2nd Green Revolution - Part 22

Legacy

A few weeks ago I finished Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs. Overall, I thought it was a well-written and honest account of the man and his life. There was plenty in the book that Steve Jobs would not like to read but to sugar coat or gloss-over the way Jobs was would be disingenuous. It would create a false representation of what it was about his personality that enabled him to take Apple from his parents’ California garage and turn it into one of the most valuable companies on the planet. In all honesty, he was often a real ass and would cut down people mercilessly, but the abuse often led to better results, better products, and people working together to do things they thought they could not do. It wasn’t always necessary to be so mean but that’s just the way he was. In the end, however, the good and bad aspects of his personality and management style were focused on one main goal: to create a company that would thrive and innovate a generation or two after he was gone. Isaacson quotes a long passage from Jobs near the end of the book, in the chapter called Legacy.

I hate it when people call themselves ‘entrepreneurs’ when what they’re really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they can cash in and move on. They’re unwilling to do the work it takes to build a real company, which is the hardest work in business. That’s how you really make a contribution and add to the legacy of those who went before. You build a company that will stand for something a generation or two from now. That’s what Walt Disney did, and Hewlett and Packard, and the people who built Intel. They created a company to last, not just to make money.”

It became apparent to me that his point about creating value and creating a company for the ages is akin to the larger sustainability movement, and about how we have to create a society for the ages.

With the advances in IT and other technologies, we are truly one world now. With some imagination, you can think of global society as a 7 billion person company with each country a division – led by a president or a “CEO” – a part of the whole. You can stretch the metaphor further but indulge me on this overall proposition for a moment. All of us are workers in that company. We get hired and are fired and live a life of demotions and promotions as we figure out what it is we are actually doing and/or supposed to be doing while we are here on earth. Some of us excel more than others. Some of us change jobs or switch divisions but we all remain in the same company. The contributions that we make are often lost within the sheer size of the enterprise, but they have – even in their smallest degrees – an effect on the business of human society. Collectively, we try to make the world function better. We create time saving inventions and disease eradicating vaccines. We try new forms of government and refine the ones we already have. We try to push the human race forward; to improve, to progress. Sometimes we don’t do so well. We fight wars and act out all forms of destructive behavior. Rogue employees try to overthrow the board, sometimes succeeding. Bad leaders have pushed the world near bankruptcy (sticking with the metaphor of global society as a company) both literally and figuratively numerous times; right to the edge. But so far, the human enterprise has come roaring back. A bad leader or system is thrown out when the “stockholders” revolt.

Global society adapts to changing conditions in order to sustain itself; in order to survive. But for it to truly live on, it must become sustainable. The human experiment must not just be about hedonism or wealth, mastery over nature or disregard for all that has come before us or, indeed, disregard for all that will come after. Nor should we disregard or abuse all the plentiful resources around us which we use to live, prosper, and invent. Rather, it’s about creating something that will last for generations after we are gone. It’s not easy. It means we have to stop living how we’ve been living. It means

Adult Audiences + Environmental Books = Opportunities for Environmental Education

By Amy Markle

Reaching adult audiences with environmental education is one of my favorite challenges as a Naturalist at Wood Lake Nature Center. Adults are often a fickle audience who are pulled in many directions, so wrangling them in for an environmental education program can be tough but not impossible. Seven years ago I created an environmental book club and after reading over 60 books it is still going strong! Each month a group of adults get together for an engaging discussion that focuses on environmental issues, nature, and outdoor adventures.

The book club model has worked because it provides an opportunity for adults to use critical thinking skills in discussing what are often complex and timely environmental issues. Frequently, presentations, guest speakers, videos, and photos enhance our discussions. Participants also have the opportunity to share their opinions, stories, and questions. The book club model has also allowed for a wide variety of issues to be explored.

Communication with participants is done through a monthly email. All books are available through the library and are regularly suggested by the group. We have read many of the classics as well as recently published books to better understand where we have been and where we are going in understanding the natural world around us.

The following are our most recent reads:

Five Friday Facts: Winter Tips

A few years ago we had a Five Friday Facts – Christmas Edition and a post on real vs. fake holiday symbols. Today’s Five Friday Facts are less holiday centric, but they all come from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Winter Tips.

  • Approximately 33 million live Christmas trees are sold in North America every year.
  • In 2011, Americans using products with the Design for the Environment (DfE) label cut the use of harmful chemicals by more than 756 million pounds.
  • A typical household spends about $1,900 a year on energy bills and contributes twice the amount of greenhouse gases to the environment as an average car.
  • Heating accounts for 34% of all annual utility usage and is part of what makes an average home twice the emitter of carbon dioxide emissions as a vehicle.
  • If every American household reduced their water use by 10 gallons on just Thanksgiving Day, it would save more than 1 billion gallons of water, as well as save any energy or materials used to pump or treat tap water.

Image source: Metropolitan Museum of Art

What is the Difference Between a Kilowatt and Kilowatt-hour Anyway?

I wish I knew. The energy economy can be confusing, especially for consumers. I, for example, still have no frame of reference for watts and kilowatts. If I’m told a plant produces X kilowatts of electricity or a solar panel produces Y amount of energy that doesn’t really mean much to me. I have no frame of reference. I know I am not alone in this. Say “60 watt bulb” and an image pops up in my mind. I know what 60 watts “looks like” and what it can power, but trying to envision the electricity needed to light the bulb is tough. Say gallon and an milk jug pops up as an image in my mind. Say 880 watts and nothing pops up (even if doing the math yields 14 and a half 60 watt bulbs). This is all part of the disconnect between us and understanding our energy use.

What about electric bills and kilowatts (kW) versus kilowatt-hours (kWH)? Here is a site that may help give us a frame of reference. Energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours and is the amount of watts multiplied by the total number of hours used. So a 100 watt bulb burning in your lamp for 10 hours consumes 1,000 watt-hours  of energy (100×10=1,000). 1,000 watt-hours is the same as 1 kilowatt-hour. The graphic below helps bring it all together. That same bulb is also demanding 100 watts of electricity from the grid the entire time it is on. The power plant therefore has to have 100 watts, or 0.1kW ready for whenever that light gets turned on.

So I guess that explains it, but it’s still not intuitive. It’s still like hearing temperatures in Celsius or distances in kilometers for Americans. It just doesn’t quite compute (getting better, now that I’m in Japan, however). Perhaps it is just repetition that breeds familiarity and if we get used to learning about and hearing about energy, it will sink in. 

The Sustainability of Coffee

Coffee is a necessity for many of us in the morning.  54 % of the U.S. is reported to drink it daily, which drives the $18B coffee market in the U.S.  It wakes us up and keeps us going throughout the day.  But is it really sustainable?  Especially when it can only be grown in certain regions of the world, “Coffee trees produce their best beans when grown at high altitudes in a tropical climate where there is rich soil.  Such conditions are found around the world in locations along the Equatorial zone, between latitudes 25 degrees North and 30 degrees South.”  This means many areas around the world that depend on coffee must have it shipped long distances to reach its destination.  Transporting these distances add to the consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources, along with adding to air pollution and greenhouse gases (which in turn leads to climate change that can impact our precious coffee trees).  Also consider the massive amounts of water that are used for processing and brewing coffee, all the paper cups used by coffee shops, and the list goes on.  It starts seeming our necessary caffeine jolt is not very sustainable or eco-friendly.

So what can we do? Here are some tips in how to keep your cup of Joe sustainable:

U.S. Navy Makes Largest Government Purchase of Biofuels

According to a press release from the Department of Defense, the United States Navy recently agreed to purchase 450,000 gallons of domestically produced biofuel. Solazyme (written up here recently) and Dynamic Fuels LLC were jointly awarded the $12 million contract. One of the unique aspects of the blend is that Solazyme’s biofuel is algae-based, while Dynamic Fuels makes theirs from used cooking oil and animal fat.

From the press release, “The U.S. Navy will employ a biofuel blend to power aircraft and most vessels participating in a maritime exercise that’s slated to be conducted near Hawaii next summer.” Biofuels will be mixed with petroleum to create a 50-50 blend for the exercise. Mixing fuels can occur because the biofuels are “drop-in fuels”, which can be added directly to existing stores and run through engines without any modifications. This characteristic, along with coming from non-food sources and not increasing the Navy’s carbon footprint, represented the criteria for the biofuel. As a curious note, the carrier that will be employed in the exercise is nuclear powered.

“World’s Best Cat Litter”: A Review (and Coupon)

By Guest Author Christine Manger

There are many products in today’s marketplace that claim to be healthy, safe and green, including products for our pets. Recently, I was given a bag of World’s Best Cat Litter (WBCL), a 100% all natural litter made from whole kernel corn, for my cat Peaches to test and “review”. At 10 years old, Peaches is somewhat set in her ways so I wasn’t sure she would adapt to a new brand of litter, especially one with a different texture, larger pellets and a corn-like smell. Initially (as suggested on the package), I gradually mixed in WBCL with her current brand and there was no negative reaction. After a couple of days I was using just the new litter. Peaches’ first reaction was to sniff and walk away but after doing this three times in a half hour, she decided to give it a try and used WBCL without hesitation.

World’s Best Cat Litter has several positives. It clumps extremely well and is easy to scoop and I really liked the fact there was less sticking to the sides of the litter box. Odor control is very good, with less ammonia smell. I noticed less dust in the air also; no silica dust (like clay litters) for your pet or you to breathe. WBCL is biodegradable and claims to be septic safe and flushable but I did not test this aspect of the product.

Cost could be a negative for some in using this product. The initial cost is higher than most litter brands (more than twice the cost per pound of Peaches’ current litter). But, one 7 pound bag claims to last up to 30 days for one cat, much longer than most other clumping litters. Clumping on contact helps keep the rest of the litter dryer for a longer period of time.

So, if you are looking for

Despite Sluggish Economy, Global Carbon Emissions Reach Record High

The New York Times is reporting that the worldwide carbon dioxide emissions “from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery.” This report follows news from earlier this year about the increase in US based emissions, which were up from 2009, but still below 2005 levels.

The Times cites a recent study from the Global Carbon Project (GCP). For a copy of the media summary from GCP, click here. Among the findings, GCP noted the “annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 was 2.36±0.09 ppm in 2010 (ppm = parts per million), one of the largest growth rates in the past decade.” This growth rate was nearly 25% higher than the average for the first decade of the millennium, and roughly 33% higher than the last two decades of the preceding century.

GCP’s report covers the following topics:

Save Money, Not the Planet

How many times, in how many ways, and with how many examples do we need to say it? The focus on any green agenda should not be carbon reductions or global warming or  – dare I say it – saving the planet. The planet will be fine. We may not be, but the earth will keep spinning and various forms of life will survive despite what happens to us. Let’s talk about something we all feel more acutely and more directly than a 1 degree rise in average global temperatures – money. 

With most of the developed world mired in a debt swamp of their own making, the impetus to focus on the cost savings of going green should be first and foremost in any debate. As a recent NY Times piece points out without really saying it (again, the focus being on “global warming” and costs of green policy not the cost savings of such policy), the United Kingdom is considering pulling back on some of its carbon cutting agenda. They cite not being able to afford it as a main reason. This is short-sighted. In the story, officials comment that they can’t afford to undertake the measures to cut carbon because they are presumably too expensive. Long term expenses due to climate change would likely be greater than any upfront cost but these are rarely considered. There is of course focus on helping the economy in the short term, and one strategy here is to reduce expenses through energy conservation measures and upgrading equipment.

The phrase “global warming” is problematic in the first place. It fails to capture what is happening. Yes, the overall average global temperature is rising but “global warming” invites ridicule when events such as the Washington DC blizzard of 2010 erase all signs of “warming” from the minds of the people who are experiencing the extreme event on a local scale. It’s global warming, not localized warming and cooling. We simply fail to see the global aspect, through our limited daily interactions on a smaller scale in a local area. Climate change is more accurate as the effects of 7 billion fossil fuel consuming humans causing erratic and more extreme weather and climate variations experienced on the local scale, not simply warming across the planet. That said, there is so much confusion, political bickering, and various types of misinformation that come with a “carbon cutting” or “stopping climate change” agenda that progress is often frustratingly slow, or nearly non-existent. It’s more effective to talk of the tangible cost savings that result from implementing energy efficiency measures, cutting energy use, and even subsidizing new technologies that, when mature, will provide more abundant energy at cheaper costs and – here’s the kicker -

Presidents Obama and Clinton Join Forces to Save Energy

Being as they are from the same political party, it might not be a huge surprise that former President Bill Clinton is joining current Commander in Chief Barack Obama in an effort to reduce energy costs. However, given the fact that the former leader’s wife lost in her bid for the Democratic presidential bid to Obama in 2008, their partnership may be considered news in and of itself. This being a news site, not a political one, the more pertinent information is the nature of their work.

The Associated Press is reporting that the president’s plan will save $4 billion. Perhaps most importantly, the “effort to increase the energy efficiency of government and private sector buildings, aiming for fuel savings and job creation [comes] at no cost to taxpayers.” According to a press release from the White House “60 CEOs, mayors, university presidents, and labor leaders [yesterday] committed to invest nearly $2 billion of private capital into energy efficiency projects; and to upgrade energy performance by a minimum of 20% by 2020 in 1.6 billion square feet of office, industrial, municipal, hospital, university, community college and school buildings.” In order to achieve the goal of “no cost to taxpayers” the $4 billion will be recouped through the energy savings. This process is referred to as performance contracting, mentioned here by former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter.

Interestingly enough, performance contracting, also known as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, was originally implemented during Clinton’s administration. However, the AP mentions that it has been used infrequently. “The proposal, to be announced by Obama and Clinton on Friday, would upgrade buildings over the next two years with a goal of improving energy performance by 20 percent by 2020.” The story cites Gene Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council, who claims that the program “could generate about 50,000 jobs over two years.”

The White House announcement “builds on a commitment made by 14 partners at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in June to make energy upgrades across 300 million square feet, and to invest $500 million in private sector financing in energy efficiency projects.” The June commitment by CGI is part of the Better Buildings Challenge. “The Challenge is part of the Better Buildings Initiative launched in February by President Obama, and is spearheaded by former President Clinton and the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to support job creation by catalyzing private sector investment in commercial and industrial building energy upgrades to make America’s buildings 20 percent more efficient over the next decade, reducing energy costs for American businesses by nearly $40 billion.” Capitalizing on reducing energy consumption represents not only a fiscal savings for the short term, but one that will continue to pay dividends after the initial investment is paid off.

[Image source]

Powered by WordPress | Cell Phones for Sale at Bestincellphones.com. | Thanks to Cheap Palm Pixi, iCellPhonePlans.com and iCellPhoneDeals.com Wireless Deals
Paperblog Increase your website traffic with Attracta.com