Five lessons we learned in 2013

GTM Research

Yesterday, I looked at the innovations that we should watch in 2014, so today I want to look at the stories from 2013 that I think offer some of the best insights into the challenges we face.  Over the past year, I have highlighted about 250 stories through my Friday Five segment, and in reviewing all of them, I noticed a how a few general topics dominated the discussion.  Interestingly enough, a hot-button political issue like Keystone XL was not in the top five, neither was an issue close to my heart: the food-energy-water nexus, although both were close.  The five that rose to the top did so because their long-term impact has greater scope or scale than an issue like KXL, or because they had more immediacy than the nexus (which will dominate politics in the coming decade).  As with any list, there are arguments to be made for and against, but here are the top five lessons learned, and when appropriate, a shout-out to the authors whose reporting I found most interesting and thorough.

Cost-competitiveness of renewable energy
Story after story this year reported on large power brokers entering into long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) with solar and wind providers.  These stories highlighted the fact that in many cases, the cost of these contracts over their lifetime equaled or bettered the price of even natural gas generation.  This sea change in the energy procurement arena even prompted authors in Europe - where utility scale renewable energy is well ahead of the US - to wonder what an energy economy without commodity costs might look like.  As a summary to this, Laurie Johnson of NRDC offered a study of which energy sources make the most sense to the American economy over the coming years, and not surprisingly, the economic answer is renewables.
New study: Clean energy least costly to power America's electricity needs

Decline of nuclear and coal, and the concerns about natural gas
Even just two years ago, with our country enjoying historically low energy prices and the US emerging as a potentially energy self-sufficient nation, if I had suggested that we would invite huge financial risk in basing our economy on coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy, I would have been laughed out of most rooms (if anyone were even listening in the first place).  Today, the chinks in the armor of our most established energy industry have expanded into real gaps in logic.  Nuclear, which has never made economic sense without significant government subsidy, has seen that lack of viability result in plant closings.  Coal, even without a carbon tax, has faced financial decline with the increase in natural gas holding down electricity prices.  Natural gas, even with the huge expansion of drilling over the past decade, has experienced a bevy of issues from proved drinking water pollution to increased methane releases that threatens to undermine the argument that natural gas is better for the environment than other fossil alternatives.
Nuclear plants, old and uncompetitive, are closing earlier than expected
World’s largest financial lending groups are rejecting coal
The climate risks of an over reliance on natural gas for electricity

GMO foods, the real story
Some call them the ultimate solution to world hunger. Some call them Frankenfoods. Some want them labeled in the supermarket so consumers have the ability to choose whether or not to buy them. Some fight labels claiming that such actions will bring a stigma to the industry. Whatever side of the debate you fall, genetically-modified organisms in food stands as one of the most important issues of our time. This year, Nathanael Johnson had a great series of stories about GMO, trying to separate truth from myth, and economic reality from hype.  I highly recommend all of them, but the one that caught my eye most focused on the real impact of GMO on farmers, and the fact that GMO seeds did not offer higher yields per se, but rather reduced risk of low yields.
Are GMO crops worth their weight in gold? To famers, not exactly

Increasing risks of climate change
The past year saw much debate about the influence of climate change on the scale and frequency of major storm events (like hurricane Sandy in 2012) or regional economies (Midwest drought of 2012).  It also saw the release of the latest IPCC assessment, and the subsequent discussion about the "slowing" of climate change.  While these debates continued, the insurance industry seemed to weigh in to a point by deciding that climate change has accelerated the frequency of major insurance-claim events.  In May, Eduardo Porter of the New York Times wrote a piece highlighting this sea change, and offering insights into what might happen going forward.
For insurers, no doubts on climate change

Emergence of electric vehicles
With the emergence of the Chevy Volt, and the expansion of the electric vehicle market to even more manufacturers, we saw a remarkable growth in an industry that still does not have the best technology out in the market.  States like California and Illinois made major investments in charging infrastructure, and the Department of Energy established regional hubs for battery technology research.  Even with the misstep of backing a company that did not have a proven technology, this year saw nothing but movement forward in the electric vehicle realm.  Issues still remain relative to the expansion of grid infrastructure to handle increased charging needs, and the aforementioned improvements in battery technology, but the future no longer wonders IF we will see a proliferation of electric vehicles, but simply WHERE they will find the best application.
EV sales skyrocketing

Editor's extra: election of a new pope
Much like NFL draft picks, we cannot know which story of 2013 will be most impactive for many years down the road. My guess along those lines is the election of Pope Francis in the Catholic Church. His immediate and deep impact on not only the world's Catholics, but also the world population in general have been significant. A forthcoming encyclical on the environment, coupled with his calls for major changes in the world economic structure and an end to the economies of greed could upset the culture of consumerism which would cause us to completely rethink our energy and environmental valuation. When all is said and done, this may be the biggest change we see.
Pope calls for church austerity, focus on poor

Happy New Year!

Friday Five: December 27, 2013

The increase in global population, compounded by the movement of large percentages of that population up the development ladder, combined with years of inefficient usage of the resource, exacerbated by the economic impact of resources...leads to a dispiriting conclusion: we better figure a quick way to live without oil.
Former BP geologist: Peak oil is here and it will break economies
"'The oil price has risen almost continuously since 2004 to date, starting at $30. There was a great spike to $150 and then a collapse in 2008/2009, but it has since climbed to $110 and held there. The price rise brought a lot of new exploration and development, but these new fields have not actually increased production by very much, due to the decline of older fields. This is compatible with the idea that we are pretty much at peak today. This recession is what peak feels like.'"

I am thankful that after years of hearing how energy efficiency makes no economic sense (when all rational analysis says it does), that someone has looked at the economics of further development of some of the worst fossil resources and made a case that it does not make sense. If we took every dollar dedicated to the expansion of Keystone XL and invested it in energy efficiency, we would create over ten times as many permanent jobs, and have nothing but positive impact on the environment.
Why Canada's oil sands looks like a shaky investment
"The real value of the Keystone XL is that it would deliver oil-sands crude down to the Gulf Coast, where it could compete with Mexican crude priced against the Maya benchmark. Heavy Mexican oil enjoys a $20 premium over its Canadian rival and is trading at about $87 a barrel. Even if the Keystone XL gets approved, just getting Canada’s crude down to the Gulf is barely enough to make it worthwhile. Mark Lewis, one of the new Keystone report’s co-authors, estimates that between the transport costs and the extra lubricants needed to coax the oil through thousands of miles of pipeline, it would cost about $18 a barrel to get that tar-sand crude from Western Canada down to the Gulf Coast on the Keystone XL."

Before you look at this article and suggest that Scotland's a small, homogenous country that cannot represent what the US could do, look at its population, geography, and energy resources, then compare that to all of the US states. That's precisely how many could do this. Then look at Germany's plans, and that's how many states could do that...and so on.
Scotland embarrasses US by planning to use only clean energy by 2020
"The Arizona-sized country was using 24 percent renewable energy in 2010, which it upped to 40 percent last year. By 2015, that’ll be 50 percent, and then ideally 100 percent wind, solar, wave, and hydro by 2020."

It is a bit disheartening that the best that even the best minds could do so far is a forty year path to fully clean energy. I suspect that we will better this soon.
Evaluating the Technical and Economic Feasibility of Repowering California for all Purposes with Wind, Water, and Sunlight
"This study presents a roadmap to convert California’s all-purpose (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen. We outline the requirements, costs, benefits, and policies needed for the conversion. The plan contemplates all new energy capacity powered with WWS by 2020, 80-85% of all energy use powered with WWS by 2030, and 100% by 2050."

Although, getting better at clean energy means using less energy, and as we rely more heavily on digital media and devices for our entertainment and our economy, we need to take steps forward and not backward.
New PS4 and Xbox One game consoles: A mixed bag for energy efficiency
"That adds up to a lot of energy every year. In fact, even if these new video game consoles became 25 percent more energy efficient on average over time – which we believe is possible – they would still use between 10 and 11 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually once the new consoles have replaced the more than 100 million units currently in use.
This translates to four large power plants and over $1 billion in annual electricity bills. To put this into further perspective, video game consoles in the United States are projected to use more electricity annually than all the households in Houston, America’s fourth-largest city."

Happy Friday!

Want $2.00 gasoline? Drive a more efficient car and it will happen.

As we navigate our way through the holiday season, those of us who have many local family members to visit have noticed that gasoline prices have climbed back up to challenge peak prices from 1918, 1981 and 2008.  Although this year's average price falls just shy of last years, 2012 and 2013 show us that even slight economic recovery will lead to greater demand for gasoline and therefore, higher prices.  Looking at the last five years, one lesson stands out...

If we want to keep prices low, keep demand low.

It will seem like a bit of an illogical statement to some, but prices have nothing to do with costs.  In a rational market, prices have everything to do with two qualities: the availability of something, and the desire of people to purchase it.  Why do gas stations hike prices around Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas?  Because we want more of it.  When we "have to" buy it, retailers charge more.  Over the course of the Great Recession, as world demand for commodities plummeted, the price at the pump dropped precipitously.  Those who payed attention to last year's presidential campaign surely noted the hub-bub about the increase in gasoline prices from the start of President Obama's first term to the prices around the election.  That drop came directly from a sharp change in the demand relative to the supply.

Understanding this balance holds a key to the power of energy efficiency in both affecting our pocketbook and reshaping the role of energy.  Most of us think of energy efficiency as "doing without" in order to save money.  The real role of energy efficiency is to deliver the same level of service to which we are used, but with a lower input of energy.  As a recent post by Sarah Laskow in Grist points out, most of us drive fewer than 60 miles a day, with four passengers or fewer, without hauling, and have access to a space that can accommodate a charging outlet.  For this forty percent of the US driving population, a plug-in hybrid (or even a standard electric vehicle) will supply all of the driving services they need.  Since plug-in hybrids get two to three times the gas mileage of these standard vehicle, this would, in turn, drop the overall demand for gasoline by as much as twenty-five percent.  All of this reduction would come without a change in the service provided to the household.

To put this in perspective, a drop of about seven-to-ten percent during the recession caused prices at the pump to drop by about forty percent.  Although those nations that control the supply of oil would respond by dropping supply to keep prices higher, the cycle of continually reducing supply to meet dropping demand has long-term implications for the development and exploration of new reserves.  This is where costs do have an impact.  If the price to develop new sources of fossil energy cost more than a company can get paid to do the work, they will not pursue them.  Most environmentalists want prices to stay high in order to drive the cost of fossil energy to a point competitive with newer, clean energy technology.  Economically speaking, we want to keep prices low so that new reserves remain uneconomical to tap.  Wind and even solar technologies have already shown cost-competitiveness with fossil fuel sources, and that curve will only continue to bend in their favor.  For now, we should all look for changes we can make that do not affect our quality of life, but only the amount of resources needed to supply services to us.  Timers on lights, CFL or LED light bulbs, plug-in hybrids when purchasing a new vehicle, Energy Star appliances...these all do everything we want them to do but with lower energy usage.

And really, is it that hard to turn out the lights when you leave a room?

The time has come to reward work

Amid the recent national debates about the minimum wage, food stamps, universal healthcare, farm subsidies, unemployment benefits, and more, the most common argument against these sort of safety net programs comes from those who say they reward people who do not work.  In a highly globalized, fast-changing, and increasingly unstable economy, we place the responsibility for learning skills, finding employment, maintaining employment all on the individual worker.  At the same time, we have a national economy that has never had less than three percent of the available workforce unemployed.  In a world efficient at delivering basic needs, and unable to provide enough work for those who want to pursue it, placing all of the onus on an individual jeopardizes the long-term health of our republic.  Republics only survive when a thriving middle class makes up almost all of the population, and the lowest class of citizen has the resources to meet their basic needs.  The time has come to explore the most effective way to accomplish this….

A guaranteed minimum income, or GMI.

Simply put, GMI means that every individual willing to work in the economy receives monthly income equal to the cost of the basic services in the area where the individual lives:  food, shelter, healthcare, education, and transportation to work.  If a person works, their salary comes from the company at a level at least equivalent to GMI.  If a person has no job, the GMI comes as a distribution from a fund managed state-by-state.  A program like this, implemented on a national level, will require several basic safeguards and precepts:

1. The program must be run on a state-by-state level.
2. The program must be managed as a private insurance product and not a government program.
3. Government at all levels (national, state, and local) and corporations will pay premiums into the program, with the private insurance companies (chosen through competitive procurement at each state) managing the payouts.
4. All federal, state, and local aid programs like SNAP, unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, and the like will end.  An individual government entity's premium payment will constitute its total responsibility to the program, and the market will set the premium payment, not a political entity.  The political entity can control its cost by implementing policies that have a proven record at creating and sustaining jobs.
5. Corporations will no longer pay into unemployment insurance, but will have their premium set in the same way: if their corporate policies create financially sustainable jobs, they will have lower costs.
6. People will receive their benefits based on their willingness to work, and must work if called.  Each state and private market can determine if work includes participation in a training program, or providing services to a non-profit through volunteer time, and other ways that people can provide value without receiving traditional salary from a place of employment.
7. The private insurers will have incentive to move people quickly from GMI to work, and will create and manage programs that provide training, relocation, and other services that facilitate getting people back to work.  People receiving GMI cannot move to a higher GMI location except to accept full-time work.
8. Households will receive GMI based on the number of people within, but cannot increase GMI during any one period of time.  Although the number of people "having babies to get welfare" has always been small, this would end that practice.
9. For parents of children under 12, GMI would include the cost of safe, quality childcare.  As other countries have shown, government-run programs for childcare can provide the most cost-effective solution, but GMI would not require that.  It would include the cost in the system, and if government-run programs provided a more efficient approach, they could significantly reduce the cost of GMI in any area.
10. This same principle applies to healthcare.  If universal healthcare provides the most cost effective option, then GMI will not include this cost, but if a state prefers private insurance markets for healthcare, the premiums, copays, deductibles, and maximum out of pocket would become part of the payment.

For those that think this looks similar to the services unions provide, you would be right.  In several unions, everyone wishing to work "signs the book" and waits in line for work.  During this time, they receive a stipend that comes from the dues they and other have paid, and those working continue to pay.  As the number of unions, and overall union membership, has declined significantly over the past forty years, the portion of the population protected by these types of practices has dropped.  To those following the decline of the middle class, one can hardly ignore the coincident drop in the income of labor with declining union membership.  A guaranteed minimum income provides at least one portion of the financial protection that underpinned many communities, especially those in dense inner cities and small towns.

Guaranteed minimum income will reward work, not laziness, and promote an economy that creates jobs, not one that incentivizes unemployment.  In addition, implementing GMI in our economy will determine the amount of employment needed to provide basic goods and services.  Since our economy has moved from the one-income home to the predominantly two-income household, we have seen only slight improvement in length of life, and almost no increase in quality.  This suggests that our need for more jobs is not one of utility.  

As a last benefit, GMI will promote two parts of society that have suffered over the past decades: entrepreneurship and the arts.  Without being tied to a certain level of employment, people can make the lifestyle choice to pursue work that may have long-term payoff, but require short-term, low-pay effort.  The safety net of GMI will ensure that these innovators have the time to make their visions reality, to the benefit of the society as a whole.

Guaranteed minimum income rewards and incentivizes work, uses the efficiency and knowledge of the insurance industry to minimize costs, and creates a culture of value within a society.  The benefits extend far beyond those listed here, and ultimately creates a more engaged class of citizen.  The time has come to put our words into action, and put all of us to work who want to work.

Friday Five: December 20, 2013

Transforming our future quality of life requires the best combination of innovation, luck, and determination.  The story of how a battery start-up named Envia went from nothing to the biggest stage in the automobile world and back to nothing not only provides some valuable insight into the process, but it also highlights some great challenges to realizing a new energy economy.
The mysterious story of the battery startup that promised GM a 200-mile electric car
"Envia’s collapse extinguishes what had been arguably better news for electric cars, which was a singular advance in the battery itself. Its described refinement of Argonne’s NMC was superior to the incremental improvements marked by every other known cathode-anode coupling on the planet. Kumar and Kapadia persuaded GM, along with Arpa-E and many, many others, that Chevy, propelled by Envia batteries, would assume the early lead in the global electric car race. GM was perhaps not snookered, but it was credulous when it should have understood the chart in the Crane appraisal, which one must presume it demanded and was provided."

There exists a great, and unpredictable, battle between those who think we should emulate and work within nature as much as possible, and those who think that innovation can improve upon nature.  What interests me more is that those on the innovation side in terms of business fall often on the conservative side when speaking of social issues.  Whatever side of the spectrum you inhabit, stories like this should alarm you.  Whether it is the decline of bee populations, the prevention of natural processes within the sweet potato, or the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, we have yet to see a long-term, human-made strategy that betters nature significantly.
A little girl's project shows why we need to choose organic produce
"What initially started as a simple science experiment quickly evolved into a potential and unintentional piece of evidence in support of the purchase of organic rather than conventional produce. As Elise so adorably mentioned as a part of her explanation, the conventional sweet potato was sprayed with bud nip, alternatively known as Chlorpropham. Bud nip is just one of the many chemicals widely used in non-organic farming and agriculture."

When one considers the importance of branding and imaging to the American consumer, outright lies like this need to get squashed immediately.  The scientific debate over the safety of GMO crops still needs to play out, but in no way, shape, or form can a rational person consider them natural.
Big food companies want to call GMO foods "natural"
"'Genetic engineering, by its very definition, is not a natural process. It is an artificial and novel process, which often involves inserting foreign (often bacterial) genetic material into a food plant, crop or animal. The U.S. Patent Office has granted numerous patents on genetically engineered plants, finding that they and novel elements in them are not naturally occurring.'"

I often fall on the side of "educating the next generation should take a back seat to fixing the problems we have caused", but given how drastically our society has changed over the last 150 years from agrarian to urban, projects like this have tremendous value.  I would like to see similar work around energy and water.
These kits teach kids that food has a history beyond the grocery store
"At the end of each lesson, kids get a card with a photo on one side from the Alliance’s archives, and a person’s story on the back. 'They learn about someone who sells their freshly baked bread at the farmers market, or who are championship oyster shuckers,' she explains. 'We give kids an important opportunity to see that food in very personal terms in the sense that there are a lot of people who are working very hard to make food happen.'"

It is coming.  We could be 100% solar in the next 10 years if we wanted it, but we can certainly get there in the next 20....and save huge sums of money in the economy.  I highlighted some work previously that posited what a "free energy" economy might look like.  We will need to prepare for it sooner than we think.
Jeremy Leggett: It's flattering when people dismiss solar
"The cost of solar is decreasing and the price of using fossil fuels is rocketing both for pockets and the planet. Solar will have to become normal. The price of a solar module has fallen 80 per cent since 2008, and the US Energy Department projects a further 75 per cent further price reduction by 2020. Solar is set to become the biggest single energy source in the world. Do not take my word for this. This is Shell's opinion, even as they try to transform themselves into a gas company, having given up on solar, like BP."

Happy Friday!

It's the investors who make no economic sense

I had a somewhat disheartening conversation with a colleague this week.  He lamented that in working with building managers who really wanted to pursue low-to-no-energy building solutions and positive indoor air quality measures, they ran into conflict with their creditors who "did not include it as a separate line item on the pro forma".  The finance industry, in this case, does not recognize the risk or value of zero impact or net positive buildings, so he had no case to the investors on why they should pursue the right route.

Compare this with another conversation I had earlier in the week discussing Elizabeth Warren's book The Two Income Trap about the financial relationship between society and parents raising children.  For most of the first two-thirds of our nation's history, parents raising children would realize the financial benefit of that effort when the children took over the farm/family business or supported them in their old age.  Now, our economy needs parents to raise productive, healthy, and motivated people, then pay for them to go to college, then send them quickly out into the world to buy/rent shelter, consume goods and services, and settle into new lives often far from their parents.  These parents no longer receive the "return on investment" for raising a child, society as a whole receives that benefit - and namely the financial industry that invests in the businesses that these individuals support.  Our economy asks - almost requires - parents to make all of the investment of time and resources, with little to none of the economic gain, and why?

Because it's "the right thing to do".

Warren argues that in this scenario, we as a society owe those parents all the help with that investment as possible.  We should provide free, high-quality daycare, universal healthcare, high-quality public education through college, and maternity/paternity leave that rewards the obligations parents are to undertake (my list based on Warren's ideas).  In short, society as a whole gets the benefit, so society as a whole invests.  Instead of this realistic, and economically sound, approach, we get the punitive one: parents conceived the child, and now they must "pay the consequences".  Then once the parents have served their financial penance, society will reap the reward.

In a functioning economy, we would have the right balance of both, and applied fairly to business and individuals alike.  Parents and society would have a proper balance economically in the raising of children, recognizing that parents do have an obligation to do the right thing.  On the other side, business - which already gets a reasonable subsidy from society in terms of infrastructure, security, and a regulate/insured marketplace - would have the same level of responsibility to do no harm to the environment, behave ethically, and proactively concern itself with the coming generations and not just the present.  In the same way we punish parents who do not maintain their obligation, society can agree on laws that transfer businesses from operators and investors who cannot meet their obligation to society to those who have not only the ability, but the desire.

This is not some sort of utopia, this is the only form of reality that combines justice with possibility.  The current way we organize society is the utopia.  Thinking we can continue to burden the middle class with expenses from which they never realize a return, but allowing business to destroy our natural capital without consequence...

That is an unsustainable utopia, and our financial industry needs to recognize this.

Understand what I am saying in 53 mind-boggling infographics!!!

I generally steer clear of articles titled such as this one, but given my interest in the food/energy/water nexus, and its impact on our quality of life, I could not resist the urge to read an article linked by the following Tweet from Our World Magazine:

@OurWorld20: "The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics"

I highly recommend taking a look at the article as it does provide some useful perspective on where we are, notably:

• We not only will add over 2 billion people to the planet in the next forty years, but we will add more food consumers as we move people from hunger to nourishment.  This will greatly increase the demand for food.
• As people in developing areas move into diets more consistent with the developed world, the additional demand for meat will place continued pressure on water, energy, and other ecological systems.  This is especially true if we move to more CAFO style meat production.
• Our current production and distribution system capacities can handle the increased demand, mostly because we waste as much as 40% of the current food production.  Increasing efficiency will yield tremendous cost savings that can reduce the economic impact of feeding 4 billion more people (combining new and currently under-fed populations).
• We need to skip over energy policy into a broader food-energy-water policy that recognizes the overlapping demands and impacts of all three.

We all need to get educated on the life cycle of our food, from growing to harvesting to transporting to processing to consuming to disposal.  Especially for those of us in the developed world who have little experience with the stress that accompanies a lack of food availability, understanding the dynamics of the food system will give us the proper viewpoint from which to make decisions going forward.  It will take a careful balance between economic development in developing regions and smart choices in developed regions to meet these food challenges.  These smarter choices need to allow us to maintain our own quality of life without jeopardizing the potential for another - even one halfway across the world or living twenty years in the future - to improve and maintain their own high quality of life.

That is the simple challenge.

Might as well face it: The addiction economy

Robert F. Kennedy once summed up our approach to tracking growth as follows:

"Gross National Product [or Gross Domestic Product as we more commonly track] counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage...Yet Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children,...it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

An economy allocates scarce resources to where they will provide the greatest utility.  For the first hundred or so years of our country's existence, this meant managing scarce natural resources to - hopefully - prevent over use and depletion.  As we mechanized farming, manufacturing, and extraction, the cost of utilizing those resources we absolutely need plummeted.  To replace this utility, especially as populations exploded, we replaced this economy of need with an economy of want.  This economy requires consumers to regularly desire products they can consume with their senses, and regardless of the impact on their quality of life, return to the product with a desire matched by their willingness to spend money.

In order to sustain this economy, devoted consumers must participate.  In the purest form of the market, those consumers would come back based upon their own utility and make rational choices.  Unfortunately, our current consumptive economy uses psychological and physical manipulation to reduce risk and "force" consumers to return for products.  The clearest examples of this come from the tobacco and alcohol industries.  As much as those who do not drink and smoke would like to think they have immunity from this kind of manipulation, we are learning that food companies manipulate sugar, fat, and salt contents of food to maximize people's addiction to the product.  An entire industry of processed food, supported by research into food science, generates revenue by producing not just foods that people choose to come back to, but foods they MUST come back to.  This kind of manipulated support for consumption undermines the goal of an economy, which should measure and respond to the desires of people within a rational decision-making framework.

Other industries downstream of the food, tobacco, and alcohol industries rely on this addiction as well.  The healthcare industry currently makes more money off people who are sick and ill than off people who lead healthy lives.  Entertainment industries like television and the internet survive on advertising revenue aimed at manipulating choices.  Breaking this addiction economy will take more strength than we as a population may be able to muster.  If we cannot, we place ourselves at risk of over-consumption leading to collapse.

The solutions are varied, but start with better health education, an increased focus on preventative medicine among doctors, and courage by policy makers to separate GDP from health of a nation.  We should see the economy as a way to express our priorities and provide quality of life for all.  Right now, it seeks more to feed itself at the expense of the people within it, and that has to change.

Friday Five: December 13, 2013

It's the Christmas season, a time full of hope, imagination, and celebration. As a species, we would sometimes rather hold onto an image of things as opposed to knowing the reality. I highly recommend that if you eat meat, consider where the meat comes from, how the farmer raises the animals, and how the manufacturers process the meat. The old adage, "you are what you eat" holds true. Whatever a pig, cow, chicken, lamb, etc. ingests and gets exposed to ends up in us. You owe it to yourself to know, even if the prospects are unpleasant.
In the belly of the beast
"You are a typical egg-laying chicken in America, and this is your life: You’re trapped in a cage with six to eight hens, each given less than a square foot of space to roost and sleep in. The cages rise five high and run thousands long in a warehouse without windows or skylights. You see and smell nothing from the moment of your birth but the shit coming down through the open slats of the battery cages above you. It coats your feathers and becomes a second skin; by the time you’re plucked from your cage for slaughter, your bones and wings breaking in the grasp of harried workers, you look less like a hen than an oil-spill duck, blackened by years of droppings."

As a good sign of a sea change on the part of big business, industry recognizes that people now value a stable and productive environment over a destructive one. This shift in economic focus paves the way for a clean energy future where we measure performance not just with output but total impact.
Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes even if we are not
"In a report released by the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project, 29 companies — including the five biggest oil-producers, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, and Shell (not that we’re keeping track) — report that they are using carbon pricing estimates to plan for hypothetical future regulation in the U.S. This generally means that an estimated carbon price is applied to a corporation’s big-investment projects — new drilling rigs, for example — which will likely be subject to some kind of emissions tax in ten or twenty years."

This sort of carbon pricing - much needed to reflect the indirect subsidy companies receive from not having to address the detrimental results of their pollution - will only exacerbate a growing issue: fuel-based energy has started to cost more than renewably-based energy.
Wind and solar costs challenge fossil fuels in the US
"Greentech Media recently quoted Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Head of North American Equity Research for Power & Utilities and Clean Energy, speaking at the Columbia Energy Symposium in late November. 'Compare that to the variable cost of a gas plant at $30 per megawatt-hour. The all-in cost to justify the construction of a new gas plant would be above $60 per megawatt-hour.' So who would build gas?
Not as many people. Citigroup recently reported that some peaking gas plants were already being replaced by solar PV plants."

Meanwhile, we will have to do more than imagine a future filled with renewably-generated energy; we will have to figure out how to financially incentivize an economy without regular consumption. Currently, we price things that are a scarce resource, but with sun and wind readily available, there is no ongoing consumable to price. Once the installation costs are paid for, nothing remains. This poses a mind-blowing problem for business, but a happy one for consumers. We do not pay for air...what would the world look like if we only paid for the infrastructure of energy and not its ongoing generation?
What happens when the price of energy falls to zero?
"What we don’t know is how to structure the energy market so it provides the right incentives. If the marginal cost of solar and wind energy is close to zero (because there is no fuel cost), then the energy price in a 100 percent wind and solar market is going to be zero -- at least in the current market structure. But who would invest?
This is one of the major questions being put to regulators and policymakers around the world, but the country most in the firing line is Germany, one of the world’s most successful industrial nations."

Our economy follows a few basic principles. Among these are that those selling in the marketplace will always find the most efficient solution (lower costs) or drop out of the marketplace, and that those who purchase will always pay for something they value. The agriculture economy has responded to the former with GMO seeds and have created the largest version of Big Ag we have seen. Now, smaller farmers have seen how these products have started to falter, and rather than look to the next big product, they have moved to selling a better product to those willing to pay. Consumers have the ability to sway the marketplace if we have the capacity to match our priorities with our purchases.
Forsaking GMOs helps some farmers take in the cheddar
"Staring at a future of lower corn prices and higher inputs, Huegerich decided to experiment. Two years ago, he planted 320 acres of conventional corn and 1,700 with GMO corn. To his delight, the conventional fields yielded 15 to 30 more bushels per acre than the GMO fields, with a profit margin of up to $100 more per acre. And so in 2013, he upped the ante, ordering six varieties of conventional seeds for close to 750 acres and GMOs for his remaining acres."

Happy Friday!

The TIME is now!

TIME Magazine announced their eagerly awaited Person of the Year yesterday.  Not surprisingly, they picked the new Roman Catholic Pope Francis.  Francis made a very early statement about his own personal humility that endeared him to the Catholic faithful, and attracted the attention of the world media.  In citing the new Pontiff, TIME noted how that humility has done more than make him an interesting story, it has done something that no one thought possible....

It has changed the focus of the Catholic Church, something previously thought impossible.

Part of the key to Pope Francis' success comes from his use of established Church doctrine as the basis for his changes.  For a church that has spent millennia building wealth, in calling for a focus on the poor, Francis looks to the Gospels of the New Testament.  As the Catholic Church has focused increasingly on the "enforcement" of dogma and telling the faithful what they cannot do, Francis has looked to the words of Jesus and asked that we first love each other and focus on our own compassion.  Francis has not called for major changes in church law or dogma, but instead he asks that we look at all our actions through the lens of the church's core mission: service to the poor.

Word is that Francis will issue a statement on the Catholic Church's role in protecting the environment, but even without that, the pope has given us an excellent blueprint for how those of us in change advocacy can make rapid, substantial change in seemingly intractable systems.  I hear many taking about "the fight" for the environment, or about "defeating" those who seek to destroy our quality of life.  One thing Francis' work can teach us is that by focusing on those things that bind us, we can have greater impact and more effective dialogue.  Secondly, we can base our focus not on a "new and different future", but rather on the basic principles we all value: self-determination, equality of opportunity, and just treatment of our fellow people.  Instead of denigrating a fellow person and telling them they have to do something different in order to be "good", we can reach out to help identify who we may harm by a certain activity and cooperatively develop solutions that increase opportunity without creating divisions.

I admit that I have a personal bias for the new Pope.  Even among people who may normally have apathy toward the Catholic Church, I sense a palpable buzz about this one man.  It certainly helps that he holds one of the most recognized leadership positions in the world, but even relative to others in similar positions, he had stood out.  Francis shows that we can make a difference if we humbly and honestly focus on compassion to each other.  If he can take one of the oldest and most closed institutions in the history of civilization and refocus it in such a short time, we should all have hope for what we can accomplish.

Blast (of cold) from the past

I met my first climate denier at the end of my first semester sophomore year.  During finals week, my roommates and I ran back to our dorm from the dining hall during a relatively typical (at the time) December morning in the upper Midwest.  With a couple of inches of snow on the ground, and temperatures hovering in the single digits, one of my roommates (from Texas no less!), shouted, "Global warming, my ass!"

This December, for the first time in what feels like twenty years, the temperatures have dropped into the single digits with snow and wind chills below zero.  This bout of cold weather, coupled with a recent decrease in the rate of increase of mean temperatures, has given ammunition to those who have the most to lose economically from a clean energy future.  When faced with circumstances like this, we need to remember one important fact:

Climate is not weather.

The day-to-day atmospheric events that affect the temperature and moisture content of the air depend on the climate of a region, but those parameters can vary greatly on a micro-scale (spatially or temporally).  A month or two of seasonally cold weather in one part of the world does not necessarily mean that the climate has shifted one way or another.  Long-term trends of weather define the climate of a region, and the aggregate temperature and moisture conditions across the globe define the global climate.  If this nostalgic December leads to an equally cold remainder of the winter, a seasonable spring, and a summer of limited ninety degree days, then this repeats for ten years, we can say that our climate has returned to what we knew as normal.  Until then, we can lament (or as an avid skier, enjoy) this turn of events, but can draw no conclusions that would cause us to question accepted climate science.

Just two years ago, the weather pattern for the year included a tripling of the average number of ninety degree days, and almost a full year without snow accumulation in the city.  The year before, we had a twenty inch snow event.  Weather changes from year to year, and the level of these swings should give us more pause than the conditions in any one season.  Climate change encompasses the consistency and severity of weather events as well as the temperature.  Assuming that one cold month means the end of climate change makes as much sense as assuming that climate change means we can sell our heavy coats.  Doing so further risks our preparedness, and if predictions continue to come true, we have seen that we need all the preparedness we can get.

Remember Mandela by fighting for the environment

Nelson Mandela stood for something.  Against constant attacks from world powers like the US and UK which labeled him a terrorist, and against the leaders of his own country, he stood for equality of opportunity for all people.  From his fight, and even more from his forgiveness for those who imprisoned and oppressed him, those of us still fighting to remove obstacles to equality can find many examples of how to continue on in our own fight.  In his excellent recent article in Grist, Brentin Mock pointed out Mandela's connection to the climate fight.  As we approach perhaps the most important decade of our work to create a world that respects high quality of life for all, we can approach our fight in the following way:

1. Remain steady even against the harshest critics.
In the 1980s, two of the world's superpowers, the US and UK, labeled Mandela a terrorist and predicted that any shift in political power with Mandela as leader would result in mass retribution and bloodshed.  Even though the US Congress followed through on sanctions against Reagan's pleadings, Mandela still had not yet found favor in the West.  This did not deter him.
In our struggle, large government and corporate interests still battle against the proven science, and now voluminous anecdotal information, supporting the need for a change in our energy usage.  Against that backdrop, we should limit our attacks against the antagonizers and limit ourselves to a continued focus on the change that we need.  Our ideas are sound, and energy focused on refining them will do more than energy focused on demeaning those with entrenched energy technologies.

2.  In victory (or maybe even before), work with the opposition.
When Mandela took power, he early on recognized the need to unite South Africa.  Those who committed atrocities received trial and punishment within the law.  For everyone else, Mandela focused on ways to unite people around their commonality.  We see this exemplified in the story of the Springboks, South Africa's rugby team, immortalized in the movie Invictus.  Although it did not deliver a perfect world without conflict, it proved the best possible approach both internally and from the point of view of the rest of the world.
Many of the most active detractors of climate science, especially those who have intentionally maligned both the science and the scientists publicly with slander and lies, should not benefit from a new energy economy focused on quality of life and the betterment of the planet as a whole.  Everyone else, from the miners of West Virginia to the utility executives in the Pacific Northwest should have the opportunity to transition.  Utilities can use their leverage to install and service renewable energy and high-performance building systems.  Miners and pipeline workers can receive training to become building operators, system installers, and electricians.  All can participate, reducing or eliminating any possible shock to the economy.

3.  Don't get entrenched.
After one term in office, Mandela stepped down to allow a transition.  He recognized the importance of the future of the state over his own personal gain.
One of the reasons for our current predicament is the entrenched status of large, multi-national corporations benefiting from the status quo.  A new energy economy must include a distributed network of mutually beneficial companies and technologies that uses our still new integrated communications technology to facilitate the flow of information and the development of new products.  If we supplant one behemoth for another, we do not solve the inherent problem, even as we make progress.

Those who inspire seek not just to receive accolades.  They want change.  It is not enough for us to celebrate Nelson Mandela, we must continue his work.  At the end of the day, if we create a world free from energy-related pollution, where all can create a high quality of life without sacrificing the quality of life of another, we will have done more to remember Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, and all the others who have sought justice than all the kinds words in memorium.

Friday Five: December 6, 2013

The human ability to hope stands as perhaps our most defining trait.  That hope leads to denial could lead to our downfall.  Time will continue to tell, but as we move forward into the era of predicted climate change, the more we get to experience the veracity of the predictions.  Our hope has given us the comfort level that we will handle whatever cards the environment deals us.  I hope that we are not too late.
Panel says global warming carries risk of deep changes
"The document the panel released Tuesday is the latest in a string of reports to consider whether some changes could occur so suddenly as to produce profound social or environmental stress, even collapse. Like previous reports, the new one considers many potential possibilities and dismisses most of them as unlikely — at least in the near term.
But some of the risks are real, the panel found, and in several cases have happened already."

Most of us only know about feedback from the obnoxiously loud speaker sounds we hear at concerts or high school events.  Some of us know it through the generous number and size of opinions people express to us when they "politely" evaluate our performance.  In nature, feedback can lead to tremendously good or tremendously horrible consequences.  Once nature begins a feedback loop, stopping it takes significantly more effort than preventing it in the first place.  Unfortunately, one has already started in the Arctic.
Another reason to worry about methane: It’s leaking out of the Arctic Ocean hella fast
"Methane is stored on the Arctic Ocean floor, and is kept there by a layer of permafrost. As the permafrost thaws due to global warming, the methane escapes. Extra methane has also been escaping in recent years due to stronger and more frequent storms that shake up the ocean and bring gases to the top more quickly. As the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner notes, there are also carbon stores being similarly affected.
And the methane release creates a feedback loop: More methane causes more warming, which causes more rapid methane release."

I have thought for years that in a city like Chicago, we should be able to eliminate driving, at least in the city center - and ideally on Lake Shore Drive.  If you look at the changes in major European cities since the 1970s, we see far fewer cars and greater emphasis on bikes, walking, and urbanism (the layout of cities to create communities that do not require a car for survival).  The latest to reach this conclusion offers some great insights on what the future can hold when we stop thinking of cars as essential to our quality of life.
Madrid's big plan to swear off cars
"Trees, bikes, and walking are in. Cars, historical protection, and new apartments are out. This is the gist of a new plan Madrid has hatched to help it catch up with its European neighbors. The General Urban Plan is a massive, doorstep-sized blueprint created by the city government about every 15 years. This latest iteration arrived just as crisis-hit Madrid badly needs an about-turn to put it back on track."

Lest one think that Europe has a monopoly on the ability to create economically thriving communities without cars, we have seen that more and more Americans have learned to live without them.  This trend will continue.
The US cities leading the decline in driving
"Over the last decade, however, a new report from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and the Frontier Group finds that the share of workers who get to work by private car declined in 99 of America's 100 largest urbanized areas (by the Census Bureau's definition, this is a densely populated geography often larger than a single city but smaller than a metropolitan area)."

Finally, a real reason for hope.  Coal and nuclear plants close with regularity.  Building new natural gas plants takes time to ensure that environmental impacts will remain low.  Even new wind projects require necessary environmental scrutiny and significant planning.  We can deploy solar quickly, effectively, and more and more as of late, economically.  Predictions of how quickly we can create a renewably-powered way of life have always underestimated the speed of deployment of distributed energy like solar.  We can do some much more than we previously thought.  The transformation can happen, and will happen when we prioritize our economy and our health.
Solar energy was America's sole new power source in October
"That only solar power plants came online in October speaks to some inherent advantages solar holds over fossil fuels – beyond not roasting the planet. One is that photovoltaic power stations can be built relatively quickly given that they essentially involve deploying thousands of solar panels over hundreds or thousands of acres of land. Photovoltaic power plants are modular, meaning that you can build them small near cities to avoid the huge costs of new transmission lines, or build them big to take advantage of economies of scale. More than half of the new solar power plants that came online in October were photovoltaic."

Happy Friday!

What's in MY wallet?

Every once in a while, an unexpected event happens that distracts us from the planned activities of the day and gives us the opportunity to examine our choices.  My wallet fell out of my pocket and spread the contents across my kitchen floor.  I have one of those front-pocket style wallets that supposedly reduces the risk of sciatica and other back pain that can happen from back-pocket wallets.  It has a series of slots on one side of the fold and one large pocket on the other, with a money clip (normally empty in my case) on the outside.  As a sign that I probably need an upgrade, everything has worn to the point where once free from my pocket, everything scattered.  As I examined the contents, I saw some patterns and took the opportunity to use the happy accident as a moment of self-reflection as I plan for the coming new year.  I list the contents below as a way of seeing myself through that which I choose to keep close to me at almost all times.  Perhaps I may reconsider some of these in the future.

Cash/Debit Card/Credit Card
I rarely carry cash, but today had a fiver.  My one debit card provides most of my purchases, but I do have the credit card for emergencies.  My wife has had the Bank of America account since she moved to Chicago, so we have essentially stayed with it out of habit.  When it does cross my mind, I always oscillate between the benefits of local banking (more resources for the community, better transparency of mission) versus the benefits of banking with a large multinational (greater access to banking centers, usually better rates on deposits and charges).  As part of our end-of-year financial wrap-up, we will take a look at our options - especially since small, local banks have essentially disappeared - and determine if staying with BOA aligns with our family's priorities.

Alternative Transportation Cards
A Metra ten-ride ticket, CTA Chicago Card Plus, and igo Card sit in my pocket as our third car.  With two teenagers in sports, theater, and other after school activities, we have yet to reduce ourselves to one vehicle, but even with two, we have days where we need to go in three different directions, and these come in handy.  I still want a single card to replace all of these, and await the improvements to the Ventra Card system before I ditch my Chicago Card Plus.  Until now, I have chosen not to get a Divvy Bike Share card since no stations exist out in our part of the city (or within several miles of my house), but starting this month I will spend more time each week in the city center, so I plan to add it to my pocket.

Membership Cards
Maybe I listened to too much Pat Benatar over the years, but "we belong"….to many different organizations and museums, that is.  We donate to Chicago Public Radio, and have our "get a discount" MemberCard to prove it.  In addition, we hold memberships at three Chicago museums: Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, and as of recently the Shedd Aquarium.  Although one can make many stereotypical jokes about people like me who listen to public radio, go to museums, and drive a Prius (in fact, I think South Park has), I believe that public education extends beyond classrooms and even homes.  Universities do not provide access to all, and our media has little obligation to provide basic, hands-on knowledge.  These institutions have value to me and my family…plus, we go often enough that being members saves us money.

Work ID Card
Self-explanatory…except that everyone who knows me that said nothing about my "long-hair phase" needs to man up next time and hold me down if necessary.  What was I thinking?

Frequent Shopper Cards
I have only two: Jamba Juice and Native Foods.  I cannot express how thrilled I was that Jamba took the step to move from styrofoam to processed paper.  Hopefully, technology moves forward to the point where we can replace the processed paper with a fully biodegradable product.  Native Foods has an interesting model, and I hope to learn more this year to determine how long I stay with them.  They serve delicious food, supposedly made on-site from whole food items.  I like the concept, and welcome the change from fast food.  I need to know more about how they treat employees before they get another whole year of my business.

Gym Card
I need to get back into one.  Enough said.

Health Insurance Card
By next week, my wife and I will have made our decision about our insurance plan for next year.  Last year, we had three options: an HMO, a PPO, and a HD/HSA plan all with one provider.  This year, we have two different work plans, with multiple options each, plus forty-five other plans through the Illinois health exchanges from which to choose.  We chose the HD/HSA plan last year because of its guaranteed maximum, and it made our tracking of costs much easier.  This year, with more options comes more "paralysis by analysis", but luckily we have to make the decision by next week.

Costco Member Card
I separate this from the other membership cards for one reason: I have this card simply because of the way this company treats all its employees.  I may learn more over the next year that causes us to rethink our membership, but for now, I like knowing that the people who work at the store have a chance to earn a living wage.  Plus, as I have previously assessed, for the items they carry that we do purchase, they offer the best overall deal, even including the additional mileage we have to drive.

Airline Frequent Flyer Card
This card will leave my wallet today, but not for the reason you think.  I do not think that air travel has to have huge environmental consequences, and I have confidence that of all the major industries, it will soon find a technology that significantly reduces the impact of its emissions.  As well as electronic communications connect us all, nothing can replace face-to-face contact with another human being.  This goes double for interaction with people from different cultures.  Last year, I did some great soul searching, and determined that I would make sacrifices in other parts of my life to make sure that my personal footprint would stay well below average even when including travel.  I plan to dump the card because economically speaking, I see little value to always going with one carrier.

Miscellaneous
I have a blood donor card, but wish that I could just us an app on my phone.  I also have a coupon from a consignment store.  I hope I never need it, but as part of my three-year-old's last school pictures, I have a photo card with "what to do if your child is missing" information.

I save my favorites for last…..

My Library Card
Holding reign as the longest resident of my wallet, having resided in at least four previous wallets, my library card features prominently.  To me, we have no greater sign of the combination of individual spirit and collective responsibility.  So many great authors, researchers, playwrights, innovators, imaginers, etc. have laid down pen to paper and codified their thinking…some with great consequence. Our libraries gather all of these and make them freely available to anyone that holds the key: a library card.  Fifteen years ago, we heard that technology would cause the death of libraries, and it turns out it has only made them better and more interesting.  I love going to the library, I love sitting and working in one, and although I love buying books, I have moved to a 50/50 plan where I borrow as many as I buy.  If you don't have one, get one.

A Laminated Prayer
Actually, the one in my wallet has two.  My favorite biblical verse, and my favorite prayer…and yes, I held competitions for both.  I do not wear my religion on my sleeve, having gained appreciation for all faiths, and respecting all no matter their belief, however despite every reason to find another option, I remain Roman Catholic.  My detailed reasons for staying do not matter as much as what the card says about my Catholicism, a faith that our new pope has started to reinforce for me.  One side has the Prayer of St. Francis, and regardless of your faith, you should read it.  Much like the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, the basic thought behind the prayer crosses the borders we have established for our religions.  On the other side, I copied the passage from Matthew's gospel right after the Beatitudes (a strong competitor for my favorite in its own right).  It's a passage used as inspiration for the Act I finale of the musical Godspell: "You are the light of the world…let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and praise your Father in heaven."  Nothing has yet toppled these from their position of prominence…and I doubt any ever will.

For what it's worth, there's my wallet.  Pictures have moved to my phone, and I used to carry the cards we get at wakes, but those wore away too much.  I foresee more and more of these moving to mobile-based applications.  (My Art Institute membership already has an app to replace the card.)  Until then, I plan to keep making as many choices as possible based on my belief in improving quality of life for all, and hope that I have the strength to back up those choices through those symbols I carry with me everyday.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Flashes: December 4, 2013

Gross national income (GNI) per capita:
US - $50,610, Sweden - $44,150, Germany - $41,890, UK - $36,880, Japan - $36,290

Life expectancy:
Japan - 83 years, Sweden - 82 years, Germany 81 years, UK - 80 years, US - 79 years

Students performing at highest proficiency levels (math/science/reading)
Japan - 24/18/18%, Germany - 17/12/9%, UK - 12/11/9%, US - 9/7/8%, Sweden - 8/6/8%

Energy use per capita:
US - 303.4 kBtu, Sweden - 202.6 kBtu, Germany 153.8 kBtu, UK - 131.2 kBtu, Japan - 115.8 kBtu

Energy use per capita without transportation:
US - 218.1 kBtu, Sweden - 169.5 kBtu, Germany - 127.0 kBtu, Japan - 97.9 kBtu, UK - 97.4 kBtu

GINI (measure of income inequality - higher number means more inequality):
US - 45.0, Japan - 37.6, UK - 34.0, Germany - 27.0, Sweden - 23.0

Enjoy the journey!

Data for US vs OECD energy use

Save money, save water, save the environment…all while looking good.

Maybe it's because I was the oldest male cousin on either side of my family, but I have never had an issue with hand-me-downs.  My three-year-old daughter wears coats, sweatshirts, and occasionally a shirt or two that her sisters (16 and 13 years older than she) or her cousin (3 years older than she) wore. We even have a Cookie Monster sweatshirt that has been worn by a younger cousin of mine (now 21) and down through my son, nephew and niece, and now my toddler - and it will be ready for its next wearer in a couple of years.

Today, I went to a store that has the adult version of hand-me-downs: a clothing consignment store.  For those unfamiliar with the practice, it is a pawn shop, except for things you do not ever need back.  Items generally have a higher value (either fashion-wise or quality-wise) than those donated to a thrift store, and the people who give up their items do so with the promise of a significant portion of the proceeds if the sale goes through.

I like consignment stores because they do two things that - to me - improve quality of life greatly.  First, they reduce the amount of new clothing that we need to manufacture, preserving the embodied energy and water of the original clothing without requiring us to invest more in new clothing.  Second, it keeps still-useful products out of the waste stream, reducing our need for landfill space.  Right now, both of these impacts provides only a small benefit against the scale of each problem, but the impact is real and can expand rapidly.

For example, today, I needed a suit, sport coat, a couple of pair of pants, a pair of jeans, two shirts and a sweater.  (I shop for clothing once a decade, as most of my friends will attest given the unfashionable state of my wardrobe.)  If I purchased these at a lower-end department store, I might expect to have spent upwards of $350-500; at a high-end clothing store, as much as $1,000.  For my whole list, I spent $150.  For the 10 pounds of clothing I purchased today, I avoided approximately 1,500 to 2,500 MJ of energy use, and a whopping 50,000 litres of water (which has its own embodied energy).

Shopping at a consignment store means accepting outdated, but sometimes vintage, fashions.  However the environmental benefits are real, as are the benefits to the pocketbook.  Next time you want or need a new outfit, consider looking up the nearest consignment store in your town.  If it does not work, it does not work…but if it does, it means a great opportunity for you as well as others you will never meet.

Sustainable holiday gift-giving

After the dust settles on Thanksgiving, attention turns quickly to the Christmas holidays, and that economy-boosting ritual of purchasing gifts.  Realizing that Hanukkah is almost over, I apologize that the timing of this post would normally offer more general holiday ideas,however most of these hold true regardless of the gift-giving reason.  Feel free to use this as a reference throughout the year.  Here are my top seven ideas for giving gifts during the holidays that will recognize the season of giving without damaging the quality of life of another.

1.  Do something

Gift giving centers on the idea that the giver knows something that makes the receiver happy.  For decades, our society has pressed us to show our emotions through a "thing", requiring an extractive process heavy on energy use, potentially damaging to the environment, and oft times resulting in more landfill.  We can show equal emotional attachment through a gift of ourselves.  If someone you love just had a child and has been stuck in the house, giving them the gift of a night out with babysitting will show your affection better than any physical gift.  This option especially holds true if you have a professional skill associated with home repair.  As much as they might like a new tie, offering to help someone fix a toilet or teaching them how to hang drywall can add greater value.  If your friend or family member likes adventure, a gift of an activity like bicycle riding in a nearby state park, or if your budget allows it, a day trip to a local lake or ski resort (depending on the season) will fit the bill.

2.  Donate

I have an aunt who has a passion for animal-related causes.  If her name comes up in the grab bag our family does, she will make known her desire for a donation to her favorite shelter.  Although general donations to any worthy charity have value, make sure to find something in which the other person believes strongly.  Also, as much as you can, target social service charities (those that provide food, shelter, or education services for the poor) as these charities receive far less of the annual charitable giving than universities, prep schools, museums, or other forms of charitable institution.

3.  Give the gift of belonging

If your loved one has a passion for the arts or culture, instead of just making a donation, consider the gift of a membership to an institution.  In Chicago, we have several great institutions: Museum of Science and Industry, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, along with dozens of other museums and arts organizations.  If they appreciate great theater, almost every professional theater has season subscription series that provide a great night out for anyone.  Consider adding yourself to the gift if you and your friend or loved one find it hard to get time together unless planned ahead.

4.  Buy local: Services first

Wherever your gift recipient lives, hundreds of small businesses struggle each year to stay afloat.  Many communities have a gift-card program where individuals can use a generic certificate or card at any local business, but if the area in which your friend or loved one lives does not have one, then do a little research and find out the three services they most need and contact businesses to see if they will do a custom card.  Maybe your friend needs accounting services regularly, or a boyfriend has a favorite garage.  Working out a pre-paid gift helps them out, shows your interest in what they need, and supports their local economy.

5.  Buy local:  Entertainment next

Human civilization and culture centers on food and drink.  Find a local establishment that serves something they like - and find one that uses green business practices! - and get them a pre-paid meal.  As with some of the other options, through in a night of social activity that includes you and other friends to make the event even more special.

6.  Buy local:  As a last resort, get the right thing

One could write a doctoral dissertation on all the elements of manufactured items someone should consider when buying a physical gift for another, but first and foremost, maximize what you spend in their community.  Resilient communities have active business districts that blend well with their residential areas to form a thriving, active neighborhood.  Support that dynamic with the dollars you spend.  Next, make sure that whatever you buy them has a pre-determined "end of life", whether it be biodegradable, easily recyclable, or fully reusable.  Avoid purchasing items that have no option other than going in the trash to landfill.  

7.  Electronics

Many states now have requirements that manufacturers take back all electronics for recycling so that nothing ends up in the landfill.  Music adds value to any life.  Computers open us to a wealth of information (when properly vetted, for sure).  All electronic media has its downsides, but the positives outweigh the negatives when done right.  If you still have reservations about the materials and conditions in which many components are manufactured, then consider purchasing refurbished items and sending them to a local computer/electronics repair shop to have them customize.  This can save you money, limit the environmental impact, and still have the intended effect.

Giving a gift shows another who we are, and how much they mean to us.  Make sure the statement you send shows not only how much that person means to you, but also, how much you care about making life better for everyone.  If you take even a couple of minutes to think about what the other really needs and how your options affect the lives of others, you will assuredly arrive at the right gift idea.