Monthly Archives: March 2016

Imagine…

Wind power...

Wind power: more in store by 2050…

Times have changed. In years past when I gave talks about sustainable living I would spend considerable time, perhaps half of each presentation, trying to convince people that we do indeed have an environmental problem here on our green and blue marble.  Today, though, for better or for worse, most people don’t seem to need convincing. This could be because our problems are worse now, or it could be that there is an increased awareness and acceptance of the idea that we need to quit damaging the planet. Either way, what people could use today is some sort of hope that we can indeed do this thing; that we can surmount these huge challenges facing us. And, as I’ve written before, I’m more optimistic than I used to be. We have the tools and technology that we need; we don’t necessarily need new inventions or grand technological breakthroughs. What we do need, though, is a workable common vision of where we’re going.

So, let’s imagine where we could be by the year 2050, if we put our minds to it—even if no new technologies come along to help us. In no particular order, here are some things that we might see. Some of these will be more difficult than others to achieve; I’ll discuss some of the difficulties at the end.

(Click here to listen to John Lennon’s “Imagine” song—to me at least, it seems to set the appropriate mood.) Continue reading

Even RE Isn’t Free, and Other Thoughts

Beautiful berries---to ship or not to ship?

Beautiful berries—to ship or not to ship?

First, I just wanted to let everyone know that I accidentally hit “publish” instead of “save” on a partially-completed post yesterday, and then had to quickly delete it, but not before the program sent out the “new post” notices. So, if you got a “new post” notice with a bad link in it, that’s why. Sorry,..

Second, some thoughts on the packaging post. Mr. X had a really important observation that deserves mention. He agreed with the underlying ideas about efficient production, and to paraphrase his comments, “It would be better to grow strawberries in California and ship them to Arizona in self-driving vehicles powered by renewable power, and to put solar generation in Arizona and ship the power to California via high-voltage-DC lines…” But he took issue with my statement that the $2 price on the vinegar in the store reflects its entire cost, and he is indeed correct. That $2 price does not take into account all the costs that companies push off onto third-parties, the “negative externalities”. Whether it’s global warming from fossil fuel use, or downstream effects from plastic pollution, or abuses of workers through unfair labor practices, the jug of vinegar has costs that might not be reflected in its price on the shelf. Though, even if those hidden costs doubled the store price of the vinegar, my underlying point would still hold (and he agreed)—efficient production would be the least wasteful and therefore the most sustainable, within reason.

Again, this is another case where we need to focus on actual problems, and in this case the problem would be negative externalities, and the best solution for those is… good government. But, I digress…

A few other thoughts here. With regard to trade, packaging, and shipping—common sense still applies. The only way to get fresh blackberries in January in the US is to buy ones that have been flown up from South America. Despite the richness created in our lives when we can have fresh berries in January, it probably isn’t worth the cost. Even if the plane was somehow powered by renewable power, we need to realize that even renewable power has a cost—dammed rivers, land given over to solar farms, etc. So although using renewable energy is a goal, we need to balance it with the goal of reduced consumption.

The high-carbon way to get the berries...

The high-carbon way to get the berries… A 747 cargo flight in Anchorage, Alaska.

Related, while I think it’s better to choose packaged items over trying to make everything at home, it’s still a perfectly valid goal to strive for reduced packaging. And some home production can indeed make sense. An example in my life— Continue reading

The Packaging and Transportation Part

Moving cargo by sea is remarkably efficient in terms of carbon emissions per ton.

Moving cargo by sea is remarkably efficient in terms of carbon emissions—as low as 10 grams per ton per kilometer.

In my last, I argued that it might be a more sustainable path for people to avoid striving for self-sufficiency, and to embrace trade and efficiency instead. I’m a bit uncomfortable with this conclusion (two posts that led to this are here and here), because the quest for efficiency, when coupled with market forces, can have severe downsides. If efficiency is the only goal, then production often ends up taking a toll on people, animals, or the environment. But despite these problems that need addressed, I’m quite certain that the underlying  premise is a correct one.  This, in turn, leads to yet another logical conclusion—the “packaging and transportation” part of that last discussion.

Just to recap, here’s the train o’ logic so far—trade leads to specialization, which leads to efficiency and productivity, which leads to the group being better off. Efforts toward self-sufficiency run counter to this, and are nearly always inherently less efficient. Since efficiency is, by definition, “not wasting time, effort, or materials”, then it follows that its opposite—inefficiency—is wasteful, and (other things being equal) that the efficient path would be the more sustainable one. To expand on this, let’s look at two other common “sustainable” trends that are perhaps as prevalent as trying to be self-sufficient— Continue reading