Conducive Chronicle &#187; Johnnie Chamberlin

Cash for Appliance Clunkers

India Leading the Way to Sustainable Future

Review of Deep Economy. Read it!

Deep Economy. Read It!

Johnnie Chamberlin — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:45:38 +0000

I just finished Bill McKibben’s, Deep Economy – The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. For me, this is one of those rare books that is both easy and interesting to read, but will change how you view the world and likely how you live your life. Using examples from Vermont, Central America, Cuba, Brazil, India, Bhutan, Montana, China, New York, and elsewhere, McKibben explores what is wrong with many of our commonly held economic beliefs and examines ways to simultaneously build community, increase food production, boost employment, increase happiness, and protect and restore our environment. Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivores Dilemma, a similarly thought provoking book, says “The cult of growth and globalization has seldom been so effectively challenged as by Bill McKibben in Deep Economy”. While I highly recommend taking the time to read this incredible book from front cover to back cover, here are a just a few thought provoking facts and interesting ideas from Deep Economy:

Remember these facts and quotes are stripped from their context. If you strongly disagree with any of them, I encourage you to get a copy of the book and read the in-depth research provided that backs each of these statements up.

“Growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity”
“Natural and created capital are fundamentally complements. You can’t get richer, at least for long, by impoverishing the world around you.”
Growth is no longer making us in the developed world happy:
1. People born in advanced countries since 1955 are 3 times as likely as their grandparents to have suffered a serious bout of depression.
2. The average American child today reports higher levels of anxiety than the average child under psychiatric care in the 1950s.
3. We have more stuff and less happiness.
Money consistently buys happiness right up to about $10,000 per capita income, and then after that point the correlation disappears.
The average bite of American food has traveled 1,500 miles and changed hands 6 times before it reaches your mouth.
Californians, most of whom have high quality tap water from the Sierras, throw away 1.2 billion water bottles every year. Water that was often shipped long distances using large amounts of fuel.
In terms of CO2 emissions, switching to local foods is the equivalent of cutting household energy use by 20 percent.
Smaller farms produce MUCH MORE food per acre than larger farms. And that is the USDA saying that!
You get more food per acre with smaller farms and more food per dollar with larger ones.
Sustainable agricultural practices lead to an increase in production per acre.
Farmers selling produce at the rapidly increasing number of Farmer’s Markets around the country get 100% of the money spent on food compared to 10% earned though the typical industrialized food system process.
The average new home size has doubled since 1970.
America ranks 51^st in environmental sustainability.
And though it is 2^nd in GDP per capita, the USA ranks 13^th in quality of life.
“Between 1973 and 2000, the average American employee added 199 hours to his annual schedule.” Today’s Americans earn more, have more, and produce more, but have less time to enjoy the fruits of their labor when compared to Americans thirty or forty years ago.
DuPont, a major chemical company, found it surprisingly easy and economically beneficial to drastically cut CO2 emissions by 67%.
Only 22% of the energy contained in coal is effectively put to use. The rest is wasted at the power plant, through transmission, and by inefficient appliances.
Cleaner and more localized energy production would eliminate much of this waste. Think solar panels, solar water heaters, community wind turbines, small-scale natural gas plants that put “waste heat” to use heating nearby homes and businesses, etc.
Europeans live closer to their stores, parks, and schools and therefore walk or bike five times as often as Americans.
Our ideas of growth and development can’t involve the rest of the world (or even Americans) living like Americans.
1. If the Chinese ate meat like Americans, they’d use 2/3 of the world grain harvest.
2. If the Chinese owned cars like Americans, they’d use more than all the oil currently produced globally.
3. If the Chinese ate fish like the Japanese, they’d consume more than the current global harvest which is already not sustainable.
4. Now think what if India, SE Asia, and Africa followed suit.
But why should the world want to live like Americans when:
1. Europeans have a higher quality of life, work fewer hours, and use half as much energy.
2. People in Kerala, India earn an average of a few dollars a day but have higher literacy and higher education rates and similar life expectancies as Americans.
3. Americans don’t rank in the Top 10 in Quality of Life or Average Happiness while European countries dominate both lists.

For many more interesting facts and some great (and fun) ideas on how to address many of the world’s problems, go grab a copy of Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy.

If you enjoyed this summary, you might also be interested in reading some of these related articles:

Shocking New Estimate Of Wind Energy Potential in the US

Cheap Oil From Algae

Rethinking Grain

Towards Food Independence

The Promise of Solar

The Dark Future of Sushi

How The US Government Can Cut CO2 Emissions

Cash for Appliance Clunkers

India Leading the Way to Sustainable Future

C’mon Kroger!

The Promise of Solar

Johnnie Chamberlin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:24:35 +0000

I recently wrote an article on the enormous potential for wind energy generation in the United States. In short, it mentioned that due to advances in technology, the estimate of wind energy potential was recently increased by a factor of 3 and that potential is now way more energy than the entire country currently consumes. So what about solar? One of the most common criticisms of solar technology is how much space it takes to generate a significant amount of electricity from solar panels. While this argument is flawed for multiple reasons, I address the largest flaw below, and that is that no new land needs to be used to generate an incredible amount of our electricity from solar energy.

One argument I’ve heard from power companies defending the need for new coal plants is that it takes a couple thousand acres of solar panels to generate the same amount of electricity as one coal-fired power plant. Given that a typical coal power plant operation takes up a couple thousand acres and pollutes millions more, I’m not sure why they think this is a good argument. However, in truth, we could generate 75% of our nation’s energy need from solar panels without covering even one new acre of land. How is this possible if power companies argue that it’d take millions of acres of solar panels to accomplish that feat? The answer is that we already have millions of acres of roof around the country just waiting for solar panels to become more cost-competitive. Well, now they are and some would argue they have been for a while.

Solar panels are expensive, but are constantly getting cheaper and more efficient. With recent technological advances in thin-film, printing, and nanotechnology, solar panels that once took 30 years to pay for themselves will soon take just months.

If the United States is serious about gaining energy independence, leading the green technology race, and creating millions of green jobs, we need to end government subsidies for Big Oil and Coal and use that money to promote research and installation of renewable technologies.

If you are interested in energy production and climate change, you might want to check out some of the articles below:

Shocking New Estimate Of Wind Energy Potential in the US

Cheap Oil From Algae

How The US Government Can Cut CO2 Emissions

Cash for Appliance Clunkers

India Leading the Way to Sustainable Future

Shocking New Estimate of Wind Energy Potential in US

Johnnie Chamberlin — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:23:40 +0000

Wired Magazine has a fascinating article on the wind energy potential in the United States. The article sites a US Dept. of Energy report stating that the wind energy generating potential in our country is 3 times the previous estimate. So how much energy could we really harvest from the wind? (Hint: A LOT!)

The new report states that from wind power alone we could generate more than 10 times the total energy currently consumed in our country.

Some thoughts:

1. This is great news that you should pass on to your friends and political representatives.

2. Until dramatic improvements are made in battery/energy storage technology and transmission infrastructure, unreliable wind (and solar) energy will not be able to completely replace coal, natural gas, or uranium as fuel sources since the latter can be used around the clock without regard for the weather.

3. Wind turbines kill large numbers of bats and birds. Building hundreds of thousands more turbines will only increase animal kills. Glass windows and feral cats kill billions of birds every year. Climate change threatens to wipe-out thousands of species of birds and other living beings. Clearly climate change is a much greater threat, but research should continue to be done to decrease the impact of wind turbines on birds and bats. Programs to sterilize or otherwise remove feral cats from the wild and to keep house cats indoors could help offset bird deaths caused by wind turbines.

4. Advances in wind and solar energy are bound to continue and will happen more rapidly the more support the public and our government gives to the renewable energy industry. We need to end government subsidies of coal and oil and spend more money funding research into solar, wind, algae, thorium, advanced batteries, and energy efficiency technologies.

For more information, check out my earlier articles on:

Fuel From Algae

Johnnie Chamberlin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:05:22 +0000

I recently wrote an article on the US Government’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In it, I mentioned that jet fuel accounted for a huge portion of the entire government’s total carbon footprint (and also its addiction to foreign oil). Well, it turns out the Pentagon has been hard at work on finding a greener alternative to petroleum derived jet fuel. This week they made a major announcement:

According to The Guardian, Pentagon researchers claim they are just months away from producing jet fuel from algae that is cost-competitive with fuel produced from fossil fuels. The article also claims that oil from algae could soon be produced at $1 per gallon. Deriving fuel from algae can have many benefits if done the right way:

1. Since it isn’t from corn or other other staple crops, it doesn’t eat into our food supply or increase the cost of food.

2. Algae production can make use of nutrient rich wastewater from sewage treatment plants, animal waste from livestock operations, or waste CO2 from power plants.

3. Since algae removes carbon from the air, burning fuel produced from algae results in little net CO2 emissions.

4. We can grow algae almost anywhere, making this a homegrown energy source that could decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

I am curious what the anonymous commenter on my Ranking Obama’s Energy Ideas who felt that the U.S. has wasted billions on algae research and “has nothing to show for it” has to say about this news.

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin

“The Blue Zones” and Tips for Living Healthier Longer

Johnnie Chamberlin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:46:12 +0000

I recently finished reading “The Blue Zones”, by Dan Buettner, which provides fascinating details of the diets and lifestyles of people living in various regions of the world known for extreme longevity. People living in these different “Blue Zones” often have lots in common. Some things mentioned in the book, like the importance of regular exercise and the health benefits of a diet high in vegetables and fruits won’t shock most readers, but the book contains many interesting and less commonly discussed tips for longevity…

I was reminded of “The Blue Zones” while reading, “20 New Anticancer Rules” on Huffington Post today. Not surprisingly, many of the strategies for preventing cancer may also contribute to a long healthy life.

No time to read the book and too lazy to click over to the Huffington Post? No worries, below I’ve combined and summarized some of the main points from both the book and the article:

1. Get plenty of exercise. Thirty minutes (or a lot more if you can) at least 5 days a week. Come on, its fun!

2. Eat less red meat, more fish (the right kinds), more beans, more nuts and whole grains, and more vegetables and fruits (broccoli, kale, spinach, tomatoes, blueberries, onions, garlic, sweet potatoes).

3. Drink more green tea and maybe a glass or two of red wine every day (or muscadine wine since it has more of the good stuff )

4. Use more herbs and spices, in particular: turmeric, thyme, oregano, black pepper, basil, and cumin.

5. Laugh more, hangout with your elders, get some sun (just don’t burn), maintain strong ties with family and friends, have a strong sense of purpose, work or volunteer your whole life, and find enjoyable ways to relax.

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin

Yet Another Chemical to Worry About

Johnnie Chamberlin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:37:52 +0000

It seems like every 6 months there is a new chemical to worry about. Somehow, the chemical got past safety inspectors and is now in lots of products we use every day. Like DDT and more recently popular BPA, the new chemical of concern has a handy abbreviation: PBDES. Want to know where it is found and what to do about it? Read on…

PBDES, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, are found in lots of products due to their ability to decrease the risk of fire. Recent articles in The Economist and on Treehugger.com, point out that this family of chemicals, commonly found in furniture, carpeting, fabrics, plastics, and electronics, may decrease female fertility in humans. Like PCBs, these chemicals stick around in the environment for a long time, so even if/when they are banned, humans will continue to suffer their effects for years to come.

So what can you do to avoid PBDES while more research is done on their health impacts? For starters, as the Treehugger.com article points out, you can focus on buying products made from natural materials that are minimally treated or processed and when shopping for a new mattress, make sure you find one that is PBDE free.

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin

C’mon Kroger!

Johnnie Chamberlin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:05:43 +0000

While shopping for groceries today I was struck by two things:

1) How great it is that big chain stores are learning about, and meeting the demand for, “green” products.

2) How they still don’t quite get it.

Here’s why:

I try to buy green or local as often as my budget (currently small) allows and today I wanted some fruit. A year or two ago, you wouldn’t have had the option of buying organic apples at the Kroger I go to, but today I was in luck. Not only were there organic apples available, they happened to be cheaper than normal apples!

When I got over to the organic apples I realized something both funny and a little sad.

They were all individually wrapped with the same organic labeling tape that Kroger uses around bunches of organic bananas! I’ve always found the tape on the bananas slightly annoying, but taping individual apples doesn’t make any sense at all since they were already in a bin labeled “Organic Apples” and each already had small stickers identifying them as “organic”. After laughing, shaking my head, taking a photo with my phone, and grabbing 7 of these apples, I continued on only to find something even more ridiculous: individually shrink-wrapped sweet potatoes (see photo at beginning)!

It appears that Kroger realizes people are buying organic food, green detergent, and recycled paper products, but that they don’t understand the connection between waste, in the form of excessive packaging, and the environment. That redundant organic labeling tape will go straight in the trash, as will the plastic around those individual sweet potatoes. All that extra labeling and packaging also costs Kroger money for the tape and labor involved in taping individual apples.

In summary, Kroger, thank you for continually expanding your selection of green products, but try to think more about what it really means to be green and sustainable. Also, I couldn’t find any toilet paper made from recycled paper today. Maybe next time?

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin

US Gov’t To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Johnnie Chamberlin — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:44:56 +0000

The AP reported today that President Obama ordered the US Government to cut greenhouse gas emission by 28% by 2020. The United States government is the largest energy consumer in the US market, so this could be a big deal. So how is this goal likely to be reached?

A chart by the Department of Energy shows that the Defense Department is responsible for roughly 80% of the government’s total energy consumption, so it seems like this would be the logical place to start when looking for places to make big cuts. Again looking at that chart, it turns out that jet fuel accounts for over half of the department’s energy consumption. In fact, jet fuel accounts for 46% of the entire US Government’s energy consumption! Simply decreasing the number and length of training and combat flights undertaken could have major impacts on energy consumption in this country. However, few people would be willing to compromise military preparedness or our safety just to save a few billion dollars on jet fuel every year. This government report discusses multiple ways to decrease fuel consumption without making big security sacrifices including expanding the use of highly realistic flight simulators while decreasing the use of real planes during training, as well as pushing for production of more fuel efficient aircraft. The report also mentions that the DOD is already looking into decreasing its overall energy consumption by exploring installation of wind and solar energy facilities on military bases and converting vehicle fleets to run on alternative fuels.

After petroleum, electricity and natural gas are the next largest pieces of the US government’s massive energy pie. Usage of these could be decreased by implementing a wide-variety of energy efficiency measures at all government buildings and installations including: requiring all new buildings to be LEED certified, switching all buildings to LED or CFL lightbulbs, installing smart heating, cooling, and lighting systems, replacing old windows with new Low E windows, and having all buildings weatherized. Finally, installing passive solar devices, solar panels, and/or wind turbines at most government facilities would help decrease the government’s carbon footprint while providing a boost to American green energy businesses.

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin

Johnnie Chamberlin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:57:20 +0000

Obama had a lot to say on energy during his State of the Union address yesterday. He mentioned energy efficiency, clean coal, new nuclear power plants, new offshore drilling, and an energy and climate bill. Some of his ideas were great and some weren’t. Read on for my rankings of his ideas from best to worst.

1. Promote Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency measures are the cheapest, fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. This is a great common sense idea that will save Americans money on their energy bills while helping reduce our country’s impact on the environment.

2. Energy and Climate Bill

A meaningful energy and climate bill that promotes research, development, and use of solar and wind technologies while forcing us to address the true cost of burning coal and oil would go a long ways toward dramatically reducing our impact on the environment while helping us achieve true energy independence. Since a carbon tax is likely out of the question, this bill would probably take the form of a cap and trade bill, hopefully with renewable portfolio standards. It should also end government subsidies to Big Coal and Oil and increase incentives for individuals to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy in their homes.

3. New Nuclear Power Plants

Environmental groups are split when it comes to building new nuclear power plants. These plants are very expensive, take a while to build, are difficult to site, and produce radioactive waste that we haven’t figured out what to do with yet. That said, they don’t emit carbon dioxide and don’t require sunny or windy conditions to produce power. Building plants that run on thorium instead of uranium could eliminate or reduce some of the problems associated with nuclear power plants.

4. Invest in Biofuels

Biofuels derived from corn and soybeans are a bad idea. Their production uses almost as much petroleum as they produce in ethanol. Using food staples for energy production also leads to an increase in the cost of food. Biofuels made from plant waste, algae, animal waste, landfills, sewer treatment plants, and waste oil would be much better but aren’t as popular with the powerful farm lobby and are therefore less likely to receive massive government support.

5. More Offshore Drilling and More Clean Coal Research (Tie)

I couldn’t decide which of these was a worse idea. That Obama promoted these during the primaries was one of the main reasons I didn’t vote for him then. Clean Coal is a myth and will never exist. Even if companies spend billions of dollars at each plant to capture and safely store all mercury, SOx, NOx, ash, and carbon dioxide emissions, coal will still be dirty due to the heavily polluting mining and shipping processes, not to mention that any site used to store mercury and coal ash will never be clean again or the fact that adding all those pollution scrubbers and storers would make them less cost effective producers of electricity than current solar and wind power plants. With solar panels and advanced batteries improving in efficiency and decreasing in cost, spending money on coal research is a complete waste of money. Increasing offshore drilling is a similarly wasted effort. With carbon dioxide controls on the horizon and electric cars already here, why should we be seeking more oil off our coasts? Especially when offshore drilling leads to frequent spills and erosion of coastal wetlands that provide valuable protection from hurricane flood surges.

Other Posts by Johnnie Chamberlin