Bright Hall

Why I Can't Reduce My Carbon Footprint

Tony Romm — 2009-04-25T17:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, American University

Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

It would not be Earth Day weekend without the requisite guilt: Pesky environmentalists proselytizing their cause ad nauseum, hoping to influence at least one group of complacent bystanders to evaluate their carbon footprint. Though annoying, their cause has ample merit: A recent study by the National Climate Data Center reveals that the period between January and March 2009 was the eighth hottest on record. The next three months, for that reason, are certain to pan out no differently.

So on the heels of an excessively warm Earth Day, from the couch in my excessively warm apartment in Washington D.C., I decide to question my own impact on the environment. To do so, I locate an informal quiz at EarthDay.net, one of the "holiday's" leading advocacy groups. The verdict: I am a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space, living a lifestyle that, if emulated by billions, would destroy the Earth more than four times over:

I'm shocked; until now, I have no idea I'm truly wrecking the Earth, and I thus feel guilty. I subsequently consult the Web site's quiz-specific conservation guide, hoping to gain some insight into which specific behaviors contribute to my planet's downfall. What I find, however, verges on asinine.

The top tip EarthDay.net offers me is predictable: I should replace my most common household appliances with machines or devices that are more energy efficient. Although I have not the resources to make any such purchases right now, I estimate their cost using BestBuy.com anyway. My findings are hardly surprising. To replace the old refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner and television in my apartment with the cheapest (and smallest) ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances on the market, it would cost me approximately $1,900, sans delivery and tax. This hefty sum excludes a host of other inefficient appliances that I normally use -- including my laptop and stove, for instance -- which would presumably cost me even more to replace.

(Click to read more about the quiz and what it means.)
The Web site also suggests I reduce my daily animal product intake by half, meat and poultry especially. I find this section considerably troubling, given that I eat poultry (never meat), at most twice per week. But I note it anyway: Abstaining from chicken and turkey saves me a few dollars -- until I decide to purchase an equivalent, pre-packaged good (which the Web site also discourages). On balance, I find I've actually spent more money than I would have normally budgeted for food, probably in a halfhearted attempt to purchase only those items packaged using recyclable materials. I also discover that I've produced about two times as much waste as I would have if I just ate the damn chicken sandwich I wanted in the first place.

Discouraged, I return to my checklist to note one final peculiarity -- my "energy land" consumption is massive. I start playing with the quiz's questions in a feeble attempt to lower this rating, and I discover only one: Turning off all power to my apartment, which somehow only reduces my overall Ecological Footprint by .2 global acres. I note similar changes to this measurement when I consent to living in a small house without any running water, or otherwise deprive myself of basic human amenities (that my apartment, much less the District, would not let me shut off even if I asked). I realize, at this point, that there's little net benefit to such massive inconvenience -- maybe $120 saved each month so that I can write this article in the dark without Internet -- so I quit the quiz and begin reflecting.

And it is at that point I realize I'm not alone in my frustration. It is somewhat indisputable that addressing global warming is a unparalleled "moral imperative," as the Goreacle told lawmakers at a committee hearing last week. The perennial images of melting ice caps and potent storms are haptic reminders of humankind's manifest wrath on the lonely planet that they greedily inhabit. To be sure, the green movement has its doubters, some of whom have received more attention than is naturally warranted. But Americans on balance seem to be slowly admitting their role in the Earth's progressive climate change, even if they are simultaneously taking credit for breakthroughs that are wholly fictional.

Consequently, it is no longer guilt or doubt preventing scores of Americans from altering their lifestyles in the name of a global pursuit. Rather, it's the economy: Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, suggests rationalism, an implicit understanding of losses and gains, and amid America's economic meltdown, that calculation has itself become a contradiction. How does a family without a steady income outfit their empty kitchen with a new set of energy-efficient appliances? How can an underpaid D.C.-based, entry-level journalist afford an energy efficient car, much less any personal form of transportation? And why should either feel guilty for those inabilities?

Hypotheticals aside, this has been the ubiquitous struggle of the modern environmentalist movement: how to balance a legitimate, rational concern for the environment with the equally legitimate, equally rational economic constraints that tug constantly at families' wallets. The green thumbs among us have not an answer to this quandary, and it is evident in a number of their public information campaigns -- this quiz included. Indeed, I reckon I am not the only college student this weekend to question the utility of Earth Day-induced guilt; it is 88 degrees Fahrenheit here, which is hot even by the District's standards. I also know I'm hardly the only soul too poor to afford to save the planet. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I can't -- at least, by the real environmentalists' rigid standards.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Google Maps Parts of Ocean; Al Gore Approves

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-03T08:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, Science

Thanks to Google, now you, too, can be Jacques Cousteau. And you don't even need to put on a bathing suit.

The popular search engine has updated its Google Earth software to include large parts of the ocean, so users can "dive" under the water and explore what lies beneath the surface.

According to a BBC article, Google hopes this new feature is just the first step towards mapping the entire ocean. The majority of the planet Earth is covered by water -- about 70 percent -- but only about five percent of it has been explored, so this will be no small feat.

The company's new application is pretty cool. Al Gore, the former vice president, Nobel Prize winner and all around go-to guy for things involving the environment, spoke at the launch event in San Francisco. He said the ocean exploring capability makes Google Earth a "magical experience."

Al Gore did the impossible by making PowerPoint presentations cool, so I figured he knows a good thing when he sees it.

And Google Earth's new ocean search feature is pretty magical. But it looks like Google needs to get some more oceanographers on staff, because the land exploration feature is still far, far advanced.

I did get to dive under water, however, without even leaving my dorm room.

The coolest feature I tried out was swimming through the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Francisco with a female white shark. Cousteau would have loved it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Chides Washingtonians for Taking a Snow Day

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-01-29T09:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, News

President Obama has ticked off a lot of kids in the Washington, D.C. area who wore their clothes inside out and backwards to usher in a snow day.

Snow and ice hit the region this week, causing schools in the District and surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia to close.

Sidwell Friends, the private Washington school Obama's daughters Sash and Malia attend, was one of several that closed Wednesday.

Obama grew up in Hawaii but he's been living in Chicago, a city where snow doesn't mean a snow day, for many years. Speaking before a meeting in the White House, he seemed shocked that "some ice" had closed down his daughters' schools.

"We're going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town," Obama said, according to an article in The Washington Post.

According to Politico, a reporter asked the president if he was saying Washingtonians were wimps.Obama answered tactfully: "I'm saying that went it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things." You can watch the video here.

I'm a native of Montgomery County, Maryland, which borders the District of Columbia, so I am very familiar with the area's knee-jerk school closures for snow.

Children who grew up in the D.C. metro region with the belief that wearing pajamas inside out and backwards would yield a snow day very often had their wishes come true.

I can remember, very distinctly, a winter day when I was in grade school, and class was cancelled at midday due to the chance of snow.

The region does get very heavy snow and ice at times, however. Even in those cases, school closures were extreme. There were times when I was in high school when we we would get a foot of snow, then have school off for an entire week.

Poking fun at the region's love of snow days was a risky move for Obama, the new guy in town. Many Washingtonians are very defensive of their need to stay home when it snows.

When I checked the Washington Post's Web site around midnight Wednesday, the article about Obama's comments on snowy Washington was one of the most viewed articles, only falling behind a story about the House passing the stimulus bill.

In the course of my 13 years of education in Maryland, I had a lot of snow days, so take it from me, Sasha and Malia: Over the next four years, while students in heartier parts of the country trudge to school, you are going to be making a lot of snowmen on the White House lawn.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Interior Decorator Obama?

Catherine Cullen — 2008-11-24T11:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Environment, Brown University

Now that Barack Obama is set to take over the presidency, he may soon find himself in another role: White House Interior Decorator.

After the Obamas tour of the White House on November 11, people are speculating about what changes they will make to the building. Last week Slate published an article on the changing decor of the White House over the years. Apparently there is a Congressional budget set aside every four years for the first family to redecorate their new digs. (Or not so. George and Laura Bush were given $100,000 to revamp the rooms for his second term.)

The presidential family has significant control over their private apartments, which comprise the top two floors of the White House. Everything from paint color to wallpaper and furnishings is subject to change.
Other rooms are another story. If the first family wants to change historic rooms (like the Lincoln Bedroom and the Blue Room) they must appeal to the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. State rooms are reportedly only refurbished once a decade to keep them usable.

Past additions to the White House have included many sports facilities. Franklin Roosevelt built an indoor pool, Gerald Ford added an outdoor one, the first President Bush commissioned a horseshoe pit and Bill Clinton had a running track installed. Obama has already spoken about plans to expand the current half-size basketball court to a full-sized one.

Designers have noted that the Obamas will face particular redecorating challenges in the current financial climate: with the economy in decline, the president can't afford to look flashy or ostentatious, spending lots of money on redecorating. Simple and elegant seems like the order of the day.

Others see the new political era of Obama as a chance for the White House to update as well. The Bush family made many green improvements to the White House during his term, adding low-flow shower heads, energy efficient lighting and solar panels. Obama's commitment to a green society should begin in his new home.

The last point of interest is the updating of the White House libraries. Much of the success of Obama's campaign can be attributed to his use of technology. Following the Obamas tour, the Associated Press asked several designers for their ideas to revamp the rooms. Lisa Laporta, from HGTV's "Designed to Sell," said she would like to see the library turned into an Internet lounge, with video conference capabilities.

Hopefully the White House's new look will mirror the innovative campaign we saw from Obama: going green and going digital in the coming years.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Campus Watch: WU Debate Day Happenings

Sam Guzik — 2008-10-02T15:32:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Environment, Small Campus, Big Story, On Campus, Washington University, News

As the nation's eye turns to Washington University, students, campaign supporters and the media are rubbing shoulders and sending sparks flying. Among the highlights from the day, in coordination with Student Life:

Outside a live MSNBC broadcast at Washington University middle-aged volunteers from the McCain campaign edged out students showing support for Obama. Members of the group said they were volunteers from Illinois, but would not give details about how they gained access to campus. Earlier in the week, the McCain campaign had solicited local fraternities with offers of cash for support.
A man wearing a green shirt and green pants quoted Mark Twain, giving a speech from a tree branch near the MSNBC booth against imperialism and war-mongering. The student did not come from an organization, nor did he seek to advance any specific cause, or provoke a reaction.
Major national and international media outlets have claimed that their reporters, who were assured credentials weeks ago, are not being let into the media filing room. The Commission on Presidential Debates has said that those reporters who have shown up today may not get credentialed.

For photos from the day, check below the fold.
Chao Yang, a graduate student in chemistry, made a button for herself at the CNN first time voter table.

Alex Fine, a sophomore at Washington University, carries a nine-foot windmill to advocate for sustainable energy. She represents the Washington University chapter of power vote, a national organization looking to encourage voters to consider the environment.

Check back throughout the day for more updates and profiles of protesters.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Can't Handle Vegetarianism? Try Kangaroo

Sam Guzik — 2008-08-14T11:21:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, International News, Washington University, Odd News

Looking for a way to run an eco-friendly barbecue this summer? Try serving up kangaroo meat to your guests instead of more traditional summer fare like hot dogs and hamburgers.

The BBC reports that Dr George Wilson, of the Australian Wildlife Services, has begun to advocate for raising the Australian mammal as a substitute for more traditional meat sources.

Raising livestock like cows and sheep produces significant quantities of methane gas, a greenhouse gas contributing to the global climate emergency. Because kangaroos have a different set of microorganisms in their gut they produce nearly no methane, thereby putting less strain on the environment.

Methane's warming potential over a 100-year time frame is 21 times higher than that of carbon dioxide, but because it lasts in the atmosphere for a shorter time cutting its production could have a noticeable impact in the short-term.

Removing seven million cattle and 36 million sheep by 2020 and replacing them with 175 million kangaroos, to produce the same amount of meat, could lower Australia's greenhouse gases by 3 percent a year, said a study conducted at the University of New South Wales according to Reuters.

Australia already produces 30 million kangaroos farmed by landholders in the outback, but that number would need to increase significantly to account for the meat eaten around the world. Nevertheless, Dr. Wilson thinks that the world could adjust: "It tastes excellent, not unlike venison - only a different flavor," he told the BBC.

Like the United States, Australia is currently trying to find ways to reduce it's carbon footprint because it emits 28.1 metric tons of carbon per person, the highest per capita in the developed world and five times more per person than China, due to use of coal for electricity.

Despite having a high per capita rate of emission, Australia's overall emissions are relatively low, accounting for 1.5% of the global total. By way of comparison, the United States accounts for 22% of global carbon emissions, the highest rate worldwide.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Still Looking For Quick Fixes on Energy

Sam Guzik — 2008-06-18T11:35:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, Washington University

Earlier today President Bush urged Congress to lift a longstanding ban on off-shore oil and gas drilling. Saying "There is no excuse for delay," President Bush made the case that American families are looking for Washington to respond to gas prices that are topping $4 a gallon nationwide.

President Bush's proposal would rescind an executive order passed by his father and would open the continental shelf up for potential oil exploration as well as removing restrictions on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (pictured above), oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and the regulatory processes that oversee oil refining capacity.

More than 25 years after President Jimmy Carter asked Americans to make hard sacrifices to end our dependence on foreign energy the United States is equally - if not more - dependent on oil than ever and the only solutions in sight are those that will increase our reliance on traditional energy supplies.

Among those sacrifices President Carter asked Americans to make: set their thermostat lower, carpool and avoid unnecessary trips. "Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism," he said during his now infamous "Crisis of Confidence" Speech.

When President Carter made his speech, he was ridiculed for urging sacrifice and change. It didn't help that he also began to wear a cardigan sweater, but his ideas were not taken seriously.

It seems that in 25 years we have learned nothing.

As President Bush acknowledged during his statement this morning, there are no quick fixes in energy policy. While the President was referring to the time it would take for oil and gas drilled in these new regions to enter the national supply, what he should have been referring to was the need to change our attitudes toward oil to reflect the new global economy.

As China, India and other developing nations come online, the global energy supply will only be squeezed more tightly.

The solution is not to find new supplies of oil (which will undoubtedly run dry sooner or later), but to find new supplies of renewable energy. We must start thinking outside the box and look for new ways to power our homes, our cars and our factories. We must challenge the assumptions that have guided us this far and be mindful of the fact that our actions have direct consequences on the environment.

As Jimmy Carter said, nearly prophetically, more than 25 years ago: "The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Today's Highlights

Joshua Sharp — 2008-05-20T15:40:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Environment

CHINA'S STATE-RUN MEDIA says 32 radiation sources buried by the earthquake have been discovered and most have been safely defused. The article quotes "[a]n official at a French nuclear watchdog who has seen reports from the Chinese nuclear safety agency," and the Xinhua news agency, but China hardly has the moral high ground on environmental issues. One wonders how many other "hidden treasures" are poisoning the victims and rescue workers.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS are re-working their message, supposedly. Meanwhile, Politico reports top House Republican Rep. John Boehner is attracting criticism within his own party for not being aggressive enough after three major special election losses. More on this in the following days.

AN OVER-PROTECTIVE PARENT wants to cover up the "bikini baristas" at a Washington (state) coffee shop, calling the situation "terrifying." The situation is so alarming that the parent has started a petition against the private business, instead of just avoiding it entirely. No word yet whether she has ever been to a beach in Europe.

THE TENNESSEE GOP has launched a pitiful attack ad against Michelle Obama, bragging about how patriotic Republicans are and suggesting how anti-American Michelle is by contrast. Thankfully, two Republican Senators have stepped up to denounce the ad, which apparently featured a former strip club owner to represent the party of moral authority.

THE UNITED KINGDOM continues "sleepwalking into a surveillance society," all in the name of safety and security. This time, Government officials are considering the creation of a national database of all phone calls and e-mails. I just returned from a semester abroad in Scotland, where the UK's privacy concessions already make the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights, with CCTV cameras posted virtually everywhere. One double-decker bus I rode had not one, not two, but eight cameras running at once! These policies should concern all Americans, because they often foreshadow similar concessions in the U.S.

SOLID READING: Politico's Patrick O'Connor goes behind-the-scenes of a recent House vote on war funding. The WashPost reviews John McCain's "rapid-fire responders." NY Post's Ralph Peters lashes out at the media "blackout" on success in Iraq. Sen. McCain serves up some Straight Talk on the Farm Bill.

GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS are taking comfort in new projections which suggest global warming may "pause" until 2015 or later, writes Lorne Gunter of the National Post. Whether this new science is right or wrong, it hardly warrants a pause in our efforts to combat climate change. Though Gunter concedes this at the very end of the column, the author's arrogant cynicism is unsettling. It's helpful to support further scientific inquiry, but not to trash the current conclusions of decades of research.

Incidentally, guest host Laura Ingraham also used her Talking Points time on "The O'Reilly Factor" yesterday to exaggerate the perils of environmental activism:

"For liberals like Obama, climate change represents their chance to effectively outlaw the American way of life. That's right. Something that they have wanted to do for decades."

She's previously accused me, a staunch Republican, of "[sounding] like Obama" - so perhaps she does live in an alternate universe.

DIG OF THE DAY: "In case you missed it, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have agreed to raise your taxes, to regulate your business more than ever, and to spend more of your money in Washington. That's their idea of 'change,' but it sure sounds familiar to me." -- John McCain, per the Boston Globe.

FLOATING THOUGHT: Will McCain's accusation that Obama wants to sit down "unconditionally" with our enemies (an incomplete characterization, at best) become the general election's version of McCain's misleading criticism of Mitt Romney for supporting "a timetable for withdrawal"?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments