Day 11 - Prime time!

Titles are hard, so I figure a weak numeric joke is better than nothing today.   My wife brought up an idea - that "carbon offsets" are equivalent to "papal indulgences".  I thought it was an excellent idea, and something that I should think about entering in a CBC contest "Canada Writes."  After talking around the topic a bit, we both recalled hearing this proposition before, but it is still an interesting thought.  I figured I'd expand the ideas a little farther, branching out to the more general topic of "global warming" and what people think about it and are doing about it.  Like most things, it's probably a good idea to practise composing such a piece, so I'm going to write up some of my ideas here and enter the contest later with something more coherent.  Or less - I'm not sure what they're looking for ;)

Anyway, the papal indulgences vs carbon offsets is a very strong parallel: you get to sin all you want and use money to erase the sin.  The money paid goes somewhere that's not exactly clear and whatever your theological grounding, what gets done with the money to fix the sin is rather murky.  Some examples are the planting of various trees in different parts of the world to offset that plane trip you took from New York to Lake Tahoe to go skiing.  Everything comes down to the "leave it the way you found it" idea I was given growing up.  You can mess things up all you want if you spend the time to clean it up.  Doing all the messing up followed by all the cleaning leaves you in a pickle - the mess becomes like compound interest.  Messing the mess results in more clean up effort than mess-cleanup-mess.  And when we're talking the environment, the "leaving it to the end" is equivalent to "leaving it until I'm almost dead", at which point you've done very little cleaning up and a lot of messing up.  These lessons lead one to try and create less mess and clean more frequently.  This works in the kitchen and in the tar sands - there is a minimum mess necessary to accomplish something, but after that, it should be dealt with.  Economically, once you've made the money, that's the time to do the cleanup, not years later when you've gone bankrupt.  Well, that's what companies do because the gov't (that's us) has to come in and clean up.

Every now and then there is a back-and-forth about "global warming" - it's important to act now, the data is flawed, the science wrong, someone is manipulating the media, etc etc.  The first step is to try and get every person to reduce their daily impact on the world around them.  Next, the impact of their general lifestyle.  A lot of progress can be made through technology and now is the time to pursue them.  Some propose huge projects to fix things, but those smack of desperation and is wrong-headed.  Humans are very adaptable and getting the humans to change is easier, cheaper and more predicitble than trying to bend the planet to our will.  The latter has always been thwarted, never working out as planned or even in a predictable fashion.  So let's get on to working small and building up from that.  Use less water, less electricity, less gasoline.  All these things will be cheaper for you as an individual and then you can look to the things you buy and decide how to select things that are better.  Eating food that is in season near where you live is cheaper and it has to travel less.  It keeps the farmers near you going and it generally tastes better too.  Generating power more locally would save creating huge towers everywhere with lots of cables susceptible to ice and wind and so forth.  

Anyway, that's enough ranting for tonight.  I'll have to look into some more potential topics for the Canada Writes topic.  Everyone that reads this post will know my main problem will be keeping any submission to 200 words.

Riding the rails

Since today seems like a day of posting, I might as well get right to it. Read Bob Macdonald's Quirks and Quarks blog post on gridlock and streetcars. I think he highlights a few interesting points without rubbing people's faces into it. (Segue: zealotry doesn't really help anything - I appreciate when people attempt influence my opinion with reasoned arguments, not threats, blackmail and Armageddon. This post was an example and plea for something better). I work in London, Ontario and it is a place that has seen the steady increase in traffic volume over the years. Although the roads are not as efficient nor as full as they are in Toronto, I now notice distinct "rush hour" traffic times. The threat of gridlock is greater (mainly from people that don't know how to stay out of an intersection when the lights change), road closures are not as dramatic simply because they are so frequent. But let's move on to the interesting part of the article - streetcars and rail transit.

I can't point to myself as a paragon of environmental living (let's get that out of the way). I live about 25 km away from my workplace, in a small town. That's cardinal sin number one, but then I commute, alone, in my car there and back. I really have no choice, given where I choose my home. However, the railway is something I can comment on.

My parents moved to this same small town, there was a passenger train stop. That was quickly removed, but wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of simple local service that allowed local residents to use the train to get to work? The city where I work is a central hub for the railway and several lines that pass through the smaller villages nearby. If there was a morning and evening shuttle (a la Go Transit), many people could travel to and from work without cars - despite living in a rural or bedroom community.

Such trains would be extremely local and would not be the fastest way of getting to work, but that's not the point really. The various levels of government could setup a "green commute" tax rebate, similar to what the federal government has proposed for bus passes, such a program may be very attractive. Personally, our family has two vehicles, as we have two small children. If such a program was available, I could envision myself running only one vehicle, a major personal savings and a small reduction in emissions.

Mr. Macdonald also comments on all the cars waiting and idling during the traffic snarls. I guess this is one of the times when hybrid vehicles are beneficial - they stop the gas engine when the vehicle stops. In London there are too many level crossings which leads to the occasional tie up with a train passing. Personally, I turn my car off (leaving the radio on) and wait until the train has passed. Given that this time is usually measured in minutes, I don't understand why more people don't do it as well. Cars start reliably - I can start my car and get it moving in about 10 seconds, so it isn't any more of a delay than I experience at most traffic lights. I guess people don't realize that by turning off the engine, they won't be burning fuel.

Utilizing our rail infrastructure more fully makes good environmental sense. First off, the rails are there. Secondly, it is easier to make a large system (i.e. a train) more efficient than a smaller one (i.e. a car). These arguments are well worn in city context where buses take the place of trains. Let's hope we can find ways to use things we already have more fully.

YAPPing

Here I am, typing away because of something someone else said. That someone being Jamesh and his post on the environment, along with Kimota94's commentary on it. YAPP == Yet Another Post Post. Seriously I have to come up with something vaguely original, even if it is an original description of me plagiarizing someones post topics.

As I commented there, laziness and greed are the source of invention. The environment is becoming one of those topics that is going to drive both factors soon. Climate change will make resources more scarce, and somethings harder to find, both of which properly translate to "expensive". I know I enjoy the simple gadgets and items around my home everyday (indoor plumbing, the refrigerator, central heating, tv, l'ordinateur) and I'm too lazy to do without them, so I'm guessing other people feel that way too. So to keep the things that enable my laziness without spending too much money, I'm going to have to do things that will help the environment. Or at least that's what I'm hoping.

I've commented before on efficiency, and these ideas stem from that. The more efficient one can become, the less impact one will have on the environment. Impacts effect other people and the rising awareness about the environment will make impacts more noticeable. For example, if I didn't want to pay the gas company so much to heat my home, I could put a wood stove in my house and burn wood. Definitely cheaper - I'd be trading physical labor for cash, but I don't think I could do that now. My neighbors would kinda notice all the smoke, chopping and lack of trees around them. The might be suspicious of the pine-scented odor wafting through their now-barren front garden. I don't think they'd stand for it. Plus if everyone on my block did it, I'd be coughing all day and trudging for hours to get to the next nearest stand of trees.

Something like solar panels or biomass fuel would be more desirable. Well-placed solar collectors won't bother the neighbors and they are quiet. No emissions, just nice raw "power", presented as electricity. Imagine also that there is a way to make a device where all your food waste (and possibly liquid waste) goes in and out comes diesel fuel, after a few months. Going even further, water reclamation would be great too. These are things that we here in North America don't consider much because of the abundance of clean water, cheap oil and even cheaper electricity.

Some of these things are big steps, so they will require powerful motivators. But I believe that even today, the things that are good for the environment are good for the pocketbook. So take heart - don't go green, go cheap!

Keeping the bedding clean

I wrote the other day that I liked the efficiency that comes out of all this environmentalism and that I didn't like the idea of calling everything "green". Kimota94 mentioned overhearing someone abandoning all hope, and that is something I don't like either.

There is always something that can be done, particularly for yourself. Anything can help, and does help, but I also dislike comparing what I'm doing to the impact of another country. I think of it more like "pissing in your own nest". This is a corollary of the "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). If you think that burning coal is going to pollute the air around your house, find a different fuel. We have the means and the sheer wealth. If you don't want people dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the tonne, reduce your output.

Worrying that America will swamp whatever you do is has a few problems. First, although they aren't signatories to the Kyoto convention, they are working faster at reducing emissions because it provides economic benefits. Secondly, I wouldn't be worried about what the US emits now - I'd worry about what happens when China and India have a new smog-blasting car for every inhabitant. That would a bit more of a problem. If we can't exercise a little more control and reduce what we use here, where we have all this wealth, education and experience, why should expect an up-and-coming economic power to be frugal? Sort of "do as I say, not as I do?" America has never responded well to that - they put their money where their mouth is.

Point is, if we start now we can work on producing technologies and ideas that help reduce emissions for everyone, reducing the cost and increasing the benefit so that when more people want a personal transport (that doesn't spew methane like a bloated water buffalo or NO like a 72 Cadillac) they'll be able to afford a cleaner version than what we use now.

Reducing personal emissions and increasing personal energy efficiency will make your local environment better. By local, I mean the air you breath in your house when you sleep, the smell of local flora and sounds of local fauna. And with that, I'm hoping to sleep to a lovely environment of low-light and gentle odors.

Not gonna call it "green"

As usually Kimota94 has a post I can use as fodder for another. This time it was on the environment and I'm just not gonna use the word "green" to describe things that help the environment. The term is loaded with hypocrisy and I realize that most of my ideas in this regard fall into two categories: efficiency and self-sufficiency.

These ideas cover so much ground that they are more than environmentalism. Environmentalism implies actively helping the environment - picture sci-fi machines scrubbing the atmosphere (you know, blimps with brushes polishing the clouds and such). This is not what popular environmentalism is however - it is "things you can do to help the environment". Being more efficient is really what is implied (and needed).

We are a wasteful people - wasting energy and effort all over the place. If you could place a cost on what it takes to remove the impact of some of your own actions, you'd gladly exchange the bill for a little extra effort. I know I'm pontificating here - I am not very good at being efficient, but it is still an important message. The old cliches of "use every part of the buffalo" are applicable here. We don't wring every last drop out of the things we buy and use because it is cheap to replace. Take electricity for example - at 5.5 cents a KW/h it is cheaper in Ontario than many parts of North America, which is cheaper than the rest of the world. We leave lights on, appliances running, computers churning away at nothing - for what purpose?

Self-sufficiency is the other ideal I put forth. By being as efficient as possible, each person (or family, household - whatever) can approach self-sufficiency. This is the ultimate ideal in our culture - the culture of the one, the me, the almighty self. But with each passing year we become more dependent on complex systems that are beyond our capacity to maintain by our selves. Can you imagine generating all the electricity you use in your own home yourself? If that doesn't scare you, look carefully at your hydro bill. Hundreds of KW/h's per month - if you had to run a generator to produce that, what would it cost? Could you even do it? Unlikely (rhetorical questions are always the easiest to answer). It becomes more possible if you use only what you absolutely need - what is comfortable to use.

Combining these ideals is something I aspire to, although my progress is very very slow. Posing the efficiency questions in a selfish way - being more efficient saves me money - makes it easier to swallow. Just like in grade school - one classmate was having trouble answering a word problem on the board, until the teacher reformulated it to use dollars and cents instead of simple integers. If I reach some magic efficiency point, I believe I'll be able to generate much of my own energy. Collect or generate. That's the dream.

Not a very articulate description, but it is something. I'll have to continue to expound on the environment in the future. For now, I guess I should worry that these ephemeral words will have to be stored somewhere, using up energy that I could have saved somehow. Guess I should try and limit that footprint...