Group items tagged

I would consider this a must-read for those into the alternative energy side of things. While the energies it highlights aren't all new and exciting, the numbers game it plays is pretty key. This is no optimistic one-technology-solves-it-all piece, and it issues a key reminded that no alternative energy we have reaches the input/output energy found in oil. By my reading, key to getting into the next energy phase we should expect is energy reduction, and energy efficiency. Our efficiency numbers, both from a physics and an economics perspective, are awful. The guys behind the Rocky Mountain Institute wrote a book called Natural Capitalism, which offers some great insights into energy efficiency as it stands and as it could be, if anyone is interested in that side of things. One of my favorite aspects of increasing energy efficiency is how its good for economies and good for the environment - still, there is the worry that if it makes things too cheap, people will use too much (the book cites fuel efficiency standards that were so good the cost of driving dropped significanly, and so many more people drove than more energy ended up being used). There are tools to avoid that though. I digress, but still, an excellent view of where alternative energy stands as of now.

One such technology that leads to energy efficiency: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines

oh man oh man oh man. huge, invisible, underground networks that transmit electricity? sounds familiar... "I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth's "natural Internet." I've gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the "architecture" of a mycelium - how it's organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There's no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first." -- Paul Stamets more: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/07/natures-internet-vast-intelligent.html

A final argument for efficiency, regardless of Jevons, and for more than just environmental reasons. Could efficiency measures - and the companies that bring them about - restore our faltering economy? Energy efficiency in the United States is, according to a few numbers I've seen, hovering around 10-13%. Even if the numbers are way off, that is a lot of room to grow - we could do a lot more, with a lot less energy (which may take some wind out of the sails of catatrophist peak oil theory, though it says nothing about peak oil in general). I am cautious about the "innovation will save the day" argument because even the best ideas get caught up in other forces, and may never surface, but this is a testimony to the fact that "innovation could save some aspect of the day, if we play our cards right." I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating for "the solution" here, but after seeing so much concern about Jevons on moodle, I wanted to step in and give conservation and efficiency measures their time in the sun. Like many of the proposed solutions, they have a place - and unlike many proposed solutions, they are palatable to citizens, governments, markets, businesses, and the political sphere alike. A penny (or kilowatt hour) saved is a penny earned. If the various critiques of Jevons that are floating around are any guide, it certainly won't do any harm.

This entry in the "Green" blog section of the New York Times talks about the progression of lighting products and their efficiency. For the most part it focuses on the movement from fluorescent lights to LED lights which are slightly more efficient. This movement relates to the idea of modernization and technological development as being a positive feature in addressing environmental issues.

Here's one of those studies that apparently shatters our intuition: energy efficiency won't help reduce the use of energy??  Read on for the reason why, all about the "rebound effect" and indirect vs. direct energy consumption.  Again, looks like sustainability requires that we address the bigger picture.

This brings up some concerns I have about the environmental movement in general. I often feel like our emphasis is in the wrong place. Even before it was acceptable to question environmental activism (without being labeled a no-good capitalist hippie-hater) I have felt uncomfortable with some of the campaigns and goals out there. Alternative Energy is a key one for me. I dont think we have an energy source crisis, I think we have an energy use crisis. I dont just mean "energy use" in terms of petroleum (CO2 emitting) energy either. Even if we find alternate energy sources (like the solar panels article I posted on the LCENVS220 group), or more efficient machines/lights, we still will expect the same (or more) amount of work to be done from external energy sources. I think we should focus on realizing what energy already exists in our natural systems and learn to synchronize with that to accomplish our goals, instead. This, I think, will address broader (and dare I add more important?) problems than CO2 emissions.

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

From the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Also a Grist article (clearly the first Jevons they ran got readership), one of three (I'll post a link to the next one as well), this is a fairly lengthy article on Jevons' that basically comes down to this: "So you'll have to pardon my incredulity when I hear people like Owen claim that Jevons effects are everywhere, because everywhere I look, I can't find them." He then argues that contrary to Jevonian logic "All that's really clear is that for significant periods, energy efficiency has not increased fast enough to cause energy use to go down." Another case for persuing more energy efficiency, not less. One fair critique is that both this fellow and Lovins have vested interests in efficiency efforts. But they do the math right before your eyes, so I'm fairly comfortable with what they're saying. Beyond the math, there are a bunch of theoretical arguments that also force Jevons to take a far humbler stance in environmental and economic theory.

Gas companies resorting to flaring--questionable whether its efficient, or they are just lazy. It seems like the article is mainly trying to spark an interest by taking another view on an aspect of drilling for gas, and gas production. It seems crazy to partake in this, especially since the companies are too interested in the financial aspects than the practical. The product is expensive to bring to market which is why they burn it instead of take advantage of it. That seems crazy, especially now when gas production is such a popular and important topic.

In this article, the author discusses the devastating impacts humanity suffers from global warming. As he depicts, global warming results in several server problems for many countries that lack the ability to construct their own defensive infrastructures. In addition, he strongly believes that greening capitalism seems unlikely to truly take place and that it does not necessarily spell out the efficient cure to heal global warming. It is, according to his arguments, because capitalists and government see their benefits from capitalism as the first priority and often attempt to green capitalism only in their words. Another reason he offers from the article is to do with the fact that only when capitalism and its roots are profoundly understood, can it truly be seen why greening capitalism is an easy-said-than-done task.

Addresses the big environmental question of where the force to solve environmental problems will come from. This talk argues for coorporations as the major force - and not the small ones either. Cargill as the change we need? He also touches on ideas of economic externalities at the very end, which is one (atleast in my opinion) of the most important economic ideas (and ideas in general) that relates to environmentalism. Not paying attention to the value of environmental resources is bad for the environment, and bad for the economy. The most recent economic meltdown could be argued to be a product of similar misjudgments in value in the housing market. Simply a good philosophy of progress to keep an eye on. Also interesting how businesses are realizing they want to be competitive into the future, and that is the very definition of sustainability

Definitely valuable points made in this talk. Oddly enough though, for the same reason that I was concerned about the fungicides saving bees, the fundamental theory if this talk worries me. There is a "treat the immediate illness/symptom" ideology at play here. This very well may be the only option for avoiding the pending doom, but we can't rely on this as a long term solution to our sustainability crisis. True, it might be impractical to wait for consumers to get their act together, but if we just give up on that effort all together, we're not going to save ourselves for very long. There needs to be a drastic change in consumerism. If consumers are sent the message that sustainability is being taken care of at the higher level of companies and producers (and this is my main concern with this talk) then we remove all incentive for consumers to change their ways. Jim posted an article about a week ago about how energy efficient appliances do not actually result in reduced energy use, and the main reason this happens is because it makes the consumers feel like they can go back to old (pre-responsibility) energy use habits (or even more) once the appliances are labeled "efficient." In the same way, this sustainable companies idea might not work very long. I'm thinking, for example, the point where he mentions palm oil in China. He says we could say to consumers "go ahead and use palm oil because its all 'good,' " when in reality -- granted, this palm oil might be better than other alternatives, but still -- any use of palm oil is something we should be trying to move away from. This might be a valuable short-term method of saving the world, but in my opinion it has to be just that: short-term. I agree with you that the mention of economic externalities was one of the most important parts. Too bad he didnt expand on this. I would love it if someone should give a TED talk on just this idea (my parents wont listen when I try to explain that even the organic foo

Sounds like, in the long run, a call for a shift in the economic system itself. A little further out there, but I found this one a few nights ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html I recall thinking it sounded a little idealistic at the time, but yesterday's idealism can be today's movement and tomorrow's reality, I suppose. A vague plan for the future from him, but a plan of sorts all the same. Still not sure I buy it, but I can't deny liking the sound of it.

Fungi grow on coffee ground "waste," produce large edible mushrooms, and leave behind rich fertile soil for your gardens. Sound too good to be true? Incorporating and working within pre-existing energy cycles, and keeping the whole system in mind when addressing issues of "waste" and "resources" can result in some surprisingly beneficial and efficient solutions! The even more exciting news? We're doing this too! There's a large bin in the basement of Juniper, full of the Bon's coffee grounds, now sprouting several pounds of oyster mushrooms. Take home message behind inspirational change? Follow the ideas that excite you, and bring them to life in your framework of time and place.

The film itself is interesting, but not surprising in its general concept - instead of apocalyptic imagery and fear, embrace a more positive, benefits centered climate change thing. What I thought was more interesting was how they intentionally draw from a whole range of cultural perspectives, which I think is most significant when read as an implicit statement that issues of relating to other cultural mindsets and attitudes, rather than just having solid science and good ideas, may make the difference in solving environmental issues. Perhaps its an obvious statement, but it is worth remembering as we sit on a campus fairly lacking in cultural or ideological diversity. Other people see the world in certain ways, and sometimes we have to convince them through those ways rather than via the logic of our own worldview. But do we sacrifice our cause by trying to achieve our goals via means/arguments we don't neccesarily agree with?

I just watched the trailer, but I think I still got the point. Why not encourage consumption of cleaner, more-efficient renewable energy as opposed to trying to change the values of a whole culture and come off as a proselytizing environmental-elitist? It would sure be a lot less stressful way to try to enact change. I'd have to see the film in its entirety but it seems that they are taking something of a "let markets fix the problem" approach, but in a way that I can agree with. We have to come to terms with the fact that Americans aren't going to magically start consuming less just because us conservationists think it's the right way to live. I love the line where one guy says not to [support renewable efficient energy] because you care about the environment, do it cause you're a greedy bastard and want cheap power. People aren't going to change exactly how we want them, so let's just work with them.

This is for the ENVS 160 discussion we had today. And for the New Yorker reading on Jevons' Paradox we're doing. Jevon's is one of those economic ideas that seems to get necromanced by some combination of economists and the media every once in a while. I run the risk of sounding like I give it no credit with my critiques, but I truly think it needs to stay back in pre-industrial/industrial England where it belongs. Yes, its real. But no, it is not the end of efficiency measures, and especially not conservation. This Grist article was a response to the New Yorker article. But be careful - the article isn't stunning, but the comments are pretty impressive. The article more or less sides with Jevons, using case studies that are convincing to various degrees. But the comments draw some big names in economics and environmental thought, among them Amory Lovins, head of the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Institute. He gets into the numbers, and gives his own insight to the Jevons Paradox. If you're concerned about Jevons, this article/comments combo - and one other article I'll post - is a must read.

Another article discussing the "Jeevon Paradox" of energy efficiency, consumption and possible dangers that arise from the two.

The above article is the Break Through Institute's semi-recent report on the Jevons' Paradox, which I posted additional links to here and debated in class. For the record, the report is favorable. Also for the record, I have not read it completely, and am not laying down final judgment. However: I promised Jim I would respond to this at some point. I still hope to. In the meantime, this is worth musing over (if the link doesn't work, I have the PDF). https://files.me.com/jgkoomey/0aqqfm I really appreciate Break Through and the dismantling of environmentalism's sacred cows, but I'm concerned about this one. Many of their other critiques and analysis seem to have the empirical evidence, but I have yet to be convinced by what I've seen here. Obviously it is a long report, and I have not gotten to read through it entirely, but so far I remain unconvinced. I think they're thinking about the problem in the right way (the economy is a complex social, political, and economic system, it does defy basic models and equations, and if the emergence idea continues to hold up it is a right environment for them) and I really enjoy reading their analysis, but I remain unconvinced by the numbers. Our economy is not composed in such a way that energy is a primary limiting factor to production, which would surely deaden the effect, among other theoretical threats to the idea on both a micro and macro scale. Politically, efficiency measures will continue to allow solar energy and other alternative competitors to carry more weight than they do now, allowing us to free ourselves from the need for energy intense liquids or solids like coal, gas, and oil in favor of less "compact" energy sources. Break Through Institute offers some excellent political analysis, and their efforts at getting outside and away from the usual political roadblocks and antics are appreciated. But I wonder if they

Obviously, its not my expertise either, and I'm woefully ignorant in all this ultimately. But their credentials don't seem to be in deep energy analysis and research, and one academic report where I do find Jesse Jenkins (of BTI, who helped write that report and is an energy expert) still encouraged energy efficiency measures (http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0209_energy_innovation_muro/0209_energy_innovation_muro_full.pdf). I'm not bold enough to lay down final judgment, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing. BTI makes a lot of convincing arguments that I really like - so far, this hasn't been one of them. But like I said, I'm still reading. And trying to get a handle on what Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and Jenkins have under their belts in terms of economic, versus political (when the two are even seperable), analysis. If there is other stuff worth reading in that regard, I'd love to get my hands on it.

Solomon, Steven. 2010. Water: the epic struggle for wealth, power, and civilization. New York: Harper. Steven Solomon's book Water: the epic struggle for wealth, power and civilization takes a look at how the control and efficient use of water has shaped human society from the ancient past to the present. With a look at water's influence in history from ancient civilizations to modern day, in his book, Solomon stresses that beyond the high value of precious resources such as oil, the control of water is far more important to the development of powerful societies. Weather through oceanic knowledge/skills or freshwater resource control/manipulation, throughout history water, Solomon argues has been the essential key to the rise and fall of great powers. Looking at different turning points in history, such as the rise of the Egyptian Kingdoms and Europe's establishment of the world trade system, Solomon shows how the control and advancements made in relation to fresh water control and/or seafaring highlights how water was the catalyst in each society's ability to gain and elicit control for a time being. With the support of his historical background in how water has played a keys role in the rise and fall of powerful kingdoms and nations, Solomon believes that water issues have the ability to impact political, economic, and environmental realities across the globe. Although lengthy, the book had a detailed amount of historical points that brought strength to his argument. I found his books to be very convincing in the fact that water played a pivotal role in explaining who in history were and were not able to rise to great power and take control impacting the direction of human civilization's growth. Throughout the past, water has shaped that way humans have developed. I agree with Solomon that it is by no means that this reality should change in the outcome of the future human history. For water related research or personal water related interest this book

One economist's view on the 'local food movement'. He explores whether local food is really more efficient. Views along the same lines as this one are pretty common among many economists.

I've been looking for a good defense against the local food system, though something more in-depth would be interesting. This brief analysis shows the other extreme, a situation in which ALL food was produced as "locally" and "organically" as possible. It seems that the local food movement could expand further to increase local food production (and therefore fresher, better quality) while still gaining economic benefits (since it is indeed better quality) as well as environmental ones. However, an increase in local food also may cause social stratification, as it could increase the gap between people who can and can't afford local, organic, fair trade, etc. I'm duly aware that the majority of the people at the PSU farmers market every weekend are equally well-endowed as I.

This is a book by ecologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand who is previously known for helping create and write the Whole Earth Catalogue. In this book Brand discusses the current state of our environment and specifically focuses on climate change. He then spends the rest of the book discussing radical modern approaches that he believes will help combat climate change. Some of these methods include using nuclear power as our main source of energy and genetically modifying all of our crops to be more resilient to climate change. He also argues that densely populated cities are more efficient and that new technology must be used to help fix the environmental problems that have been caused by previous technologies. This book is well written and offers a perspective on environmental issues that most other current environmental books do not agree with. I would recommend this book to all environmental studies majors.

We in ENVS are all over the bon for composting waste at catered dinners/events. But do we need that waste in the first place? And what about in the lunch room -- where there's a dishwasher! -- paper cups for the special drinks? Really? And until they stop putting them out in those lines, I'm looking at you, ENVS students; plastic cups are only a few steps away.

Not only do the disposable cups in the Bon suck, but at the meet your major events bottled water was served, while there are water fountains just down the hall. I don't get it. And I have a big problem with Maggie's and DoveCote not selling reusable mugs or promoting the fact they have mugs you can use if you stay there.. How can we discourage this practice?

Lucy I totally get what your saying. I know that Maggies has the reusable mugs but they don't advertise them, however dovecote doesn't--they do have cups though. Maybe that can be a topic we could bring up with the sustainability task force? Jim what do you think?

No light read, at 39 pages, but a good source for anyone doing research on the value of ecosystems from an economic perspective. My scant review of it indicates that it brings together a lot of different studies on the benefits people get from natural systems, and how much it would cost us to replace those with artificial systems. From the preface: "Applying economic thinking to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services can help clarify two critical points: why prosperity and poverty reduction depend on maintaining the flow of benefits from ecosystems; and why successful environmental protection needs to be grounded in sound economics, including explicit recognition, efficient allocation, and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources." This report has been cited a lot lately in efforts to create some sort of system that would remove externalities from the pricing of all sorts of goods, and account for the costs of natural capital (i.e. the environment) in producing more or less everything. That would be a major environmental achievement, and social achievement in general.

A better read: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1116/the-economics-of-ecosystems Summarizes the report well, and also puts out the big question: can we put a price on everything? I personally am frustrated by how often debates turn into a cost-benefit analysis about the "practicality" of an idea - and I say that as a fan of the field of economics. Should we be resorting to that to defend environmental things that we value, or are there larger ideas and principles at play? Do we weaken the strength of a principles-based argument with a practicality/economically based one?

We'll be discussing several issues connected to this in ENVS 160 come spring, not only related to the technical and political drawbacks of pricing ecosystem services, but also the naive notions of "natural" vs. "artificial" that it often presupposes. The whole exercise reveals about the very best mainstream environmental thought can deliver…which is not good enough, in many recent scholars' opinions.

An alternative to taxing fuel, the user fee would be to driving as a pay-per-item system would be to eating in the Bon. Not as fun as an all-you-can eat buffet, but perhaps more efficient. Is there still value in a gas tax?