The Penny is Worthless
What are 100 pennies worth? $1.40 in zinc. Zinc mining is an “environmental disaster”, and demand for the mineral is growing in China.
Source: Eco Geek
Image: wikimedia commons
What are 100 pennies worth? $1.40 in zinc. Zinc mining is an “environmental disaster”, and demand for the mineral is growing in China.
Source: Eco Geek
Image: wikimedia commons
Even though sunlight is free, fossil fuels in the US have been widely available at a very low cost. There are extensive coal fields all across the country. Nationally, coal produces about 50% of our electricity, with a majority of it being used for base load. That means that coal plants produce a steady stream of electricity a majority of the time.
Natural gas however has skyrocketed in price over the last 6 years. It is widely used to generate electricity during peak times, typically on warmer days when we are cranking up the air conditioning. Natural gas plants can start up quickly and come to the rescue when needed, but the cost of fuel has gotten quite high recently.
Solar energy is very capable of producing peak electricity and is ideally suited for for it. Solar radiation is what causes us to need air conditioning in the first place. The utility companies have started taking notice of solar energy’s potential to generate electricity during peak demand.
Editor’s note: What does the opening of a McDonald’s in Beijing have to rising food prices in the US, or food riots in other parts of the developing world? Plenty, according to Jen Humphrey, a student in Professor Simran Sethi’s Media and the Environment course at the University of Kansas. This post was originally published to the course blog on Tuesday, March 11, 2008.
Anyone else find this photo creepy?
Something about the sunglasses, I guess. Or the export of American culture.
The photo depicts clowns who were on hand to celebrate the opening of a McDonald’s in Beijing, and it was part of a New York Times article about the company’s record profits in February. McDonald’s profits jumped 11.7 percent internationally, fueled in part by Leap Year sales but also the weak U.S. dollar. You can get more Mac for your Yuan these days.
I’d like to use that story to play the Six Degrees of Separation game. But instead of people, in this instance, I’d like to look at the short distance between food news. We know McDonald’s is doing well – that’s one data point. Let’s put another marker by the story that University of Washington researchers determined that calorie for calorie, junk food is way cheaper than good-for-you food. According to the researchers, who compared foods in major grocery stores in the Seattle area, you pay $1.76 per 1,000 calories for sugary, fatty foods that have the most calories, but you pay $18.16 per 1,000 calories for the lowest-calorie foods (which are most often better for you, such as fruits and vegetables).
In a day and age where the word recession is being thrown around like a football, when asked to make financial sacrifices you’re more likely to get a kick in the crotch then a handshake. But unlike what the critics would have us believe, cutting carbon emissions could actually economically help the US, and similarly other countries in the same position.
A theoretical US policy to cut carbon emissions by up to 40% over a 20 year period could still result in increased economic growth; this, according to an interactive website created by the Yale School of Foresty and Environmental Studies.
Change your lightbulbs, buy local food, keep your tires properly inflated: all of us in the green publishing space, both online and off, promote such actions as ways for all of us to live greener lives, and, more specifically, to cut our carbon footprints. “Low-hanging fruit” approaches to personal sustainability appeal to us because of their simplicity: we don’t have to make major changes in our lives to feel like we’re making a difference. As we attempt to reach beyond the “green” audience to people who are still “testing the waters,” and who are intimidated by the notion that “going green” means making major sacrifices, tips provide a valuable introduction to lowering one’s personal impact.
Still, the “simple actions” approach to sustainability also runs the risk of becoming simplistic, and even moralistic. Many of us are probably guilty of looking aghast at someone when we find out they don’t recycle, or buy their produce from the neighborhood farmers’ market. “It’s so simple,” we tell ourselves. We feel justified, then, in judging others, perhaps harshly, for the actions they don’t take.
In the latest issue of The New Yorker (published today), writer Michael Specter takes a look at the “simple” actions not only taken by individuals and families, but also promoted by the business world to consumers. British supermarket chain Tesco, for instance, has announced it will look for an easy method for identifying the carbon footprint of the products it sells. Walkers crisps (potato chips) already carry such a label. These are steps forward, no doubt, in providing information that consumers want. But, as Specter points out, there’s nothing simple about determining the carbon footprint of a product:
In order to develop the label for Walkers, researchers had to calculate the amount of energy required to plant seeds for the ingredients (sunflower oil and potatoes), as well as to make the fertilizers and pesticides used on those potatoes. Next, they factored in the energy required for diesel tractors to collect the potatoes, then the effects of chopping, cleaning, storing, and bagging them. The packaging and printing processes also emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as does the petroleum used to deliver those crisps to stores. Finally, the research team assessed the impact of throwing the empty bag in the trash, collecting the garbage in a truck, driving to a landfill, and burying them. In the end, the researchers—from the Carbon Trust—found that seventy-five grams of greenhouse gases are expended in the production of every individual-size bag of potato chips.
Timothy Hurst recently wrote an article about U.S. Investors and renewable energy. This post is designed as a complement to that news story.
Renewable energy has attracted a lot of attention lately as the world looks for cleaner ways to power our world. Wind and solar stand as the most recognizable clean, green dynamos, but they still struggle to compete with traditional and entrenched power producers. True to conventional economic values, competition is everything. Yet, in the U.S.A. these technologies have survived in the dog-eat-dog industry for decades mostly without the aid of government subsidies (unlike coal and oil), and many claim that renewables could take off with just a little help from Uncle Sam. What are the obstacles? Are government subsidies the only saving grace for renewables? This post hopes to shed some light on the topic and burn through the conflicting noise that surrounds this fundamental and controversial industry.
It seems like I’m always reading articles about improvements, investments, and the promise of renewable energy. For a more practical perspective, I recently asked a successful businessman, who sometimes works with solar panels, for his opinion. Did he think that solar was going to boom in the next few years? His opinion was that the industry would need more government subsidies to really take off. Even with high oil prices, it was still simply too expensive to invest on a small scale. You might regain your initial investment in 15+ years in ideal conditions. Even in states with incentives to support renewable energy, it’s expensive. His view echoed my cousin’s frustration. Yet despite the initial cost, renewables are still an attractive option. As expensive as it may be to buy and install solar panels, it’s also very expensive ($1.8-billion and rising) to build a new coal-fired power plant with “clean coal” technologies. Hidden costs also plague coal power plants: the cost to clean up mercury emissions, the water required to operate, and in some places, the cost of carbon credits. Finally, the bottom line: how much does it cost to generate each kilowatt hour? Compare two graphs, one for coal and one for solar, and you may be surprised.
The clock strikes prime time Friday night as I send you this introductory greeting. Back in my corporate cubicle days over a decade ago, “happy hour” did not find me at the computer screen. Most likely, on Friday night back then you’d find me physically and mentally as far from my work scene as I could muster: camping over state lines, social at a party, buzzing at the local coffeehouse. While I had a enviable job and paycheck, “work” remained something I did to pay the bills and indemnify my escapist fun.
I’m a business school failure — in a positive sort of way.
Rather than spend most of my life in a carpeted cubicle, earning-and-spending and, in my case, pimping for the culture of consumption at a large advertising agency in Chicago, my wife, Lisa Kivirist, and I exited corporate America. We resettled on a 5.5 acre small farm in southwestern Wisconsin, endeavoring to learn how to grow our own food, generate our own electricity and in various other ways reclaim the ability to meet our own needs without depending on Corporate America to provide all that we need, for a price. That goes for providing a job as well. The business school I attended as an undergrad primed me for a “successful career” earning income from a Corporation, paying taxes to the government and owing much to the banks that would one day own my home, car and credit worthiness.
By exiting the fast track overflowing with Lattes and legions of consumables (remember, you have the look the part of an Advertising Executive), I’ve settled into my own skin, weeding our bountiful gardens, harvesting more solar and wind energy than Lisa and I can use on our farm, and raising our son with the Earth in mind. Our business, Inn Serendipity Bed & Breakfast, when paired with our other enterprises like writing, speaking and “green marketing consulting”, provides a lifestyle and workstyle that’s sustaining to us and the ecological community in which we’re inexorably linked.
It is quite common for the end-user of a commodity to have no idea where the good was actually produced, never mind how it got from point A to point B. But some consumers might prefer to get their vegetables them from a local farmers’ market, instead of the supermarket. A person might want to support a business because they have received exceptional service there in the past; or, because they know the signature dish is made with the freshest local ingredients. The global commodities market has separated the consumer and the producer across both time and space. Goods can be shipped all the way around the globe and many can be stored away for future use/sale. When consumers do not see where the good is produced, how it is produced, and the byproducts of that production, they are less likely to alter their own spending habits to align them with their own personal values. The global economy lives and dies at the level of uncertainty a consumer will accept before choosing to not buy a good. Coal may be less expensive in terms of how much you pay every month for electricity, but those bills do not accurately reflect all of the electricity’s costs, or what economists like to call, “externalities,” like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide, or even dead miners.
The globalized trade of products like gold, bananas, pork-bellies, sugar and wheat, to name a few, creates a market where consumers do not know where the good was actually grown, mined, plucked, or processed. Not only that, but it may not be so easy to buy something even though it is all around you (as my search for locally-grown soybeans proved). Why does this matter? It all boils down to consumer choice. On one hand, the modern globalized economy consists of consumers that are primarily concerned with getting a given commodity for the best price possible. On the other hand, some consumers may want more than whatever is cheapest.
There are some consumers who will want to weigh such variables as the ecological sustainability of a good and the process of manufacturing it; the human rights records in the country the good is produced; workplace health and safety records; environmental practices, or any of a number of monetary and non-monetary variables. Consumers who choose to shop with their conscience are faced with tough choices every day, and they usually go something like this: Pay more for a product because it is organically grown, or fair-trade certified and feel better about how your money affects the larger social, ecological and political climate, or, pay less for virtually the same product and spend the difference on something else you wanted.
[Cross-posted from ecopolitology.org]
Last week I attended a sold-out conference in downtown Denver that addressed the future of Colorado’s ‘New Energy Economy.’ In the absence of any substantial federal legislation to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, state-level government initiatives in such states as California, Vermont, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Colorado to name a few, are giving shape to a technological ‘race to the top’ scenario where states are competing with each other to attract the type of businesses that can spur the development of a regional new energy economy.
Finally getting up to speed here — of course, that must mean it’s the last day of the symposium. Here’s my report from yesterday’s morning session, which is also published on Green Options.
Thursday morning’s session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium focused on the “green economy”: how to craft economic policy that both internalizes the costs of a carbon-based economy, and creates incentives to move away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The
[…]
Subscribe to our RSS feed or newsletter
