beaniac!

Going to try moving over to Tumblr

2011-11-23T10:37:00.002-05:00

I don't post enough to merit a bunch of stand-alone blogs..

http://kamali.co

Non-review of Green Metropolis by David Owen

2011-04-19T13:24:00.000-04:00

(Cross-post from micro urban.)

In honor of Earth Day I guess.

For a book whose premises I agree with, this was one tough read. I could only bear to skim it. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the main premise is old and obvious now--any environmentally conscious urbanist has known for decades that urban living is more green than suburban or rural living. So I offer just a quick chapter-by-chapter summary with a couple random comments.

More like Manhattan

Yeah, Manhattan is a much more energy efficient place to live than anywhere in the US. People who think it's an ecological disaster are failing to look at its per capita impact. Duh. Most Manhattanites I knew 20 years ago realized this.

Liquid Civilization

Yep, oil is bad. But come on, the concept of peak oil production may have some truth to it, but taking "Peak Oil" seriously as some sort of impending doom is ridiculous. More oddly, the author states that the 2008 price run-up on gas was purely due to speculation, clearly not true. We'll have the same prices this summer--global demand is the root. (Isn't that part of the peak oil gloom and doom?)

There and Back

Now we're getting somewhere. Some good points about the absurdity of auto-dependent lives. Improving MPG efficiency matters less than the accelerating sprawl. Zoning laws still largely encourage sprawl and undermine the communities they try to preserve. We should treat Manhattan as a model, not the exception.

Interesting note on Theodore Kheel, who first noted in 1955 that the auto was lowering NYC transit numbers, creating congestion and frustrating both drivers and transit riders. Under Mayor Lindsay, in 1969, he proposed tolls on the bridges to reduce congestion and pay for transit. Thwarted by Moses, and most of the US still reluctant to have "rubber pay for rails".

Traffic jams are beneficial environmentally, if they reduce the willingness of drivers to drive. Good discussion of congestion pricing, plus the need for properly priced parking. Though, Owen writes against charging trucks more in congestion pricing, which I disagree with. It doesn't matter that pedestrians need trucks to bring them goods, being against a higher toll is akin to arguing for subsidizing gas for trucks. The trucks use more of the public resource (roads) than cars so should be priced accordingly, and such charges won't pose a threat to delivering essential goods. The price is still very low relative to the value of the goods and services they bring--the charge may just help nudge them toward being a little more efficient.

Side note: At the end of the day, I think most drivers in small cities enjoy bitching about traffic. It makes them feel like they're in the big leagues.

The Great Outdoors

Lots of good Jacobsian observations. Good criticisms of Central Park, as hugely disruptive to the flow of the city, creating massive borders to the neighborhoods around it. I used to promote (rather tongue in cheek) building in the park to get a rise out of people and to encourage them to think about some of the problems it creates. Washington Square park much more valuable use of land.

Perceived distance and borders more important than actual distance. Like the author, I now use the car in cases I would find ridiculous in my more urban past (driving half a mile to the post office because it's raining.) This isn't just because driving is easier now, it's because walking is a lot less pleasant.

Suburbanites don't actually spend more time outdoors. Notes how people complain about having to park half a block away from their destination. (Another side note: people in small cities love to bitch about parking too.)

"Environmentalists have tended to think of themselves mainly as defenders of what's left, rather than as shapers of what lies ahead." Amen.

Embodied Efficiency

Get this: skyscrapers are actually very efficient. Again, Duh. And, LEED is kinda stupid. (See the chart here, which sums things up nicely:

http://www.microurban.org/2011/03/epa-study-urban-more-green-than-green.html.) Maybe some good background info in this chapter, but getting bored.

On this topic, I believe the elevator is the greatest and most overlooked mass transit tool ever. Maybe after the staircase.

The Shape of Things to Come

China, China. Dubai, Dubai. Snooze, snooze. Ok, back on track:

When affluent Americans think about "going green," they tend to focus on enhancements to their own consumption rather than subtractions from it: buying a new, more fuel-efficient car (rather than driving less or taking the bus), building a new kitchen full of eco-friendly gadgets and exotic building materials (rather than deciding not to add yet another underused room to their house), replacing their old windows with high-tech new ones (rather than caulking air leaks, drawing the curtains during the day, and turning the air-conditioning down or off), and eating better-tasting chickens, tomatoes, and eggs.

Good point, these aren't just "enhancements", they're increases to consumption. Damn yuppie bastards.

Still, I can't understand why this guy still lives in exurbia, and yeah, I can't recommend the book. I do hope it finds an audience who will find all this novel and enlightening--I'm sure there's a huge potential market still. And I hope that smaller cities, despite their many differences with Manhattan, accept a lot of the positives of Manhattan, especially its density and its transit-/walking-/biking-orientation.

EPA Study: Urban more green than "Green"

2011-03-22T09:53:00.001-04:00

In short, living in a transit-oriented, multi-family home--even w/o green construction & autos (A)-- is much more energy efficient than a conventional single-family house with all the green trappings (B).

via treehugger:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/location-efficiency-as-important-as-energy-efficiency.php

Savings from Dimmer Switches

2010-09-17T09:08:00.000-04:00

Just installed a dimmer switch, which had an energy savings chart on the side of the box. No surprise on the energy savings from dimming, but what I found interesting were the claims about extended bulb life (presumably for incandescents) --

Dimming lights 10% | reduces energy bill 10% | extends bulb life to 2X
Dimming lights 25% | reduces energy bill 20% | extends bulb life to 4X
Dimming lights 50% | reduces energy bill 40% | extends bulb life to 20X
Dimming lights 75% | reduces energy bill 60% | extends bulb life to >20X

(From a Leviton Dimmer Switch)

tofu sandwich

2010-08-17T08:44:00.002-04:00

best freakin tofu sandwich ive ever had. breaded, tea-smoked and fried. @counter nyc

Roof color as environmental choice

2010-06-28T09:26:00.001-04:00

I'm getting one small section of my roof redone this summer, and it got me thinking about what's the optimal color for a roof. I've dreamed since acquiring this big old house of a paint that was white in warm/hot weather and black in cool/cold weather (or maybe something like an ePaper exterior), but until then, a fixed color seems to be the only choice.

Though we live in a "four seasons" climate, the summer nights get so cool that AC is hardly needed. But we have the steam furnace running nearly 8 months of the year.This made me think at first that a black roof was the best the choice...

But, I now realize that's an over-simplistic way to think about it... My physics is too rusty to attempt the actual calculations of how different roofs would affect my energy costs. Plus, it's complicated by things like sunlight being much lower and shorter in the winter (easier to calculate), and how much of that heat is actually absorbed into the house vs simply radiated out (harder to calculate).

That last point has convinced me that a light roof color is the way to go, as dark roofs--like all the asphalt roads and parking lots around--generate a lot of atmospheric heat and contribute to global warming. So even if *my* energy bills were a touch lower (which I don't even think they would be), the overall impact of a darker roof seems to be much worse.

This is what our Nobel laureate Energy Secretary recommends, though it's not clear if he means for every region of the country. (Clearly true commercial buildings in Texas, maybe not for a house in the upper upper mid-west?)

http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/27/energy-steven-chu-white-roofs-geo-engineering-adaptation-mitigation/
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/obamas_energy_secretary_suggests_white_roofs

Wikipedia has this image showing the albedo (reflectiveness from 0 to 1) of different commercial roofing choices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_roof

PBS's Oil Leak Counter

2010-06-22T09:14:00.001-04:00

Embed it on your site!

Vegetarian Summerfest

2010-06-07T22:29:00.001-04:00

The North American Vegetarian Society has a veggie festival planned in Johnstown, PA in about a month. And, here's a list of other US & UK festivals in 2010.

Can you have a green conference? Perhaps when there's rail service as Johnstown has. But I'll probably just be sticking to my local farmers market anyway..

Livestock's Long Shadow

2010-03-25T16:00:00.001-04:00

Last night I finally read the summary of Livestock's Long Shadow that I had printed out a few months ago. This was a 2006 UN report on the environmental effects of the animal products industries.

Good timing. Turns out some analysis in recent days raises some questions about the methodology of one part of the report, specifically the calculations for greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production vs transportation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/03/24/meat.industry.global.warming/?hpt=Sbin

Of course the reactionaries are rushing to declare "another UN global warming study debunked" and claiming that the "global warming scam is now unraveling."

It's terrible that a careless error like this was made, and it's great that someone corrected it. But, let's be realistic about the implications-- the only thing shown is that the study got the amount of transportation-related emissions wrong. (By only calculating direct emissions, not including the production of transportation fuels, infrastructure, or vehicles.) So, the comparison with transportation was off. That's it. Seemingly, no faults were discovered in the calculations of livestock's emissions.

Even if the authors were completely wrong about livestock's direct CO2 contributions, this still leaves other aspects in which livestock contribute to global warming, most notably deforestation and grazing + raising feed, which unleash carbon and prevent its absorption from forests. (I'm also unclear how livestock-related transportation is counted--whether livestock or transport--including the animals & products themselves, the feed, the supplies to generate the feed, etc.)

Further, the report isn't even specifically about global warming or even air pollution. It covers all sorts of environmental impacts, including soil erosion, the waste of precious water in some locales, and water pollution from run-off.

Probably the most important take-away with "cow-gate" and "climate-gate" is that scientists might want to be extra diligent with anything that has political implications. They may not be used to walking on eggshells in their community, and they may find bizarre the extremely misunderstanding conclusions that non-scientists may reach, when other scientists legitimately raise questions about their work. But we all know that these reactions will occur, so being anything less than extremely thorough simply invites them. Unfortunately.

Chart comparison: federal nutrition guidelines vs federal food subsidies

2010-03-17T13:53:00.002-04:00

via http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/another-view-of-why-youre-fat.php

Vegetarianism is Environmentalism is Vegetarianism

2010-03-14T22:45:00.003-04:00

Recycling, installing CFLs, and insulating your house can be good things to do, but here's a simple list for the biggest personal impact:

#3 -- Consume Less Crap
i.e. save more, or buy used stuff when you can.
#2 -- Drive less
i.e. walk, bike, or take mass transit.
#1 -- Eat less meat
i.e. eat more vegetarian food.
and, yep, beans are among the biggest bang for the environment's buck.

Not doing the math, but here are some basic numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#By_sector

A couple interesting charts here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

And here's a similar post I came across at TreeHugger:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/your-car-your-meat-eating-biggest-causes-climate-change.php

Hello World

2010-03-10T12:11:00.000-05:00

Beans are the magic food.