Save and Conserve

After years of physical neglect & recurring financial woes, it looks like Congress might be starting to comprehend that our passenger rail system is in need of serious help (read: money). While European & Asian countries have long invested billions into high-speed rail systems that typically average over 125mph, here in the US we have Amtrak's Acela running in the Northeast corridor & averaging in the low 80s. Not exactly threatening any land speed records.

Although our train system is pretty much a total national embarrassment (something the Bulgarians would be ashamed of), it's not a total loss ... at least we have plenty of opportunity to improve ;)

New legislation has recently been introduced in the House of Representatives that shows significant sign of life. This is probably the most promising bill I have seen introduced in the past 5 years.

The new bill appropriates about $1.3 billion per year (over 5 years) for Amtrak capital needs. This is the money Amtrak needs to get the system in a state of "good repair". These are the funds the Bush admin has sought to pillage on an annual basis. Locking the funds up for the next 5 years is huge.

Most promising is the emphasis in the new bill on high-speed rail. Rail travel is so much more efficient in terms of energy use that it is inevitable that rail travel will become a much more important means of getting around in future years. Finally, Congressional dingbats leaders seem to have gotten the message (with oil at $125/barrel) that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have tons of people driving from NYC to Boston when they could be riding a comfy (hopefully wifi-enabled) train that sucks down a fraction of the energy all those cars would.

I feel like electrified passenger rail is going to be one of the meta-trends in American lifestyle change in the next 25 years. This bill might be the first step ...

Reminder! May is Bike to Work month, next week is Bike to Work week & next Friday (the 16th) is Bike to Work day.

So, if you have a bike & you're reasonably close to work, consider biking in next Friday. It's good for the environment & the body. Plus, maybe it will inspire others to consider biking in the future.

Photo by Flickr user nnnnic used under a Creative Commons license

As Al Gore has recently stated, changing light bulbs is nice, but it doesn't really address the climate crisis/global warming/energy crisis in a meaningful way (it's far more symbolic). Much more interesting is the notion of government working to pass laws that enforce/encourage/mandate energy efficient behavior.

Which leads us to the news from Hawaii:

All new homes in Hawaii will be required to have solar water heaters installed starting in 2010 under a law approved by the Legislature.

Hawaii becomes the first state requiring the energy-saving systems in homes.

Solar water heaters typically cost home buyers about $5,000 extra on their mortgage, but island residents will save thousands of dollars over the years on their electricity bills, supporters said.

This is the sort of aggressive law-making we need right now. Kudos to the Hawaiian state legislature, which passed this bill nearly unanimously. Obviously that implies the Hawaiian people support the bill, but still it's a pioneering step that shows other states it can be done.

These are the kinds of changes that can have real significant impact to energy consumption/carbon emissions further down the road. Great news!

Earlier this year, I wrote about how US consumers are responding to high gas prices by moving away from light trucks & SUVs towards smaller cars. The trend continued in April:

Of equal concern to automakers, buyers defected from high-margin trucks and SUVs to cheaper and more fuel-efficient cars more rapidly than expected due to high gasoline prices.

Cars accounted for 53 percent of sales in April with light trucks near 47 percent, a nearly complete reversal of the share of the categories a year earlier, according to Autodata.

The market shift toward cars has favored Japanese automakers with more established small car offerings.

By contrast, the trend has pummeled the truck-heavy lineups of Detroit-based automakers with the average price of regular unleaded gasoline punching above $3.62 per gallon on Thursday, a record high, according to AAA.

The three Detroit-based automakers had just a 48 percent share of the world's largest vehicle market in April, down 5 percentage points from a year earlier.

Let's hear it for the oft-maligned US consumer. Common sense decisions are a possibility in this country, if given the right incentives.

These news reports make it clear to me that the problem in this country is not with the end user. The problem is with the program. Americans would eat alternative energy up if given the (sensible) opportunity. This was covered in detail in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?, which is a stunning documentary about how environmentally-conscious Californians wanted to buy electric cars, but weren't able to do so because of corporate interests & weak government.

How do we fix or change the program is the question. I'm not really sure how that gets done sans crisis or some major problem or negative event. The corporate interests control the government & they have zero incentive to cede control. Control will have to be taken ... which implies organization & inspiration.

As this political season is showing, the people are nowhere near as empowered as they need to be to make change happen. People just don't care enough to get involved at the level required to make real changes happen.

There's a glimmer of hope out there in some of these news stories ... but the light is very faint. I still hold that it will take pain, crisis, bad shit to get people moving in the right direction.

#27,743: The Chinese really like to buy cars ... the bigger, the better.

#27,744: The amount of methane (a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2) in the atmosphere increased 0.5% in 2007 after a decade of little to no change.

Is it me or is the troubling news coming harder & faster these days?

Conservation is our best option ... here's a graphic from this weekend's NY Times article about the future of oil, which is not looking very bright to say the least:

It can be done, if people decide we must change the way we live our lives. It's really only a matter of time. There is no way there is enough oil to support this:

Today's tensions are only likely to get worse in coming years. Consider a few numbers: The planet's population is expected to grow by 50 percent to nine billion by sometime in the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is projected to double in 30 years-- to more than two billion -- as developing nations rapidly modernize. And twice as many passenger jetliners, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be crisscrossing the skies in 20 years.

Wha wha ... what???

On the day after the New York Times breaks the seal, Yahoo Finance drops a "peak oil" reference right on the homepage:

note: I grabbed this screenshot at some point in the afternoon on April 16th

This seems significant ... but that may be because I am online a lot & possibly give Yahoo Finance more weight than another person would. And what a way to introduce the topic - make them think this is a money maker. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all. In fact, this is a good thing. Peak oil = $ ... now that's a good one!

In case you're interested, here's the article the "peak oil" blurb pointed to. Good luck profiting ;-)

This seems to be a fair representation of my own views on the international oil predicament (also known as peak oil):

This is what peak oil is supposed to look like -- not Oh My God We've Just Run Out Of Oil, but steady pressure on the economy and the way we live from rising energy prices and their consequences. And it doesn't matter much whether we're literally at the peak, or whether production can rise by a few million more barrels a day; unless there are big sources of oil out there, we'll be feeling peakish for the foreseeable future.

Good to see the NY Times finally achieve breakthrough on printing the words "peak oil" - even if it had to come from their blog department & not the editorial people.

Go read Krugman's short blog & the interesting comments that follow underneath. It's a refreshing take.

This article does a decent job of pointing out key barriers that will limit the installation & use of residential wind turbines:

• The federal government does not currently provide a tax credit for residential-scale wind energy
• Only a few states have enacted incentive programs for wind power
• Payback time for a wind power project can approach 20 years (way too long for mass adoption)
• Wind power only works in places where the wind blows a lot
• Even in spots with good wind, sometimes the wind doesn't blow
• For maximum gain, wind turbines need to be located high in the air ... & this causes tons of NIMBY-related issues

That last bullet really gets to me ... I have always considered wind turbines really sleek & aesthetically pleasing. I don't understand the people who feel that turbines mar the landscape. I think they fit perfectly into the built environment & make all the sense in the world (in windy areas).

I can't understand why the federal government is not underwriting renewable energy projects for residences. We need a comprehensive renewable energy bill that provides incentives (or better yet rebates) for consumers to install renewable energy like wind. In addition to growing renewable energy capacity, this would also have the benefit of creating jobs & demand for renewable energy products & services.

If you are a concerned citizen, you should support renewable energy. Get in touch with your local, state & federal representatives about this.

In February, I wrote about the explosive growth of installed wind capacity in the US here, but I didn't have a good visual to accompany that write-up. I found this wonderful visual over at Lower (Carbon) Footprint:

click on the image to view the whole thing in a new window

Pretty much says it all. Change is definitely happening!

Al Gore recently presented a new slide show (updated since An Inconvenient Truth) at the TED conference.

As a quick sidebar, Barack Obama has come out & said that he would make a new cabinet position in an Obama administration in order to deal with the climate change problem. He wants Gore to assume that role. I think that is a good move for all concerned parties: Obama, Gore, US citizens & world citizens.

Gore continues to lead the way on climate change. These updated slides that he recently presented are really interesting. I would encourage anyone out there to take 30 minutes to watch this video of his presentaiton, but if you are looking for a quick synopsis, I have some bullets listed below that capture bits of Gore's message:

• We must become engaged & active citizens within our democracy
• Environmental challenges fall into 3 categories: local (water), regional (acid rain), global (climate change)
• Arctic sea ice cap vanishing ... in fall 2007 there was a record low level of ice extent
• Massive melting in Greenland & Antarctica too
• Compares Earth to Venus which is super hot because of carbon in the atmosphere (Mercury is cooler than Venus, even though it is closer to the sun). The sun is not to blame for our warming temps ... the stratosphere of Earth is cooling right now (which makes the point)
• 956 questions to Pres candidates on NBC, 2 about climate (and all the other networks were the same)
• There is a lack of urgency around this issue
• Shows gasoline consumption in developing countries & CO2 emissions (even without USA in the picture, there would be crisis)
• Shows deforestation in Bolivia over 20 years
• Shows fisherie's decline in recent years (mentions "peak fishing")
• The solution is a tax on CO2 (to replace employment tax)
• Shows concentrating solar in Africa ("super-grid") & need to turn to renewable energy
• Investment in tar sands & shale are akin to a junky using veins in the feet after the arm veins have collapsed
• The US still has not ratified Kyoto Protocol
• Talks about Lake Lanier drought & how drought in Australia made the people realize the need to sign Kyoto
• We need to find a way to convey a sense of "generational mission"
• We have the means to solve this challenge, but we haven't tapped into the energy to make it happen
• He remains optimistic & thinks this challenge is a blessing to our generation, who will be celebrated in the future
• Asked about the candidates approaches to climate crisis, he thinks it's good that all 3 have a more progressive position than Bush, but the dialog is still not bold enough
• There should be no new coal-fired power plants without carbon sequestration
• Asked about what he himself wants to do next, he said he is grappling with the question
• There is an old African proverb: if you want to go fast, go alone ... if you want to go far, go together
• We need to go far & go fast

It would be an incredibly positive development for the environmental movement if Obama wins & makes Gore the figurehead for motivating the people & attacking climate change. There is a poignant moment at the end of the video when the host says how much it hurts to think that Gore lost to Bush in 2000 because of poorly designed ballots. As Gore responds, "You have no idea ..."

I think it is interesting to note that Gore seems much more emotional during this presentation. It's as though he has become aware that the facts he presented in the movie are not enough to wake people up. They need some stronger coffee ... they need to be shaken out of the funk somehow, some way. I don't think he knows exactly how ... but perhaps as climate czar he could figure it out. Let's hope!

I hate the fact that cutting edge, energy efficient architecture (like the Bahrain World Trade Center pictured at right) is happening in a place like Bahrain and not in "the West". I have nothing against Bahrain really, just sad that America isn't trailblazing.

It's obvious to me how late we already are in making a structure like this a reality. In 20 years, most buildings will feature some sort of building integrated (or building mounted) renewable energy. We should be leading on this & setting the example for the developing world. Instead, we've left that gig to an oil-rich nation smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf. How ironic.