Green Struggles

Can global warming bring world peace?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:17:00 +0000

The predictions about climate change are depressing. Every time I go to a speech about the topic, I leave feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. So I want to suggest we look at this issue differently. If we can get all countries to focus on global warming (since it will impact us all), this might unite these countries around a common goal. With a focus on one major issue, I would guess that a lot of petty issues that countries argue over today may get downplayed, or simply go away.

Think about the Armageddon-type movies, where the aliens come to destroy the planet, and all people of the world unite to save the planet. This wouldn't be quite as exciting as those movies, but the purpose is the same. Consider sports teams. If you have players focused on their own accomplishments, not winning as a team (the common goal), then distractions and fighting within the team increase (and they never reach the goal).

OK, I know the term "world peace" is not really possible, but I think a world where countries are not engaged in active fighting and war (within their own country or with another country) is possible. However, without a major change in focus, we will never get there. In fact, at our current pace in destroying the planet, we are headed for even more global conflict, which will take us further away from "world peace".

Wars typically start over water, changing patterns of rainfall, food production and land use. These are the major consequences cited in most research on global warming.

The United Kingdom (UK) government commissioned a report called the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which suggests global warming could shrink the world's economy by 20%. This report has been widely circulated, and has been brought up in the UN Security Council.

"With scientists predicting that land and water resources will gradually become more scarce in the coming years, and that global warming may irreversibly alter the face of the planet, the United Nations Security Council today held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on security." [Read article here].

So here is where we are at today: Global warming will overall negatively impact water, food production, land use, and change the patterns of rainfall. These changes historically lead to war and conflict, and will negatively impact the economy around the globe. No country is exempt.

If we can change the focus, the opposite can occur. We reduce global warming, which minimizes the impact on food and water. We rally around a common goal, and focus our resources on growing all economies through clean energy and more sustainable practices. Global warming and climate change might be the ONLY issue that has the potential to rally all countries around the world.

We don't have a choice. If we wait for the disasters to occur, it will be too late. Aligning countries to this message is not impossible. We are actually getting closer (aside from the major powers of the world). It is up to us who live in these major powers (China, US, EU) to force our leaders to make this change, and change immediately.

We can actually "kill two birds with one stone" by focusing on reducing global warming, in order to save ourselves from climate change AND achieve world peace!

Raise the price of carbon, then send everyone a check in the mail?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:21:00 +0000

I recently attended a presentation from the Citizens Climate Lobby group. They are a group that helps citizens organize around climate change through politics. Marc Reynolds, Executive Director of Citizens Climate Lobby, gave a great speech about how citizens can get involved and make a difference.

His entire speech is posted on YouTube.

He talked about the CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend Proposal, which is actually very simple. If we increase (tax) carbon, that will make it easier for people to choose renewable or clean energy, or conserve what they use. He used smoking as a successful example of how increasing the tax on cigarettes has led to a reduction in smokers. Reducing carbon is no different. If we want to reduce the impact of climate change, we need to reduce our carbon usage. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to accurately price carbon, based upon its impact on the environment. Today, no one has to pay for the impact of carbon, so it gets treated equally in the open market as other sources of energy that are less damaging to the environment. All this would make it a fair playing field.

But won't this increase the cost of electricity and gasoline for everyone? Yes it will. That is why they are proposing to take the taxed income, and send it back to the people to offset their increased utility and gas costs. Then over time, that amount would be less and less, as we replace carbon energy with better sources of energy.

The other good approach is that the tax will increase steadily over time, so that there is a clear path in the future that shows what the price will be, and it eases people into the additional cost. Businesses can invest in different energy with some confidence, and the price impact to all of us is more gradual. After 10 years, they feel it would be priced more appropriately.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. It actually appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, whereas other climate bills and legislation have been proposed by one side or the other. If I hear any updates, I'll post them here.

My life as a "vegetarian" - mid-year update

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:22:00 +0000

As a followup to the blog posted in February this year, called "2011 - Year of the Vegetarian," I thought people might be interested in how things have been going at the half-way point of 2011.

As of June 30th, I have recorded 40 times where I ate meat. Just for clarification, meat means seafood, chicken, pork, and red meat. Basically, if it came from a living animal, then I count it. I don't count eggs, since the chicken didn't sacrifice it's life for my meal.

Since I regularly eat three meals a day, that is 181 days x 3 meals per day = 543 opportunities to eat meat. 40/543 = 7.3% of the time I ate meat. Less than 10%, which is much better than I anticipated at the beginning of the year.

As I stated in my last blog about how I counted these meals, I actually ate more meat than the 40 meals, but I didn't count meals where I didn't have much of a choice in what was served.

That being said, in hindsight, I should probably keep track of those meals, and remove them from the denominator, to give a more accurate percentage of how often I avoid meat (when it is my choice). My guess would be closer to 10% of the time, if I took out those meals. Not bad, but I wouldn't call myself a vegetarian quite yet.

If you recall, I also penalized myself $5 for each meat "violation" so I've dished out $200 so far this year to organizations like EDF, CarbonFund, WWF, and Ocean Conservancy. I think next year I'm really consider picking organizations I DON'T like, so it really hurts to donate that money. Right now, I don't feel bad eating meat, because I know I'm helping these organizations. I go back and forth on this, so if anyone has some advice, let me know.

Overall, I am pleased with my progress so far. It has been difficult, and I have some reliable meals I usually fall back on, such as Cheba Hut's Majic Mushroom sub, cheese or spinach pizza or breadsticks, egg and cheese breakfast biscuit from McDonald's, lemon poppy seed or blueberry muffin, black bean burger and fries, spinach and mushroom enchilada from El Banditos, and macaroni and cheese with bread and veggies.

The most difficult item to give up has been Quiznos' toasted subs, partly because it's located near my work. Unfortunately, they are actually doing a really good job with their compostable cups and wrappers, but I'm not a big fan of just eating a veggie sub, so I've been avoiding them quite a bit. If they would make a portabella mushroom sub, I'd be there almost every day!

Look for my end of year update next January, along with my new plan for 2012!

Electricity metrics: Driving the wrong behavior!

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:25:00 +0000

I am working on some energy reduction projects at work. One potential project is to improve the efficiency of some of our equipment, so it uses less electricity.

The problem is that the savings don't actually reduce our electric bill, but it does reduce the electricity that our energy provider would have to supply to us. Let me explain...

First, I am not an electrical engineer, so if I state something wrong, please go easy on me, as I'm attempting to speak in layman's terms.

This has to do with something called "power factor". Basically, the electricity provider has to generate more power for its customers, if the power factor on equipment and machines are lower than ideal (less than 100%).

Poor power factors are typically caused by older equipment, or over-sized motors, or equipment with internal problems or poorly designed. You can learn more here: Wikipedia: Power Factor or a simpler explanation at Washington State EnergyIdeas

Most people at at their home pay for the amount of kilowatt hours consumed per month. Same with companies. However, the electricity provider has to provide enough power to cover the "apparent" power, which is usually more than the actual kilowatt hours (KWH) consumed.

For example, let's assume I have a refrigerator that consumes 10 KWH per day in my home. If the power factor is poor, then I might actually be consuming more like 11 KWH, which is what the electricity provider has to supply to my house. The extra 1 KWH is released as heat into my house and essentially wasted.

So I pay for 10 KWH, but I actually used 11 KWH. I don't actually directly pay for the extra 1 KWH that I needed, due to my poor power factor. So if I fixed my refrigerator so the power factor was improved, and I now consume exactly 10 KWH (instead of 11), my electricity bill doesn't go down. There's no motivation for me to save electricity by investing in some upgrades to improve the power factor.

For large companies, there are extra fees that are charged if the overall power factor is too low (say below 85%), so the utility companies attempt to cover their costs that way. However, usually the fees are charged depending on what range of power factors they fall within.

For our company, we fall within the middle of the range, so we would have to invest in significant improvements to power factor in order to see a benefit on the bill (the point where the extra fees would be removed). Since it is unlikely that we will make that large of an investment, we have decided not to pursue those opportunities. Usually this involves installing a capacitor bank, which stores the energy and reduces the loss of energy.

So here's the issue: Because our company is not charged by the utility company for the actual amount of electricity we require, there is no financial incentive for us to do the right thing by improving the efficiency of our equipment (other than reducing our carbon footprint). The solution would be to charge us for the apparent power (11 KWH in our home), instead of the actual power used by our equipment (10 KWH).

Just another example of metrics driving the wrong behavior!

2011 - Year of the Vegetarian

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:18:00 +0000

I've finally made up my mind. I'm going to cut out meat from my diet in order to reduce my environmental impact. This is coming from someone who loves meat, and didn't really start eating fruits or vegetables until a couple years ago.

OK, so maybe I don't expect to never eat meat again, but here is the system that I've developed for myself, that I feel I can stick with over the long term.

1) If I have a choice between meat and no meat, I will choose no meat. If I choose meat, I will make a donation of $5 to an environmental cause. I haven't decided which one yet, but I think it should be related to forest restoration or water quality, since those areas are affected by large-scale cattle producers. This should help me feel the pinch if I do have a breakdown, but not make me feel as guilty. More of a "stick" approach than a "carrot", but we'll see how it goes...

2) If I don't have a choice, and the food will go to waste, then I will still eat meat, and not feel obligated to donate money. For example, I was teaching a class for work (in a different city than I live) where the food was provided for us. It was catered in from a BBQ restaurant. There was no on-site cafeteria, so I felt that I didn't have another option than to eat the BBQ. I also did not have a rental car (used public transportation), so I couldn't have easily left and gone somewhere else. In addition, if I didn't eat, the food would have been consumed by someone else. At a different location under similar circumstances at work, I was actually near a cafeteria, so I stepped out and got something to eat without meat, since they provided the lunch meat sandwiches for free. So when there are no other options, the consequences of producing and delivering the meat have already been realized, so I might as well enjoy it. Since my actions would not directly impact the re-ordering of more meat to replace what I consumed, I didn't penalize myself for eating the meat. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, then that action directly causes the restaurant to order more meat to replace what I ordered. If I don't eat the catered BBQ, then I doubt the person is going to see the leftover meat and conclude that BBQ is not a good option for catering in the future. One could argue that, but to keep things simple in my mind, I'm going to allow myself to eat the meat in those situations.

As I said earlier, this is a complete turn around from how I grew up my whole life. I have said numerous times while growing up, the following phrase: "I don't like any fruits or vegetables, except I will eat a banana."

That didn't change until I met my wife, and I learned that most vegetarians don't avoid meat because they don't like it, but because they have a strong dedication to reducing the impact of eating meat (I'm guessing animal cruelty or environmental impact). That changed my perspective completely. The next step involved the preparation of meals that didn't involve meat. Since she is a wonderful cook, and I am pretty busy, she makes all the meals, and doesn't put any meat in them. Therefore, if I want to eat, I'm going to have to be a vegetarian while at home. She did a great job of easing me into it, using some fake meat products, so my body didn't go into shock. If I was on my own, I don't think I would be making this kind of dramatic change in my diet. I have that common disease of "male refrigerator blindness" and struggle to figure out what to make when I get home. Bottom line, without her, I would probably stop and eat fast food way more often than I do now, which would probably mean more burgers and chicken. My wife, however, is the female version of MacGyver with what she can find in the fridge and turn into a delicious and healthy meal.

In summary, this decision was not a dramatic change, but has been taking place over the past couple years. Although I am proud of myself for making this change, I am concerned that if it takes an environmentalist like myself 2-3 years to eliminate meat from their diet, how long will it take the rest of the world to do the same, if they don't have the same "carrot" or motivation of reducing their environmental impact? I don't know if we can wait that long...

If you also want to take credit for eating little or no meat, read more on our website at HelpSaveEarth.org under "Eat Less Meat"

Why do I get the most junk mail from environmental groups??

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:45:00 +0000

Over the past couple years, I have been joining more environmental groups. Not a lot, just a couple. I've also been using some websites to reduce the amount of junk mail I'm receiving, and opting out of any paper copies.

However, since that time, I have been bombarded by mailings from these environmental organizations, and many other environmental groups I have never heard of.

Most of them send along free gifts as well. Usually it's return address mailing labels, or postcards, or greeting cards. Others offer incentive gifts in order to signup, such as animal plush toys, winter blankets, t-shirts, umbrellas, calendars, canvas tote bags and water bottles.

I have posted a few green actions related to these issues:

Turn down free gifts: http://www.helpsaveearth.org/view.asp?cat=Air&effect=1&effect2=1&action=188

Stop receiving unwanted junk mail: http://www.helpsaveearth.org/view.asp?cat=Air&effect=2&effect2=1&action=160

I find it a bit ironic that these groups are sending very heavy letters each month filled with paper and flyers and 4-5 page letters about their cause. I would be happy to receive their emails, but make the junk mail stop!

Environmentalist McKibben drives home urgency of climate change to Iowans

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:57:00 +0000

Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben spoke to a captive and energetic audience in Iowa City last night, courtesy of the Office of Sustainability at the University of Iowa. His message was both pessimistic and optimistic, but was most importantly honest.

McKibben started out with the current (and depressing) state of the environment. The earth has risen only about 1 degree in temperature, but already we are seeing the major impacts of that increase in glacier melting, increased floods, increased high temperatures, and increase in disease spread (through warmer climates). We are above the 350 parts per million limit that scientists believe is sustainable for the planet (currently at 390, see image below).

After establishing the current state of affairs, he next showed us his efforts to date with the recent 10/10/10 events, which is a part of the overall 350.org movement. I was amazed at how global this initiative has become, especially since I have not heard that much about his organization. He has made an impact on nearly every country in the world, and it continues to grow each year. He even self-admits that he is not a motivational person and knows very little about how to drive a grass-roots effort like this, but it is clearly working. It reaffirms that anyone can make a difference.
Finally, his message was that people have to make political changes to make dramatic reduction in our emissions. The technology is already here to do that (solar, geothermal, wind), but the policies and investment isn't there yet. He mentioned that 70% of your time should be spent on local actions and 30% on political action.

Video clips are available on the Daily Iowan website
Here is McKibben's latest book, Eearth: Making of Life on a Tough New Planet...

And here is the first book he wrote, which was widely popular, called "The End of Nature"

James Bond had solar, why can't we?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:11:00 +0000

I haven't watched many James Bond movies in my life, but I'd like to someday. I just happened to catch one this weekend, called "The Man with the Golden Gun". It was made in 1974, almost 40 years ago, and it stars Roger Moore. What intrigued me most was this clip regarding solar energy, which is the "golden gun" the villian refers to. Watch the clip below (starts a couple minutes into the clip)...

The technology shown is available today I believe, but it wasn't that long ago that it has been around. After watching this clip, I feel a little frustrated that we haven't made more progress on solar. You have to consider the impact movies can have on society. How much easier was it to convince someone that we need to move to solar technology after watching this film? The movie practically sells it for them! If the movie hadn't been made, then you're left trying to sell solar through drawings, small prototypes and lengthy discussions. In other words, someone made the perfect sales pitch for solar, but we as a society didn't take full advantage. This isn't just a United States issue. James Bond is a British film, shown around the world. You couldn't have asked for a better film to spread the word globally.

I was actually born in 1974, and in 1979, we lived next door to a wonderful lady, who went around to the local elementary schools in Iowa City, and showed us solar-powered toys, and told us they would be used everywhere in the near future. That really made an impact on me, and I was only 5 years old. That was about the same time that the solar panels were on the White House during Jimmy Carter's presidental era.

Here's another example of movies and green technology. In the 1989 movie "Back to the Future", the time machine DeLorean vehicle uses garbage to fuel the vehicle. I've seen a few people try and replicate that, but you don't hear too much from major automotive companies about organic waste as fuel.

Are the movies so far ahead in thinking, that it just takes 40-50 years to implement these ideas? It didn't take us as long to reduce a computer from the size of a house, down to fit on a table. Other technology has seemed to pop up overnight without the aid of a movie plug. Maybe I'm just expecting a shorter time frame when there is a major motion picture that promotes the idea for free.

The only thing I can conclude from this lack of progress is that something happened in the 1980's to bring the progress of solar to a screeching halt. I don't know what it was (change in presidency, oil companies, politics, military, etc), but it would be worth it to understand what happened, so we don't make the same mistake!

Toyota Prius - Great despite recent problems

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 14 May 2010 03:35:00 +0000

We recently moved further away from my work, which obviously increased my commute to work each day. I've been thinking about getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle for a while now. I owned a Chrysler 300, which was a good car, but got less than 20 MPG.

The recent move and subsequent increase in gas made me start looking a lot more seriously at trading in my car.

I really had my eye on the new Aptera...

But it didn't look like there would be one available in my area anytime soon.

Then I considered waiting around for the Chevy Volt (despite my confusion and anger about GM and the old EV-1 vehicle debacle).

Again, the actual production date seemed to keep slipping out.

Another concern I had was the risk of getting the "first" version of any new vehicle, especially one with new technology or features. I didn't want to be in the shop more than on the road.

Ironically, many of the recent problems with the Toyota Prius made me consider getting one, since I thought I could get a good deal on a used one (assuming all the recall upgrades have been installed and fixed the issues).

I was able to find a good deal on a 2008 Prius, with 25,000 miles for around $16,000 (less than Blue Book value). That was more affordable than I imagined, since my perception was that a used Prius would still be in the low to mid-20s.

I've had the car for one month, and I have no complaints. Except one.

I had a hard time getting it started. I didn't realize that you had to have your foot on the brake, otherwise it wouldn't start. I almost had it towed, thinking something was wrong. Since it is partly electric, the push button start and lack of running motor when stopped have taken a little getting used to.

I'll give you my numbers, to show you how affordable one might be, and hopefully you'll look into it as well.

With my trade-in and amount owed, I had to pay an extra $1000, so it cost me $17,000 total, but that was less per month (about $70) than I was paying now (due to good interest rates on late model vehicles right now).

In addition, I am saving money at the pump. I have been averaging 45 MPG, so I'm cutting my gas costs in half (about $50 per month). Most importantly, I'm cutting my carbon footprint and emissions.

So overall, I have a newer vehicle, I've reduced my footprint (compared to what I would be emitting with my new commute distance), and I'm saving over $100 per month.

Trouble with reducing water usage in our toilet

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sat, 08 May 2010 21:46:00 +0000

We moved to a rental house recently, and the toilet (just one bathroom) we got was put into the house in 1990. Therefore, it uses 3.5 gallons per flush. Obviously, a no-brainer to replace it with something better.

Instead of completely ripping out the toilet and replacing it, and sending the old toilet to the landfill, we looked at an alternative option.

There are now products on the market that will reduce your water amount per flush without buying a new one, and give you an option for a partial flush.

I purchased the One2flush 200 Dual Flush Retrofit Kit, and planned to reduce my usage to something similar to a 1.3 - 1.6 gallons per flush level, plus have the option to use the low flush option (for liquids).

When I went to install the product, I had problems getting the wing nuts off the back of the toilet, that connects the tank to the bowl. It must have rusted or sealed on there tight, as I spend almost 2 hours trying to get them off. I got one off finally, and tried to loosen the other by pulling and lifting on the tank.

As expected, I cracked the tank. So much for a zero waste solution!

Now I still had a bolt attached to the bowl, and a broken tank. I checked the local Restore, but they only sold toilets as one piece, not the tank or bowl separately. Since we only have one bathroom, I was in a time crunch to get it repaired. The next best option was to buy a new toilet tank.

The new tank was rated for 1.6 gallons per flush, which is better than what we had, but unfortunately, they didn't sell the 1.28 gpf model as a stand-alone option. Only in the full kit version. Which brings me to a quick rant: Why can't you buy each piece individually? There are pieces you should be able to save (lid, base bowl, plunger, water tubes, etc), so it seems wasteful to have to replace every piece of the toilet.

I finally got the retrofit dual-flush kit installed, which was pretty simple to install. There is some adjustment you'll need to make on the different flush levels, but the option to adjust it is nice to have.

Overall, I ended up with a better solution.

Toilet before, each flush = 3.5 gpf
Toilet after, each flush = 1.6 gpf for full, and approx 0.75-1.0 gpf for half flush

I wish I wouldn't have broken the tank, but this is just another example of why it can be tough to do the right thing. I hope my experiences give people some reminders to keep plugging along with your eco-friendly lifestyle, even when things go wrong, and you end up making a worse impact on the environment than you intended.

Planet Earth gets a "beat-down" this month!

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 02 May 2010 03:32:00 +0000

This was suppose to be the 40th anniversary of Earth Day this month, however, there were three major tragedies this month related to environmental issues.

1) Coal miners killed in West Virginia explosion - tragic explosion thought to be brought about by a methane leak in a West Virginia coal mine has left 29 dead.

2) Oil rig fire and subsequent spill in Gulf of Mexico - Still ongoing, as a fire erupted on the oil rig, killing 11 workers, and is now spilling 5,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf, which is headed towards nearby coasts.

3) Coal-carrying ship damages Great Barrier Reef coral - coal-carrying ship ran aground on Douglas Shoals in the Great Barrier Reef. The ship was inside a marine protected area. It then rammed into the reef, and leaked about 4 tons of heavy fuel causing a roughly 3 km oil slick, and the damage it did to the reef will take 20 years to repair.

Forget about climate change for a minute. If you don't care about the planet, or are opposed to clean energy, the events of the last month should make you change your mind. If you can't see that these are dangerous occupations for those who work in them, cause pollution, and the risk to national security and increase in terrorism we take on while accessing these fuels, then you are a lost cause.

Maybe if we take away all the gasoline, and shut off the electricity to your house, will you start to think differently. Don't change your mind for the planet, change your mind because it's the right thing to do for humanity.

Rockwell Collins goes green with LEED buildings

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:23:00 +0000

I had the opportunity to tour one of the LEED certified buildings on the Rockwell Collins campus in Cedar Rapids, IA. The older building of the two is Gold certified, and the newer one is Silver.

At the beginning of the project, they discovered that many LEED buildings cost around $250 per square foot. They were able to complete the 120,000 square foot pre-engineered building for less than $100 per square foot. The additional investment in obtaining LEED certification, and the enhancements required to achieve a high enough score, had a payback of about one year. Therefore, in the 2nd year, they would start to see cost savings, compared to a non-LEED certified building.

Some of the cool features that are included in these buildings include:

99% of construction waste — more than 1,000 tons — was diverted from the landfill

Building footprint covers only 2.75 acres, and nearby pond was incorporated into the design
More than 30 dedicated parking spaces for low-emissions and fuel-efficient vehicles
40% (385 gallons) of water use reduction through waterless urinals, dual-flush toilets, rainfall capture on roof, etc

Exceeds ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum energy performance requirements by more than 20%
More than 15% of building material is recycled content
Energy Star reflective roofing
Lots of natural light to minimize need for lighting, and lights are on timers and motion sensors to reduce costs when left on
Energy efficient windows with shades to reduce heating effects
To reduce driving and wasted time to get to the main facility (headquarters) across the street, a shuttle vehicle was setup that runs every 5 minutes
Chaning rooms and showers to encourage bike riding
Optimized parking lot lighting
Low VOC paint and coatings, and carpet contained recycled content
Xerascaping (native plants) deployed to minimize amount of water usage
Variable frequency drives (VFD) installed on equipment to reduce electricity costs of large equipment, part of larger energy management software system

The cafeteria is also very modern, clean and open, with access to the outside, so employees can eat with visitors, or just enjoy the weather. There is also a nice walkway near the pond, which is located between the two buildings.

As an employee, if you need a break from work, try hitting some putts in the break area, or put together a puzzle.

To learn more about this project, visit the Ryan Construction website.

http://www.ryancompanies.com/projects/Rockwell-Collins/

Kinnick Stadium recycling needs a boost

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:27:00 +0000

While watching my Iowa Hawkeyes finish off an incredible football season, I began to think about how much trash gets generated at a sporting event. Although I realize that the 70,000 people who attend the games were probably going to generate "some" amount of trash that day, even if they didn't go to a game, there is still a lot that a university can do to minimize the amount of trash they create, and what happens to it after the game is over.

While in high school in Iowa City, all fall sports athletes were required to arrive at 7am on Sunday morning to clean the stadium after a home game. The university donated the money we raised to the athletic programs of each high school. If enough people showed up (usually 200-500 people), it could be fully cleaned in under 2 hours. It's a win-win for all parties!

I started thinking back to those days, and how the process worked, so I decided to check to see if things have changed much since I last participated.

When we arrived, we were happy to see that they were handing out special bags just for bottles. However, instead of using paper cups and dispensing soda from the fountain machine, they seemed to have gone with plastic bottles as the primary source of soda. The number of bottles was unbelievable, so it's no wonder why bottle recycling was being promoted. There were plastic bottle recycling setup around the stadium, so that was a positive. However, right next to that was a trash can, where many of the bottles ended up, unfortunately.

During the cleanup process, the trash is swept into the aisle, and then forced into a trash bag. Even with people walking around looking for bottles, there were many of them that still ended up in the trash. Everyone is trying to get the job done, and aren't spending a lot of time looking to see what can be pulled out for recycling.

The other surprise was the amount of aluminum cans that were present. First of all, these items are not actually sold in the stadium, so they must be "smuggled" in by the fans. What is amazing is that Iowa has a 5 cent deposit on aluminum cans, so the fact that no one had picked up these cans yet was hard to believe. I bet there was $20 worth of aluminum cans laying around. If you want to make some quick money, hang out after the next Iowa game next fall.

Here is a picture of the main items that were left behind after the game.

In summary, there were:

Plastic Bottles (soda, sports drinks and water)
Aluminum Cans (soda and beer)
Plastic bags (peanuts, hot dog wrappers)
Plastic containers (nachos, coffee lids, special drink cups)
Newspaper/Paper products (game programs, drinks/coffee, popcorn, fries, plates)
Food waste/organics (pretzels, pizza crusts, peanut shells)
Cardboard (coffee holders, carrying trays)

So what do I plan to recommend, and help implement at Kinnick Stadium next year? A three pronged attack is probably the best option.

Reduce the amount of trash - push for items with less packaging, or packaging with a higher recycled content (or maybe more biodegradable material).
Reuse containers more than once - make it an incentive to reuse their commemorative cups each game, or provide reusable carrying trays (not disposable).
Recycle as much as possible - which items can be recycled, that aren't being done today, and setup a simple process for the fans and cleanup crew.

I'll keep you posted on my efforts. Next time you're at a sporting event, look around and see what improvements can be made to make recycling easier, and let the team know about it!

No air conditioning in Florida?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:56:00 +0000

We did it! We managed to go an entire year in Florida without any air conditioning! It was one of the tougher things we have ever taken on, and I'm not sure if I would do it again...

The good news is that we were able to save over $1000 in electricity bills, when comparing our bills to the average in prior years (Feb-Oct which are the primary months for A/C usage):

How did we do it?

1) Determination - We both agreed and committed to doing it before the summer started, and we had to rely on each other when it got really hot outside, and we were sweating in the middle of the night. Florida had an especially hot and long summer in 2009, which made it even tougher. It takes a special woman to even consider this idea, let alone agree to try it.

2) Use natural cooling - Everyday we opened up the garage door and all windows, and allowed the wind to provide most of the cooling by allowing the wind to blow through the house without obstruction. We also kept the shades down, to keep the inside from getting too warm.

3) Cold showers - Whenever it got too warm, we'd jump into the showers for a quick cool down. If you don't heat up the water, it's really cold, and the shock to the system was enough to get us by for a few more hours.

This summer, we don't plan to go completely without air conditioning, but we know we can greatly minimize its use by using the techniques above. We'll be in Iowa, so the heat won't be around as long as it is in Florida.

Could we do the same thing in Iowa in the winter and go without heat? Not a chance. I think we would need a fireplace to even consider that option.

This was really rewarding, and I felt like we really made a difference. Most of our friends thought we were crazy or thought it was physically impossible, so that made it even better when it was all over.

Depressing trip to the landfill

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:50:00 +0000

As part of my company's ISO-14001 team, we took a tour of the local landfill. If you've never been to a landfill, you need to go. It will inspire you to do way more recycling than you do now! Most of them will give you free tours, since they realize the importance of public education. In fact, take the whole family, and you'll see how quickly you can change their behavior!

On the downside, it was pretty depressing to see all the trucks constantly dump loads of waste all day long. One after another. The worst part is that many of the items being dumped could have been recycled (cardboard, wood, fabric, plastic bottles and jugs, paper, etc). But once it leaves the truck, it's against the law to grab the item (for safety reasons), so we saw piles of items that you wanted to go grab and place in the recycling bins, but we couldn't.

If I ran the landfill, I would require every truck to empty its contents, and sort out the recyclable items from the waste, before it ever goes up to the hill. Why do we expect the citizens to know all the rules? Why would they blindly allow people to dump items without any inspection or checks? With the constant updates in what can and cannot be recycled (which also seems to be unclear whomever I ask), educating the public will always be way too costly and too much "after the fact" to make any immediate impact. Spend that money and effort at the last line of defense, and use that information to flow back to the truck drivers and citizens with hard facts.

I realize there would be a lot of extra labor involved, but what about the cost of land for burying stuff we don't need to throw away, and having to buy more land a lot sooner, as a result of this lack of "inspection". If you consider any recyclable item that is dumped as an error or "escape", then common thought is that you go to the prior step and setup an inspection, until you eventually trace back to the source of the "error". Yes, public education is the ultimate scenario we should strive for, where no one throws away anything unless it cannot be recycled. In the meantime, you should manually sort out what doesn't belong until that time comes.

That brings me to the really depressing part. Once an item is dumped, it gets covered and all liquid is eventually extracted from underneath the trash. The hill is covered in a layer of material that prevents any moisture from entering. Basically, it's sealed up tight, and nothing gets in or out.

This is a problem because nothing will degrade or compost in those conditions. Biodegradable materials require water, heat and oxygen in order to break down, which they will not get inside the landfill (at least not enough before its covered forever).

BOTTOM LINE: Don't bother buying biodegradable materials unless you are going to compost them yourselves, or take them somewhere that will compost them for you (which is rare to find for most people)!

Here is some more information on biodegradable materials

P.S. This isn't a rant against my local landfill. They do use the methane to generate electricity, and the people there are passionate about recycling and reducing waste, and were just as upset about the situation as we were. I'm just ranting at the whole broken process...

Paradise covered in trash?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:11:00 +0000

We finally got around to taking a honeymoon. We picked St. Croix in the Virgin Islands as our destination, because my wife was impressed with her visit to St. John's and St. Thomas a few years ago.

First of all, if you want to visit Hawaii, but can't afford the flight, then the Virgin Islands is the next best thing! The views were spectacular, as you can see from some photos below...

That being said, one of the disappointments about St. Croix was the amount of trash we saw on the beaches. I understand that the trash that washes up on a beach does not usually come from the local people. However, I think it is important for an island that relies on tourism to have a permanent program in place to keep the beaches clean. In addition, we did not see a very strong recycling program, so I am certain that the locals and tourists are contributing a significant amount to the problem.

Each beach access we stopped at contained a wide variety of garbage that had washed ashore. Plastics, milk jugs and cartons, fishing lines and lures, glass bottles, aluminum cans, cardboard, etc. You name it, we saw it.

Since this was our vacation, I wanted to take my "environmental" hat off for the week (yeah right!), but the longer we were there, the more obvious the trash became, and the more we pressured each other into doing something about it.

There was a potential hurricane (Erika) that almost hit while we were there. It ended up being a tropical depression, so we only missed half-a-days worth of activities. Since we were limited on what we could do that day, we decided to go visit Isaac and Jack's Bay, a secluded series of beaches on the southeast side of the island.

We had visited Isaac's Bay earlier in the week (hiking from Point Udall, the easternmost part of the US). We wanted to see the other side, so we approached Jack's Bay from the other road, and found it to be an easier and better marked hiking trail.

As we approached the bay, we again noticed a lot of trash that had washed up onto the beach. First, we just picked up a few items that were obvious (platic doll leg, lighter, plastic bottle), but the more we picked up, the more we saw.

We decided to go full-board and pick up as much trash as we could from the eastern part of Jack's Bay. It took us about an hour, but it was well worth it.

There were some nearby pelicans towards the edge of the bay. If you've seen the video of the albatross and the plastic found in their stomaches on Midway Island, you'll understand our satisfaction when we were done (watch video link below). Basically, the birds eat the plastic, thinking it's food, and it takes up space in their stomach forever, which prevents them from growing strong enough to fly.

We decided to take a picture of what we collected. It was pretty scary what we found in that short amount of time, including hair curlers, motor oil containers, and toothbrushes.

We don't want to single out St. Croix, as there are many beaches around the world with this same problem. What hope this blog can lead to some change in how the beaches are treated by those who live closest to them. Here are some recommendations we would like to recommend...

1) There needs to be a regular beach cleanup on the island. Encourage the tourists to get involved, along with the school children. As you can see, it doesn't take much time to make a big impact

2) Once the beaches are cleaned, start to track and categorize the trash found on subsequent cleanup efforts, to determine where the trash is coming from, so the problem can be minimized.

Are the skeptics correct that global warming is a hoax?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:14:00 +0000

My education is in statistics and Six Sigma, so when I saw this article, I had to check it out...

Surface Temperature Data Quality Suspect – Casts Doubt on “Global Warming” Hypothesis

Essentially, the article contests that the data being used to justify an increase in temperatures could be lacking. The author, Thomas Pyzdek (a well-respected Six Sigma guru), points to the location of the temperature monitors as a source of error, due to their surrounding conditions.

"The bottom line is that 89% of the sites examined to date are in categories 3, 4, or 5. In other words, they fail to meet established NOAA requirements."

In Six Sigma, it is critical to make sure (with good solid analysis) that the data you are looking at is valid. This is a VERY common error that people make. More often than not, I usually find a problem with the measurements when I'm working on a project. People naturally assume that the data is valid, therefore we should accept it as is. Since this website is very data-focused, any actual or perceived issues related to data collection and reporting of temperature changes needs to be understood and addressed right away.

This leads me to my original reason for the post. Is global warming real?

At first, I thought it was a hands-down decision from the scientific community that it was real, but the more I've opened up my eyes, I can't discredit the nay-sayers (as evidenced by the article above). If I've learned anything over the past few years, it is to never assume or take for granted something, even if it seems right to you, and even if the majority of people think it is right. That alone doesn't make it true. Science and evidence is what will eventually win out, whether we like the results or not.

So let's assume that the jury is still out on global warming. Does my website go away? No! When I look at the reasons for why we need to make these changes and take these actions to be more green, the reduction of CO2 is not the only reason.

Even if we can live with CO2 emissions, we still have the following issues to address:

1) Water quality and scarcity
2) Pesticides in our food
3) Dependence on foreign oil
4) Destruction of our lands (for coal, livestock, urban sprawl, etc)
5) Landfill overflow
6) Animal extinction

Just to name a few...

Bottom line: If carbon emissions actually has no impact on global warming, then all we have lost is just the fear factor of potential natural disasters and harmful living conditions in the future. I would expect that this is not the main reason people are going green, instead it is the impact on their local environment and their pocketbooks that will have the biggest impact, and that is not affected by global warming.

Trouble with reducing your coffee cup waste

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:17:00 +0000

Change is difficult. If you've never tried to make change happen, it can be frustrating, annoying, and at times, hopeless. You keep doing it, in hopes that the reward of seeing the change actually happen will make it worthwhile. The times it has worked, it has been very rewarding. So if you're trying to drive change, keep plugging away. It will happen eventually...

Here's an example of how frustrating it can be. I have been working a lot lately, and staying up late. I need a caffeine fix the next morning, so I go to McDonald's for their caramel iced coffee. I brought in my refillable coffee cup and asked that it be used, instead of a plastic cup (and lid and straw). I hate having a stack of plastic cups in my car, to show me how much coffee I've drank, and how much waste I've generated. I take them home to recycle them, but I'd rather not use them in the first place. The problem I ran into is that the way McDonald's coffee system is setup, the cup defines the right amount of coffee, sugar and caramel (or mocha) mixture. If you remove the cup out of the process, you lose the recipe and consistency.

The manager offered to take my cup and pour the coffee into it (after using their cup to mix it), but I suspected that their cup would have been discarded after use, so would I have gained anything? I guess I could have avoided the use of a straw (they needed the lid to shake and mix the coffee). Frustrating!

I guess my point for this blog is that it takes everyone involved in the whole process to think green and environmentally-friendly in order for change to occur. We as consumers can help drive it, but you will really start to see major changes when the people designing the processes are thinking that way from the beginning. It takes the cup suppliers to provide more compostable materials for their cups, and it takes the "coffee process engineer" (someone must have that title, right?) to develop a process that does not require the cups, and can handle any size cup. Dunkin Donuts has a process that is not dependent on cup size, so it definitely is possible.

I'm not trying to pick on McDonald's. They are an easy target, and to their credit, they have been making an attempt to do the right thing. The problem exists in every business we frequent.

Keep pushing. Keep asking for more eco-friendly solutions. You may inspire the coffee process engineer behind you in line without even realizing it!

Why do we need placemats??

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:44:00 +0000

My wife and I sat down at IHOP today, to enjoy a delicious breakfast. After a few minutes, the waitress came over and slide a paper placement underneath our menus.

At first, I didn't think much about it, but then I started to wonder why we NEEDED a placemat. What is it's purpose? If there is no real purpose for them anymore, why are they (and all other restaurants) killing trees and wasting money to use them?

1) To keep the table clean? I don't think so. You have to wipe the table off anyways, so what is this thin piece of paper going to improve?

2) To keep hot plates from damaging the table? Well, if it's too hot, the waiter/waitress will probably put a 2nd plate underneath (since they have to carry them). Even if heat was an issue, I don't think the flimsy paper will stop much.

3) To protect the table from scratches? Maybe, but again, it is really thin paper, so I don't think it will do much to prevent damage of any sorts.

4) Sanitary purposes? I guess if some food fell off your plate, and landed on the placemat, you might be more inclined to eat it from there, rather than if it fell on the table. That wouldn't appear to be a very sound reason (from the restaurants perspective) to justify the expense.

5) Children's coloring book? Of course, but I don't think that was the original intent. With that line of thinking, only children should get them, not adults, and that's not what I've observed.

5) Advertising? That is the only logical explanation I can think of. Maybe the sight of a steak and eggs breakfast on their placemat will persuade someone to order it? It didn't for me, by the way.

I think the placemat used to have some more significance, when it was really a mat, and could protect the table, or looked nice in a formal dining setting. However, just setting a piece of paper under my plate seems to be a complete waste of a tree, and I think we should start refusing them, just like the stacks of napkins they give you at the drive-thru, or using paper towels to dry your hands in the restroom (I prefer the pants method!).

Training people on Going Green

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:44:00 +0000

I work at a large company that has 20,000 employees worldwide, however, there has not been any environmental training on what they can do to 'go green' while at work. It seems like such an obvious thing to do: train your employees to take simple steps to reduce their impact on the environment. The training is pretty simple, and the potential business impact is enormous.

What we concluded was that there wasn't any off-the-shelf training that could be easily and quickly deployed, so we decided to make one available, for free, on our website.

http://www.helpsaveearth.org/free_going_green_work_training.asp

We feel that if people are trained at work (where they have a captive audience and reporting hierarchy), we can make a bigger impact on communicating these simple steps, rather than trying to communicate to the masses using numerous methods, with varying amounts of detail and explanation. The viral effect within a work environment are much stronger than in real life. For example, it just takes one manager of 100 people to email a green presentation, and require that their direct reports watch it. They are essentially being paid to watch it, and they will because their boss asked them to. In the real world, your friend might email you the same presentation, but what motivation is there to watch it?

We also feel that once people start taking simple steps at work, it will quickly transfer to the home, and they will look for ways to save at home.

I wish gas was more expensive!

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:19:00 +0000

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm disappointed that gas has dropped so low. We were making so much progress on focusing everyone on driving and their gas usage. Numerous people were educating themselves on good driving tips to conserve gas, carpooling, or avoiding trips all together. Hybrid and gas efficient cars were being purchased as fast as they could be produced, and certain auto companies were suffering because of their lack of understanding of their customers and the market.

Now, people are letting up, and reverting back to their old behaviors. Don't fall into that trap!

Just because gas is half the price, you are still using the same amount of fuel as before, and releasing the same amount of carbon dioxide into the air.

Continue to make public transportation, carpooling and gas-less transportation a priority, no matter how low the price per gallon falls. It will only be a matter of time before it climbs back up again!

Tough decisions about mulch?

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:10:00 +0000

The last major decision I had to make about my house remodeling project was the decision about landscaping mulch.

Eucalyptus?
Traditional?
Recycled Tires?

I had quite a bit of area to cover, so cost was definitely going to be a factor in the decision.

The traditional mulch was by far the cheapest, even with a delivery charge, but I was concerned about termites.

The eucalyptus bags at Lowe's seemed to be more environmentally-friendly, but I don't think there are any real answers out there yet as to whether the mulch is better than traditional cypress trees (are they harvested, or just the invasive trees).

The last option was recycled rubber mulch, made from old tires. The idea was by far the best option, but the price was 10x what a traditional bag cost. I think it's too much to ask that someone pay that much more just to go green. However, my goal with my house remodel was to make it stand out from the rest of the numerous houses on the market. As my project was winding down, I decided that I needed just one more "green" differentiator, and so I did some more research to find a local rubber mulch company, who could get me a cheaper price for a larger order.

The local company did not give me the price I wanted. I was able to find a company in Orlando (about an hour and a half away), that saved me 30% from the price at Lowe's. They routinely made shipments to South Florida, so shipping to my house was on the way, so I didn't feel as bad about the transportation impact.

Installation was relatively easy. The bags were 50-lbs each, but once emptied, the material was easy to spread, and much less messy that traditional mulch. When we finished, we were very impressed with how it turned out.

Again, it was a more expensive decision, but the aesthetic results and environmental benefits we obtained made it well worth the extra cost.

Throwing away trash takes a long time!

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:30:00 +0000

One thing that I didn't anticipate when remodeling my house was how long it would take to get rid of things I didn't want anymore. Instead of putting all the junk in my garage into a big pile on the curb, I spent hours trying to figure out how to salvage, or reuse, or recycle those items.

I even started to dread throwing anything away. I knew it would involve an internal fight with myself on whether I could justify throwing it away. It usually ended in the decision to not throw it away. Usually, it just left me with more questions. The few things I could justify throwing away still made me second guess myself for at least a couple days afterwards. You really can't go back, once you know what is the right thing to do.

Overall, I'm happy with most of the decisions I made. Goodwill and ReStore were the main beneficiaries. Although it took a lot more time and effort to figure everything out, I feel like I made a small difference. Even though I will still always question myself whenever I open the trash can lid, it's a small price to pay.

New Refrigerator

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:26:00 +0000

I tried to salvage the old refrigerator from my old house, but there was just too much odor coming out of it (long story), even after we cleaned it. It looks like it was built in the late 70's, so I justified that I could throw it out, on account of it's inefficient ways. I'll just look on craigslist for a used (but newer) fridge, and everything will be great. But then I ran into some problems. Who was going to pick up the new fridge? My mom has been helping me with the house, but moving a fridge is not that easy. Nor did she have a vehicle capable of doing so. It would be a lot easier to go to Lowe's and buy a new one, and have them deliver it. They're only $350 for the simple models. I could even put it on my Lowes credit card and not have to pay for it right now. But then my green mind starting giving me a guilt trip. So I kept checking craigslist...

I found a few fridges that would have worked perfectly, but each time I called or emailed, they were already sold. I was checking many times a day. I guess fridges are a hot commodity! Mind you, I was also getting the carpet replaced, so I could put the house up for sale. After a week of trying, I had no fridge, but the carpet was installed, and now I have a house ready for showing, and no fridge!

I said to myself "This is a special circumstance. Time is of utmost importance right now. I won't have time to wait for next available fridge. I need to get a fridge in there ASAP! I can justify buying a new fridge for all those reasons and not feel guilty, right?"

Wrong. I held out. And today a fridge came online, and I called, and it was still available! Was it the right dimensions? Yes! Can someone deliver it? Yes! How much? $200! I'll take it!

Replacing countertops

noreply@blogger.com (Help Save Earth) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:45:00 +0000

I am in the process of remodeling my house. Today's dilemna came when I was evaluating my choices of countertops. Like most green decisions, price was the biggest factor. I could either choose a cheaper quartz material ($2000), a new granite material ($2500), or a granite overlay ($4500). The more expensive it was, the better green choice it was (unfortunately). How could I possibly justify the extra $2000? Isn't twice the price too much to expect someone to "go green"? That's what I kept telling myself...

Let me first explain the benefits of the granite overlay. First, it was made of 70% recycled glass bottles. Second, it would reuse the existing countertops and I wouldn't have to send it to the landfill. Third, it used much less granite material than traditional granite countertops, so less was taken from the earth. Fourth, it was not porous like natural granite, so it was more resilient to damage from heat and knives. Fifth, and most important, it came down to principle. If I was really going to be serious about making a change, I had to feel the pain from time to time, and this was one of those times. It's easy to be green when the price is not an issue. The more we can support green companies, the more likely that price will become less of a differentiator.

I chose the granite overlay. It was 50% of my remodeling budget, but when they were finished, it was worth every penny. I also feel good about my decision, knowing that I made the right choice, not only for me, but for the environment.