Daily Score Blog

According to a study released today by the US Conference of Mayors, green jobs "could be the fastest-growing segment of the United States economy over the next several decades and dramatically increase its share of total employment."

As the Seattle P-I reports, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, the conference's president, said the report makes "a very compelling economic argument for investing in the green economy and that we're going to get a huge return for it."

Indeed. The study cautions that these numbers won't be realized without "an aggressive shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy and a significant improvement in energy efficiency." From the P-I:

For example, it assumes that by 2038 alternative energy will account for 40 percent of electricity production with half of that coming from wind and solar; widespread retrofitting of buildings to achieve a 35 percent reduction in electricity use; and 30 percent of motor fuels coming from ethanol or biodiesel.

"These are things we have to do," Mayor Diaz told an AP reporter over the phone, adding that "Washington [DC] needs to get on the train."

People often ask me, “Is your family still car-less?”

I myself am still car-less, but the family has changed. Amy and I have separated, undone our vows, and revised our coupledom into a parenting partnership. The divorce paperwork is underway.

Don’t worry: I’m not going to regale you with the emotional tale. This isn’t that kind of blog.

Instead, I’m going to do what the Daily Score does best: wonk out. In this case, about the carbon footprint of divorce. (No kidding.)

A new poll by AARP finds that many Americans ages 50 and older are driving less as a result of high gas prices. But getting around isn't always easy - inadequate sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as insufficient public transportation options are obstacles to older Americans saving money by leaving their car at home.

• Almost one of every three people 50 and over (29 percent) say they are now walking as a way to avoid high gas prices.
  
  
• But as those people set out to walk, almost 40 percent of the 50+ population say they do not have adequate sidewalks in their neighborhoods.
  
  
• Additionally, 44 percent say they do not have nearby public transportation that is accessible.
  
  
• Almost half (47 percent) of poll responders say they cannot cross the main roads safely (this is crucial: 4 in 10 pedestrian fatalities are over the age of 50.)

So this is a bit of a gimmick -- but it's a GOOD gimmick:  a new gym in Portland, OR is using stationary bicycles to produce electricity.  (See here and here for recent press.)

First off, to any naysaying skeptics out there:  there's absolutely nothing wrong with recapturing a bit of power that would otherwise be wasted.  So I don't want to hear any talk-radio crank poo-pooing the idea.  (Not that they'd ever listen to me -- I just wanted to get this out of the way early.)

Second, and perhaps more importantly,  this is a perfect example of the sort of creativity the market's capable of.  Once we set responsible limits on climate-warming emissions, we'll find all sorts of ways, large and small, to eliminate energy waste, and do more work with less fossil fuels.  Stationary bike-generators are just small examples of all the nifty stuff we can do when we let ourselves imagine new solutions to energy woes.

That said, since I'm an incurable geek, I just had to run the numbers.  How much power can a person actually generate from one of those stationary bikes?

Answer:  not much, unfortunately.

We're heading into Labor Day Weekend. That means hiking for a lot folks, so I'm reprising some of the ways that Northwesterners can hit the trail without a car. In my two prior posts on this subject, commenters have offered some terrific advice from around the region and beyond.

First up, a place of honor for Andrew Engleson over at Washington Trails Association. He's on the verge of creating a new blog genre: Hiking the Pacific Crest Trail Without a Car (that's the 2,600-mile trail from Mexico to Canada); Hiking the Wonderland Trail Without a Car (that's the 93-mile loop around Mount Rainier); and Biking To a Hike. More please!

Speaking of biking to a hike, the central Puget Sound region is blessed with some pretty good hiking in the Cascade foothills, including the big parks of Cougar Mountain, Tiger Mountain, and Rattlesnake Ridge. These are all more-or-less accessible via bus or by bicycle (check out King County's terrific new regional bike map). I'm not saying it's a snap to get to these places sans vehicle, just that it's possible if you're committed.

Of course if you're truly hardcore, Rick Dubrow points out that you'll want to check out the Self-Propelled Outdoor Club, described here in an article with some ideas for the Vancouver, BC region.

And while we're on Vancouver, my favorite car-free hiking suggestion comes from Michael Newton who writes:

Vancouver's north shore has loads of hiking that's accessible by transit. We've got the advantage of having nothing but wilderness north of the city; if you skirt by Whistler, you could probably head north all the way to the Arctic Ocean without hitting another town! Cypress and Seymour Provincial parks, Lynn Canyon and Lynn Headwaters regional parks, not to mention numerous smaller parks and of course, the Grouse Grind.

You see, that is what I'm talking about. Arctic Ocean or bust! Who's with me?

When it comes to global warming, 80 percent of American voters across the country believe it’s happening and poses a threat to future generations. 74 percent support the idea of a cap and trade system for carbon emissions; 57 percent say that they would still support a cap and trade system even if it meant a $10 increase in their monthly electricity bill. A third of Americans say that taking unilateral action on global warming would help the US economy. That’s a dead heat with those who say global warming-reducing measures would damage the economy (32 percent).

So, people are starting to see economic potential that’s possible with smart climate policy. In the last few days, the news has been full of articles about Northwest companies and communities investigating new industries like solar and wind.

The great thing about  this Swiss study on tap water vs. bottled water is that it takes a boring, commonsense intuition, and makes it interesting -- just by providing a few numbers.

In this case, the intuition is that bottled water uses more energy—and thus releases more greenhouse gases—than plain old tap water.  The point is really obvious:  just think about the energy that’s required to manufacture bottles, and you can pretty easily guess that bottled water will be more energy-intensive than water from the tap. In fact, it’s so obvious, it almost seems pointless to do a study

But it turns out that there’s a very interesting point to be made:  the gap between bottled water and tap water is simply enormous.  Based on European data used in the Swiss study, water straight from the tap has about one half of one percent of the climate-warming impact of the most benign bottled water -- and less than a thousandth of the overall environmental impact of the most energy-intensive bottled water.

In the chart to the left, I’m deliberately leaving the numbers vague.  The two bars actually average of a number of different figures – different drinking water systems, bottling options, and water temperatures.  So the numbers are a bit meaningless.  Still, they give a sense of the magnitude of the difference between bottled water and tap water.

In this case, the most important message isn't simply that tap water is better -- it's the raw scale of the gap between tap water and bottled water.  Of course, bottled water doesn't rank particularly high on the list of climate offenders, compared to cars and trucks, coal fired power plants, and the like. Still, if you’re a bottled-water drinker, and you're looking for a quick and easy way to reduce your carbon footprint – and you’re lucky enough to live in a place with clean, tasty tap water – playing taps (ha!) for your bottled water is a pretty good place to start.

Via Signpost, a terrific new development from Washington State Parks: a hiker shuttle up Snoqualmie Pass. I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just quote liberally from Andrew Engelson:

The new "Bus-Up 90 Shuttle" will run Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and starts at Cedar Falls, which is near Rattlesnake Lake outside North Bend. The shuttle runs to Hyak, east of Snoqualmie Pass. The ride will be air-conditioned and the shuttle has room for backpacking gear, plus a trailer to provide transport for bikes. The shuttle is primarily intended for folks intending to hike or bike down the John Wayne Trail, a 20.5-mile gravel path that follows the old Milwaukee Railroad.

The shuttle will also provide return service and apparently can make stops at trailheads along the western I-90 corridor if you pre-arrange it. There will be three departures daily from Cedar Falls and Hyak.

Schedule and directions are here.

"Staycation...a portmanteau that combines “stay” and “vacation” and refers to a holiday that takes place either at or near home."

With gas well above $4 per gallon this summer, and with airlines raising prices and canceling flights because of high fuel costs, it's not too surprising to find a word like "staycation" gaining a toehold in the North American lexicon.  Google now finds nearly 200,000 web pages that use the word -- most of them added within the last few months, if my casual browsing is any indicator.

But even back when fuel wasn't so pricey, some of my favorite vacations were spent within a 50 mile radius of home.  It's easy to forget how many parks, museums, nature walks, boat rides, and all-around fun can be found close to where you live -- which makes a staycation a perfect opportunity to reconnect  yourself to your home town.

So I'm curious:  is anyone out there planning a staycation this year?  Where are you, and what do you plan on doing?

[Photo courtesy of Flickr user matildaben, distributed under a Creative Commons license.]

In case you missed it, there was a bit of a kerfuffle in the blogosphere a few months back, concerning the climate impacts of walking vs. driving.  Apparently, some folks -- New York Times columnist and blogger John Tierney in particular -- were spreading the claim that a pleasant stroll to the store might actually release more GHGs than getting behind the wheel.  Other bloggers picked up the meme, including one post with the headline:  "Be Green:  Drive."

The idea may sound absurd, but there's a legitimate insight behind it.  Walking burns calories, which come from food -- and it takes an enormous quantity of fossil fuels to produce, process, and transport everything that we eat.  Add in the other GHGs from agriculture -- everything from cow manure to emissions from synthetic fertilizers -- and you've got a potent global warming cocktail in every glass of milk.

But our doppelgangers at the Pacific Institute did their homework, compiling evidence about climate emissions from both cars and food.  And they came to the conclusion that walking emits about one-quarter the GHGs of driving -- earning a partial retraction from Tierney.  (You go, PacInst!)

But looking at the numbers, I think that the Pacific Institute's numbers are conservative. In fact, I think that when I take a short walk, I'm being at least 12 times as friendly to the climate as if I drove.  Your mileage may vary, of course; but my shoes get about 220 miles per gallon.

Whoever dreamed up bottled water was a genius. The ubiquitous plastic bottles are such a common purchase today that many consumers do not think twice before paying two-dollars for water that would cost them practically nothing from the tap. A recent study in New York City calculated that the recommended 8 glasses a day costs about $.49 a year from the tap. As much "designer" H2O purchased in plastic bottles equates to about $1,400 a year!

Clearly, bottled water is no friend to our savings accounts, but there are bigger costs too, as Sightline's new book Seven Wonders for a Cool Planet, explains:

Bottled water is a notorious carbon culprit. Every day Americans go through 40 million bottles of water. The bottles are usually made from petroleum-based plastic, and the vaunted water often comes from a regular old public drinking supply. The bottles must be shipped, often over large distances."

Using a ratio of food miles to calories, bottled water is an enormous waste."
However, it's not just about bottled water; the choices we make when we buy our food also have significant impacts upon our planet. From the amount of energy spent during transportation to the amount of energy spent on production, we all can make a difference and reduce the impact our food has on our planet by being an informed consumer and buying carefully.

If you'd like to read more about this, and other ways in which our daily choices about food and beverages affect our planet, our health, our climate, and our pocketbooks, and the many ways we can make little changes that help offset those impacts, check out Sightline's new book, Seven Wonders for a Cool Planet -- A handbook for designing sustainability into the very heart of our lives, communities, and economies.

I thought this was interesting:

The brain’s store of willpower is depleted when people control their thoughts, feelings or impulses, or when they modify their behavior in pursuit of goals...[P]eople who successfully accomplish one task requiring self-control are less persistent on a second, seemingly unrelated task.

So exercising willpower in one area can deplete willpower in another.  No wonder I have such a donut problem when I'm on deadline.

In a way, this simply confirms a common-sense understanding of human behavior:  people have only so much attention to give.  Which is one reason I've been concerned for a long time about the all-too-common idea that personal choices are key to solving major environmental and social problems.  Not only does the "personal choice" frame reduce the perceived importance of systemic and political change -- which I think are more effective -- but if willpower is truly a zero-sum game, then counting on continual vigilance and unwavering will seems like a losing strategy.

Seven Wonders, which was penned by award-winning journalist Eric Sorensen and Sightline staffers, examines seven everyday objects that serve not only as solutions to global warming, but also--and more importantly--as springboards for exploring some of the key issues behind climate change.

• “The Bicycle" is an ode to the most energy-efficient vehicle ever devised--and the world of transportation solutions that is already at our feet. (My favorite biking fact: "Pound for pound, a person on a bike can go farther on a calorie of food than a gazelle can running, a salmon swimming, or an eagle flying.")
  
  
• “The Condom” examines how a little more "wrapping-up" could have a big impact on global-warming pollution, and our health.
  
  
• “The Ceiling Fan” shows that energy efficiency isn't just a free lunch. "It's a lunch you are paid to eat." (Great quote, huh? Amory Lovins said it.)
  
  
• “The Clothesline” starts with a six-dollar piece of rope and ends with the vast potential of renewable energy.
  
  
• “The Real Tomato” uses the well-traveled vegetable to examine how to make agriculture greener. (Favorite veggie fact: "Even a seemingly innocent one-pound bag of lettuce can be a fossil-fuel glutton, consuming 4,600 calories to grow, process, and ship an item that is mostly water and contains a scant eighty calories of food energy.")
  
  
• “The Library Book” shows why "reuse" is the most important of the "three R's." (Library fact: "A typical US library prevents 250 tons of greenhouse-gas emissions each year, just from the paper it doesn’t consume.").
  
  
• “The Microchip” is a testament to how the online world--and all the technology that drives it--can benefit our real-world climate.

In the comments thread of another post, Vickie asks:

I have a question for those of you who have already made diet changes to eat locally produced food. I am struggling here. What should a person eat if they live in the north where the growing season is shorter and there is nothing (but meat) produced all winter? Everything seems to be trucked in from somewhere.

That's a great question! Unfortunately, it's also enormously difficult to answer. In fact, a pithy article in Newsweek nicely points up the difficulty of this question -- and of the more general difficulty with relying on individual awareness to achieve good environmental outcomes. Local food turns out to be a great example:

Although lists of "what you can do to save the planet" include eating locally—buying food that is grown nearby—to reduce your carbon footprint, the calculation is more complicated than counting up your food's frequent-flier miles. If the local tomato comes from a greenhouse that gobbled up electricity produced from coal and was trucked in via an 8 miles-per-gallon pickup, and a long-distance one was grown in sunny fields and transported by a 400mpg train, you'll leave a smaller carbon footprint if you opt for the latter.

You can find several more examples like this in a recent New Yorker article.

This is promising:  Ecogeek reports on a new GE water heater that could cut energy consumption in half.  The trick:  it uses a heat pump to preheat the water coming into the tank.

I've waxed rhapsodic about the magic of heat pumps before. Start with a glass of lukewarm water, and a heat pump can turn it into a half glass of warm water, and a half glass of cold water, in a process that takes less energy than warming up a half cup of water on a stove top.  If done right, heating your home with a heat pump -- particularly one that draws heat from water that's circulated underground -- can be more climate-friendly than even the most efficient gas furnace.  So this new heater is really just an application of a tried-and-true technology, but in a slightly new way.

The heater isn't commercially available yet, but the announcement coincided with the release of new  Energy Star ratings for hot water heaters.  (Both press releases were dated April 1, but I don't think anyone's pulling my leg here...)  Obviously, it's a little premature to rave about a technology that's not even available in stores yet.  After all, nobody knows whether the technology will pan out, or whether any increased sales cost will be worth the energy savings. 

Still, the announcement is a useful reminder:  there are loads of efficiency opportunities left out there, and we don't have to wait for radically new technologies to capitalize on them.  Heat pumps, have been around since the days of Lord Kelvin; and household water heaters consume more electricity than home lighting. Still, it's taken over 150 years to put the two needs together. 

If I had to guess, there are plenty of similar opportunities out there -- energy-saving technologies that are perfectly obvious, and are just crying out for a little bit of capital and engineering muscle.  (For instance:  why doesn't my fridge connect to the outside world?  In wintertime, there's plenty of cold air for free, just outside my window.  In summertime, the hot air from the fridge's air pump gets recirculated into my already-overheated house.  Seems like a problem looking for a solution.  Any takers?)