Wow. This is possibly the coolest action I've ever seen on climate change: the International Carbon Action Partnership. I'll freely admit the truth: I think this is so cool, not because it's an international cap-and-trade--it's not--or because it's a solution to climate change--it's not that either. I think it's so cool because states and regional governments are bypassing the U.S. federal government to sign agreements with other nations. Take a look at the list of members: countries from the EU, states from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and states from the Western Climate Initiative. I get a kick out of seing Arizona, Maine, and New Mexico being listed parallel to France, Germany, and Ireland. Not only--or even mostly--about what that says about at least parts of the U.S. being willing to take action on this issue, but because of what it says about the localization of efforts on this issue. And that, I believe, really is the key to solving this: local efforts being coordinated at a global scale.
And, of course, it inspires me on the possibilities for the future of the U.S. Could secession be hiding somewhere in the wings? It might depend on the next president. But why can't the southeast be a leader on this? Guess we don't mind global warming here in Atlanta--we like it hot.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Georgia Tech Energy Symposium
Yesterday I attended the Georgia Tech Energy Symposium on the intersection of technology, policy, and economics. I was hard-pressed not to lose my temper at times, because although the symposium was supposed to be about "innovative strategies that provide synergistc solutions," it seemed that much of the symposium was actually about...coal. Yes, coal, otherwise known as the enemy of the human race. More specifically, many of the speakers talked about how we will someday be able to sequester coal, but it's impossibly difficult right now, so it's absurd to try to implement any policy that will require it any point earlier than a hundred years from now. Really.
Oh, there was a session on biofuels, too. Rick Zalesky from Chevron said that biofuels need to grow, with the careful caveat that "fossil fuels will always make up at least 85% of consumption." And by biofuels, he mostly meant corn ethanol, although he did mention algae. His main point was that the only realistic options are ones that use our current pipelines, so anything that isn't a blend--and a small blend, like E10--is pretty much out. And any standards that ask for more than that are not technologically realistic.
Next, Michael Pacheco of Archer Daniels spoke about food and fuel. His basic message was that there's nothing wrong with focusing on crops that can be used for both food and fuel, and using them for whichever need is greater, and never mind any scenarios of "competition" between the two. Well, easy for him to say. He's the one providing the resource. Although he freely admitted that the demand for both will continue to rise. On the bright side, he also admitted that world oil production is approaching peak. But his presentation pretty much sounded like a sales pitch to me.
And Ken Cohen of ExxonMobil spoke about climate change. Yes, you read that right. I thought it was wierd, too. On the bright side, he talked about the IPCC report and concluded that we do need to take immediate action on climate change. Of course, he advocated a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, because then emitters would know exactly how much polluting was going to cost them, but at least it's something. What was frustrating, though, was that he mostly talked about carbon capture and storage as the solution to greenhouse gases. Which is simply not technologically feasible right now.
And that was pointed out in great detail by a later speaker, Chris Hobson of Southern Company. He was the one who said we have to keep using coal because we have so much of it, never mind how destructive it is, and eventually we can use carbon sequestration but not any time in the immediate future. In the meantime, the most important thing is that we keep the electric grid running.
My favorite speaker, of course, was Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal. He showed pictures of mountaintop removal. He also pointed out the fact that most of the coal we have left is going to be more expensive and difficult to mine. Best of all was his quote about the need for conservation: "The era of mindless consumption," he said, "is over."
But I did think it was a shame that the only person there who seemed willing to think about new solutions was the only non-technical speaker. Is this really because renewables and truly clean solutions are just pie-in-the-sky options that no scientist will consider? I don't think so, because later yesterday (at Green Drinks), I talked with scientists who are pursuing truly green energy. The problem isn't in the scientific community at large; it's in who was represented at the symposium.
One of the questioners at the end of a panel summed it up perfectly: "I'd like to thank Tech for hosting this symposium," he said. "I hope you do it again. But I hope that next time, you focus on renewable energy."
Oh, there was a session on biofuels, too. Rick Zalesky from Chevron said that biofuels need to grow, with the careful caveat that "fossil fuels will always make up at least 85% of consumption." And by biofuels, he mostly meant corn ethanol, although he did mention algae. His main point was that the only realistic options are ones that use our current pipelines, so anything that isn't a blend--and a small blend, like E10--is pretty much out. And any standards that ask for more than that are not technologically realistic.
Next, Michael Pacheco of Archer Daniels spoke about food and fuel. His basic message was that there's nothing wrong with focusing on crops that can be used for both food and fuel, and using them for whichever need is greater, and never mind any scenarios of "competition" between the two. Well, easy for him to say. He's the one providing the resource. Although he freely admitted that the demand for both will continue to rise. On the bright side, he also admitted that world oil production is approaching peak. But his presentation pretty much sounded like a sales pitch to me.
And Ken Cohen of ExxonMobil spoke about climate change. Yes, you read that right. I thought it was wierd, too. On the bright side, he talked about the IPCC report and concluded that we do need to take immediate action on climate change. Of course, he advocated a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, because then emitters would know exactly how much polluting was going to cost them, but at least it's something. What was frustrating, though, was that he mostly talked about carbon capture and storage as the solution to greenhouse gases. Which is simply not technologically feasible right now.
And that was pointed out in great detail by a later speaker, Chris Hobson of Southern Company. He was the one who said we have to keep using coal because we have so much of it, never mind how destructive it is, and eventually we can use carbon sequestration but not any time in the immediate future. In the meantime, the most important thing is that we keep the electric grid running.
My favorite speaker, of course, was Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal. He showed pictures of mountaintop removal. He also pointed out the fact that most of the coal we have left is going to be more expensive and difficult to mine. Best of all was his quote about the need for conservation: "The era of mindless consumption," he said, "is over."
But I did think it was a shame that the only person there who seemed willing to think about new solutions was the only non-technical speaker. Is this really because renewables and truly clean solutions are just pie-in-the-sky options that no scientist will consider? I don't think so, because later yesterday (at Green Drinks), I talked with scientists who are pursuing truly green energy. The problem isn't in the scientific community at large; it's in who was represented at the symposium.
One of the questioners at the end of a panel summed it up perfectly: "I'd like to thank Tech for hosting this symposium," he said. "I hope you do it again. But I hope that next time, you focus on renewable energy."
Monday, October 22, 2007
why I can't stop talking about climate change
My mom emailed me this morning with a continuation of a discussion we've been having about climate change. Although she's made arguments on both sides of the issue, I was under the impression that she didn't think there was sufficient evidence for human activities causing global warming. However, in her email today, she told me that she actually has always been in favor of getting off fossil fuels; it's just that she's irritated with people talking about a problem without addressing solutions. Here are some excerpts from my response, for everyone who's tired of hearing me--and everyone else--harp on about the issue:
You say that if we agree on a problem, then we should stop talking about the problem and move toward solutions. I absolutely agree--I think everyone who agrees on the problem probably agrees. But the reason people are still talking about the problem is that we haven't agreed on the problem. There are still plenty of people who want to continue burning CO2 indefinitely. Of course, in the past year there has been a lot more consensus. The scientific community was the first to come to agreement, followed by the majority of citizens (as demonstrated by this international poll, showing that 65% of world population and 59% of U.S. population say we need to take major steps to address climate change very soon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm), but some politicians are still lagging behind. President Bush, for instance, didn't admit that climate change was human-induced until February of this year, after the release of the IPCC report. And his response was not to propose action, but to organize an international climate summit to talk about possible carbon emission goals (not mandatory targets), ignoring the fact that the U.N. had already held lengthy talks (over the past few years), talked through the issue thoroughly, and tried to set mandatory targets which the U.S. wouldn't agree to. Which sounds to me like a lot more useless talking about the problem that avoids any movement toward solutions.
However, if you look at the majority of talk about the issue, you'll find that it is very much a conversation about solutions. The scientific consensus is that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 would be enough to turn back the tide of warming and get us back from the "tipping point". All of the activist work I've done on this issue has been asking for a federal standard of 80% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050. However, there are still many businesses and lobby groups that either oppose any carbon emissions standard or want one that is much more gradual than this, and many politicians are still gun shy of signing on to legislation to this effect--even though the number of voters who consider this an important issue for the presidential election is growing (http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/10/01/global-warming-is-a-primary-issue-for-40-of-us-presidential-voters/7405/). Among Republican presidential candidates, so far only McCain has any kind of comprehensive energy proposal, and his bill only calls for a 65% reduction by 2050; among top-tier candidates, Edwards and Obama are the only ones who propose meeting the science-based goal of 80% reduction by 2050 (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/).
I agree with you entirely that locally produced energy (and while we're at it, locally produced everything, so it takes less energy to get it from producer to consumer) needs to be a big part of the answer. But it's an answer that is still mostly opposed by big businesses that need widespread consumer bases. Not to mention the fact that locally produced goods are going to be more expensive, and who wants to agree with a plan that will forever dispense with the everyday low prices of Walmart? Goods that are manufactured in China by factory workers paid $6 a day (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22507-2004Feb7?language=printer) are always going to be more expensive than goods manufactured locally, even if they're manufactured by illegal immigrants paid $5 an hour http://www.boisestate.edu/history/issuesonline/fall2005_issues/5f_numbers_mex.html). And while Americans are willing to pay a little more for new cars or for electricity (up to $500 more for a new car, or $100 a year for electricity) in order to reduce carbon emissions, most are still opposed to any kind of carbon tax, which is probably the most effective--and the most free-market-friendly--method for lowering carbon emissions quickly. We agree with the problem in principle, but we don't agree on a solution if it touches our pocketbooks. And the solution will touch our pocketbooks; it'll have to. Fossil fuels are our main source of energy because they're our cheapest form of energy. Make them more expensive, and some prices are going to go up. So I guess that's one of the reasons why I feel so obligated to talk about it, and to keep talking about it, and to not shy away from talking about the problem as well as solutions. In order to make a wise decision, people need to realize that the consequences of not acting--and not acting FAST (we really don't have time to thoroughly test solutions as much as we'd like to)--will be much, much worse than any short-term (or even long-term) damages to their pocketbooks or the economy. We have to realize the level of danger that we're in before we can make sacrifices toward a solution. And while many aspects of the solution will be easy, simple, and painless, many others of them will probably be difficult and painful--especially when peak oil and the decline of available energy starts to come into play. So for me, talking about the problem (in a solution-oriented way, but not a way that downplays the problem) is kind of a marketing campaign, the same sort of campaign that governments apply during wartime. It's an attempt at inspiring people to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
You say that if we agree on a problem, then we should stop talking about the problem and move toward solutions. I absolutely agree--I think everyone who agrees on the problem probably agrees. But the reason people are still talking about the problem is that we haven't agreed on the problem. There are still plenty of people who want to continue burning CO2 indefinitely. Of course, in the past year there has been a lot more consensus. The scientific community was the first to come to agreement, followed by the majority of citizens (as demonstrated by this international poll, showing that 65% of world population and 59% of U.S. population say we need to take major steps to address climate change very soon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm), but some politicians are still lagging behind. President Bush, for instance, didn't admit that climate change was human-induced until February of this year, after the release of the IPCC report. And his response was not to propose action, but to organize an international climate summit to talk about possible carbon emission goals (not mandatory targets), ignoring the fact that the U.N. had already held lengthy talks (over the past few years), talked through the issue thoroughly, and tried to set mandatory targets which the U.S. wouldn't agree to. Which sounds to me like a lot more useless talking about the problem that avoids any movement toward solutions.
However, if you look at the majority of talk about the issue, you'll find that it is very much a conversation about solutions. The scientific consensus is that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 would be enough to turn back the tide of warming and get us back from the "tipping point". All of the activist work I've done on this issue has been asking for a federal standard of 80% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050. However, there are still many businesses and lobby groups that either oppose any carbon emissions standard or want one that is much more gradual than this, and many politicians are still gun shy of signing on to legislation to this effect--even though the number of voters who consider this an important issue for the presidential election is growing (http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/10/01/global-warming-is-a-primary-issue-for-40-of-us-presidential-voters/7405/). Among Republican presidential candidates, so far only McCain has any kind of comprehensive energy proposal, and his bill only calls for a 65% reduction by 2050; among top-tier candidates, Edwards and Obama are the only ones who propose meeting the science-based goal of 80% reduction by 2050 (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/).
I agree with you entirely that locally produced energy (and while we're at it, locally produced everything, so it takes less energy to get it from producer to consumer) needs to be a big part of the answer. But it's an answer that is still mostly opposed by big businesses that need widespread consumer bases. Not to mention the fact that locally produced goods are going to be more expensive, and who wants to agree with a plan that will forever dispense with the everyday low prices of Walmart? Goods that are manufactured in China by factory workers paid $6 a day (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22507-2004Feb7?language=printer) are always going to be more expensive than goods manufactured locally, even if they're manufactured by illegal immigrants paid $5 an hour http://www.boisestate.edu/history/issuesonline/fall2005_issues/5f_numbers_mex.html). And while Americans are willing to pay a little more for new cars or for electricity (up to $500 more for a new car, or $100 a year for electricity) in order to reduce carbon emissions, most are still opposed to any kind of carbon tax, which is probably the most effective--and the most free-market-friendly--method for lowering carbon emissions quickly. We agree with the problem in principle, but we don't agree on a solution if it touches our pocketbooks. And the solution will touch our pocketbooks; it'll have to. Fossil fuels are our main source of energy because they're our cheapest form of energy. Make them more expensive, and some prices are going to go up. So I guess that's one of the reasons why I feel so obligated to talk about it, and to keep talking about it, and to not shy away from talking about the problem as well as solutions. In order to make a wise decision, people need to realize that the consequences of not acting--and not acting FAST (we really don't have time to thoroughly test solutions as much as we'd like to)--will be much, much worse than any short-term (or even long-term) damages to their pocketbooks or the economy. We have to realize the level of danger that we're in before we can make sacrifices toward a solution. And while many aspects of the solution will be easy, simple, and painless, many others of them will probably be difficult and painful--especially when peak oil and the decline of available energy starts to come into play. So for me, talking about the problem (in a solution-oriented way, but not a way that downplays the problem) is kind of a marketing campaign, the same sort of campaign that governments apply during wartime. It's an attempt at inspiring people to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
global warming and game theory
You have got to watch this video. It's a simplified explanation of why we have to take action on climate change. The risks of not acting are so much worse than the risks of acting. I've been saying this for a long time: how can we compare the risk of an economic downturn with the risk of global catastrophe and possible extinction? They're not even in the same playing field. As this science teacher says, we have to eliminate the latter as a possibility. It's just too dangerous to play around with.
And if you're thinking about stewardship, it's not just stewardship of the planet we're talking about here: it's stewardship of ourselves, of the whole human race, of every resource we've ever been given. We could lose a little money, or we could lose everything. It's hardly a choice.
And if you're thinking about stewardship, it's not just stewardship of the planet we're talking about here: it's stewardship of ourselves, of the whole human race, of every resource we've ever been given. We could lose a little money, or we could lose everything. It's hardly a choice.
Friday, October 19, 2007
the advantages of bicycles
This article I just read was so cool that I had to share it. It's a detailed discussion of how new bikeways more than pay for the cost of building them through advantages like less wasted fuel and less expensive wear and tear on car roads. Not to mention putting more money in the pockets of people who use them instead of paying for gas, which they then are able to spend on the local economy. And let's not forget about health care savings for healthier people who exercise.
Go read the whole article. Then ride your bike.
Go read the whole article. Then ride your bike.
no new coal!--really?!?
For the first time ever, a state (Kansas) has rejected an air permit for a coal-fired electricity plant--because of concerns about carbon dioxide pollution. Kansas's decision is supported by the Supreme Court ruling in April of this year that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is therefore subject to regulations under the EPA. My favorite political commentary blog, The Grist, pretty much sums it up: Bad news for coal; good news for the human race.
Finding the right decision is so much easier when human interests and the interests of the natural world coincide.
Particularly encouraging to me was Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius's statement equating "the question of where we get our energy" with "a moral obligation to be good stewards of this state." Although the coal company, Sunflower, didn't like that very much. Spokesman Steve Miller retorted, "That implies that we're not moral stewards of the land." Well, um, yeah.
Also encouraging is the fact that many voters opposed the plant, despite promises of new jobs and low energy costs. Which goes directly against my long-held belief, acquired while working in retail, that people as a mass are just plain stupid. But this is more evidence that the wind is changing, and ordinary people are starting to think differently about energy and pollution. They're starting to think about it as a moral issue, and not just an economic one.
All of this, as I said, is encouraging. But it's still a little mind-boggling to think how long it's taken us to get here, and how many people are still unconvinced that these questions actually do matter. I mean, as far as moral dilemmas go, this seems like a no-brainer. Is it ever right to do something that will ultimately destroy us and everything around us in order to obtain a few short-term, continually diminishing gains? You can argue that we don't know for a fact what the results will be of continuing to spout out greenhouse gasses indefinitely. You can even argue (with the entire scientific world against you) that we don't know that global warming is being caused by human activity. But if there's any chance at all that we're on a path to destroying ourselves and the rest of the planet, then surely you can't argue that this isn't a moral issue. I mean, if you had the chance, would you try to talk down a suicide jumper? Or would you shrug your shoulders and say it's none of your business? What about a suicide bomber who's planning on taking a building full of people with him? Is there any question about the morality of an action like that? Sure, the consequences of global warming are much less dramatic and sudden, more gradual to take effect. But the evidence is growing more and more overwhelming that they will be no less deadly.
Maybe my analogies are a little too extreme. But I simply don't understand the resistance to change in this arena, especially when a lot of small changes can have a surprisingly big impact. Of course, it will take big changes too--and make no mistake: getting off coal is a big change. But I don't know how much longer we can keep arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks. There's simply too much at stake--too many moral issues at stake--too much to lose and too little to gain. Which goes back to my general assumption about people being stupid. Generally, I think we probably are. But we don't have to be too smart to make the right decision here. Richard Heinberg's illustration puts it best: we only need to be a little bit smarter than yeast.
Finding the right decision is so much easier when human interests and the interests of the natural world coincide.
Particularly encouraging to me was Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius's statement equating "the question of where we get our energy" with "a moral obligation to be good stewards of this state." Although the coal company, Sunflower, didn't like that very much. Spokesman Steve Miller retorted, "That implies that we're not moral stewards of the land." Well, um, yeah.
Also encouraging is the fact that many voters opposed the plant, despite promises of new jobs and low energy costs. Which goes directly against my long-held belief, acquired while working in retail, that people as a mass are just plain stupid. But this is more evidence that the wind is changing, and ordinary people are starting to think differently about energy and pollution. They're starting to think about it as a moral issue, and not just an economic one.
All of this, as I said, is encouraging. But it's still a little mind-boggling to think how long it's taken us to get here, and how many people are still unconvinced that these questions actually do matter. I mean, as far as moral dilemmas go, this seems like a no-brainer. Is it ever right to do something that will ultimately destroy us and everything around us in order to obtain a few short-term, continually diminishing gains? You can argue that we don't know for a fact what the results will be of continuing to spout out greenhouse gasses indefinitely. You can even argue (with the entire scientific world against you) that we don't know that global warming is being caused by human activity. But if there's any chance at all that we're on a path to destroying ourselves and the rest of the planet, then surely you can't argue that this isn't a moral issue. I mean, if you had the chance, would you try to talk down a suicide jumper? Or would you shrug your shoulders and say it's none of your business? What about a suicide bomber who's planning on taking a building full of people with him? Is there any question about the morality of an action like that? Sure, the consequences of global warming are much less dramatic and sudden, more gradual to take effect. But the evidence is growing more and more overwhelming that they will be no less deadly.
Maybe my analogies are a little too extreme. But I simply don't understand the resistance to change in this arena, especially when a lot of small changes can have a surprisingly big impact. Of course, it will take big changes too--and make no mistake: getting off coal is a big change. But I don't know how much longer we can keep arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks. There's simply too much at stake--too many moral issues at stake--too much to lose and too little to gain. Which goes back to my general assumption about people being stupid. Generally, I think we probably are. But we don't have to be too smart to make the right decision here. Richard Heinberg's illustration puts it best: we only need to be a little bit smarter than yeast.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
it's raining!
That's all I have to say. It's supposed to keep raining through tomorrow, at least with scattered showers...
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
how should we deal with the drought?
On Tuesday the Georgia Congress proposed changing the Endangered Species Act to allow suspension of federal protection during times of severe drought. This would allow Georgia to temporarily stop pumping water from Lake Lanier to Florida and Alabama, where it helps protect the habitat of endangered mussels and sturgeon. On the surface, this seems like an easy decision--for politicians, it's a no-brainer--but there's more to the question than meets the eye. This goes to the heart of the problem that many people have with any environmentalist movement: Do we value animals or plants more than people?
Some Christians find it easy to answer an unequivocal no. Humanity is the crown of creation, made in the image of God, so of course we're more valuable than animals. But I don't find that conclusion so easy; the question goes deeper than that.
Some secularists also find it easy to value humans above animals. They argue that from a biological perspective, it's impossible for us to value another species more than ourselves. Our survival instinct won't let us: when push comes to shove, we want to survive. We have no choice about it.
But for me, the idea that we do have choices is central to Christian theology. Maybe we are the crown of creation, made in the image of God, but it's the image of a God Who sacrificed Himself for His creation. We are the only creature that can even contemplate such a choice. We are the only species that is capable of caring about the destruction of another species. And in Christian theology, it's our job to care, and to protect the rest of the planet.
And let's not mince words--we are talking about extinction here. It's not definite that stopping the water from Lake Lanier would result in the extinction of these species, but it's a strong possibility. If we are called to be stewards of the earth, then we are sacrificing our stewardship by choosing to let these species die.
But in reality, if I admit the truth to myself, I have to admit that I do care more about people than animals. Especially if I'm one of the people. And I don't want to give that water to mussels. I want to drink it, I want to bathe in it, I want to wash my dishes in it. I want Atlanta to make it through this drought okay, without having to make too many painful lifestyle changes, and I won't even know the difference if a species of mussels goes extinct. I've never even met a mussel.
But is that a Christian attitude I should be proud of, or a selfish biological attitude I should transcend? I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined toward the latter.
In the meantime, I'll keep conserving water, and pray for rain.
Some Christians find it easy to answer an unequivocal no. Humanity is the crown of creation, made in the image of God, so of course we're more valuable than animals. But I don't find that conclusion so easy; the question goes deeper than that.
Some secularists also find it easy to value humans above animals. They argue that from a biological perspective, it's impossible for us to value another species more than ourselves. Our survival instinct won't let us: when push comes to shove, we want to survive. We have no choice about it.
But for me, the idea that we do have choices is central to Christian theology. Maybe we are the crown of creation, made in the image of God, but it's the image of a God Who sacrificed Himself for His creation. We are the only creature that can even contemplate such a choice. We are the only species that is capable of caring about the destruction of another species. And in Christian theology, it's our job to care, and to protect the rest of the planet.
And let's not mince words--we are talking about extinction here. It's not definite that stopping the water from Lake Lanier would result in the extinction of these species, but it's a strong possibility. If we are called to be stewards of the earth, then we are sacrificing our stewardship by choosing to let these species die.
But in reality, if I admit the truth to myself, I have to admit that I do care more about people than animals. Especially if I'm one of the people. And I don't want to give that water to mussels. I want to drink it, I want to bathe in it, I want to wash my dishes in it. I want Atlanta to make it through this drought okay, without having to make too many painful lifestyle changes, and I won't even know the difference if a species of mussels goes extinct. I've never even met a mussel.
But is that a Christian attitude I should be proud of, or a selfish biological attitude I should transcend? I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined toward the latter.
In the meantime, I'll keep conserving water, and pray for rain.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
the worst drought in 100 years: ways to conserve water
Somehow it seems worse when the national news is talking about it. Of course I already knew that Georgia was in the middle of the worst drought in 100 years, and I knew that without rain, Atlanta could be out of water in three months. But talking about Lake Lanier being dry in 90 days just sounds even scarier somehow.
But then, just the thought of needing to conserve water terrifies me--if it were possible to be a wateraholic, I would be one. I drink, on average, at least 63 ounces of water a day, and usually closer to 80 ounces--around two to three times the recommended amount. I can't imagine getting by on a mere 8 ounces a day. But there are some things even I can do to conserve water, even though I find it hard to drink less. Here are some ideas:
* Take showers instead of baths. Take fewer showers, and keep them short--no more than five minutes.
* Turn the water off while you're brushing your teeth or shaving.
* Don't water your plants, or if you need to water your vegetables, use gray water.
* When it does rain, collect rainwater--even just a bucket could help--and reuse that water for cleaning, watering plants or even washing dishes.
* Put a bucket in your shower and use the water you collect for watering plants or cleaning the tub.
* Fix any leaks or dripping faucets!
* Never leave water running while washing dishes, cleaning the tub, etc. (I hate to admit it, but I have been guilty of this one...)
* Don't flush the toilet unless you have to. You know the saying your grandmother taught you: If it's yellow, let it mellow... And don't flush that dead spider down the toilet. Just put it in the trash.
* Replace your showerhead with an ultra-low flow showerhead. They're less than $10 at Home Depot.
* Don't use running water to thaw frozen meat--thaw it overnight in the fridge.
* Stop using your garbage disposal; start a compost pile instead.
* Check your toilet for leaks: put food coloring in the tank. If the coloring gets into the bowl, then the toilet is leaking.
* Only run the dishwasher for a full load.
* Only run the washing machine with a full load, and set the water for the lowest setting.
* Get a low-flush toilet--or better yet, a composting toilet.
* And a really clever trick I found here: Put a plastic jug full of sand or stone in your toilet tank. The tank will fill quicker and use less water.
But then, just the thought of needing to conserve water terrifies me--if it were possible to be a wateraholic, I would be one. I drink, on average, at least 63 ounces of water a day, and usually closer to 80 ounces--around two to three times the recommended amount. I can't imagine getting by on a mere 8 ounces a day. But there are some things even I can do to conserve water, even though I find it hard to drink less. Here are some ideas:
* Take showers instead of baths. Take fewer showers, and keep them short--no more than five minutes.
* Turn the water off while you're brushing your teeth or shaving.
* Don't water your plants, or if you need to water your vegetables, use gray water.
* When it does rain, collect rainwater--even just a bucket could help--and reuse that water for cleaning, watering plants or even washing dishes.
* Put a bucket in your shower and use the water you collect for watering plants or cleaning the tub.
* Fix any leaks or dripping faucets!
* Never leave water running while washing dishes, cleaning the tub, etc. (I hate to admit it, but I have been guilty of this one...)
* Don't flush the toilet unless you have to. You know the saying your grandmother taught you: If it's yellow, let it mellow... And don't flush that dead spider down the toilet. Just put it in the trash.
* Replace your showerhead with an ultra-low flow showerhead. They're less than $10 at Home Depot.
* Don't use running water to thaw frozen meat--thaw it overnight in the fridge.
* Stop using your garbage disposal; start a compost pile instead.
* Check your toilet for leaks: put food coloring in the tank. If the coloring gets into the bowl, then the toilet is leaking.
* Only run the dishwasher for a full load.
* Only run the washing machine with a full load, and set the water for the lowest setting.
* Get a low-flush toilet--or better yet, a composting toilet.
* And a really clever trick I found here: Put a plastic jug full of sand or stone in your toilet tank. The tank will fill quicker and use less water.
Monday, October 1, 2007
voluntary blackout
Here's an idea I really like. Eight to nine in the evening--prime television time--is a perfect hour to voluntarily scrap your electricity use. Dinner's finished, so you don't need to cook; it's after dark, so you can't read without artificial light...what on earth will people do?!? Play a game? Go for a walk? Maybe even--gasp--talk to their housemates or their neighbors! Ok, sorry about the sarcasm. But really. It does seem like an impressive stretch to me, because it's so far outside of what people are usually doing at that hour. In our house, I'm usually reading (by energy-efficient lightbulbs, of course, but still) and my husband is reading on his laptop. The neighbors are either doing homework or watching television. So what would we be doing if we turned out the lights?
Well, there are a lot of cockroaches on the sidewalks at that hour, but I still think a walk would be a nice option. Of course there are always games that don't require seeing anything--word games or guessing games. (Actually, I bet Mafia would be really fun in the dark.) We could pray, or sing, or play guitar, although Matt's electric keyboard would be off limits. Sleeping, of course, is the easiest solution, and although I don't usually go to bed that early, there are definitely evenings when I wouldn't mind. And there are always other interesting things to do in the dark when you're a newlywed couple. :-)
Nonetheless, I have to admit it: giving up electricity for my prime reading hour would be a real challenge for us--and we call ourselves environmentalists. So I have to hand it to San Francisco for doing it, and to LA for trying it: I'm impressed.
Nationwide lights-out hour in March? I'm definitely in.
Well, there are a lot of cockroaches on the sidewalks at that hour, but I still think a walk would be a nice option. Of course there are always games that don't require seeing anything--word games or guessing games. (Actually, I bet Mafia would be really fun in the dark.) We could pray, or sing, or play guitar, although Matt's electric keyboard would be off limits. Sleeping, of course, is the easiest solution, and although I don't usually go to bed that early, there are definitely evenings when I wouldn't mind. And there are always other interesting things to do in the dark when you're a newlywed couple. :-)
Nonetheless, I have to admit it: giving up electricity for my prime reading hour would be a real challenge for us--and we call ourselves environmentalists. So I have to hand it to San Francisco for doing it, and to LA for trying it: I'm impressed.
Nationwide lights-out hour in March? I'm definitely in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
