainer and consulted with a nutritionist. We set some personal goals. We also kept one another honest and on task. In less then a year we were significantly leaner and fitter. I personally dropped 40 pounds, and lost six inches off my waist. Before my commitment to a healthier lifestyle I would get winded climbing stairs. Today I can easily run four miles or bicycle forty miles.
I didn’t get out of shape overnight. Nor did I get fit overnight. There was never one magic giant step that I took. There was no secret diet or high tech workout equipment. It was really a matter of many small things that I did. Early on the trainer told me that the most important thing in the first 90 days was to take it slow enough that I didn’t become sore and discouraged. If I stuck with it he promised me that fitness would become a habit within 90 days and the results would be dramatic after that point. He was right.
When it comes to the greenhouse gas emissions the entire Midwest needs to go a low carbon diet. If you live in the Indianapolis metropolitan area as I do, then we really need to do something about the size of our carbon footprint. It’s obese. The Indianapolis Star reported that an analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute found Indianapolis to have the second worst per capita carbon emissions in the nation. That study excluded industry. And just last year Forbes magazine ranked Indiana as having the second worst environmental record in the country. Ouch, those really sting. So what are we going to do? We can act like victims and blame government for a lack of any vision and leadership on environmental issues (which we should be as outraged about as property taxes), or we can begin to say I am going to do something about this. I choose the latter.
I think there are some transferrable lessons from shrinking my waist size, that can be applied to shrinking my household’s carbon footprint. Here’s my plan. First, I need to set a goal(s) that my wife and I can agree upon and that will have some measurable results. Second, I need to develop an action plan. These need to be baby-steps that we can stick with for at least 90 days. Third, I need to get it all in writing - the goal(s), the action plan, and then journal the daily activities to make sure we have an accurate assessment of our progress.
Thanks to the Zoo and Lowe’s I can share my goals, action plan, and experiences directly with you. Likewise you can offer me ideas, encouragement and swift kick in the seat if needed. In the meantime, I need to work on the goal(s).
[ 1 ] Comments
|
|
|
Are We Brave Enough?
4/18/2008
By: Green Grandpa
I have a small black and white photo from around 1950 of me, my father, and my grandmother and grandfather standing in our Sunday church clothes next to our home. It must have been cool weather because we all have overcoats on in the photo. My mother was probably the photographer, since she isn’t in the photo. I was too young to remember why this picture was taken, but I do have very distinct memories of living in this house. This was my grandparents’ home, and we lived with them. The home had a furnace that burned coal. I would accompany my grandfather into the basement and watch him shovel coal from a bin into the furnace.
There is a bit of lag time for greenhouse gases to have an effect on the atmosphere. I believe that I read it is around 30 to 40 years. Although the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere is relatively slow to build, they have incredible staying power. That means that the CO2 emitted from the day of that old photo likely began contributing to warming the planet between 1980 and 1990, and is likely to continue warming the planet through the end of this century.
Today my children are grown and have children of their own. The greenhouse gases emitted back in my childhood are very likely to continue having an effect on the climate throughout the lives of not only my grandchildren, but my great-grandchildren, and possibly my great-great-grandchildren.
I certainly can’t be angry with my grandparents and parents for all of the greenhouse gases they emitted. They had no idea that something like burning coal to warm a home could have catastrophic consequences. Today we do not have the luxury of pleading ignorance. We know what we are doing when we burn fossil fuels, and future generations are going to know as well. The question yet to be answered is whether we are brave enough today to begin making sacrifices in our lifestyles from which we will see no benefit in our lifetimes.
[ 4 ] Comments
|
|
|
Latest Article
section: Climate Scientist
title: How Do We Know What We Know About Climate Change?
Share With Us
