Zipcar for Conn?

Would you like to see Zipcar come to Conn?

Zipcar is a car-sharing program where you can reserve a snazzy vehicle when you need it, just by signing up and paying the minimal monthly fee. You drive the car when you need to, and return it to its special parking space when you’re done. It’s way cheaper than owning a car yourself. They have a program where a university can sign up and get discounts for its students, as well as a few cars just for use by the community of that school. I’ve seen the Amherst College and Smith College cars; it’s pretty cool. Zipcar also just merged with its big West Coast competitor, Flexcar, and will now have about 180,000 members across the country.

Anyway, we might start investigating getting Zipcar at Conn. Anyone interested?

Maybe not the new black, but cool nonetheless.

You hear it all the time. Switch your lightbulbs to compact fluorescents. Drive less, or drive a better car. Unplug your appliances or switch off their powerstrip when you’re not using them. But could these things possibly solve the immense problem that they’re designed to address? Climate change is an extremely momentous phenomenon; it doesn’t seem like these little things really make that much of a difference.

Well, you’re right. Individually, they don’t make a big difference. The atmosphere is getting filled with about an extra 32.7 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide each year (IPCC Working Group 1 summary). Doing all three of those things I mentioned will reduce a college student’s CO2 footprint by about 4700 pounds per year (rough estimate based on lots of actual numbers—email me if you’re curious). That’s several orders of magnitude too little to save the world handily all by yourself, unfortunately.

However, these things are still important. You’ve heard all of the “if everyone did this” talk before, but one person changing is not the same as everyone changing, and it still seems like insignificant action to take as an individual. But little lifestyle changes really are important, because there are more reasons to do them than their inherent benefit.

Here’s the deal. The only way we have a chance of solving the climate crisis at the same time as keeping pretty much the same standard of living is by powering everything with renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal, etc. In addition to neutralizing the carbon footprint of our electricity use, if we make all vehicles electric, this large-scale renewable energy ramp-up will green our transportation as well.

But how do little college students effect this massive change in our energy portfolio? Well, it’s hard. It’s not 10-page-paper-due-at-9am-tomorrow hard, either, otherwise it would be done already, just like my Philosophy paper.

It’s hard. But it’s possible, through increasing the awareness of everyone around us. The more we think about environmental solutions and talk about them and demonstrate that we care, the more people will notice. Telling those politicians (who purport to represent us) about how much we care about these issues helps too. Influence everyone you interact with.

You may be thinking, “I don’t know…those seem like good ideals, but I’m lazy and don’t want to seem all lame and earthy-crunchy”. But dude, environmentalism is so fly right now, you don’t even know. People like to say “green is the new black”, but I mean, really, black’s still black. But it is extremely exciting right now to get involved with environmental efforts. Look at all the cool stuff Renewable Energy Club is doing: Concert for Conservation and Blackout Night (did you see those fire-twirlers?) are sweet ways to get involved and let everyone know you like to party AND save energy.

Sierra Club’s Top Ten Schools

The Sierra Club (one of the largest environmental nonprofits in the country) just produced a list of the top 10 (+8 honorable mention) colleges and universities in the United States. Conn is not on the list. What impact does this have on our administration’s and admissions office’s claims that we are a leader in environmental issues? Certainly, the Goodwin-Niering Center was one of the first of its kind, as was our proto-Environmental Studies major back in the day. But we’ve fallen far behind our peers. Let’s get back on board.

Here’s the list:

1. Oberlin College
2. Harvard University
3. Warren Wilson College
4. University of California system
5. Duke University
6. Middlebury College
7. Berea College
8. Pennsylvania State University
9. Tufts University
10. Carnegie Mellon University

Honorable Mention:

• Arizona State University
• Bowdoin College
• Carleton College
• Emory University
• Northern Arizona University
• Northwestern University
• Stanford University
• Yale University

::Grist News

A Response to Climate Waffling

This was first published in The College Voice on 10/19/07

I was troubled to read in the Voice two weeks ago a letter criticizing my use of established climate science. It seems the writer of the letter thinks that everything will be fine if we keep living as we have, and that he doesn’t trust the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, the scientific majority represented by the IPCC determined that climate change is primarily caused by humans, and this means that if we’re to protect ourselves, our families, and our land, we’re going to have to make some serious lifestyle adjustments.

Questioning the infallibility of the IPCC report is completely justified: nothing is ever sure in science. No theory in science is ever proven correct; it can only be temporarily upheld. It is wide acceptance throughout the scientific community, not certainty, that gives theories authority. That said, the 2001 Third Assessment by the IPCC was one of the most heavily peer-reviewed scientific documents ever, and the more current Fourth Assessment represents an even stronger consensus. For more information, visit http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49.

As the writer of the letter mentions, the climate has actually been warming for a long time, before the start of industrialization and the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact, the planet has been warming for approximately 17,000 years. What is new, though, is an extreme increase in the rate of warming, occurring within the past century. Due to this acceleration’s proximity to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, most climate scientists accept these as the source of recent warming.

Many studies are cited in the letter which suggest that solar irradiance and water vapor are more significant causes of climate change than greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, most of these are from a journal (Geophysical Research Letters) that is subscription-only and not available to students at the library. Thus, it is difficult for me to specifically address the data presented in these studies. However, according to the IPCC report from April 2007, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (Working Group 2 summary, IPCC) Also, according to one of the many charts provided in the summaries of the report, greenhouse gases account for approximately 10 times the effect of solar irradiance and stratospheric water vapor combined.

It is true, though, that at least water vapor in the atmosphere does play a big part in the greenhouse effect. There is an important distinction to be made, though. As the air gets warmer, it can hold more water in suspension, which in turn contributes to the greenhouse effect and makes the air get even warmer. It’s called a feedback loop. But the key concept there is that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases do the main part of the warming, prior to water vapor having an effect.

In further objection to the assertion that the sun is the main contributor to climate change, I must note a few studies. According to the World Radiation Center, there has been no major increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, which is as far back as we have satellite data for (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant). Furthermore, the Max Planck Institute in Germany has attempted to reconstruct historical solar irradiance, and shows that there has been no significant change since 1940 (http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif), the period in which the greatest temperature change has occurred.

The writer of the letter makes one valuable point, regarding hybrids: it is important to do sufficient research before you make claims about the relative environmental worth of various products. However, the writer doesn’t seem to have followed his own advice here. He attempts to initiate a life-cycle assessment (LCA for short, the standard way of determining environmental impacts), but barely smudges the paint job: he describes some of the detrimental effects of producing nickel for hybrid batteries but fails to consider the equally (if not more) horrendous consequences of petroleum production. He may have been influenced by another attempt at a full LCA, cited in The Economist and conducted by CNW Marketing Research, Inc. about a year ago. This report concluded, roughly, that diesel vehicles are better for the environment than are hybrids. However, there are numerous problems with this LCA attempt, discussed in depth in this article from Grist Magazine: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/732. If you are interested, please read it.

Finally, if you have any quibbles about what you take to be the “gospel truth” of climate science, please check out www.realclimate.org.

Letter in Response to “If Life Gives You Lemons”

This letter, written by a Physics professor (and coincidentally, my former faculty advisor), appeared in the 9/28/07 edition of the College Voice.

Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s column of September 21 caught my attention. He seems to accept what has now become “gospel truth”: that any emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing. I would like to point out that there are now many numerous studies in well-respected journals that challenge this very assertion. Like Sam Clemens, the rumors of the death of the global warming debate have been greatly exaggerated.

Despite Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s assertion that carbon dioxide is a primary greenhouse gas, I would like to point out that instead water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas with an effect many order of magnitudes larger than that of CO2. It is in no way settled as to why there is a global temperature rise, however new data is very telling. A paper, from Duke in the last few months, shows a very striking correlation between global temperature and the solar strength. Long term data shows the global temperature has been rising since 1650 AD; well before any industrialization (Scafetta and West, Geophysical Res. Lett, 2006). Another paper demonstrates a strong correlation between the solar influence on the heliosphere and the cosmic ray influx and its role in cloud formation which can have a greater influence on climate change than CO2 levels. (Scherer et al, Space Science Reviews, 2006). Another study shows solar variation as a principle cause of Arctic temperature variations for the last 130 years (Soon, Geophysical Res. Lett., vol32, L16712, 2005). I could go on, but my point is that the scientific debate is far from settled, and trying to influence people’s life style choices based on a point of science that is under intense scrutiny is not advisable.

Before suggesting to someone about their SUV “that it’s kind of disgusting how much their car pollutes”, a student might want to calculate the amount of nickel in a typical hybrid car. From there one can calculate the energy costs to mine the nickel, transport it to a refining mill, the amount of energy needed to refine the element, the energy costs to transport the nickel to the battery plant, the energy to make the battery, and finally the energy cost to produce the hybrid. Compare that number to the energy cost savings of an additional 10 mpg and the payback time. One can then calculate the net total energy cost to the planet from the SUV compared to the hybrid. I leave it as a student exercise. Hint: Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from Sudbury, Ontario each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it’s manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota’s battery plant in Japan (Philadelphia Inquirer, April 4, 2007). All of these shipments go via diesel powered ocean going freighters and diesel-electric trains.

Extracting Money from Your Gas Tank

This was first published in The College Voice on 9/28/07

Hey, do you want some cash? I’ve got some for you. Well, I don’t have it here. It’s actually in your gas tank, and in your wallet. And guess what, you can get this cash and ease your environmental conscience at the same time. Just think about these things:
I’ll tell you about the money first. The current national average for gas prices is $2.79, which is up 37 cents from a year ago and down 39 cents from the all-time high in May. And gas prices are likely to go up in the future.

The most efficient car on the road, according to fueleconomy.gov, is the Toyota Prius, surprise surprise. It gets about 47 mpg. That’s about 6 cents per mile. A standard midsize car gets about 26 mpg. That’s about 11 cents per mile. An SUV gets about 20 mpg at best. That’s about 14 cents per mile. The average American drives about 11000 miles per year. That’s $660/yr for a Prius, $1210/yr for a midsize car, and $1540/yr for an SUV.

That means, switching from an SUV to a midsize car saves you about $330 per year in gas, and getting a small hybrid like a Prius can save you an additional $550.

Now the climate benefits: as I mentioned two weeks ago, greenhouse gases from transportation fuel use are one of the main causes of climate change. One gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. That may seem like a lot, but remember that the gasoline molecules combine with oxygen molecules when they burn in your engine.

So, the best SUVs emit about a pound of carbon dioxide for every mile they’re driven, whereas a midsize car emits about .77 pounds, and a Prius emits about .43 pounds. That means you’re reducing your emissions by about 25% by switching from an SUV to a midsize car, and more than 50% by switching from SUV to Prius. The improvement is pretty clear.

Frequently our parents give us the car we have. You can’t really refuse a car that’s given to you as a gift. But you can express your disapproval of your parents’ and friends’ lifestyles, and the more disapproval SUV-buyers hear, the less frequently they’ll buy SUVs.

However, I’ve seen a few influential members of the student body driving around looking pretty happy about their SUVs, and I just want to say to you folks: people look up to you. I urge you to send a message of responsibility and compassion, not one of immaturity and carelessness.

If Life Gives You Lemons, Throw Them at SUVs

This was first published in The College Voice on 9/21/07

For some reason, it’s hard to do really simple things. That seems oxymoronic, but I’m talking about all the really easy, small, pain-free lifestyle changes we can make to save our world from the cataclysmic changes that are probable if we don’t do anything different. I told you a few last week: use less energy and drive less.

Two other changes that are frequently associated with “environmentalism” are going vegetarian and scorning SUVs. There are good reasons for both of these, but some people take it farther than reason dictates.

The average SUV gets about 15-20 mpg, if that. The best non-hybrid cars get around 30-35 and small hybrids get around 45-50 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline that is combusted in a car produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, which you remember is the primary greenhouse gas. So, SUVs emit about twice as much bad stuff as normal cars, and about three times as much as the best hybrids. Every 15-20 miles you drive in an SUV isn’t just a few more dollars out of your pocket, it’s at least 10 more pounds of greenhouse gases than someone driving a normal car.

There are pretty substantial reasons for going vegetarian, too. There are ethical reasons and health reasons, but the ones that sway me are the climate change reasons. There was a study recently that determined that it takes 36 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions to make 1 pound of beef. Other types of meat are better, but not much. If that doesn’t make sense to you, think of all the petroleum-based chemicals sprayed on the corn feed, all the gas for the machines that harvest the corn, all the gas to transport the cows from one place to another, then to transport the meet from one place to another. It’s a whole lot of oil that goes into those animals.

So SUVs use more gas than is necessary for the job most of them do. Meat production uses a lot more oil than does the production of most plant-based protein. Most “environmentalists” don’t like driving in SUVs, and many try to avoid meat in their diet as much as possible.

However, I realized recently that what’s important in both these cases is not as much the actual driving in the SUV or eating the meat, but rather maintaining demand by buying it. Certainly each mile in an SUV means more bad stuff in the air, and each steak has a history of emissions behind it. But, if someone has meat leftover that’s just going to be thrown away otherwise, unless you have health reasons for not eating meat, there’s nothing wrong with eating it. Likewise, if you and a group of people are going somewhere, and the car that’s being taken is an SUV, it’s silly to refuse to go solely because it’s an inefficient vehicle. At college, not many of us have much choice in what sort of car we drive. The best you can do in a lot of cases is just point out to the car’s owner that it’s kind of disgusting how much their car pollutes, and leave it at that. It’s good to be pushy, bad to be a jerk about it.

Kermit Was Wrong; It Is Easy!

This was first published in The College Voice on 9/14/07

You care about the environment, right? Well, sure, everyone does. It doesn’t make any sense to not “care about the environment.” As Al Gore says in that movie he made, “On one side we have gold bars…on the other side…the entire planet!” The point is, “the environment” is not some abstract entity; it’s Connecticut College, it’s you, it’s me, it’s ski slopes, it’s sandy beaches, it’s New York City, it’s the land your coffee is grown on, it’s the relative lack of disease-carrying insects in your back yard. Not caring about oneself and one’s peers isn’t just apathetic; it’s atrocious.

I highly doubt that anyone at our school is really that uncaring. We all care about our surroundings, and thus the environment. But what can we do to protect it? One of the biggest threats these days is climate change. Climate change is caused overwhelmingly by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases primarily consist of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. There are several primary sources of these gases with the main two being energy use and fossil fuel combustion for transportation. Reducing our contributions to these two causes can really do a lot to help.

Energy use is mostly the result of heating/cooling and the use of electrical appliances (which include lights, computers, lava lamps, TVs, fridges, TiVo, microwaves, fans, and anything else you plug into the wall). Turning these things off when not in use is a really big step that one can make toward saving ourselves from climate change. In addition to the electricity that they use when they’re on, most modern appliances use a reduced amount of energy even when they’re off, as long as they’re plugged in. It’s called phantom load. For example, a TV that’s on 3 hours in a day uses about as much electricity in the 21 hours it’s off as when it’s on, if it’s plugged in throughout that time. Luckily, most power strips come with handy-dandy switches, so it’s really easy to just flip that switch whenever you’re leaving the room or going to sleep.

Then there’s transportation. Most trips by car are only a few miles long and could be accomplished on a bicycle. If you don’t have a bike or don’t know how to get anywhere safely on one, there’s a new student bike group on campus called Spokespeople, and they exist to alleviate those two problems. Some trips do really need a car, though. For those situations, the best thing to do is to think a little and consolidate your trips to Target, the mall or wherever you’re going. “Measure twice, cut once,” as my mom says anytime I go near a piece of wood with a saw. It’s the same idea.

So, for my first column, there are some of the most basic things that we can all do quite easily to save ourselves from the mess our culture has gotten itself into. Really turn stuff off when you’re not using it, ride a bike instead of driving when possible, and consolidate all those shopping trips.