We fear a change in the way we power our lives because we fear that any other way will restrict our freedom....the trouble is, by not changing, we already are restricting our freedom.
Through a green glass, darkly: How climate will reshape American history
"During the 20th century, the United States put into place a system of policies, technologies, and infrastructures intended to extract mass quantities of natural resources from the Earth. Those resources established the material basis of the nation’s economic and military power, and they fueled — literally — a popular belief that the future would bring unending abundance and global dominance. Modern conservatism and its party, the Republicans, have become the last refuge of people still holding onto the vestiges of that older vision. Many of us, whatever our political beliefs, are deeply invested in the system that was intended to provide cheap fuel and food and to amass enormous wealth and power. Some people are willing to admit that the end is in sight; some, because the system still rewards them or because they still find the potential rewards alluring, are unwilling."
Even when one of the most conservative entities on our plant wants to take steps to improve national security by finding less dangerous fuels, they run into an entrenched resistance of fear.
On clean energy, the military's biggest fight is with Congress
"The Congressional opponents argue that today’s next-generation biofuels, from algae, waste streams, and other feedstocks, are significantly more expensive than fossil fuels, and that is certainly true. But they also argue that it’s not the Pentagon’s role to pay a premium to help bring new technologies to commercial scale that would bring costs down, and that argument conveniently ignores, oh, about 150 years of U.S. military history. As Navy Secretary Ray Mabus often says, 'Since the 1850s, the Navy has moved from sail power to coal to oil to nuclear. And every time we changed, plenty of people said the new energy source was too expensive, too hard, and too unproven. But every time, we made a better Navy.'"
Since we have broken the link between economic growth and vehicle travel, thankfully, we still have people willing to take bold steps to give "state of the shelf" technologies and strategies an opportunity to take root...
US finalizes big jump in auto fuel efficiency
"'These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,' President Barack Obama said in a statement.
The new fuel efficiency standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion in gasoline costs and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the period, according to the White House."
...and there are still organizations within our cities undeterred by the prevalence of fear and misunderstanding.
CNT Energy teams with Nicor's Economic Redevelopment Program to bring energy efficiency to all Chicago neighborhoods
"The program focuses its technical assistance on buildings that are located in or will have significant economic impact over economically challenged areas, such as Economic Zones and TIF districts, as well as all projects that spur growth in low-income areas by creating jobs, offering social services, rehabilitating brownfields or vacant buildings, or providing affordable housing. Qualifying buildings should be at least 10,000 square feet and must still be in the early stages of designing and planning so that the program’s energy savings strategies can have impact."
The reward is great when we look past the fear and see what really awaits us....opportunity.
Ski lifts open $25 billion market for storing power
"'Electricity is the only commodity in the world that isn’t really stored,' said Prescott Logan, who heads GE’s storage business in Schenectady, New York, where last month it opened a $100 million plant to make batteries for utilities. When storage becomes cheap and massive, 'the impact will be huge.'
The $260 billion renewables industry needs storage so power companies can absorb surges from solar and wind farms from Texas to Mongolia. The devices will be key for plans by Germany to shift Europe’s biggest electricity market from atomic energy, said Gil Forer, Ernst & Young LLP’s clean-tech head in New York."
Happy Friday!!
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight (08/30/2012):
The Adding Light Spotlight highlights people or organizations working to make our communities stronger, more resilient, and safer for our improved quality of life. Through the Spotlight, I hope to demonstrate that EVERYONE does not have to do EVERYTHING to make our world better as long as EVERYONE does SOMETHING.
"Grist has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999 — which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things. Now that green is in every headline and on every store shelf (bamboo hair gel, anyone?), Grist is the one site you can count on to help you make sense of it all.
Each day, we use our Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories, and to connect big issues like climate change to daily life. We count on our users to bring their stories to the table, too — through blogs, photos, and whatever else they care to share. Except Jell-O molds. Those things scare us."
I found Grist when I got an iPod and sought environmental media content. I found some staples like Sierra Club and Treehugger, as well as some more off the wall (but still insightful) programs like This Week in Free Energy and America the Green. Then I found Grist. It had three qualities that I prize: intelligence, compassion, and humor. The writers got their points across in many different ways: sometimes with simply-stated fact, sometimes with tongue-in-cheek, Onion-esque humor, and sometimes with cheerleader-like celebration of the American spirit. I have rarely read a piece and felt I wasted the time.
Grist focuses not just on the politics (so it is not a partisan sounding board) and not just on the science (so it is not as boring for most as Scientific American or Nature). They have taken equal issue with President Obama and with the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Their single-minded focus on making environmental issues relevant puts them in a decidedly objective position in the environmental discussion.
Chip Giller founded Grist in 1999, and established it as a non-profit entity (a 501 (c)3 corporation). The magazine gets funding from three sources: foundation grants, private donations, and advertising. As with everything Grist does, its advertising policy carries a bit of humor (some might say "snark") with it:
Grist openly publishes a list of foundation funders, as well as its Board of Directors, which usually means those individuals contribute as well. Their IRS 990 shows annual expenses between two and three million dollars, with revenues from all sources varying from year to year between a little under two million and a little over three million dollars. No single funder appears to contribute more than five percent of annual revenues. This suggests to me that they take seriously their commitment to impartiality; a commitment that I find exemplified in the work they do.
Give Grist a try. Whether you veer left, right or center and follow MSNBC, Fox News or NPR, I know you will find substantive reporting with strong technical understanding of issues....and more than just a bit of humor to make it go down smooth.
Each day, we use our Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories, and to connect big issues like climate change to daily life. We count on our users to bring their stories to the table, too — through blogs, photos, and whatever else they care to share. Except Jell-O molds. Those things scare us."
I found Grist when I got an iPod and sought environmental media content. I found some staples like Sierra Club and Treehugger, as well as some more off the wall (but still insightful) programs like This Week in Free Energy and America the Green. Then I found Grist. It had three qualities that I prize: intelligence, compassion, and humor. The writers got their points across in many different ways: sometimes with simply-stated fact, sometimes with tongue-in-cheek, Onion-esque humor, and sometimes with cheerleader-like celebration of the American spirit. I have rarely read a piece and felt I wasted the time.
Grist focuses not just on the politics (so it is not a partisan sounding board) and not just on the science (so it is not as boring for most as Scientific American or Nature). They have taken equal issue with President Obama and with the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Their single-minded focus on making environmental issues relevant puts them in a decidedly objective position in the environmental discussion.
Chip Giller founded Grist in 1999, and established it as a non-profit entity (a 501 (c)3 corporation). The magazine gets funding from three sources: foundation grants, private donations, and advertising. As with everything Grist does, its advertising policy carries a bit of humor (some might say "snark") with it:
Grist openly publishes a list of foundation funders, as well as its Board of Directors, which usually means those individuals contribute as well. Their IRS 990 shows annual expenses between two and three million dollars, with revenues from all sources varying from year to year between a little under two million and a little over three million dollars. No single funder appears to contribute more than five percent of annual revenues. This suggests to me that they take seriously their commitment to impartiality; a commitment that I find exemplified in the work they do.
Give Grist a try. Whether you veer left, right or center and follow MSNBC, Fox News or NPR, I know you will find substantive reporting with strong technical understanding of issues....and more than just a bit of humor to make it go down smooth.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Request Monday (08/27/2012): If you build it (green), they will...
"I am hearing more and more about 'green building' these days, and wonder how much of it is real versus fiction. Should I care if a house I buy or place I work is 'green'?"
Barbara from Chicago
To answer the question, I want to provide a bit of history. The present-day, green building movement started in the late seventies in America as a response to the energy crises of that decade. Increased automobile use, skyscraper proliferation, availability of cheap energy, and modernist architecture changed the performance of buildings and the locating of buildings such that we vastly increased our reliance on fossil fuels, with fossil fuel use tripling between 1950 and 1975 while population only increased by forty percent. As the sources of some of those fuels became unstable, and the damage caused by them more apparent, businesses and the federal government began looking for solutions for how to fix the situation.
As industry leaders and policy makers sought solutions, the push for better energy usage in buildings lead to the creation of the building commissioning industry. Commissioning focuses on providing existing building "tune-ups", much the same way we do for automobiles, or providing quality control during construction, much the same way we have quality control in manufacturing. Commissioning seeks to find and eliminate waste in the building construction and operation process, without sacrificing the services needed in the building.
Even with the evolving approach to efficiency, we still had a gaping hole in the initial design or renovation of buildings. Finding issues that affect energy usage by even fifteen to twenty percent sounds great, but what about buildings that could use up to twice or three times some of their predecessors? The industry realized that pushing for more efficient buildings and better built buildings was only the start. Add to this the push for ways to address water pollution, ozone depletion, sick-building syndrome, soil depletion, and gridlock, and you realize that a quality control solution would not suffice.
In the late eighties to early nineties, as a population raised on Earth Day, Smokey Bear, and Three Mile Island grew into consumers, businesses started to understand that they could make money catering to the environmental set. This lead to labeling or products as "eco-friendly" or "green" or "environmentally friendly/safe". As marketing professionals got a hold of the latest trend, and companies failed to keep up with the promises, consumers became confused. Especially in the area of building construction, where so many different aspects of environmental living come together, it became difficult to discern reality from fantasy.
In 1993, a group of individuals from many areas of the construction industry came together to address these issues of greenwashing, and to potentially develop a standard by which designers and owners could recognize buildings as "green" with specific, industry-driven standards on which everyone could agree. This lead to the creation of the US Green Building Council (USGBC; not a government agency, but an industry organization that later became a not-for-profit corporation). and the development of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Although several successors have come since the launching of LEED in 1998 (Green Globes, BREEAM, CASBEE, GBTool), all have some sort of checklist format that seeks to balance out some "must have" strategies with optional strategies to build a point system that measures the "greenness" of the building. This point system structure lends itself to competition and ease of marketing (especially with the USGBC's choice of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum as the increasing ranks of building "greenness"). Because of this market/competition driven nature of all these systems, the performance improvement has reached a wider audience of listeners, but questions remain about how quickly the market is being transformed to create lasting change.
With that as a preface, the answer to your question is quite short....yes. You should look to live and work in green buildings, or make the home you live in green, or demand that your company's owners implement green practices. The current list of green building rating and scoring systems all focus almost exclusively on "state of the shelf" technology...meaning that in order to meet any criteria of performance, a designer does not have to create something new, experimental or untested. Since tested technologies and strategies form the core of these systems, asking for their requirements to be met should not put undue burden on you as a homeowner or on a business. This is not to say that you or a business owner can or should do ALL of the options available....but meeting some very basic requirements should not fall outside the realm of the possible. For example:
1. Eliminating all materials in the building that off-gas and release volatile organic compounds into the air.
2. Purchasing or building structures in neighborhoods with ready access to basic goods and services.
3. Encouraging, through design or operation, the use of public transportation and walking/biking.
4. Providing recycling infrastructure throughout the facility.
5. Discouraging smoking or release of harmful emissions.
6. Providing documented visual, thermal, and ventilation comfort throughout the building.
7. Increasing access to the outdoors from occupants.
8. Reducing the amount of material needed to create a building without reducing services.
Business and government has sought to balance how much of these rating systems reflect "must do" strategies versus "should do". Until more buildings are built green, so that data can be gathered on health benefits (if any truly exist), productivity, economic and environmental impact, it will be difficult to quantify if green buildings have added value. Several studies have attempted to make that connection, but more are needed. Until that point, we are left with some common sense. The fewer resources we can use, the fewer chemicals that get into our buildings (and then into us!), the more comfortable we can make buildings, and the better choices we make in where to build, the more common sense we end up using and the better our buildings are to us that occupy them, and those who do not but are impacted by our choices.
Barbara from Chicago
To answer the question, I want to provide a bit of history. The present-day, green building movement started in the late seventies in America as a response to the energy crises of that decade. Increased automobile use, skyscraper proliferation, availability of cheap energy, and modernist architecture changed the performance of buildings and the locating of buildings such that we vastly increased our reliance on fossil fuels, with fossil fuel use tripling between 1950 and 1975 while population only increased by forty percent. As the sources of some of those fuels became unstable, and the damage caused by them more apparent, businesses and the federal government began looking for solutions for how to fix the situation.
As industry leaders and policy makers sought solutions, the push for better energy usage in buildings lead to the creation of the building commissioning industry. Commissioning focuses on providing existing building "tune-ups", much the same way we do for automobiles, or providing quality control during construction, much the same way we have quality control in manufacturing. Commissioning seeks to find and eliminate waste in the building construction and operation process, without sacrificing the services needed in the building.
Even with the evolving approach to efficiency, we still had a gaping hole in the initial design or renovation of buildings. Finding issues that affect energy usage by even fifteen to twenty percent sounds great, but what about buildings that could use up to twice or three times some of their predecessors? The industry realized that pushing for more efficient buildings and better built buildings was only the start. Add to this the push for ways to address water pollution, ozone depletion, sick-building syndrome, soil depletion, and gridlock, and you realize that a quality control solution would not suffice.
In the late eighties to early nineties, as a population raised on Earth Day, Smokey Bear, and Three Mile Island grew into consumers, businesses started to understand that they could make money catering to the environmental set. This lead to labeling or products as "eco-friendly" or "green" or "environmentally friendly/safe". As marketing professionals got a hold of the latest trend, and companies failed to keep up with the promises, consumers became confused. Especially in the area of building construction, where so many different aspects of environmental living come together, it became difficult to discern reality from fantasy.
In 1993, a group of individuals from many areas of the construction industry came together to address these issues of greenwashing, and to potentially develop a standard by which designers and owners could recognize buildings as "green" with specific, industry-driven standards on which everyone could agree. This lead to the creation of the US Green Building Council (USGBC; not a government agency, but an industry organization that later became a not-for-profit corporation). and the development of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Although several successors have come since the launching of LEED in 1998 (Green Globes, BREEAM, CASBEE, GBTool), all have some sort of checklist format that seeks to balance out some "must have" strategies with optional strategies to build a point system that measures the "greenness" of the building. This point system structure lends itself to competition and ease of marketing (especially with the USGBC's choice of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum as the increasing ranks of building "greenness"). Because of this market/competition driven nature of all these systems, the performance improvement has reached a wider audience of listeners, but questions remain about how quickly the market is being transformed to create lasting change.
With that as a preface, the answer to your question is quite short....yes. You should look to live and work in green buildings, or make the home you live in green, or demand that your company's owners implement green practices. The current list of green building rating and scoring systems all focus almost exclusively on "state of the shelf" technology...meaning that in order to meet any criteria of performance, a designer does not have to create something new, experimental or untested. Since tested technologies and strategies form the core of these systems, asking for their requirements to be met should not put undue burden on you as a homeowner or on a business. This is not to say that you or a business owner can or should do ALL of the options available....but meeting some very basic requirements should not fall outside the realm of the possible. For example:
1. Eliminating all materials in the building that off-gas and release volatile organic compounds into the air.
2. Purchasing or building structures in neighborhoods with ready access to basic goods and services.
3. Encouraging, through design or operation, the use of public transportation and walking/biking.
4. Providing recycling infrastructure throughout the facility.
5. Discouraging smoking or release of harmful emissions.
6. Providing documented visual, thermal, and ventilation comfort throughout the building.
7. Increasing access to the outdoors from occupants.
8. Reducing the amount of material needed to create a building without reducing services.
Business and government has sought to balance how much of these rating systems reflect "must do" strategies versus "should do". Until more buildings are built green, so that data can be gathered on health benefits (if any truly exist), productivity, economic and environmental impact, it will be difficult to quantify if green buildings have added value. Several studies have attempted to make that connection, but more are needed. Until that point, we are left with some common sense. The fewer resources we can use, the fewer chemicals that get into our buildings (and then into us!), the more comfortable we can make buildings, and the better choices we make in where to build, the more common sense we end up using and the better our buildings are to us that occupy them, and those who do not but are impacted by our choices.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Send your ideas to Adding Light!
Adding Light is looking for questions, topics or issues for its Request Monday feature, as well as ideas for the Adding Light Spotlight.
If you have a question related to environmental, energy, stewardship or community issues, and want a straightforward, scientific response, send your question to Joseph Clair by leaving a comment to this post, or emailing him at joseph (at) josephclair (dot) com.
Also, if you know of an institution, company, or individual who is making a difference in their communities and improving the quality of life by changing the way we relate to our resources, please send a link to information about that entity either through email or comment.
Thank you for regularly reading the Adding Light blog!
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair, P.E.
If you have a question related to environmental, energy, stewardship or community issues, and want a straightforward, scientific response, send your question to Joseph Clair by leaving a comment to this post, or emailing him at joseph (at) josephclair (dot) com.
Also, if you know of an institution, company, or individual who is making a difference in their communities and improving the quality of life by changing the way we relate to our resources, please send a link to information about that entity either through email or comment.
Thank you for regularly reading the Adding Light blog!
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair, P.E.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friday Five: August 24, 2012
Our life depends on an interwoven ecosystem, and as we disrupt one piece, we affect many others.
Feed 9 billion people? We can do that, but it’s not going to be pretty
"As agricultural production has skyrocketed, so has our population, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion today and perhaps 9 billion by mid-century. But adding so much new nitrogen to the environment causes problems ranging from ocean dead zones to urban smog. Indeed, one could argue that all of our global environmental impacts, from climate change to mass extinction, are being driven by altering the nitrogen cycle, because it continues to fuel our unprecedented population growth."
With such a huge task ahead of us, why would we tolerate a society and a system that inherently wastes almost as much as it eats.
Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food supply from farm to fork to landfill
"Nutrition is also lost in the mix -- food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates."
I am sure that everyone can get behind using common sense to try to improve our relationship with food.Tackling food waste at home
"Cutting a little food waste goes a long way, because throwing away food wastes not only food itself, but the resources—land, fertilizer, water, paper, plastic, gas--that go into growing, packaging and transporting that food. Our food habits waste 25 percent of America's freshwater and 4 percent of our oil. We spend $90 billion each year to make food that never gets eaten."
In a similar fashion, we can make good use of technology to help us avoid other types of waste in our lives as well.
Living with the Nest #2 – the daily energy summary and why other appliances should act like the Nest
"What the Nest is, as I’m learning, is a modern way to control and manage your heating and cooling, which is responsible for a significant chunk of a home’s energy consumption. Having a product that helps you understand what’s actually going on in your house can help you make decisions that could save you money and energy. Whether or not that information turns in to savings is still, for the most part, up to you."
I am thrilled that I will be able to enjoy all that fruity Jamba goodness without contributing to the waste addiction we all enjoy.
Jamba Juice will go Styrofoam-Free by 2013
"In June, ten-year-old Mia Hansen bought a smoothie at Jamba Juice. And like thousands of drinks they sell every day, hers was served in a styrofoam cup.
Mia knows that styrofoam is bad for the planet. From production to disposal, it creates pollution, releases chemicals, and junks our landfills and landscapes. (And oceans!)
'That’s just ridiculous,' she wrote. 'It bothered me so much, my mom encouraged me to start a petition.'"
Happy Friday!
Enjoy the journey!
Feed 9 billion people? We can do that, but it’s not going to be pretty
"As agricultural production has skyrocketed, so has our population, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion today and perhaps 9 billion by mid-century. But adding so much new nitrogen to the environment causes problems ranging from ocean dead zones to urban smog. Indeed, one could argue that all of our global environmental impacts, from climate change to mass extinction, are being driven by altering the nitrogen cycle, because it continues to fuel our unprecedented population growth."
With such a huge task ahead of us, why would we tolerate a society and a system that inherently wastes almost as much as it eats.
Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food supply from farm to fork to landfill
"Nutrition is also lost in the mix -- food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates."
I am sure that everyone can get behind using common sense to try to improve our relationship with food.Tackling food waste at home
"Cutting a little food waste goes a long way, because throwing away food wastes not only food itself, but the resources—land, fertilizer, water, paper, plastic, gas--that go into growing, packaging and transporting that food. Our food habits waste 25 percent of America's freshwater and 4 percent of our oil. We spend $90 billion each year to make food that never gets eaten."
In a similar fashion, we can make good use of technology to help us avoid other types of waste in our lives as well.
Living with the Nest #2 – the daily energy summary and why other appliances should act like the Nest
"What the Nest is, as I’m learning, is a modern way to control and manage your heating and cooling, which is responsible for a significant chunk of a home’s energy consumption. Having a product that helps you understand what’s actually going on in your house can help you make decisions that could save you money and energy. Whether or not that information turns in to savings is still, for the most part, up to you."
I am thrilled that I will be able to enjoy all that fruity Jamba goodness without contributing to the waste addiction we all enjoy.
Jamba Juice will go Styrofoam-Free by 2013
"In June, ten-year-old Mia Hansen bought a smoothie at Jamba Juice. And like thousands of drinks they sell every day, hers was served in a styrofoam cup.
Mia knows that styrofoam is bad for the planet. From production to disposal, it creates pollution, releases chemicals, and junks our landfills and landscapes. (And oceans!)
'That’s just ridiculous,' she wrote. 'It bothered me so much, my mom encouraged me to start a petition.'"
Happy Friday!
Enjoy the journey!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight (08/23/2012): Active Transportation Alliance
The Adding Light Spotlight highlights people or organizations working to make our communities stronger, more resilient, and safer for our improved quality of life. Through the Spotlight, I hope to demonstrate that EVERYONE does not have to do EVERYTHING to make our world better as long as EVERYONE does SOMETHING.
As more and more people move into cities and metropolitan areas due to a wave of urban revitalization going on in our country, we need to make sure those people can safely get from home to work, play, and culture in order to maintain a thriving economy and civic connectedness. Without this connectedness, we lose our connection to each other as people, and that is what allows communities to remain resilient and thrive. One of the organizations in this country that works tirelessly to make this necessary transportation not only possible, but environmentally safe as well as physically safe, is the Active Transportation Alliance. I am proud to be a member of this organization that promotes safe, multi-modal transportation that includes advocacy for increased access to bike pathways, safe and walkable streets (which are great for the value of small businesses!), and improved ubiquitousness of public transportation. Their stated mission:
"...to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel. We advocate for transportation that encourages and promotes safety, physical activity, health, recreation, social interaction, equity, environmental stewardship and resource conservation."
points to the value they bring to cities throughout Illinois.
Learn more about Active Trans (as they are more widely known) through their website at www.activetrans.org where you will find copies of their Annual Reports for the previous three years. They have several great events each year to raise funds for their work, as well as to promote their mission --- many of us are familiar with Bike the Drive which happens Memorial Day weekend. This Sunday, they are hosting the Four Star Bike Tour...a series of rides of varying length meant to please any bicycle enthusiast. My family and I will be on the 12-mile scavenger hunt that takes off at 9am, but for you avid riders, you can try the 22-mile, 35-mile or even 62-mile! adventure. If you are not able to join as a member, you definitely should consider attending one of their great events. You will not regret it.
Until next time,
Enjoy the journey!
As more and more people move into cities and metropolitan areas due to a wave of urban revitalization going on in our country, we need to make sure those people can safely get from home to work, play, and culture in order to maintain a thriving economy and civic connectedness. Without this connectedness, we lose our connection to each other as people, and that is what allows communities to remain resilient and thrive. One of the organizations in this country that works tirelessly to make this necessary transportation not only possible, but environmentally safe as well as physically safe, is the Active Transportation Alliance. I am proud to be a member of this organization that promotes safe, multi-modal transportation that includes advocacy for increased access to bike pathways, safe and walkable streets (which are great for the value of small businesses!), and improved ubiquitousness of public transportation. Their stated mission:
"...to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel. We advocate for transportation that encourages and promotes safety, physical activity, health, recreation, social interaction, equity, environmental stewardship and resource conservation."
points to the value they bring to cities throughout Illinois.
Learn more about Active Trans (as they are more widely known) through their website at www.activetrans.org where you will find copies of their Annual Reports for the previous three years. They have several great events each year to raise funds for their work, as well as to promote their mission --- many of us are familiar with Bike the Drive which happens Memorial Day weekend. This Sunday, they are hosting the Four Star Bike Tour...a series of rides of varying length meant to please any bicycle enthusiast. My family and I will be on the 12-mile scavenger hunt that takes off at 9am, but for you avid riders, you can try the 22-mile, 35-mile or even 62-mile! adventure. If you are not able to join as a member, you definitely should consider attending one of their great events. You will not regret it.
Until next time,
Enjoy the journey!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Request Monday (08/20/2012): The rain in spain...
"How are the droughts across the Midwest affected by climate change, and what impact will that have on the cost of food?"
- Marty from Wheaton -
John Upton over at Grist.org has a straightforward review of the issue, but I will give you the highlights from his work and some of my own research. First of all, global temperatures are increasing, at at approximately the rate predicted by climate scientists in the later part of last century.
Increases in ambient temperature change evaporation rates. If we remember about the water cycle from grammar school, that evaporation creates the storm clouds that eventually produce rain. The thing about higher ambient temperature air is that it holds more moisture than lower temperature air. (It's why you feel "clammy" when the temperature quickly drops from 85F to 75F if it doesn't rain...the same amount of moisture is in the air, but it can't hold onto it. As air cools, the gas molecules move closer together, leaving less room for the water vapor molecules. The opposite happens as temperatures climb.) This increased moisture capacity sucks up more moisture from the ground, holds onto it longer, and then dumps it quickly in the form of more torrential rain. The ground experiences less frequent rain, causing it to dry out, making it harder to absorb the more torrential rain.
This disruption to the regular water cycle also affects the recharge rate of local water sources...and for our nations prime growing areas, that means the Ogallala Aquifer. As rain falls less frequently in the areas served by the aquifer, the levels within it drop, and as we withdraw more water from the aquifer for air conditioning, human consumption, and lawn watering, we leave less for irrigation. This combination of rainfall reduction and increased human withdrawal leaves less water than necessary for growing crops.
As the Upton article points out, over the past half century, we have moved to more genetically modified "mono crops" which have a number of issues, but one of them is the combined lack of resilience to weather variation. Whereas in previous times of significant draught, farmers could count on the variety of crops to help balance out yields, that opportunity no longer exists, and the science of genetic modification has not kept up.
Although that provides a theoretical explanation, in the tropics, they have already experienced some of these crop yield reductions due to increases in temperature.
The charts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (as summarized by Easterling, W. and Apps, M. in "Assessing the Consequences of Climate Change for Food and Forest Resources: A View from the IPCC", 2005) show that in areas that have experienced temperature increases, that crop yields drop with each step of temperature increase. If we continue on this path, we can expect similar changes to our growing patterns.
As for the changes in pricing, this year we can expect a small increase, but most agriculture is purchased on futures markets with prices set well ahead of time. The real impact will be next year when buyers will price the volatility into the marketplace. As the market expects to sell less corn and soy next year, it will demand higher prices assuming that buyers will want to consume just as much of the product.
The solutions to this spiral are not easy. On one level, we need to stabilize climate disruptions in order to take away the driving force. However, that will not reduce the temperature gains already made, so a combination of water efficiency and alternative growing methods will help to extend yields and increase crop resilience. It will be interesting to see if any long term reduction in yields changes national or regional policy. We currently subsidize ethanol (gas additive produced from agriculture) and food additives in order to provide a larger market for corn and soy. With lower yields, we could stabilize prices by lowering these subsidies and decreasing demand. When ethanol received a boost in the early 2000s, the competing interests for corn increased prices across the food industry. A "double whammy" could completely change the food market.
A final option from my point of view (among many possible adaptations we can make) comes from reducing energy usage in tandem with water usage. I have already written on the subject of decreasing water use per capita in our culture (here and here), including the impact of water for energy production. For each unit of electricity consumption we reduce, we also reduce water needed to produce that electricity. A combination of all of these solutions (plus many others) will be needed to solve this vexing problem
- Marty from Wheaton -
John Upton over at Grist.org has a straightforward review of the issue, but I will give you the highlights from his work and some of my own research. First of all, global temperatures are increasing, at at approximately the rate predicted by climate scientists in the later part of last century.
Increases in ambient temperature change evaporation rates. If we remember about the water cycle from grammar school, that evaporation creates the storm clouds that eventually produce rain. The thing about higher ambient temperature air is that it holds more moisture than lower temperature air. (It's why you feel "clammy" when the temperature quickly drops from 85F to 75F if it doesn't rain...the same amount of moisture is in the air, but it can't hold onto it. As air cools, the gas molecules move closer together, leaving less room for the water vapor molecules. The opposite happens as temperatures climb.) This increased moisture capacity sucks up more moisture from the ground, holds onto it longer, and then dumps it quickly in the form of more torrential rain. The ground experiences less frequent rain, causing it to dry out, making it harder to absorb the more torrential rain.
This disruption to the regular water cycle also affects the recharge rate of local water sources...and for our nations prime growing areas, that means the Ogallala Aquifer. As rain falls less frequently in the areas served by the aquifer, the levels within it drop, and as we withdraw more water from the aquifer for air conditioning, human consumption, and lawn watering, we leave less for irrigation. This combination of rainfall reduction and increased human withdrawal leaves less water than necessary for growing crops.
As the Upton article points out, over the past half century, we have moved to more genetically modified "mono crops" which have a number of issues, but one of them is the combined lack of resilience to weather variation. Whereas in previous times of significant draught, farmers could count on the variety of crops to help balance out yields, that opportunity no longer exists, and the science of genetic modification has not kept up.
Although that provides a theoretical explanation, in the tropics, they have already experienced some of these crop yield reductions due to increases in temperature.
The charts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (as summarized by Easterling, W. and Apps, M. in "Assessing the Consequences of Climate Change for Food and Forest Resources: A View from the IPCC", 2005) show that in areas that have experienced temperature increases, that crop yields drop with each step of temperature increase. If we continue on this path, we can expect similar changes to our growing patterns.
As for the changes in pricing, this year we can expect a small increase, but most agriculture is purchased on futures markets with prices set well ahead of time. The real impact will be next year when buyers will price the volatility into the marketplace. As the market expects to sell less corn and soy next year, it will demand higher prices assuming that buyers will want to consume just as much of the product.
The solutions to this spiral are not easy. On one level, we need to stabilize climate disruptions in order to take away the driving force. However, that will not reduce the temperature gains already made, so a combination of water efficiency and alternative growing methods will help to extend yields and increase crop resilience. It will be interesting to see if any long term reduction in yields changes national or regional policy. We currently subsidize ethanol (gas additive produced from agriculture) and food additives in order to provide a larger market for corn and soy. With lower yields, we could stabilize prices by lowering these subsidies and decreasing demand. When ethanol received a boost in the early 2000s, the competing interests for corn increased prices across the food industry. A "double whammy" could completely change the food market.
A final option from my point of view (among many possible adaptations we can make) comes from reducing energy usage in tandem with water usage. I have already written on the subject of decreasing water use per capita in our culture (here and here), including the impact of water for energy production. For each unit of electricity consumption we reduce, we also reduce water needed to produce that electricity. A combination of all of these solutions (plus many others) will be needed to solve this vexing problem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)