September 15, 2008
Truth or Trend
by Jamie Gray
Sacrifice – Taking One for the Green Team
Conservation efforts depend on our willingness to make sacrifices. We need to drive less, and settle for energy efficient vehicles which sacrifice style, convenience, and performance for improved gas mileage and reduced or zero carbon emissions. We must use less electricity and invest in expensive alternatives like solar panels instead of convenient A/C power from the utility company.
Our landfills are filling up, so we must recycle. That means we have to give up the convenience of simply throwing away trash, and instead spend time and effort to clean and sort the trash before we can dispose of it.
But, is this a recipe for success? Will our sacrifices actually pay off for the cause?
First, let me say that my hat is off to those of us who are already making these sacrifices. People in the public spotlight like Ed Begley Jr. who have made a lifestyle decision to buck the status quo and do right by Mother Earth are leading by example, and countless regular folks have followed in the selfless pursuit of a better, greener world. Cheers and kudos all around.
It’s just a shame that more of us have yet to follow. But, as long as it is difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to do the right thing, most people simply won’t. Until affordable alternative fuel vehicles become readily available, which perform as well as gas powered vehicles and are just as convenient to operate, most people will continue to shy away from alternative options.
For every person who consistently recycles, there are a dozen more who can’t be bothered. It’s simply too much hassle and too inconvenient. Expensive electricity and gasoline are forcing people to cut back on usage, but they aren’t happy about it. It’s inconvenient and decreases our quality of life.
Quality of life is important to people, and inexpensive energy is important to economic growth. I am convinced that any environmentally responsible plan must address these issues in order to succeed. Any successful plan must provide benefits to both people and companies, rather than create added costs and inconveniences.
Rather than threaten corporations with added costs of regulation compliance, we need give them the benefits of inexpensive clean energy. Penalties for non-compliance will increase the cost of manufactured goods, while rewards for compliance could create additional profits and lower retail prices for the same products.
If we want people to recycle, we need to make it easy and rewarding. Incentivize recycling with rebates on trash collection, and make the process easier. I shouldn’t have to have an entire room of my house dedicated to sorting and storing my recyclables…give me one bin for everything, and I might actually use it. We could also reward companies that reduce waste in the first place, and who reclaim their packaging.
If we expect people to drive energy efficient vehicles, they must be cost competitive with their gasoline counterparts and have the style and performance to match. I’d love to drive a car that gets 80 miles per gallon or runs on electricity…but when I step on the gas, I want to GO!
I may not ever go 120 mph, but I’d like to know that I could. Driving long distances requires that a vehicle has range of 200 to 300 miles between refueling, and can completely refuel in 5 minutes or so. I may not drive to
And please don’t tell me I have to plug my car in every night…I have enough trouble remembering to plug in my cell phone, MP3 player, laptop…
Oh yeah…I also need to be able to step back to look at my car and say “That’s a great looking machine.” Call it shallow and silly, but I don’t think I’m alone in wanting a car with style. Americans have always had a love affair with good looking autos. Should we expect people to suddenly change their appreciation for fine auto design, or would it make more sense to appeal to it?
Some companies are starting to figure it out. Tesla Motors’ new all-electric roadster does 0-60 in less than 4 seconds, has a top speed of 125mph and a 220 mile range. Aside from the price tag ($109,000) and the 3+ hour recharge time, it shows that alternative fuel doesn’t have to mean slow and stupid looking.
Los Alamos Labs reports to have developed a viable method of creating synthetic, carbon-neutral gasoline. Their “Green Freedom” concept captures and extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it to liquid fuel using clean and renewable energy sources to power the process. Good job. Now figure out how to make it for $2/gallon instead of $5 and we’ll have a real winner.
These are examples of steps in the right direction, and they are not without some remaining technological challenges. But the sooner we start giving incentives to companies that do the right thing; the sooner there will be solutions. Cheap, clean energy will improve our quality of life and the profits of companies which depend on it…so what are we waiting for?
Some companies will figure it out. They’ll realize that giving us something we really want…and which also is good for the planet…will be much more profitable than trying to sell us products that are impractical, expensive, and unattractive.
When they do, we’ll all be better for it. Their bottom line will be, too.
Tesla Motors:
Green Freedom: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554
____________________________________________________________
August 25, 2008
Truth or Trend
by Jamie Gray
Activism and Alternative Energy
It is becoming evident to most people these days, that the Earth is a fragile place. Though many people disagree on just how fragile, only the most uninformed can deny that our actions can have negative effects on the environment and the ability of our planet to sustain life.
Mankind has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of foresight and capability for destruction. The need for proactive management of our planet’s resources is becoming clearer each day, and we as conservationists must do all that we can to protect and preserve.
One of the things that we need to do is to change our tactics. If we want to bring about change, I believe we need to change the way we deliver the conservation message.
Being an activist is nearly synonymous with environmental conservation. Save the whales. Save the owls. Save the planet. Noble causes all, but often the same single-minded visionary approach to protecting the environment invites opposition, rather than working to effect solutions.
An excellent case in point is the issue of Global Warming.
The underlying claim in the issue is that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere via the combustion of hydrocarbons is causing the atmosphere to warm on a global scale. This is supposed to be an unnatural occurrence, the root of which is human activities…primarily our ever-growing consumption of oil.
Forgiving the gross generalizations, the message most Climate Change activists are foisting upon the public is approximately as follows:
1) Global Warming is a FACT. It has been proven and undeniably true. We are foolish to deny it.
2) Global Warming is BAD. Ice caps will melt. Polar bears will die. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and other undesirable severe weather will increase. Ocean levels will rise. Nothing good will come of it.
3) Oil companies and other big corporations, irresponsible governments, and unbridled consumerism are to blame.
Let’s just presume for a moment that everything I mentioned with regard to Global Warming is 100 percent true. The question we have to ask ourselves is: “Will distributing the information in this manner facilitate the most rapid and relevant corrective action?”
Well, in short, I am suggesting is that in fact, it will work against promoting change, instead stalling the efforts.
How could that be possible?
Well, to start with, all of the Global Warming arguments are theoretical, and because theories are unproven they may be refuted, contested, and disputed. True, there is lots of evidence supporting the theories, but no irrefutable proof.
Without absolute proof, it is possible to discredit (if only partially) the claims, therefore making it allowable to ignore the proposed call to action. Not only that, but since the proposed solutions nearly always involved forced compliance, the likelihood of opposition is an absolute given.
The environmental movement has been comprised of activists since its beginnings decades ago. Thanks to activists, the previously blind populace became aware of many serious environmental problems. Many absolutely essential changes resulted, and we are all better off for the efforts of these folks.
Most activists view opposition as a good thing, helping to creating awareness. But, opposition means that action is less likely.
Most Americans consider themselves aware and informed. Informed people take dire warnings of global disasters due to climate change about as seriously as warnings of the impending apocalypse. Sure, it may be coming, but why should I care today?
Isn’t the true goal to encourage alternative energy instead of continued dependence on fossil fuels? Shouldn’t our message then be proposed solutions, rather than cautionary tales of impending reckoning for our misdeeds?
Simply put, solutions come down to supply and demand. Many activists seek to blame companies for making a profit from our demand for oil. Instead we need to demand alternatives, and the sooner we help energy companies make a profit on from it, the sooner they will be able to supply our new demand.
Instead of threats of penalties for non-compliance and higher costs for things like carbon taxes, we must continually find new ways to demonstrate a profit potential in making the “right” choices. Instead of blaming big oil companies for our problems and threatening their profitability, we should work with them to help them become profitable alternative energy companies.
Fighting against large corporations with their huge political lobbies is the most difficult possible path. Asking our politicians to work against their corporate constituency is like asking Castro to turn Cuba into the Mall of America.
Our focus must change from creating awareness to affecting transition. We, as defenders of the planet, must shift our focus from attacking the status quo to working with them. Replacing finger pointing and trumpet blowing with cooperative solutions and incentive rewards should be our priority.
Is the sky really falling? Every morning that people wake up to find it hasn’t fallen cuts into the credibility of conservationists. Teach people how alternative energy can make their lives better (and less expensive) and we can create real change.
____________________________________________________________
August 11, 2008
Truth or Trend
by Jamie Gray
The Ethanol Debate
As gas prices continue to increase, we are becoming keenly aware of our need to sever our ties with oil. It isn’t just Arab oil that is holding us hostage at the local filling station. Friendly oil from our neighbor to the north (our largest oil supplier), as well as our own domestically produced oil are equally expensive, and we are all paying the price for not investing in alternative fuels sooner.
For years now we’ve been hearing about one solution: Ethanol.
Most gasoline served at your local pump-and-go now contains some ethanol, and leading auto manufacturers are touting their vehicles which can run on E85 (85 percent Ethanol/15 percent Gasoline mix).
What’s not to love about Ethanol? It burns cleaner than oil, it’s renewable and it can be made right here in the USA. It sounds like a winner that any green activist should be behind, right? Or is it just another expensive trend which could actually cause more harm than good?
To get started on this debate, let’s look at where ethanol comes from. To produce ethanol, a process of fermentation and distillation of plant materials is used. Simply put, the higher the concentration of plant sugars, the more efficient this process is.
The largest source of US produced ethanol is from corn. Unfortunately, there are two undesirable problems with corn-based ethanol production.
First, corn is relatively low in sugars in comparison with some other sources, making the production of ethanol from corn much less efficient than ethanol derived from say sugarcane or beets.
I have heard it said that the production of a gallon of ethanol from corn requires more than a gallon of fossil fuels, if the sum of fuels used in cultivation, fertilization and refining are considered. Although I don’t have enough data to confirm or refute that claim, I am inclined to see the merits of the argument.
The second problem with using corn to make fuel is that we’ll have less corn and cropland for use in food production for humans and animals. Recent political finger pointing condemns ethanol production as one source of increased food costs in the US. This argument makes sense to a certain degree, although, I think rising food costs is a lot more complicated.
What is clear however is that if we were to try to convert our fossil fuel based economy to a corn ethanol based economy, we could never produce enough to corn to feed our demand. Corn shortages would drive prices higher, and we would likely be paying double per gallon compared with gasoline.
Ethanol also produces less energy per gallon than fossil fuel gasoline in combustion, so it will also take more gallons of ethanol than gasoline to power the country.
While other forms of agricultural ethanol promise higher production efficiencies, it seems clear that converting existing farmland to production of fuel crops is a recipe for failure. Planting crops for fuel which require fertilization and irrigation make the cost of the fuel far too high to replace fossil fuels.
Besides, our demand for food is also continually growing, requiring more cropland to meet those increasing needs.
One notable exception is ethanol from switchgrass, which could be cultivated on land nearly unusable for other forms of agriculture. Yet switchgrass is still a relatively poor source of ethanol in terms of efficient production. The production process for both types of ethanol also require gallons of water, yet another resource rapidly becoming more limited and expensive.
They’ve also made great advances in cellulosic ethanol production from citrus peels, a waste product from the production of juice, in states like Florida. While encouraging, it is likely to be a far too limited and regional source to be of consequence. Our geography simply doesn’t allow enough citrus (or other more efficiently refined crops, such as sugarcane) to grow in enough abundance to quench our hunger for liquid fuel.
When it comes down to it, I think Ethanol is a trend…although new science could quickly change that. It is serving a transitional purpose for now, helping us run our machines a little cleaner and become little less dependent on fossil fuels.
It may not be a long-term fix though…at least not without advances in production technology, and we may need to look past this Greenish trend, to find a more permanent solution.