This is what my co-worker suggested in response to my last post about families taking living green to the extreme, including a family that has allegedly reused the same Ziploc plastic bag for a year (she's the one who forwarded the article to me):
"I think it would be an awesome New Year's resolution to use one box of plastic bags for the year. That way, you're not committed to using just one bag for the year, instead you'd have an entire box to wash out and reuse. What do you think?"
What do I think? I'm in. Anyone else with me? You can pick the size of your box, as long as it isn't one of those jumbo zillion-count boxes from Costco.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Taking green dieting to the "energy anorexic" extreme
A day after I replaced a whopping two lightbulbs with compact flourescent bulbs, I read an article in the New York Times that basically scoffed at my feeble attempts at reducing my carbon footprint. My co-worker forwarded it to me. It starts with a family in New York determined to reduce their energy use to 10% of the national average. They've unplugged their fridge and use frozen water to cool food in the summer and store food outside in the winter. I'm not sure what their homemade composting toilet is, but I don't think I want to know. At least the mother acknowledges that her neighbors think she's cooky.
It's a fun article that briefly made me want to have chickens running around my apartment so I could harvest my own eggs but once I got over that fantasy it didn't make me feel guilty. There have gotta be better and easier changes than following the lead of the guy in Culver City who sometimes relieves himself on his lawn to save a flush.
According to the article, Al Gore is on my side. His We Campaign encourages simpler steps like washing clothes in cold water (which I'm doing as I type). But I did take away one tip from the article. Green extreme, the Seattle version, has been washing and reusing the same plastic Ziploc bag for a year. That reassured me that I can reuse my plastic bags longer than the week I give them before I figure they're unsanitary or gross. The trick is giving the bag a good washing. All right, I'll try that. Not for a year, I'm not that crazy. At least not yet.
It's a fun article that briefly made me want to have chickens running around my apartment so I could harvest my own eggs but once I got over that fantasy it didn't make me feel guilty. There have gotta be better and easier changes than following the lead of the guy in Culver City who sometimes relieves himself on his lawn to save a flush.
According to the article, Al Gore is on my side. His We Campaign encourages simpler steps like washing clothes in cold water (which I'm doing as I type). But I did take away one tip from the article. Green extreme, the Seattle version, has been washing and reusing the same plastic Ziploc bag for a year. That reassured me that I can reuse my plastic bags longer than the week I give them before I figure they're unsanitary or gross. The trick is giving the bag a good washing. All right, I'll try that. Not for a year, I'm not that crazy. At least not yet.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Giving carbon offsets a try
On the checkout page at gaiam.com, where I was buying insulated curtains for my bedroom (they're supposed to reduce energy costs by keeping your room cool in the summer and warm in the winter), I had the choice to contribute $2 to plant trees that will offset the carbon impact from shipping the curtains. Now I have to say that I'm skeptical of carbon offsets. I wonder if trees would be planted anyway, so is it really a ruse to alleviate consumer guilt? And could we possibly plant enough trees to make a difference? The program is run through The Conservation Fund, which the website said keeps its administrative costs low so more of your donation goes toward actually planting trees.
So I went ahead and added a $2 Go Zero donation, swayed by a short video showing the Fund planting trees in an area of Louisiana damaged by Hurricane Katrina. It was just $2 and since I was buying the curtains to make my apartment more "eco-friendly," it felt hypocritical to not donate. Regardless of whether it really reduces my carbon impact, it's never a bad idea to plant trees.
So I went ahead and added a $2 Go Zero donation, swayed by a short video showing the Fund planting trees in an area of Louisiana damaged by Hurricane Katrina. It was just $2 and since I was buying the curtains to make my apartment more "eco-friendly," it felt hypocritical to not donate. Regardless of whether it really reduces my carbon impact, it's never a bad idea to plant trees.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Good LA Times editorial on the candidates and energy
First, a disclaimer: I had hoped to take the train to work today but when my alarm went off at 6:30 a.m. I didn't have the will to get up. So I accept my own hypocrisy when I point out today's Los Angeles Times editorial, which calls on the next president to have the will to enact an energy policy that is good for the environment. I like the facts in this editorial about things I knew loosely but not concretely (like that it will take 20 years for offshore drilling to lower the cost of gas significantly).
The editorial points out that "clean coal" is just a disguise for more of the same in coal-producing states, and that McCain's zealousness to build 45 new nuclear plants is ludicrous (being from Las Vegas, which for as long as I can remember has been fighting the government's proposal to store nuclear waste at nearby Yucca Mountain, I'm obviously 100% against nuclear power).
But the editorial ends with some hope. Perhaps, it says, once elected Candidate X will stop pandering and become President X, demanding real change and even sacrifice. I read between the lines on that one and assume they think there's only one candidate who can and will do that. It's the only one who mentioned sacrifice in the last presidential debate, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Here's the text of the editorial:
Editorial
A president with an energy plan: Neither nuclear nor 'clean coal' will solve the crisis.
October 15, 2008
Before most people had ever heard of commercial paper, they knew that high oil prices were squeezing both their wallets and the nation's economy, and the presidential candidates spent more time talking about gas tanks than banks. The financial meltdown of recent weeks hasn't just overshadowed the energy crisis, it has eased it in the short term -- gasoline prices have fallen because oil traders fear that demand will shrink in a global recession. Yet meeting our energy challenges will remain among the most important concerns of the next president.
That's why it's doubly disappointing that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has a responsible energy plan. In pandering to voters in swing states, both have backed dangerous, dirty energy sources in contradiction of their own principles.
The United States gets nearly half of its electricity from coal-fired plants. These plants account for about a third of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the prime contributor to global warming. They are also a top source of other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, and worldwide they are the No. 1 source of deadly mercury pollution. You can't pretend to be a crusader against climate change and pollution, as both candidates do, while favoring expanded coal use -- yet Obama and McCain waste few opportunities to declare their support for “clean coal.” If by this they mean they want more research into pumping coal emissions underground, good for them. But the voters in coal-producing states such as West Virginia interpret the candidates' rhetoric as an endorsement of increased mining and burning of coal using existing processes that are anything but clean, and Obama and McCain have done nothing to disabuse them of that notion.
"Drill, baby, drill" has become one of the McCain campaign's catchphrases, yet the pursuit of increased offshore drilling is a purely political maneuver that government energy officials say won't lower prices significantly within 20 years. To his credit, Obama frequently points out that the United States sits on 3% of the world's oil supplies but uses 25% of the world's oil, so ending our reliance on foreign sources can be achieved only by cutting consumption and developing environmentally responsible biofuels -- yet he too agreed to end a federal ban on new offshore drilling projects.
And then there's "safe nuclear," a phrase as oxymoronic as "clean coal" that both candidates like to toss around. Nuclear waste remains toxic for millenniums, and no one has figured out a sufficiently permanent way of storing it. McCain's plan to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030 is either disingenuous or naive. Because the nation's existing plants are crumbling, they will have to be decommissioned as fast as new ones can be built, making it unlikely that there would be a net increase in nuclear power even if McCain's goal could be met. Moreover, private investors have no interest in building nuclear plants unless they receive generous subsidies and taxpayer-backed loans, yet the Congressional Budget Office considers such loans so risky that "well above 50%" of them would default. Nuclear power isn't just environmentally irresponsible, it's fiscally irresponsible.
Conservatives argue that it would be impossible to get all of our power from renewable sources such as the sun and wind, so we might as well get used to fossil fuels. This is a cynical excuse for continuing our reliance on dirty and climate-altering, but cheap, energy sources. Our power supply might never be completely clean, but we've barely scratched the surface of what could be done to improve energy efficiency and raise the share of renewable power. Clean power would create jobs for American workers and innovations that could be sold around the world, while greater efficiency would lower consumers' energy bills by cutting demand.
Early in the campaign, Obama and McCain were both unafraid to make such precepts the centerpiece of their energy plans. We can only hope that when one of these men finds himself in the White House, his brighter angels will win out, but the candidates' quick embrace of wrongheaded policies in reaction to an uptick in oil prices isn't encouraging.
Environmental policy is closely connected to energy policy, because energy generation is a source of many of the world's most pressing environmental woes. Obama and McCain both understand that global warming is a serious problem, and both have proposed capping carbon emissions to solve it, though Obama would impose stricter controls. On other environmental issues, there is a similar dynamic: McCain is greener than the GOP mainstream, but still not as green as Obama and the Democratic mainstream. A good example is the "roadless rule," a Clinton administration ban on road building in national forests that was overturned by President Bush. Obama co-sponsored a bill that would codify the ban in federal law; during his time in the Senate, McCain has voted for and against giving subsidies to timber companies for building forest roads. Advantage: Obama.
The roadless rule is only one of dozens of environmental protections that have been undermined or simply eliminated under Bush -- a big part of the next president's job will be trying to reseed the scorched earth left behind by the current one. Near the top of his list should be granting the Clean Air Act waiver allowing California to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, which was denied in December by the Environmental Protection Agency. The ruling was so blatantly political that it would be surprising if either McCain or Obama allowed it to stand, though Obama is likely to make overturning it a higher priority.
Obama and McCain are both well informed about environmental matters, and either would be a vast improvement over Bush. But the next president needs to be more than knowledgeable. He needs to have the political courage to demand change -- and possibly even sacrifice. Obama has shown little of this kind of courage so far, but McCain has shown still less.
The editorial points out that "clean coal" is just a disguise for more of the same in coal-producing states, and that McCain's zealousness to build 45 new nuclear plants is ludicrous (being from Las Vegas, which for as long as I can remember has been fighting the government's proposal to store nuclear waste at nearby Yucca Mountain, I'm obviously 100% against nuclear power).
But the editorial ends with some hope. Perhaps, it says, once elected Candidate X will stop pandering and become President X, demanding real change and even sacrifice. I read between the lines on that one and assume they think there's only one candidate who can and will do that. It's the only one who mentioned sacrifice in the last presidential debate, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Here's the text of the editorial:
Editorial
A president with an energy plan: Neither nuclear nor 'clean coal' will solve the crisis.
October 15, 2008
Before most people had ever heard of commercial paper, they knew that high oil prices were squeezing both their wallets and the nation's economy, and the presidential candidates spent more time talking about gas tanks than banks. The financial meltdown of recent weeks hasn't just overshadowed the energy crisis, it has eased it in the short term -- gasoline prices have fallen because oil traders fear that demand will shrink in a global recession. Yet meeting our energy challenges will remain among the most important concerns of the next president.
That's why it's doubly disappointing that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has a responsible energy plan. In pandering to voters in swing states, both have backed dangerous, dirty energy sources in contradiction of their own principles.
The United States gets nearly half of its electricity from coal-fired plants. These plants account for about a third of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the prime contributor to global warming. They are also a top source of other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, and worldwide they are the No. 1 source of deadly mercury pollution. You can't pretend to be a crusader against climate change and pollution, as both candidates do, while favoring expanded coal use -- yet Obama and McCain waste few opportunities to declare their support for “clean coal.” If by this they mean they want more research into pumping coal emissions underground, good for them. But the voters in coal-producing states such as West Virginia interpret the candidates' rhetoric as an endorsement of increased mining and burning of coal using existing processes that are anything but clean, and Obama and McCain have done nothing to disabuse them of that notion.
"Drill, baby, drill" has become one of the McCain campaign's catchphrases, yet the pursuit of increased offshore drilling is a purely political maneuver that government energy officials say won't lower prices significantly within 20 years. To his credit, Obama frequently points out that the United States sits on 3% of the world's oil supplies but uses 25% of the world's oil, so ending our reliance on foreign sources can be achieved only by cutting consumption and developing environmentally responsible biofuels -- yet he too agreed to end a federal ban on new offshore drilling projects.
And then there's "safe nuclear," a phrase as oxymoronic as "clean coal" that both candidates like to toss around. Nuclear waste remains toxic for millenniums, and no one has figured out a sufficiently permanent way of storing it. McCain's plan to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030 is either disingenuous or naive. Because the nation's existing plants are crumbling, they will have to be decommissioned as fast as new ones can be built, making it unlikely that there would be a net increase in nuclear power even if McCain's goal could be met. Moreover, private investors have no interest in building nuclear plants unless they receive generous subsidies and taxpayer-backed loans, yet the Congressional Budget Office considers such loans so risky that "well above 50%" of them would default. Nuclear power isn't just environmentally irresponsible, it's fiscally irresponsible.
Conservatives argue that it would be impossible to get all of our power from renewable sources such as the sun and wind, so we might as well get used to fossil fuels. This is a cynical excuse for continuing our reliance on dirty and climate-altering, but cheap, energy sources. Our power supply might never be completely clean, but we've barely scratched the surface of what could be done to improve energy efficiency and raise the share of renewable power. Clean power would create jobs for American workers and innovations that could be sold around the world, while greater efficiency would lower consumers' energy bills by cutting demand.
Early in the campaign, Obama and McCain were both unafraid to make such precepts the centerpiece of their energy plans. We can only hope that when one of these men finds himself in the White House, his brighter angels will win out, but the candidates' quick embrace of wrongheaded policies in reaction to an uptick in oil prices isn't encouraging.
Environmental policy is closely connected to energy policy, because energy generation is a source of many of the world's most pressing environmental woes. Obama and McCain both understand that global warming is a serious problem, and both have proposed capping carbon emissions to solve it, though Obama would impose stricter controls. On other environmental issues, there is a similar dynamic: McCain is greener than the GOP mainstream, but still not as green as Obama and the Democratic mainstream. A good example is the "roadless rule," a Clinton administration ban on road building in national forests that was overturned by President Bush. Obama co-sponsored a bill that would codify the ban in federal law; during his time in the Senate, McCain has voted for and against giving subsidies to timber companies for building forest roads. Advantage: Obama.
The roadless rule is only one of dozens of environmental protections that have been undermined or simply eliminated under Bush -- a big part of the next president's job will be trying to reseed the scorched earth left behind by the current one. Near the top of his list should be granting the Clean Air Act waiver allowing California to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, which was denied in December by the Environmental Protection Agency. The ruling was so blatantly political that it would be surprising if either McCain or Obama allowed it to stand, though Obama is likely to make overturning it a higher priority.
Obama and McCain are both well informed about environmental matters, and either would be a vast improvement over Bush. But the next president needs to be more than knowledgeable. He needs to have the political courage to demand change -- and possibly even sacrifice. Obama has shown little of this kind of courage so far, but McCain has shown still less.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Finally, a call for sacrifice
"What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream?"
That was my favorite question in Tuesday's presidential debate. How can a country that's at war, trillions of dollars in debt and partly responsible for problems like global warming NOT be asking more of its citizens? It also gets to the philosophy of the candidates and how they would inspire the country if they became president. That's what I want. With all the bad news in the newspaper every day, I want to be inspired to act. And I want to feel like America is helping to make the world better, not worse. We need to be focusing on global warming and renewable energy, not spewing rhetoric like "drill baby drill" and "reduce our dependence on foreign oil," which miss the big picture.
That's why not only was that my favorite question, but also my favorite answer. The question seemed to be about sacrifices Americans can make to get the economy back on track. And sure enough, McCain talked about economic stuff -- cutting government programs and earmarks. That was a slick answer because it doesn't require you and I, the "Americans" in the question, to take action. And it surely didn't inspire.
When Obama spoke, I sat up and listened (literally, because I had been flopped on the ground tiredly watching the reairing of the debate at 11 p.m.). He said Bush missed an opportunity after 9/11 when he called on Americans to go out and shop. "That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for." I agreed and thought it was noteworthy because you rarely hear politicians talk about that anymore. Then he used energy as an example of how Americans can make sacrifices for the greater good. "There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy." YES, that's it!!! Going green has become part of our culture but is action really happening? How many people have replaced their traditional lights bults with compact fluorescent light bulbs, shop with reusable grocery bags and drive hybrids or take the bus? And even if everyone did that, would it still be enough? I think people would do more and demand more from the auto and energy industries if they had a leader on the issue. Someone who says, "Each and every one of us can start thinking about, how can we save energy in our homes and our buildings?"
In all, I felt Obama's response was muddled. He threw out the same old call for increased oil production, clean coal and nuclear energy. OK, fine, he had to say that to win votes in key states and not seem too quote -- liberal. And he got specific only when it came to government action, like incentives for buying fuel-efficient cars. But I'm not completely cynical. I feel hopeful that if he's elected, he will bring attention to the real energy issue: global warming and what America, the world's biggest polluter, is going to do about it. I hope he will get more specific about the sacrifices Americans need to make and frame global warming as the most important issue of our generation. We need a call to action like Kennedy's resolve to get us to the moon.
After eight years of Bush, it's rare that I hear a politician echoing my thoughts and view of the world. Maybe that's what excited me the most. I feel like Obama gets it and isn't afraid to say so.
You can watch that part of the debate on the CNN website, by typing in "sacrifice" in the search field at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/video.transcript/index.html
That was my favorite question in Tuesday's presidential debate. How can a country that's at war, trillions of dollars in debt and partly responsible for problems like global warming NOT be asking more of its citizens? It also gets to the philosophy of the candidates and how they would inspire the country if they became president. That's what I want. With all the bad news in the newspaper every day, I want to be inspired to act. And I want to feel like America is helping to make the world better, not worse. We need to be focusing on global warming and renewable energy, not spewing rhetoric like "drill baby drill" and "reduce our dependence on foreign oil," which miss the big picture.
That's why not only was that my favorite question, but also my favorite answer. The question seemed to be about sacrifices Americans can make to get the economy back on track. And sure enough, McCain talked about economic stuff -- cutting government programs and earmarks. That was a slick answer because it doesn't require you and I, the "Americans" in the question, to take action. And it surely didn't inspire.
When Obama spoke, I sat up and listened (literally, because I had been flopped on the ground tiredly watching the reairing of the debate at 11 p.m.). He said Bush missed an opportunity after 9/11 when he called on Americans to go out and shop. "That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for." I agreed and thought it was noteworthy because you rarely hear politicians talk about that anymore. Then he used energy as an example of how Americans can make sacrifices for the greater good. "There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy." YES, that's it!!! Going green has become part of our culture but is action really happening? How many people have replaced their traditional lights bults with compact fluorescent light bulbs, shop with reusable grocery bags and drive hybrids or take the bus? And even if everyone did that, would it still be enough? I think people would do more and demand more from the auto and energy industries if they had a leader on the issue. Someone who says, "Each and every one of us can start thinking about, how can we save energy in our homes and our buildings?"
In all, I felt Obama's response was muddled. He threw out the same old call for increased oil production, clean coal and nuclear energy. OK, fine, he had to say that to win votes in key states and not seem too quote -- liberal. And he got specific only when it came to government action, like incentives for buying fuel-efficient cars. But I'm not completely cynical. I feel hopeful that if he's elected, he will bring attention to the real energy issue: global warming and what America, the world's biggest polluter, is going to do about it. I hope he will get more specific about the sacrifices Americans need to make and frame global warming as the most important issue of our generation. We need a call to action like Kennedy's resolve to get us to the moon.
After eight years of Bush, it's rare that I hear a politician echoing my thoughts and view of the world. Maybe that's what excited me the most. I feel like Obama gets it and isn't afraid to say so.
You can watch that part of the debate on the CNN website, by typing in "sacrifice" in the search field at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/video.transcript/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)