In the energy audit GRIN (Green It Now) did on the GREEN House (Group Residence for Environmental Engagement at Northwestern), one of the sections describes replacing the already CFL exit signs with LED exit signs.

For an energy savings of 1,723 kilowatt hours each year, I thought I’d check it out.

It’s plain that the LED light bulb is more energy efficient than the CFL we’ve all come to love as the new green way to go when our bulbs burn out, but when they currently cost up to ten times as much, maybe waiting until technological advances bring that cost down would be a better choice given our current economical state.

Check out all the details here.

If you haven’t heard, green roofs are the latest eco-friendly trend to hit Chicago, with 200+ roofs covered in vegetation. Well, a recent New York Times article revealed that the green revolution is spreading down from our roofs. A company called Green Living Technologies is selling instructions for making garden walls. Using portable metal slats, each section holds soil and seeds, creating the “edible wall.” And like green roofs, green walls provide insulation, reducing heating and cooling costs, and overall, energy consumption. As more people adopt green walls, theoretically, this will combat high food costs and the energy use to transport fruits and vegetables long distances. It’s a win-win, with a tasty bonus.

Check out the full article here.

This is a line we’ve either heard, told someone else, or grumbled to ourselves:

“I would be more eco-friendly, but it’s so inconvenient, and sometimes it’s annoying. I mean, people are always telling me to ‘Turn of the lights!’ or ‘get out of the shower…’”
Or:
“I really am a good person, but sometimes those little things are hard to give up, and you are asking too much.”

Sound familiar? Well, if you’re reading this blog, you’ve probably heard the line from someone else, but then the question is, how do you reply? (Read more…)

Did you attend the screening of King Corn presented by the Main Library’s Staff Development Film Series? Or have you watched before?

If so, share your thoughts on the film by clicking on the comments link below!

Come join fellow students, faculty and staff tomorrow, 11/17, for the second installment of the Main Library’s Staff Development Film Series, coordinated with this year’s One Book One Northwestern project.

From the producers, “King Corn” charts the course of two friends

“…who move from the east coast to the heartland to learn where their food comes from.  With the help of friendly neighbors, genetically modified seeds, nitrogen fertilizers, and powerful herbicides, they plant and grow a bumper crop of America’s most-productive, most-subsidized grain on one acre of Iowa soil.  But when they try to follow their pile of corn into the food system, what they find raises troubling questions about how we eat – and how we farm.”

Ultimately, the story of American agriculture touches on a multitude of the topics you commonly hear about in the national dialogue on sustainability and the environment – water use, adaptation to climate change, the politics of our energy use, and where (and how) we get our food, just to name a few.

One Book is working to start a conversation about these topics as well. In October, we organized students to prep and plant a garden on-campus, in coordination with ISEN, Facilities Management and Norris.  With the direction of students representing multiple groups, we hope to use the project as a jumping off point for discussions about agriculture, sustainable gardening and our food supply, among other things.

We look forward to seeing you tomorrow to join in this fascinating conversation.  Check back tomorrow for an opportunity to share your thoughts on the film.

Details:
NU Main Library
The Forum Room
Tuesday, 11/17/09
12pm – 2pm

If you aren’t able to join us for the screening, you can still read more about the movie at www.kingcorn.net.

The data are in for my household’s first month on ComEd’s Residential Real-Time Pricing Program, or RRTP for short. The good news – we saved $12 (nearly 14%!) on our October electricity bill.  How do I know this?  ComEd has an informative (while clunkily designed) website. With some patient navigation, I was able to uncover a surprising wealth of data about our household’s electrical usage. Here are the highlights. (Read more…)

One of the nicest developments in the past few years is the growing coverage of alternative energy science by the media.  While science had seemed to take a back-burner (and perhaps still does) to the ever-increasing need for kitsch news stories and celebrity updates, a more informed and aware public is coercing the media to write more stories about energy and climate.  Perhaps that is the cart before the horse, but in my opinion, the media tends to follow that which the public will read.

With that in mind, I find more and more links to interesting articles about new technologies that are being developed.  For example, a few months ago a short list of “Crazy energy ideas that might just work” was published on msnbc.com.  I really enjoy these types of stories because they highlight the need for innovation, whether it is successful or not.  Any good investment agency knows that not every idea will pan out, but that an environment that fosters innovation will bring success in the long run.

Of the ideas listed in this article, I like the energy islands the most.  I think the opportunity to combine technologies to solve a number of energy problems in one scenario (such as solar electricity generation combined with solid electrolyzer & fuel cells) provides a synergy that reduces needs for energy transmission and increases overall efficiency.  While this can be achieved in one large system such as the proposed islands, these combined scenarios could also be feasible on the scale of a household or a small community.

On this subject, please leave comments regarding “crazy energy ideas” that you have seen recently or are working on yourself, no matter how big or small, keeping in mind that “crazy” is only a matter of perspective.  Who knows, maybe ten years from now we’ll all have artificial electricity-producing trees in our yards.

We live in a world of increasing demands and finite resources.  So renewable resources would help solve our problem right?  Anything that can be made from a renewable source should be correct?  Not necessarily.

There are more and more bio-based plastics on the market.  Many retailers and restaurant outlets tout that they are “green” because they use disposable plastics made from corn instead of oil.  The makers of the corn cups claim they are compostable.  But, in this area, we do not have access to commercial composting.  There is a new law in Illinois that will hopefully increase opportunities but it will take a while for new composting facilities to be established.   And many composters do not accept the corn-based plastics because they do not break down quickly enough for their operations.

Corn cups are NOT recyclable. Distributors will tell you they are, but the only reason they really “get by” in recycling is because the volume is low, for now. But, if they keep selling them, they will become a bigger problem.  They are not recyclable with the established recycling programs and infrastructure.

Manufacturers also claim that the corn-based plastics break down in landfills. Landfills are designed NOT to allow decomposition as that process jeopardizes the landfill structure and stability and increases the likelihood of leachate.  Also, decomposition raises methane levels which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.  Excavation of landfills has found even food scraps that remain unchanged after decades in a landfill.  And corn cups, at least here, are destined for the landfill since neither composting nor recycling is an option.

The overall impact of growing corn is something else to consider.  High levels of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides are required. Consider too the energy in planting/harvesting, and concerns about genetically modified crops.  The impact of renewable resources can be pretty significant.  Beyond that, with corn you get into the issue of using a food product for a non-food use and what that does to the food supply and costs.  I’m definitely not an economist but know there are some out there…  here’s my call for response on this point!

Reusables are best. If disposables are necessary, there isn’t an easy, cut and dry answer to what is better.  Better compost operations and infrastructure are needed.  Better markets for recyclables and more items made from recycled content are needed.  There’s a lot of green-washing out there, so think before swallowing marketing claims.  Considering the established infrastructure and readily available options for recycling, a recyclable option is preferable to one that has to be disposed as trash.

If you don’t want to take my word for it or just want to learn more, check out these links:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/green/chi-chicago-botanic-recycle-11-oct11,0,7747312.story

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-12-ask-umbra-truth-corn-plastic

http://www.patagonia.com/web/eu/patagonia.go?slc=en_GB&sct=GB&&assetid=9090

http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/patagonia.go?slc=en_US&sct=US&assetid=2419

So mission #1 to Copenhagen was unsuccessful and the U.S. lost the bid to host the 2016 Olympics. It may have been a blow to our nation’s self-esteem, but fortunately there is still another mission to Copenhagen that could restore our pride.

On December 7, leaders from around the world will meet in Copenhagen for the COP15 Conference to discuss a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The world is watching our country to see if we are willing to step forward as leaders in the fight against global warming. Copenhagen is our chance to assume this leadership role and to prove to the world that we are serious about climate change.

But first, we need to prove it to ourselves.

Currently the Senate is locked in debate over the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, legislation that was introduced at the end of September by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020, as well as the creation of millions of jobs in the clean energy sector. In many ways, it is even more ambitious than the bill passed by the House earlier this year and is a great step forward in reducing our dependence on carbon.

The only problem now is time.

In order to demonstrate our commitment to mitigating climate change, we need to have this bill passed by the December conference. According to Annie Petsok of the Environmental Defense Council, without signed legislation, “the appearance to the international community would be that the U.S. Congress is just adrift.”

However, just over a week ago Obama’s top climate and energy aide remarked that having a completed U.S. climate bill is going to be nearly impossible before Copenhagen and that “we will go to Copenhagen and manage with whatever we have.”

I don’t know about other students at Northwestern, but if I went into an exam with an “I’ll manage with whatever I have” attitude, my GPA would be suffering the consequences. A lackadaisical, inactive approach to my schoolwork doesn’t work so well, and I’m going to venture a guess that the same applies to this climate legislation. Our country’s leadership, from the White House to Congress, needs to take decisive action to ensure that we have a bill passed by December 7.

I think that Copenhagen will be a pivotal moment in America’s history. We are either going to show the world that we’re not the global leaders that we proclaim we are, or we are going to renew our image as an innovative, strong, progressive nation. As Thomas Friedman said in Hot, Flat and Crowded, “The best way for America to get its ‘groove’ back is for us to take the lead in solving the world’s big problem.”

While I am disappointed that Obama’s mission to Cophenhagen to lobby for the Olympic bid was unsuccessful, I think that we can all eventually wipe away our tears and get on with our lives. His second visit to Copenhagen, however, has a little bit more at stake. We need to go in as prepared and ready to lead as possible.

Some of my economist friends complain that President Obama is being Leeroy Jenkins.  (If you don’t know the reference, take 2 minutes and 53 seconds and click here).

The basic environmental problem is that we pollute too much; we put out too many greenhouse gases.  The US has been negotiating for about 20 years to make these cutbacks…but so far, we’re like that circle of World of Warcraft players, yakking in a circle and accomplishing nothing.  Is it so hard to put a policy in place?

It’s not that hard.  Simply put there are four ways to go.

1)  Make polluters pay a tax equal to the damage that pollution does.  When it gets expensive to pollute, people quickly find ways and technologies to be clean.  This has been the standard economic prescription since the 1920s.

2)  Cap the allowable amount of pollution, distribute or sell the right to emit this limited pollution, then let people buy or sell these rights so that the producers who would make the most valuable use of them will outbid everyone else.  This is called “Cap & Trade”, and was designed by several economists in the 1970s.  It has worked well for controlling S02 pollution and is the main way that Europe is approaching the climate problem.  It’s also central to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the US House in June and the Boxer-Kerry bill that was just introduced in the Senate.

3)  ”Command & Control” where government makes rules that everyone is required to follow.  This would include banning incandescent light bulbs, increasing miles-per-gallon rules on cars, or requiring specific technologies or fuels for energy production.  This is also how the EPA would likely approach regulating power plants if Congress doesn’t pass a bill first.  Economists generally view Command & Control as being a more expensive way of achieving what could be done through pollution taxes or Cap & Trade.

4)  Kick the can down the road.  Until we know exactly what the best thing to do is…we just do nothing and hope that some cool solution will come to us in the future.

Hmm…which one of the four options are we most likely going to follow?

Like most economists, my preference would be to go with (1) Pollution Taxes, but I’d be fine with (2) Cap & Trade, even if the pollution permits are largely given out to polluters (not that I’d be happy about it…but stick with me here a minute).

But here’s where things start to go LEEROY JENKINS!  So far the Obama administration’s environmental initiatives have largely been (3) Command & Control.  Why?  It’s largely because those are the tools at the disposal of the Executive Branch, and the Command & Control approach will only get bigger if Congress doesn’t pass a climate bill, which will leave climate policy to the EPA.  So, while I don’t love (3), it’s better than doing nothing, and the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

As I watch the various healthcare reform bills grind through the many required Senate committees, and follow the often uninformed debates and crazy town hall meetings, I get depressed thinking about how the climate bill will have to follow exactly that same path, and how unlikely it would be to pass anything serious before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.  And if the US hasn’t passed a bill that sets up serious cuts in our emissions, it’s going to be hard to get any sort of worthwhile international agreement anytime soon.

It’s enough to make me wish for Leeroy Jenkins….