When Matt Simmons does presentations on peak oil, he often recommends that one of the ways to build personal and community resilience is a restructuring of the workforce so that most people can telecommute instead of driving to the office every day. I couldn’t agree more!
I’ve been a freelance graphic designer and have worked from home for the past 15 years. Two years ago I scaled back my design work to allow time in my schedule for another “work-from-home” job – a salaried copywritng position with a completely virtual company.
This is not a pyramid-scheme company or anything shady. It’s a real company with 80 employees all over the country doing such tasks as IT, marketing, writing, customer service, data analysis, production management, project management and video production. The name of the company is Hot Topic Media and we create and sell relationship advice and entrepreneurial advice eBooks, CDs and DVDs.
You may be wondering how a company can function successfully for many years when there is no central office or direct supervision of its workers. It’s not easy, but the primary reason our company does so well is because the owner of the company carefully screens whom he hires — only people with proven ability to be self-motivated and performance-driven. We communicate through regularly scheduled conference calls (using FreeConferenceCall.com), chat, and of course email. Once a quarter the team leaders meet in Los Angeles at a hotel to discuss concerns and goals. We set personal 90-day goals and help each other meet them. We don’t have titles and there is no official hierarchy, because those things create “bad attitudes” according to the owner of the company.
This business model has worked for our company and we are thriving. Even though the economy is slumping, people are still buying relationship and business advice. Apparently statistics show that in troubled economic times, people have more incentive, time and motivation to improve their personal relationships and start or ramp up their own business. What I like about my company is that it doesn’t create a lot of STUFF. Most of what we sell are digital products (eBooks or online videos or teleclasses), with some CDs and DVDs. Richard Heinberg says that a future resilient economy will be based more on services than products anyway. Or should be.
Everything you can think of as a benefit to working from home is true. You have more autonomy. You can do errands when things are slow. You get more done because you don’t have endless meetings or distractions (although you have to discipline yourself from dinking around too much online). You can fit in exercise anytime. You don’t have to travel to work in traffic, snowstorms or during gas shortages. You get to be there for your kids when they come home from school.
There are a couple of downfalls of working from home. You really can feel isolated, so it’s important to schedule a lot of social time after work. You don’t get to brainstorm ideas as much as you would over the “watercooler” in a regular office setting, so creativity has to be nurtured constantly. It’s great for introverts, but I’m not so sure extroverts would like it that much. Maybe in the future neighbors can share an office in their homes in order to have the feeling of co-workers.
Telecommuting and virtual companies are the cutting edge of a future workforce, and are a part of a more resilient and sustainable community.
If anyone wants to know more about working from home or the company I work for, please post a comment on this page.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Arithmetic of Growth and Consumption
See if you can figure out the answer to this simple mathematical brain teaser:
It relates to population increases and the idea that exponential growth can often take us by surprise. Ready?
There is one bacteria in a bottle at 11 a.m. and by noon the bottle is full of bacteria, who have been doubling their population every minute. So at 11:01 the population of the bacteria was 2, and at 11:02, it was 4, and at 11:03 it was 8, and so on. If we know the bottle will be full at noon, at what time did the bacteria realize they were going to run out of space?
The answer is 11:59 and 30 seconds or so. That’s because if the bottle is full at noon, it is HALF full at 11:59 because remember, the population doubles every minute. This is the reality of exponential growth. It’s not a linear process.
Exponential growth can take us by surprise.
So how does this story problem relate to human population growth? While the population of many developed countries is either stable or declining, the population of most developing countries such as India or China are growing exponentially. (I hesitate to even use the word “developing” for the simple reason that I don’t necessarily think that become more industrialized is a positive or “upward” development.)
Therefore, even if we in the U.S. make conscious decisions to limit our birthrate, the global population is still expected to increase 50% over what it is today by the year 2050 — to an astounding 9 billion people.
If population growth is exponential, then what time is it now, and when will we realize that we’re running out of space and resources? If you look at the example of the bacteria, you’ll realize that we can go from a borderline situation to outright disaster in a very short amount of time.
During the past 2.000 years, human population has gone from 500 million to today’s 6.5 billion. On a graph, this is a path that starts at the floor and travels upward rapidly at a 90 degree angle up the wall of time. Fortunately, since 1969 population growth is slowing overall, and although is expected to increase over the next few decades, the rate is no longer exponential. Population is expected to level off sometime after 2050.
The question is why? How and why will population rate level off? It is because people in developing countries are going to make conscious decisions to limit how many children they have? Or is it because the depletion of resources and overcrowding will cause disease and starvation?
From 1958-1961 China experienced a famine that resulted in the death of about 16-33 million Chinese. When population density is high, factors such as disease, famine, or natural disasters can have disastrous effects on the population. Thousands, if not millions, can be wiped out by a virus or food shortage.
Think for a minute what that would mean if the avian virus were to mutate and spread across Asia, then other continents. Or if a sunami or earthquake were to hit densely populated areas along the coasts...oh wait, that's already happened.
We can surmise other evolutionary and natural “checks” to a planet stressed by the population of a single species. The fertility rate in humans has dropped significantly since the turn of the 20th century. Difficulty conceiving may not just be a problematic, mysterious annoyance, but a symptom of nature’s way of population control.
The depletion of energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal due to an ever increasing population and demand will also speed up and therefore affect population growth. When our high-energy consuming lifestyle become unaffordable, how many will have to choose between medicine and food? Heat or dinner? House or gas to get to work? There’s no need to imagine it. It’s happening right now, in the form of the mortgage crisis.
To understand the effects of growth on both population and energy source depletion, particularly oil and coal, watch Dr. Al Bartlett’s excellent presentation, “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy” at http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram. This is an hour-long streaming video of Dr. Bartlett's famous lecture, which he has delivered variations on this lecture over 1500 times around the world. It is riveting.
He tells us the obvious – that population cannot grow unchecked and we cannot continue to drive and encourage exponential economic growth. Eventually, there will be limits to everything, and those limits can either be self-imposed or nature-imposed. We can choose to live shorter, healthier lives, have less or no children, consume much less—or—nature will do the choosing for us in the form of disease, starvation, lower fertility, climate change and ecological collapse.
Since it’s already way past 11:59 for our planet, I think I’ll have to make my own choices now that I know where things are headed.
It relates to population increases and the idea that exponential growth can often take us by surprise. Ready?
There is one bacteria in a bottle at 11 a.m. and by noon the bottle is full of bacteria, who have been doubling their population every minute. So at 11:01 the population of the bacteria was 2, and at 11:02, it was 4, and at 11:03 it was 8, and so on. If we know the bottle will be full at noon, at what time did the bacteria realize they were going to run out of space?
The answer is 11:59 and 30 seconds or so. That’s because if the bottle is full at noon, it is HALF full at 11:59 because remember, the population doubles every minute. This is the reality of exponential growth. It’s not a linear process.
Exponential growth can take us by surprise.
So how does this story problem relate to human population growth? While the population of many developed countries is either stable or declining, the population of most developing countries such as India or China are growing exponentially. (I hesitate to even use the word “developing” for the simple reason that I don’t necessarily think that become more industrialized is a positive or “upward” development.)
Therefore, even if we in the U.S. make conscious decisions to limit our birthrate, the global population is still expected to increase 50% over what it is today by the year 2050 — to an astounding 9 billion people.
If population growth is exponential, then what time is it now, and when will we realize that we’re running out of space and resources? If you look at the example of the bacteria, you’ll realize that we can go from a borderline situation to outright disaster in a very short amount of time.
During the past 2.000 years, human population has gone from 500 million to today’s 6.5 billion. On a graph, this is a path that starts at the floor and travels upward rapidly at a 90 degree angle up the wall of time. Fortunately, since 1969 population growth is slowing overall, and although is expected to increase over the next few decades, the rate is no longer exponential. Population is expected to level off sometime after 2050.
The question is why? How and why will population rate level off? It is because people in developing countries are going to make conscious decisions to limit how many children they have? Or is it because the depletion of resources and overcrowding will cause disease and starvation?
From 1958-1961 China experienced a famine that resulted in the death of about 16-33 million Chinese. When population density is high, factors such as disease, famine, or natural disasters can have disastrous effects on the population. Thousands, if not millions, can be wiped out by a virus or food shortage.
Think for a minute what that would mean if the avian virus were to mutate and spread across Asia, then other continents. Or if a sunami or earthquake were to hit densely populated areas along the coasts...oh wait, that's already happened.
We can surmise other evolutionary and natural “checks” to a planet stressed by the population of a single species. The fertility rate in humans has dropped significantly since the turn of the 20th century. Difficulty conceiving may not just be a problematic, mysterious annoyance, but a symptom of nature’s way of population control.
The depletion of energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal due to an ever increasing population and demand will also speed up and therefore affect population growth. When our high-energy consuming lifestyle become unaffordable, how many will have to choose between medicine and food? Heat or dinner? House or gas to get to work? There’s no need to imagine it. It’s happening right now, in the form of the mortgage crisis.
To understand the effects of growth on both population and energy source depletion, particularly oil and coal, watch Dr. Al Bartlett’s excellent presentation, “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy” at http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram. This is an hour-long streaming video of Dr. Bartlett's famous lecture, which he has delivered variations on this lecture over 1500 times around the world. It is riveting.
He tells us the obvious – that population cannot grow unchecked and we cannot continue to drive and encourage exponential economic growth. Eventually, there will be limits to everything, and those limits can either be self-imposed or nature-imposed. We can choose to live shorter, healthier lives, have less or no children, consume much less—or—nature will do the choosing for us in the form of disease, starvation, lower fertility, climate change and ecological collapse.
Since it’s already way past 11:59 for our planet, I think I’ll have to make my own choices now that I know where things are headed.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
How To Raise Eco-Conscious Kids
You know that being “green” has become an official fad when you start seeing t-shirts for 12 year old girls at the department store imprinted with mantras like “Think Green” (on a green shirt) or “Do Something Good Today: Recycle”.
I was at a department store at the mall today, performing a homework assignment for my deep ecology class. We were supposed to go shopping, drool over the merchandise, notice how we feel, then walk away without surrendering to our desires. Unsurprisingly, it was much more difficult to resist the merchandise I was touching and seeing than it was to resist the imagined merchandise I felt apathy toward at home earlier. There’s nothing like walking through a department store to make you feel dumpy, fat, ugly or old. Almost everything you see is meant to make you feel like you’re lacking in some way.
Resistance is almost futile. But for the sake of the assignment, I resisted. I admit, it felt a bit brainwashy.
Anyway, this is when I noticed the t-shirts. They were displayed prominently in the children’s clothing section. “Think Green.” it blared in 150 point type across the flat chest of the manequin. Forget the fact that these shirts represent nothing uniquely sustainable– they’re just thin cotton shirts mass produced in China or Tawain. The idea that a 10 or 12 year old girl would want to advertise her eco-consciousness is saying something.
It’s telling me that her parents are probably making comments and judgments about their own eco-habits. Maybe they talk to their kids about the importance of doing the right thing and living more sustainably. Maybe they’re making snide comments about the Jones’ and how they just bought a bigger SUV or how the Smith’s have so many more garbage cans than recycle bins piled up on their driveway on trash day.
I know, because I talk to my daughter about stuff like this. I tell her the importance of living in harmony with our environment. She knows about recycling and saving energy and reducing pollution. We talk about it all the time. She is young and she is impressionable and she really wants to emulate her parents, so I can see why wearing one of these t-shirts (which I didn’t buy) would make her feel good in some way. Oh sure, it would make me feel good, too.
Maybe talking to our children about the importance of living in an ecologically sustainable way and actually putting some of our values into practice is a very important way of teaching them to be better Earth citizens. Making sustainability “cool” is one way of getting a kid to embrace the idea. But how do you get it to stick so it doesn’t go the way of other adolescent fads like break dancing, Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and feathered bangs?
Also, what about adults? Can going green become MORE than just a fad and actually become part of a person’s value system for the long-term?
The question of how a person makes a psychological shift from feeling detached from what’s happening to the environment to actually wanting to live sustainably and in harmony with it all comes down to one thing: ecopsychology.
Numerous studies have shown that people who care about the environment seem to have one very important thing in common. They identify with nature in some way. Their environment is a significant part of their lives. Perhaps they love to hike and spend time in the mountains every chance they get. Or they lovingly tend to a backyard garden and like to watch birds in their yard. Maybe they take daily walks on a beach to enjoy it’s vastness and to feel peaceful.
People who spend time in nature typically care more about what happens to it.
Ecopsychology studies why we persist in destroying their environment, and what it takes to change the way we think, so the protection and conservation of natural habitat is equal to the preservation of our OWN mental and physical wellbeing.
I know that the single best way to change the way a person perceives the environment and their place in it is to get them out in nature and connecting to some beautiful aspect of the wild. I also know the best way to bring up my child with the right values is to do things like going on walks with her in the woods, or taking her down to the lake with a field guide and watch the ducks make lazy circles in the water. Sure, it helps that I tell her about recycling and the importance of not being too materialistic and consumed by retail fads. Ultimately, though, the one thing that’s going to have long-lasting impact on her developing mind is the time she spent tending a campfire up in the mountains while watching the sun set over a peak, or standing among pack of mule deer, or having a camper jay land on her hand to swipe a piece of bread out of the palm of her hand.
Those are the moments she’ll refer to when someone asks her someday, “What do you care if they cut down that forest to make room for a new mall?” She’ll care, because she’ll know that no tchachke, trinket or t-shirt bought at that mall could ever take the same place in her heart as feeling that wild bird’s tiny feet grip the tips of her fingers in tender and hungry gratitude.
I was at a department store at the mall today, performing a homework assignment for my deep ecology class. We were supposed to go shopping, drool over the merchandise, notice how we feel, then walk away without surrendering to our desires. Unsurprisingly, it was much more difficult to resist the merchandise I was touching and seeing than it was to resist the imagined merchandise I felt apathy toward at home earlier. There’s nothing like walking through a department store to make you feel dumpy, fat, ugly or old. Almost everything you see is meant to make you feel like you’re lacking in some way.
Resistance is almost futile. But for the sake of the assignment, I resisted. I admit, it felt a bit brainwashy.
Anyway, this is when I noticed the t-shirts. They were displayed prominently in the children’s clothing section. “Think Green.” it blared in 150 point type across the flat chest of the manequin. Forget the fact that these shirts represent nothing uniquely sustainable– they’re just thin cotton shirts mass produced in China or Tawain. The idea that a 10 or 12 year old girl would want to advertise her eco-consciousness is saying something.
It’s telling me that her parents are probably making comments and judgments about their own eco-habits. Maybe they talk to their kids about the importance of doing the right thing and living more sustainably. Maybe they’re making snide comments about the Jones’ and how they just bought a bigger SUV or how the Smith’s have so many more garbage cans than recycle bins piled up on their driveway on trash day.
I know, because I talk to my daughter about stuff like this. I tell her the importance of living in harmony with our environment. She knows about recycling and saving energy and reducing pollution. We talk about it all the time. She is young and she is impressionable and she really wants to emulate her parents, so I can see why wearing one of these t-shirts (which I didn’t buy) would make her feel good in some way. Oh sure, it would make me feel good, too.
Maybe talking to our children about the importance of living in an ecologically sustainable way and actually putting some of our values into practice is a very important way of teaching them to be better Earth citizens. Making sustainability “cool” is one way of getting a kid to embrace the idea. But how do you get it to stick so it doesn’t go the way of other adolescent fads like break dancing, Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and feathered bangs?
Also, what about adults? Can going green become MORE than just a fad and actually become part of a person’s value system for the long-term?
The question of how a person makes a psychological shift from feeling detached from what’s happening to the environment to actually wanting to live sustainably and in harmony with it all comes down to one thing: ecopsychology.
Numerous studies have shown that people who care about the environment seem to have one very important thing in common. They identify with nature in some way. Their environment is a significant part of their lives. Perhaps they love to hike and spend time in the mountains every chance they get. Or they lovingly tend to a backyard garden and like to watch birds in their yard. Maybe they take daily walks on a beach to enjoy it’s vastness and to feel peaceful.
People who spend time in nature typically care more about what happens to it.
Ecopsychology studies why we persist in destroying their environment, and what it takes to change the way we think, so the protection and conservation of natural habitat is equal to the preservation of our OWN mental and physical wellbeing.
I know that the single best way to change the way a person perceives the environment and their place in it is to get them out in nature and connecting to some beautiful aspect of the wild. I also know the best way to bring up my child with the right values is to do things like going on walks with her in the woods, or taking her down to the lake with a field guide and watch the ducks make lazy circles in the water. Sure, it helps that I tell her about recycling and the importance of not being too materialistic and consumed by retail fads. Ultimately, though, the one thing that’s going to have long-lasting impact on her developing mind is the time she spent tending a campfire up in the mountains while watching the sun set over a peak, or standing among pack of mule deer, or having a camper jay land on her hand to swipe a piece of bread out of the palm of her hand.
Those are the moments she’ll refer to when someone asks her someday, “What do you care if they cut down that forest to make room for a new mall?” She’ll care, because she’ll know that no tchachke, trinket or t-shirt bought at that mall could ever take the same place in her heart as feeling that wild bird’s tiny feet grip the tips of her fingers in tender and hungry gratitude.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Real Problem With George W.
Pay Now Vs. Pay Later
The House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday that would generate $18 billion dollars by eliminating certain tax breaks for the five largest oil companies. That $18 billion would then be used to give incentives for wind and solar energy and energy efficiency initiatives.
George W. threatened to veto the bill.
His reason: it will force gas companies to hike gas prices, it will financially discourage further oil exploration and in general, be unfair to an industry. In other words, let’s not single out any one industry and start beating up on them.
Here’s the problem with Bush’s reasoning on this bill, as well as the overall problem with a lot of his policies: He’s short-sighted. He seems to only be able to see 90 days into the future, which is coincidentally the range that most corporations operate in as well.
What he’s not seeing is the long-term benefits to “paying now” with possibly higher prices at the pump, in order to avoid “paying later” with higher costs of oil due to unquenchable demand on resources and depleting worldwide supply.
He doesn’t see how we will all pay later when, after spewing the carbon from the emissions on all that oil, climate change will become virtually irreversible and deadly to most species on the planet, including humans. He doesn’t see how we’ll all pay later when we’ll have to go to war with yet another oil-producing country in order to keep the “crack” flowing into our veins.
If oil prices are kept steady, and most consumers still feel that they can handle the higher prices at the pump and elsewhere, like at grocery stores (due to higher transport and fertilizer costs), which means they won’t do a damn thing to change their lifestyle or vehicle choice.
If you look beyond the next quarter, or even the next year or decade, you can see how an investment in alternative energy initiatives now can actually be a long-term benefit that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions in the future. So what if we have to pay an extra dollar at the pump for the next year, if in the next 20 years, we’ll enjoy huge savings because our cars will run on less gas, our homes and businesses will be energized by cheaper, renewable energy, and food costs will be kept down as a result?
It’s a question of pay now for a short time, or pay later for a very, very long time.
The House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday that would generate $18 billion dollars by eliminating certain tax breaks for the five largest oil companies. That $18 billion would then be used to give incentives for wind and solar energy and energy efficiency initiatives.
George W. threatened to veto the bill.
His reason: it will force gas companies to hike gas prices, it will financially discourage further oil exploration and in general, be unfair to an industry. In other words, let’s not single out any one industry and start beating up on them.
Here’s the problem with Bush’s reasoning on this bill, as well as the overall problem with a lot of his policies: He’s short-sighted. He seems to only be able to see 90 days into the future, which is coincidentally the range that most corporations operate in as well.
What he’s not seeing is the long-term benefits to “paying now” with possibly higher prices at the pump, in order to avoid “paying later” with higher costs of oil due to unquenchable demand on resources and depleting worldwide supply.
He doesn’t see how we will all pay later when, after spewing the carbon from the emissions on all that oil, climate change will become virtually irreversible and deadly to most species on the planet, including humans. He doesn’t see how we’ll all pay later when we’ll have to go to war with yet another oil-producing country in order to keep the “crack” flowing into our veins.
If oil prices are kept steady, and most consumers still feel that they can handle the higher prices at the pump and elsewhere, like at grocery stores (due to higher transport and fertilizer costs), which means they won’t do a damn thing to change their lifestyle or vehicle choice.
If you look beyond the next quarter, or even the next year or decade, you can see how an investment in alternative energy initiatives now can actually be a long-term benefit that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions in the future. So what if we have to pay an extra dollar at the pump for the next year, if in the next 20 years, we’ll enjoy huge savings because our cars will run on less gas, our homes and businesses will be energized by cheaper, renewable energy, and food costs will be kept down as a result?
It’s a question of pay now for a short time, or pay later for a very, very long time.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Are Some Corporate Definitions of “Green” Just Another Marketing Ploy?
As buying “green” products becomes more and more trendy, corporations are beginning to see it as one more opportunity to improve the market share of their products. In some cases, this kind of change in the manufacture and use of a product may be a good improvement, but unless the consumer is completely informed about where the product is made, where the raw materials come from and all the steps that are involved in the manufacture of a product, “green” is just another label slapped on in order to sell more stuff.
Take hard drives as an example. Many hard drive manufactures are coming up with what they call “green” drives. They are marketing them in this way in order to satisfy a demand put on by the portion of consumers that specifically compare their purchases this way. How much of the hard drive is actually green, if you look at what it takes to manufacture one?
These are the steps involved in the production of an average hard drive. Although the process listed here may be typical, it is not universal. I’m generalizing in order to make a point.
1. Design and engineering of the hard drive is done in a building that still runs on conventional energy sources, constructed from conventional materials.
2. The corporate paradigm is still “growth and progress” and profits at the expense of raw materials costs and quality. Employee satisfaction and sustainability are not nearly as important as reporting profitable quarters, keeping the stock prices high, and increasing market share.
3. The drive is manufactured overseas in Asia to save money in labor and operating costs. The raw materials (NONE of which are recycled or reclaimed) for the drives are shipped in from all over the world, depending on where the cost of the materials is lowest. Thus, it takes a lot of energy to ship in raw materials.
4. Part of the production of the drive itself requires some of the metal parts to be baked at 190° C for 5 hours to ensure that all particulates and contaminates are eliminated, thereby sterilizing the part. This improves reliability, but it takes a lot of energy to get that result. Also, the energy to bake those parts comes mostly from Asian coal-fired power plants.
5. The finished product is shipped out of Asia and into the U.S. Again, the carbon cost of shipping the hard drive is higher than if the drives were made in the U.S. or closer to where the majority of the consumers will actually use the drives.
Now, here’s where the “green” definition comes in for that drive.
It is designed in a way that the disc spins slightly slower than average. Therefore, it uses less electricity to run than a non-green hard drive. If a green hard drive saves you 5 watts of electricity, and it runs continuously for five years, it would save roughly 200 kilowatt hours of electricity over its lifetime, or the equivalent of running a television/dvd player system for 55 days. This is the worse case scenario, if you never turned off your computer in the five years you owned it.
You can see for yourself that the “green” aspect of this product represents maybe what? 1% of the total carbon footprint of this product, best case scenario. It doesn’t take into account the embodied energy it took to put that drive together—namely, the amount of energy it took to mine the metals and petroleum products, ship them, manufacture them and then produce a design from which they would be then constructed.
It’s important that we place a higher standard for the term “green” and we hold companies accountable to showing how they reduced shipping distances, reused raw materials, increased sustainability in their manufacturing facilities, and changed their overall paradigm to include sustainability into the equation.
Whenever we see a “greener” version of a product we have to realize that no one is addressing the embodied energy it took to produce that product. It’s important to consider the whole picture. Maybe one day there will be labeling requirements for green products in the same vein that we have labeling for nutrition and ingredient content.
Not only that, but the carbon “cost” of products could be included in the price, thus turning the cost of goods upside down – the more embodied energy it takes to make something (especially if it’s made in China), the more expensive it would be. Local, sustainably produced products would actually (gasp!) be the cheapest products on the market.
That would be a step in the right direction.
Take hard drives as an example. Many hard drive manufactures are coming up with what they call “green” drives. They are marketing them in this way in order to satisfy a demand put on by the portion of consumers that specifically compare their purchases this way. How much of the hard drive is actually green, if you look at what it takes to manufacture one?
These are the steps involved in the production of an average hard drive. Although the process listed here may be typical, it is not universal. I’m generalizing in order to make a point.
1. Design and engineering of the hard drive is done in a building that still runs on conventional energy sources, constructed from conventional materials.
2. The corporate paradigm is still “growth and progress” and profits at the expense of raw materials costs and quality. Employee satisfaction and sustainability are not nearly as important as reporting profitable quarters, keeping the stock prices high, and increasing market share.
3. The drive is manufactured overseas in Asia to save money in labor and operating costs. The raw materials (NONE of which are recycled or reclaimed) for the drives are shipped in from all over the world, depending on where the cost of the materials is lowest. Thus, it takes a lot of energy to ship in raw materials.
4. Part of the production of the drive itself requires some of the metal parts to be baked at 190° C for 5 hours to ensure that all particulates and contaminates are eliminated, thereby sterilizing the part. This improves reliability, but it takes a lot of energy to get that result. Also, the energy to bake those parts comes mostly from Asian coal-fired power plants.
5. The finished product is shipped out of Asia and into the U.S. Again, the carbon cost of shipping the hard drive is higher than if the drives were made in the U.S. or closer to where the majority of the consumers will actually use the drives.
Now, here’s where the “green” definition comes in for that drive.
It is designed in a way that the disc spins slightly slower than average. Therefore, it uses less electricity to run than a non-green hard drive. If a green hard drive saves you 5 watts of electricity, and it runs continuously for five years, it would save roughly 200 kilowatt hours of electricity over its lifetime, or the equivalent of running a television/dvd player system for 55 days. This is the worse case scenario, if you never turned off your computer in the five years you owned it.
You can see for yourself that the “green” aspect of this product represents maybe what? 1% of the total carbon footprint of this product, best case scenario. It doesn’t take into account the embodied energy it took to put that drive together—namely, the amount of energy it took to mine the metals and petroleum products, ship them, manufacture them and then produce a design from which they would be then constructed.
It’s important that we place a higher standard for the term “green” and we hold companies accountable to showing how they reduced shipping distances, reused raw materials, increased sustainability in their manufacturing facilities, and changed their overall paradigm to include sustainability into the equation.
Whenever we see a “greener” version of a product we have to realize that no one is addressing the embodied energy it took to produce that product. It’s important to consider the whole picture. Maybe one day there will be labeling requirements for green products in the same vein that we have labeling for nutrition and ingredient content.
Not only that, but the carbon “cost” of products could be included in the price, thus turning the cost of goods upside down – the more embodied energy it takes to make something (especially if it’s made in China), the more expensive it would be. Local, sustainably produced products would actually (gasp!) be the cheapest products on the market.
That would be a step in the right direction.
Monday, February 11, 2008
I’d Like to Save the Planet…But I’m Too (insert favorite excuse here)
Why is it that most people seem to lack the motivation or the willingness to make lasting positive changes to their lifestyles when it comes to their health, career, relationships or the environment?
We see and hear the urgency of needing to deal with climate change on the news all the time. We know we need to start doing something about it. Just…not today. We’re too busy. Something else came up. We’re too tired. We’ve got too much to think about already.
Are we really too busy in our lives to make the necessary and positive changes in our lives to deal with reducing our environmental impact? Is recycling, or turning down the heat, or unplugging idle appliances really that much of a big time-sucking activity? Is this really the reason why, despite knowing what they should do, most people fail to make those wanted behavior changes because of something intrinsically psychological?
I recently heard a study that says that as children, we are told in a million different ways how we can’t get what we want. This feeling that “eh…we’re never ever going to get what we REALLY want anyway, so why even try?” spills over into adulthood, and it is the reason why so many people tend toward complacency in their lives. They lack the motivation and gumption to make lasting behavior changes, even when they know it’s something important, necessary, or even life-saving. For example, changing our world view and habits in order to reduce our carbon footprint and stop the world from spiraling into mass extinction.
We feel like we’re probably not going to get what we want anyway (a more sustainable world), so why even try? Instead we go along with our habitual patterns because trying to change anything in our lives is soooo…hard.
But that can’t be the answer. We can’t simply excuse our lack of action by whining about how “it’s too hard!” and going about business as usual as the world goes up in flames. There has to be a secret to how we can motivate ourselves. Afterall, many people have found that secret and are able to make huge changes in their personal life. Don’t you wonder how they do it?
All of us actually motivate ourselves in two different ways.
Either we run toward something we want, or we run away from some kind of pain or discomfort we want to avoid.
If we can determine which one of these we tend to do more often, it can be the key to self-motivation and behavior change. If you tell yourself all the time that you hate your job, and need to quit, but you don’t know what else you want to do, then you may be a run-away type of person. If you keep daydreaming of the kind of business you’ll own or the kind of job you want to land someday, you’re probably more of the toward-something kind of person.
Now let’s come back around to the topic of developing pro-environmental routines or behaviors. You see the many ways you could probably change your behavior in order to lessen your carbon footprint. You just have a hard time sticking to anything and motivating yourself for real change. Let’s use something simple as an example – like recycling.
You know you should recycle. However, every time you have that can or bottle in your hand you just plain forget to put it into a separate container and you just throw it in the trash instead. Maybe you know you have to order special bins from your waste management company, but you keep “forgetting” to call them to order the bins. Maybe you think that you don’t throw out that many plastics and cans so it’d be a waste of time and effort to separate your trash. Whatever the reason, you just haven’t gotten on board with recycling like you know you should.
Let’s further assume that you’re a person who is usually motivated by running away from pain or discomfort. In this situation, you have a hard time motivating yourself because there is no pain that is immediate enough to motivate you. Sure, it’s the pain of future global disaster, but it’s hard for you to make that connection when that can is in your hand and your favorite TV show is about to start. What you need is a more immediate threat of pain or discomfort, so your motivating factor changes.
Here’s how a run-away-from motivated person might restructure their goal of recycling:
1. Tell a friend you intend to call the trash company to order the recycling bins today. Tell them to ask you at the end of the day if you did it, and if you haven’t done it, you’ll pay for their lunch tomorrow. This motivates you to do it because you’ll want to avoid the pain of having to dish out cash if you forget to make the call.
2. Tell your kids or spouse to count the number of cans or bottles you’ve thrown into the regular trash, and that you’ll put a quarter in a piggy bank for every one you’ve absent-mindedly or lazily thrown away. The piggy bank can then be used to buy something that the kids want – so everyone is motivated to “police” you.
3. Develop a path of least resistance. If you want to make it easier to remember to recycle your plastics and cans, you have to find a way to the path of least resistance. Don’t put the recycling bins in the garage because that means you’ll have to make a special effort in order to stick to your goal. Put them where your trash can is now, and put the trash can in the garage instead. Once you begin to develop a routine, introduce the trash can back in the kitchen alongside the recycle bin, if possible, and so forth.
While most of us know that we need to make big and lasting changes that go beyond merely recycling in order to save our environment and ensure a healthier planet for our children, I used this as an example in order to simplify this concept. If you want to use your car less and ride your bicycle more, park your car down the street instead of in your garage for a week and park your bicycle in its place in the garage. It will get you out of automatic thinking and start the path to healthier, more mindful behaviors.
We see and hear the urgency of needing to deal with climate change on the news all the time. We know we need to start doing something about it. Just…not today. We’re too busy. Something else came up. We’re too tired. We’ve got too much to think about already.
Are we really too busy in our lives to make the necessary and positive changes in our lives to deal with reducing our environmental impact? Is recycling, or turning down the heat, or unplugging idle appliances really that much of a big time-sucking activity? Is this really the reason why, despite knowing what they should do, most people fail to make those wanted behavior changes because of something intrinsically psychological?
I recently heard a study that says that as children, we are told in a million different ways how we can’t get what we want. This feeling that “eh…we’re never ever going to get what we REALLY want anyway, so why even try?” spills over into adulthood, and it is the reason why so many people tend toward complacency in their lives. They lack the motivation and gumption to make lasting behavior changes, even when they know it’s something important, necessary, or even life-saving. For example, changing our world view and habits in order to reduce our carbon footprint and stop the world from spiraling into mass extinction.
We feel like we’re probably not going to get what we want anyway (a more sustainable world), so why even try? Instead we go along with our habitual patterns because trying to change anything in our lives is soooo…hard.
But that can’t be the answer. We can’t simply excuse our lack of action by whining about how “it’s too hard!” and going about business as usual as the world goes up in flames. There has to be a secret to how we can motivate ourselves. Afterall, many people have found that secret and are able to make huge changes in their personal life. Don’t you wonder how they do it?
All of us actually motivate ourselves in two different ways.
Either we run toward something we want, or we run away from some kind of pain or discomfort we want to avoid.
If we can determine which one of these we tend to do more often, it can be the key to self-motivation and behavior change. If you tell yourself all the time that you hate your job, and need to quit, but you don’t know what else you want to do, then you may be a run-away type of person. If you keep daydreaming of the kind of business you’ll own or the kind of job you want to land someday, you’re probably more of the toward-something kind of person.
Now let’s come back around to the topic of developing pro-environmental routines or behaviors. You see the many ways you could probably change your behavior in order to lessen your carbon footprint. You just have a hard time sticking to anything and motivating yourself for real change. Let’s use something simple as an example – like recycling.
You know you should recycle. However, every time you have that can or bottle in your hand you just plain forget to put it into a separate container and you just throw it in the trash instead. Maybe you know you have to order special bins from your waste management company, but you keep “forgetting” to call them to order the bins. Maybe you think that you don’t throw out that many plastics and cans so it’d be a waste of time and effort to separate your trash. Whatever the reason, you just haven’t gotten on board with recycling like you know you should.
Let’s further assume that you’re a person who is usually motivated by running away from pain or discomfort. In this situation, you have a hard time motivating yourself because there is no pain that is immediate enough to motivate you. Sure, it’s the pain of future global disaster, but it’s hard for you to make that connection when that can is in your hand and your favorite TV show is about to start. What you need is a more immediate threat of pain or discomfort, so your motivating factor changes.
Here’s how a run-away-from motivated person might restructure their goal of recycling:
1. Tell a friend you intend to call the trash company to order the recycling bins today. Tell them to ask you at the end of the day if you did it, and if you haven’t done it, you’ll pay for their lunch tomorrow. This motivates you to do it because you’ll want to avoid the pain of having to dish out cash if you forget to make the call.
2. Tell your kids or spouse to count the number of cans or bottles you’ve thrown into the regular trash, and that you’ll put a quarter in a piggy bank for every one you’ve absent-mindedly or lazily thrown away. The piggy bank can then be used to buy something that the kids want – so everyone is motivated to “police” you.
3. Develop a path of least resistance. If you want to make it easier to remember to recycle your plastics and cans, you have to find a way to the path of least resistance. Don’t put the recycling bins in the garage because that means you’ll have to make a special effort in order to stick to your goal. Put them where your trash can is now, and put the trash can in the garage instead. Once you begin to develop a routine, introduce the trash can back in the kitchen alongside the recycle bin, if possible, and so forth.
While most of us know that we need to make big and lasting changes that go beyond merely recycling in order to save our environment and ensure a healthier planet for our children, I used this as an example in order to simplify this concept. If you want to use your car less and ride your bicycle more, park your car down the street instead of in your garage for a week and park your bicycle in its place in the garage. It will get you out of automatic thinking and start the path to healthier, more mindful behaviors.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Would You Move to Where Your Favorite Food Is?
Let’s pretend that to transport fruits and vegetables long distances, like from South America to the Midwest, or from California to Ohio, became so cost prohibitive due to rising oil prices that it was unreasonable to buy these foods where you live. To avoid paying outrageous prices for food (think $20 for a carton of strawberries in January), you would have to limit your purchases to what was grown or harvested within, say, 250 miles of where you live.
Where would you move to in order to be closer to the foods you love?
Denver, Colorado—where I live—wouldn’t be all that bad. There would be corn, wheat, most vegetables in the summer and early fall. I could wait until late July or August and enjoy peaches, plums, nectarines from Palisades, Colorado, and later maybe grapes. Berries would be abundant in June, August and September since we can grow mountain strawberries, raspberries and blackberries here. No blueberries, though.
There would be cattle, goats, chickens and pigs, and dairy products. There would be some trout and other lake fish, and if we were to rely on hunting only we could eat prairie dogs and deer or elk.
I would have to give up tea, coffee, chocolate, tropical fruits, ocean fish, cherries, oranges, coconut, olive oil, chamomile, some spices like cinnamon and nutmeg, vanilla, cane sugar and pineapples.
I would have a hard time giving up tea, coffee, and chocolate. Cane sugar would be replaced by honey or sugarbeet sweetners. I don’t like tropical fruits that much so that wouldn’t be a big loss.
My answer would be that I would probably be OK staying where I am.
How about you?
Where would you move to in order to be closer to the foods you love?
Denver, Colorado—where I live—wouldn’t be all that bad. There would be corn, wheat, most vegetables in the summer and early fall. I could wait until late July or August and enjoy peaches, plums, nectarines from Palisades, Colorado, and later maybe grapes. Berries would be abundant in June, August and September since we can grow mountain strawberries, raspberries and blackberries here. No blueberries, though.
There would be cattle, goats, chickens and pigs, and dairy products. There would be some trout and other lake fish, and if we were to rely on hunting only we could eat prairie dogs and deer or elk.
I would have to give up tea, coffee, chocolate, tropical fruits, ocean fish, cherries, oranges, coconut, olive oil, chamomile, some spices like cinnamon and nutmeg, vanilla, cane sugar and pineapples.
I would have a hard time giving up tea, coffee, and chocolate. Cane sugar would be replaced by honey or sugarbeet sweetners. I don’t like tropical fruits that much so that wouldn’t be a big loss.
My answer would be that I would probably be OK staying where I am.
How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
