Sometime back on National Public Radio, a panel discussed the high cost of gasoline and what the next president should do about it. When asked if we should be concerned about running out of oil, a panelist quipped that “President Obama” will create appropriate tax incentives for photovoltaics and oil will become so much “useless sludge”. Am I alone in thinking that there is a general lack of understanding about what the future holds for all of us when petroleum runs out?

Yes, We Eat Oil

When nitrogen is allowed to infiltrate a suitable body of water, the normal population of algae grows explosively. It consumes available nutrients and oxygen, turns the water green, and kills most other species. The algae, unable to thrive under the conditions they themselves have created, begin to die. This is called an algae bloom.

Petroleum is humanity’s source of nitrogen. Increasingly, we’re aware that it doesn’t just heat our houses and propel our cars; we actually eat it. Through the twin miracles of modern agriculture and wet-milling, petroleum becomes nitrogen fertilizer, which becomes corn or soybeans, which become virtually every and any processed food product we know (including virtually all meat and farmed fish).[1] In Michael Pollan’s acclaimed book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he documents that over sixty percent of the average American’s diet comes from (petroleum-derived) corn![2]

Read more of this story »

Today I would like to look at a situation where the reverse is true, visiting the Germany eco-town of Freiburg .

At first glance, those Germans may appear to have limited green credentials. Fearful of potential impact on their high performance car industry, Germany has lobbied aggressively in recent months to delay new EU legislation aimed at improving vehicle fuel economy. Germany is also home to six of Europe’s ten most polluting power stations and has been keeping quiet about plans to build 24 additional coal powered plants.

However, in terms of concrete and practical actions aimed at making a real difference to the environment, this nation of passionate recyclers, high speed railway builders, and renewable energy nuts appear to be way out in front.

Read more of this story »

Actually, as weird as it might sound at first, the discovery — published in this week’s online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – makes perfect sense once you consider the typical result of divorce: two people and, possibly, children who once all shared one home now live in two separate 2,000- to 3,000-square-foot households with two sets of refrigerators, two water-heaters, two heating-and-air-conditioning units, etc.

“People’s first reaction to this research is surprise, and then it seems simple,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, who conducted the study with Eunice Yu, his research assistant at Michigan State University. “But a lot of things become simple after research is done. Our challenges were to connect the dots and quantify their relationships. People have been talking about how to protect the environment and combat climate change, but divorce is an overlooked factor that needs to be considered.”

Liu and Yu started out with a simple question: how do the world’s rising divorce rates affect humanity’s consumption of resources? They then examined housing space per capita and utility costs to show that divorce eliminates the economies of scale enjoyed by married families.

“Not only the United States, but also other countries, including developing countries such as China and places with strict religious policies regarding divorce, are having more divorced households,” Liu said. “The consequent increases in consumption of water and energy and using more space are being seen everywhere.”

In the U.S. alone, they found that divorce in 2005 led to the consumption of 73 billion more kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion more gallons of water than would have been used had all those couples stayed married. Divorced people also raised the demand for housing by 38 million extra rooms, they found.

In only 12 countries (including the U.S., Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and South Africa) around the globe, divorce increased the number of households by 7.4 million between 1998 and 2002, the study reported.

Liu and Yu found that two other trends of modern life — fewer multigenerational households and more people staying single longer — also have a negative impact on the environment. On the plus side, though, they discovered that, when divorced people remarried, their environmental footprint returned to about the same size as in their previous marriage. So, good for you, Liz Taylor!

Liu said the study shows that creating positive environmental policies is even more complex than many governments might realize.

“Solutions are beyond a single idea,” he said. “Consider the production of biofuel. Biofuel is made from plants, which also require water and space. We’re showing divorce has significant competition for that water and space. On the other hand, more divorce demands more energy. This creates a challenging dilemma and requires more creative solutions.”

Are these social factors — couples getting divorced, kids living on their own longer, Grandma and Grandpa staying in their own homes on the other side of the country — really things to consider in tackling problems like climate change, rising energy demands and environmental protection? If so, how?

Consumer Consequences, an interactive online game/environmental footprint calculator launched by American Public Media this week, strives for more detail than other footprint calculators have offered — which proves to be both a positive and a negative.

A positive because, by asking detailed questions about, say, your eating and drinking habits as well as all the more typical queries — What’s your monthly electric bill? What’s your car’s gas mileage? How much do you drive each week? — the game delivers a little more food for thought. For instance, if halving the number of cups of coffee you drink in the game reduces your footprint score, maybe you’ll be more inclined to reduce your coffee consumption in real life too.

On the other hand, the thought-provoking strategy can cut both ways. If a calculator’s going to dock you environmental points for drinking two cups of java a day, you might conclude, shouldn’t it also give you credit for choosing shade-grown or organic blends that tread a bit more lightly on the Earth?

I’ll admit it: my take on Consumer Consequences is colored some by the fact my score wasn’t all that great, even though I really work hard to reduce, reuse, recycle and conserve. So I’m miffed that my coffee jones cost me (and I do buy shade-grown and/or organic whenever I can) while my daily habit of composting all my kitchen waste didn’t come up as an option. (Maybe the developers can add a composting option to the Trash section of the quiz? Hint, hint.)

If Consumer Consequences tries to drill deeper into detail than other calculators, it should drill at least as deep. As a fellow writer on GreenOptions.com pointed out, why ask for so much information on coffee habits while offering such a limited number of choices for home size? (The game gives five options: under 500 square feet, 500 to 1,000 square feet, 1,000 to 2,000 square feet, 2,000 to 2,500 square feet and more than 2,500 square feet.) Especially when the game itself points out in that section that the average new residential space was 2,350 square feet in 2005.

Still, with a few tweaks to the aforementioned areas, Consumer Consequences could be a really effective and educational tool, especially for schoolkids or for people who don’t normally go out of their way to calculate their environmental footprint. The game is attractively designed (it’s optimized for an 800 x 600 screen resolution, but the developers have since enabled scroll bars to make it easier for those with different resolutions to play more easily), easy to follow and offers helpful tips for improvement, "did you know" information, and a detailed FAQ. You also have a silly assortment of avatar looks and accessories you can choose from at the beginning, with your choice accompanying you at the top of each subsequent page. (Want to play as a bald, cross-eyed pirate in an off-the-shoulder dress and a perching parrot by your side? You can!)

So give it a shot and see how you measure up (I can hear you self-satisfied, non-caffeine-addicted types chortling smugly already). You might not get an entirely complete and accurate assessment of your environmental footprint (a near-impossible calculation anyway), but you might find your score gnawing at you for some time afterward, prompting you to consider a few additional, Earth-friendly lifestyle changes. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Consumer Consequences was based on Redefining Progress’ Ecological Footprint Quiz, which calculates how many Earths would be needed if everyone lived as you do. Consumer Consequences is part of American Public Media’s special series, "Consumed," which "explores whether the modern American lifestyle is sustainable in the long run."

Here's an example. Assume you have a house that was built in the 1950s and you really want to lower the electricity bills (i.e., use less energy and lighten your environmental footprint). Grandma gave you $5,000 for a birthday and you're going to blow the wad to renovate your home. Some people would say to use that money on a down payment for solar panels. I'd say you might get more bang for your buck spending that money by sealing the leaks in your house, insulating the poorly insulated areas, planting some trees in the southeast corner of your backyard, and switching your fluorescent lightbulbs to CFLS. You might consider the solar panels with Grandma's next $5,000 installment.

With this in mind, Global Green USA has created a list of the Top 20 No- or Low-Cost Green Building Strategies [PDF]. Feel free to click on over for more information on each strategy.

1. Orient Building To Maximize Natural Daylighting
2. Place Windows to Provide Good Natural Ventilation
3. Select a Light-Colored "Cool Roof"
4. Provide Overhangs on South-Facing Windows
5. Install Whole-House Fans or Ceiling Fans
6. Eliminate Air Conditioning
7. Provide Combined-Hydronic Heating
8. Install Fluorexcent Lights with Electronic Ballasts
9. Install High R-Value Insulation
10. Select Energy Star Appliances
11. Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
12. Install Water-Efficient Toilets and Fixtures
13. Use Permeable Paving Materials
14. Use 30-50% Flyash in Concrete
15. Use Engineered Wood for Headers, Joists, and Sheathing
16. Use Recycled-Content Insulation, Drywall, and Carpet
17. Use Low- or No-VOC Paint
18. Use Formaldehyde-Free or Fully Sealed Materials for Cabinets and Counters
19. Vent Rangehood to the Outside
20. Install Carbon Monoxide Detector

The first section relates to energy consumption, the second to water conservation, the third to materials consumption, and the fourth to indoor air quality.