(2) Reducing and/or Reusing vs. (7) Energy Star Ratings. Let's get this party started!
Reducing and/or Reusing
Alright!! We get to complete the triad that forms the basis of the most iconic symbol in the Green Movement! (With Recycling, being the third, of course). Ultimately, one of these stems from the other. If you are Reusing things instead of throwing them away, you end up Reducing how much you need to buy in the future. I've included these separate from Recycling, because Recycling has an actual set of process associated with it.
Impact on the Environment (13/15):
Reducing is an idea that is so far reaching that it is at the core of most (if not all) of the other ideas that you'll see in this Tournament. "I want to Reduce the amount of gas I use; I'm going to buy a hybrid car." "I want to reduce the amount of paper I use; I should try Paperless Living." These are just two examples. And the environmental benefits are too numerous to list here. Decreased use of landfill space, less land and water needed to cultivate crops and livestock, less plastic ending up in the oceans, less air pollution coming from manufacturing plants, etc. If Reducing/Reusing makes it to the next round, there will be a more in depth discussion.
Practicality (2/10):
"2 points????" you might be thinking loudly to yourself, "why only 2 points? This one is so easy! I just drive my car less or replace my TV every 6 years instead of 5!" Well, yes and no. As amazing as Reducing is for the environment, it comes into direct conflict that everything that we, (as the computer-owning, Internet-using, blog-reading) the richer part of the world, want to see in society: progress and economic stability. Let's say you do buy a car every 10 years instead of every 5. The environment will be happy that you're not taking as much iron and aluminum out of the ground, but I can guarantee that Toyota won't be all that happy with you. And if big companies like Toyota aren't happy, neither is the economy. This means higher unemployment, higher crime rates, lower tax revenues, poorer infrastructure and countless other problems. The economy moves forward fastest when we're being purchase-and-dispose consumers, even if it hurts the environment.
Sustainability (7/10):
Much to the chagrin of economists who would probably like people to be spending more, one of the things that the poor economy has taught us is how to live without certain things. If you've learned that you can save money by riding your bike to work and Reducing the amount of gas you use, hopefully you'll keep up that habit even after the economy improves. Odds are you won't, but I'm an optimist when it comes to human behaviors, so you never know.
Awesomeness (7/10):
They're not in the same league as Recycling, but Reducing and Reusing are part of the saying that everyone uses to talk about Going Green, so they are pretty awesome in their own right.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Energy Star Ratings
When you think of Energy Star Ratings, you should really think of LEED certification, except for individual appliances and electronics instead of entire buildings. Created in 1992 by the EPA, the Energy Star system was created as a way to certify items that used significantly less energy than competing items in the market. Everything from light bulbs to washing machines can be Energy Star certified and are designated by the blue logo that says "Energy Star" on it.
Impact on the Environment (7/15):
Like LEED Certification, it's hard to say how much of an impact this has had on the environment. While I'd like to imagine that stores are more likely to stock Energy Star products and consumers are more likely to purchase Energy Star items, it's hard to say for sure how aware people are about Energy Star certification. I'd really like to see a study to see what percent of consumers take energy consumption into account when they purchase things, but for now, I'll give Energy Star ratings a fairly neutral 7 out of 10.
Practicality (5/10):
Again, it's hard to say if this really is practical. Are we wasting resources like time and money in order to certify things that people won't even take into consideration? Maybe. Maybe not.
Sustainability (8/10):
This rating system is fairly easy to sustain. Just as long as top government scientists are staying on top of current technologies in order to make sure that the best ideas are being rewarded fairly, this is something that can continue on for some time.
Awesomeness (5/10):
I don't know. Most people probably don't care one way or another if their product is Energy Star rated or not. The day I see someone walking around with a shirt with the Energy Star logo on it, maybe I'll change my mind, but for now, it gets a pretty neutral 5 out of 10.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Alright, let's tally those scores!
Reducing/Reusing: 29
Energy Star Ratings: 25
Well, with that we conclude the first round of the Green Practices Region! Check it out later this week to see (1) Biking take on (8) Buses in the kick off of the Green Travel Region!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Green Tip #96: Disney World, Part 3!
Happy Friday everyone!! Let's celebrate by talking about the final Disney Green Tip! It's been a good run while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end some day. And that day is today...
Anyway, this one will be a lesson not so much in what Disney World is doing right for the environment, but what we as consumers should be doing more of to help Disney World do the right thing. One of the things that I noticed while I was there was that many of the rides and attractions had open seats in them. But the thing is that most of those rides and attractions went on anyway even with those open seats. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but I started thinking about it and I realized that we were causing Disney to be less environmentally friendly by our actions.
Let me explain. These Disney rides will be running all day (during park hours) whether we are riding on them or not. And during that time that those cars are traveling along through a world filled with robotic ghosts or while the boats are floating passed little animatronic highly stereotyped dancing people, the same amount of energy is being used when we're on the ride as when we're not (probably a little more energy when we're on it because the motors have to work harder to pull our weight.) So the overall energy used by each ride is roughly the same from day to day. The number of riders, however, changes during the busy season and during the weekday versus the weekend. So the average energy used per visitor is lower during the busy seasons and higher during the off season.
What does this all mean for you? Well Green Tip #96 is this: Go to Disney World. We need to make sure that there are no empty cars on any of these rides, otherwise Disney World is wasting all that electricity just to push empty cars around. So fill those seats and make sure to have an amazing time saving the environment!!
Anyway, this one will be a lesson not so much in what Disney World is doing right for the environment, but what we as consumers should be doing more of to help Disney World do the right thing. One of the things that I noticed while I was there was that many of the rides and attractions had open seats in them. But the thing is that most of those rides and attractions went on anyway even with those open seats. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but I started thinking about it and I realized that we were causing Disney to be less environmentally friendly by our actions.
Let me explain. These Disney rides will be running all day (during park hours) whether we are riding on them or not. And during that time that those cars are traveling along through a world filled with robotic ghosts or while the boats are floating passed little animatronic highly stereotyped dancing people, the same amount of energy is being used when we're on the ride as when we're not (probably a little more energy when we're on it because the motors have to work harder to pull our weight.) So the overall energy used by each ride is roughly the same from day to day. The number of riders, however, changes during the busy season and during the weekday versus the weekend. So the average energy used per visitor is lower during the busy seasons and higher during the off season.
What does this all mean for you? Well Green Tip #96 is this: Go to Disney World. We need to make sure that there are no empty cars on any of these rides, otherwise Disney World is wasting all that electricity just to push empty cars around. So fill those seats and make sure to have an amazing time saving the environment!!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tournament Round 1, Match 3 - (3) Paperless Living vs. (6) Wildlife Conservation
(3) Paperless Living vs. (6) Wildlife Conservation. Let's do it!
Paperless Living
Aaaaaaaand in the red corner, weighing in at 0 pounds is the featherweight champion of the world!!! Paperless Living!!!! Should be pretty self-explanatory. If you still have questions, you can see me after class at my office hours.
Impact on the Environment (6/15):
Most people, when they first hear 'Paperless Living' think that it's a pretty good thing for the environment. While I'm not going to argue with that idea, it's really not as good for the environment as you might think. A whole lot of the paper being used today comes either from recycled post-consumer product or from sustainably managed tree farms (there's a better word for that which is escaping me right now). And let's not even get into the extra electricity that's needed to manage all of the computers that are needed to replace that paper.
Practicality (3/10):
Trying to be completely paperless is almost impossible with our current technology. Let's say I notice that I drank the last little bit of milk out of the milk jug and I want my roommate to pick up some more from the store. I'm going to leave a Post-It Note somewhere, not go out and buy an iPhone and stick that to the front of the fridge. Right now, it's not going to happen. In fact, paper usage increased as computers became more popular, so Paperless Living may be a trend that doesn't catch on for some time.
Sustainability (9/10):
I've got to say, for all the crap I've been giving Paperless Living so far, it would be really really easy to maintain if we ever got to that point. If we find a good way to ditch paper, people will stop buying printers and then the constant temptation to print driving directions will ease up a bit.
Awesomeness (5/10):
I guess it's okay... It saves my car from being cluttered with directions to everywhere I've been in the past few years, but really, you don't see a whole lot of commercials with celebrities talking about how cool their lives are now they don't have a printer at home.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife Conservation is pretty similar to Wetland Conservation except that this can cover not only places such as forests, but specific animals and types of plants. That and it's easier to turn a forest into a park than it is to turn a wetland into one.
Impact on the Environment (10/15):
Over the years, countless species have been saved from the brink of extinction by Wildlife Conservation efforts. But more importantly, cities are hotter on average than forests because the sunlight is absorbed by blacktop and concrete and all those good things as opposed to trees and plants that don't absorb heat. And even more importantly, trees and plants take in all the carbon dioxide that we have nothing better to do with than pump into the air and into the oceans.
Practicality (4/10):
Until someone can come up with a feasible way to live in tree houses, we need space for houses and movie theaters and candy shops and factories that manufacture tree houses. This is similar to Wetland Conservation, so check that one out for more.
Sustainability (9/10):
Even more than wetlands, forests will regrow the second we turn our backs for too long. I've always seen it as nature's just biding its time until we kill ourselves off or leave the planet and then it will all grow right back. For more on this idea, watch the show 'Life After People' or read the book 'The World Without Us.' As long as we don't cut down all the trees, we don't need to do much before it all bounces right back.
Awesomeness (8/10):
Forests are awesome. There's no denying that. And I have seen commercials with celebrities talking about how we should protect the Wildlife.
User Input (1/5):
On behalf of the Buckeye Trail, Wildlife Conservation gets a bonus point!
Alright, let's tally those scores!
Paperless Living: 23
Wildlife Conservation: 32
Congrats, Wildlife Conservation! You've pulled off the first upset of the Tournament! And you've beaten the most overrated concept yet! Tune in next time for the conclusion of the first round of the Green Practices Region with the match up of (2) Reducing/Reusing and (7) Energy Star Rating.
Paperless Living
Aaaaaaaand in the red corner, weighing in at 0 pounds is the featherweight champion of the world!!! Paperless Living!!!! Should be pretty self-explanatory. If you still have questions, you can see me after class at my office hours.
Impact on the Environment (6/15):
Most people, when they first hear 'Paperless Living' think that it's a pretty good thing for the environment. While I'm not going to argue with that idea, it's really not as good for the environment as you might think. A whole lot of the paper being used today comes either from recycled post-consumer product or from sustainably managed tree farms (there's a better word for that which is escaping me right now). And let's not even get into the extra electricity that's needed to manage all of the computers that are needed to replace that paper.
Practicality (3/10):
Trying to be completely paperless is almost impossible with our current technology. Let's say I notice that I drank the last little bit of milk out of the milk jug and I want my roommate to pick up some more from the store. I'm going to leave a Post-It Note somewhere, not go out and buy an iPhone and stick that to the front of the fridge. Right now, it's not going to happen. In fact, paper usage increased as computers became more popular, so Paperless Living may be a trend that doesn't catch on for some time.
Sustainability (9/10):
I've got to say, for all the crap I've been giving Paperless Living so far, it would be really really easy to maintain if we ever got to that point. If we find a good way to ditch paper, people will stop buying printers and then the constant temptation to print driving directions will ease up a bit.
Awesomeness (5/10):
I guess it's okay... It saves my car from being cluttered with directions to everywhere I've been in the past few years, but really, you don't see a whole lot of commercials with celebrities talking about how cool their lives are now they don't have a printer at home.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife Conservation is pretty similar to Wetland Conservation except that this can cover not only places such as forests, but specific animals and types of plants. That and it's easier to turn a forest into a park than it is to turn a wetland into one.
Impact on the Environment (10/15):
Over the years, countless species have been saved from the brink of extinction by Wildlife Conservation efforts. But more importantly, cities are hotter on average than forests because the sunlight is absorbed by blacktop and concrete and all those good things as opposed to trees and plants that don't absorb heat. And even more importantly, trees and plants take in all the carbon dioxide that we have nothing better to do with than pump into the air and into the oceans.
Practicality (4/10):
Until someone can come up with a feasible way to live in tree houses, we need space for houses and movie theaters and candy shops and factories that manufacture tree houses. This is similar to Wetland Conservation, so check that one out for more.
Sustainability (9/10):
Even more than wetlands, forests will regrow the second we turn our backs for too long. I've always seen it as nature's just biding its time until we kill ourselves off or leave the planet and then it will all grow right back. For more on this idea, watch the show 'Life After People' or read the book 'The World Without Us.' As long as we don't cut down all the trees, we don't need to do much before it all bounces right back.
Awesomeness (8/10):
Forests are awesome. There's no denying that. And I have seen commercials with celebrities talking about how we should protect the Wildlife.
User Input (1/5):
On behalf of the Buckeye Trail, Wildlife Conservation gets a bonus point!
Alright, let's tally those scores!
Paperless Living: 23
Wildlife Conservation: 32
Congrats, Wildlife Conservation! You've pulled off the first upset of the Tournament! And you've beaten the most overrated concept yet! Tune in next time for the conclusion of the first round of the Green Practices Region with the match up of (2) Reducing/Reusing and (7) Energy Star Rating.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Green Tip #95: Automatic Doors are Opening to a World of Obesity
First off, let me just assure you that I'm not done with my Disney Green Tips for those of you that were worried. I just needed to take a break so I could talk about an issue that is of urgent importance. I'll be back to Disney World! on Friday with the next Green Tip.
One of the topics that I've mentioned on several occasions before was the topic of obesity and its effects on the environment. (See: Green Tip #45) I've heard some conflicting things about weight's effect on the environment. One camp says that overweight people use more resources, such as more gas to drive around and more food to feed their larger appetites. The other camp says they've got more health problems and will probably die sooner, thus using less resources in their shorter lives.
I'm not here to judge on which way is probably more true. I'm here to talk about something that overweight people are putting a pretty big strain on.
Our electrical grid.
(If you were thinking 'chairs,' shame on you... That's just insensitive!)
One of the things that I have always wondered is what's so hard about pushing open doors? Is your arm really that tired that you can't lift it up and have to use our precious electricity to open your automatic doors? I guess if you're overweight and your arm weighs too much that might be the case. But did you ever think that maybe that little bit of exercise that you're missing out on might be making you fat?
According to about.com, automatic doors were first installed around 1960. And I also found this chart from Wikipedia about obesity:
This blatant maiming of the principles of statistics clearly show that as automatic doors became more prevalent, the obesity rates among children increased many times over. It's obvious that automatic doors are causing our children (who have now grown up to be adults) to become obese.
So please, let's just forget about those automatic doors. They're like straws that use electricity. In other words, horrible. Ditching those automatic doors would save us all the debate about whether being fat is good or bad for the environment. Do it for our children...
One of the topics that I've mentioned on several occasions before was the topic of obesity and its effects on the environment. (See: Green Tip #45) I've heard some conflicting things about weight's effect on the environment. One camp says that overweight people use more resources, such as more gas to drive around and more food to feed their larger appetites. The other camp says they've got more health problems and will probably die sooner, thus using less resources in their shorter lives.
I'm not here to judge on which way is probably more true. I'm here to talk about something that overweight people are putting a pretty big strain on.
Our electrical grid.
(If you were thinking 'chairs,' shame on you... That's just insensitive!)
One of the things that I have always wondered is what's so hard about pushing open doors? Is your arm really that tired that you can't lift it up and have to use our precious electricity to open your automatic doors? I guess if you're overweight and your arm weighs too much that might be the case. But did you ever think that maybe that little bit of exercise that you're missing out on might be making you fat?
According to about.com, automatic doors were first installed around 1960. And I also found this chart from Wikipedia about obesity:
This blatant maiming of the principles of statistics clearly show that as automatic doors became more prevalent, the obesity rates among children increased many times over. It's obvious that automatic doors are causing our children (who have now grown up to be adults) to become obese.
So please, let's just forget about those automatic doors. They're like straws that use electricity. In other words, horrible. Ditching those automatic doors would save us all the debate about whether being fat is good or bad for the environment. Do it for our children...
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Tournament Round 1, Match 2 - (4) Wetland Conservation vs. (5) LEED Certification
It's time for the first round match up between (4) Wetland Conservation and (5) LEED Certification. This one should be a close one, so let's get it started!
Wetland Conservation
First up is Wetland Conservation. A great example of poorly managed Wetland Conservation is right here in Northwest Ohio. I wasn't here back in the early 1800's, but this whole area used to be a part of the Great Black Swamp. As Americans moved west and needed land for farming, they drained the whole area, most likely destroying much of the animals and plants that lived here. (There used to be Mud Hens here, now we only have baseball players).
Impact on the Environment (14/15):
The practice of preserving the wetlands has an enormous impact on the environment. While I don't have numbers to prove it, studies have estimated that amphibians could go extinct if we continue to drain wetlands at the pace we're going. And that would mean millions upon billions more bugs flying around stinging us and giving us diseases like West Nile Disease. Get rid of the wetlands and say hello to the next plague!
Practicality (5/10):
One of the things that I was thinking about when I was thinking of Wetland Conservation was why wetlands are destroyed in the first place. Because swamps smell bad. Wait, no, hang on. It was actually to make land for farms and houses. So as the population around the world increases, we need more and more land to sustain us. Until we can improve non-conventional farming techniques such as hydroponic farming, we need to convert the wetlands into farms.
Sustainability (7/10):
Wetlands have been around for millions and millions of years, so as long as we don't do anything incredibly stupid (which we will), wetlands can take care of themselves. Every time I gain hope that people are finally figuring things out and doing the right things, something like the BP Oil Spill happens and ruins everything. BP, you have crushed the hopes and dreams of millions of children around the world. I hope you can't sleep at night because of it. You know, if you were a person.
Awesomeness (5/10):
While wetlands often get romanticized by things like the Everglades in Florida (which get a 10/10 in my book), more often than not wetlands really aren't anything special. Sure, scenic lakes in the mountains are beautiful, but if you are really dedicated to preserving the wetlands, nobody's going to be able to get to them in the first place, so nobody will be able to enjoy the beauty of it all Small price to pay to avoid the Black Death: Part 2, I guess.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
LEED Certification
LEED Certification, for those of you that don't know, stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's a rating system for buildings that covers a variety of topics such as water and energy conservation, Green building design, natural sunlight, use of alternative energy and other topics. Buildings can be Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Certified (really, not Bronze?). This is useful mainly as a PR tool, as consumers can see if their favorite company has practices that are good for the environment.
Impact on the Environment (8/15):
This one is a tricky one. Yes, I want companies to be cognizant of their carbon footprints when they are building new facilities, but I'm always skeptical of rating systems like this. It encourages managers to make improvements simply for the sake of getting the next level of certification. And while the practices that are being rated are good for the environment, the rating system itself doesn't do a whole lot to protect the environment.
Practicality (10/10):
It's fabulous that someone (probably more like someones) came up with a single, unified way of measuring how Green a building is. This is something that can be done on any building and it's a very simple way for building and plant managers to see where they're on track and where they're behind their competitors.
Sustainability (3/10):
This is where I get worried. LEED Certification hasn't been around long enough to know whether people will keep up with the practices that got them certified. I'm really afraid that people are going to get their certification and give up trying to improve. Until there is a solid re-certification process, LEED may be simply a fad that might pass in 10 or so years.
Awesomeness (3/10):
Okay, I know that I'm a nerd I think LEED Certification is pretty awesome But that's just me. Most people don't think it's all that awesome. And I respect their opinions.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Alright, let's tally those scores!
Wetland Conservation: 31
LEED Certification: 24
Sorry, LEED Certification, it looks like you won't be moving on to the next round. Better luck next year (I probably won't do this next year). But in the mean time, next week we see the match up between (3) Paperless Living and (6) Wildlife Conservation. Should be exciting!
Wetland Conservation
First up is Wetland Conservation. A great example of poorly managed Wetland Conservation is right here in Northwest Ohio. I wasn't here back in the early 1800's, but this whole area used to be a part of the Great Black Swamp. As Americans moved west and needed land for farming, they drained the whole area, most likely destroying much of the animals and plants that lived here. (There used to be Mud Hens here, now we only have baseball players).
Impact on the Environment (14/15):
The practice of preserving the wetlands has an enormous impact on the environment. While I don't have numbers to prove it, studies have estimated that amphibians could go extinct if we continue to drain wetlands at the pace we're going. And that would mean millions upon billions more bugs flying around stinging us and giving us diseases like West Nile Disease. Get rid of the wetlands and say hello to the next plague!
Practicality (5/10):
One of the things that I was thinking about when I was thinking of Wetland Conservation was why wetlands are destroyed in the first place. Because swamps smell bad. Wait, no, hang on. It was actually to make land for farms and houses. So as the population around the world increases, we need more and more land to sustain us. Until we can improve non-conventional farming techniques such as hydroponic farming, we need to convert the wetlands into farms.
Sustainability (7/10):
Wetlands have been around for millions and millions of years, so as long as we don't do anything incredibly stupid (which we will), wetlands can take care of themselves. Every time I gain hope that people are finally figuring things out and doing the right things, something like the BP Oil Spill happens and ruins everything. BP, you have crushed the hopes and dreams of millions of children around the world. I hope you can't sleep at night because of it. You know, if you were a person.
Awesomeness (5/10):
While wetlands often get romanticized by things like the Everglades in Florida (which get a 10/10 in my book), more often than not wetlands really aren't anything special. Sure, scenic lakes in the mountains are beautiful, but if you are really dedicated to preserving the wetlands, nobody's going to be able to get to them in the first place, so nobody will be able to enjoy the beauty of it all Small price to pay to avoid the Black Death: Part 2, I guess.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
LEED Certification
LEED Certification, for those of you that don't know, stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's a rating system for buildings that covers a variety of topics such as water and energy conservation, Green building design, natural sunlight, use of alternative energy and other topics. Buildings can be Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Certified (really, not Bronze?). This is useful mainly as a PR tool, as consumers can see if their favorite company has practices that are good for the environment.
Impact on the Environment (8/15):
This one is a tricky one. Yes, I want companies to be cognizant of their carbon footprints when they are building new facilities, but I'm always skeptical of rating systems like this. It encourages managers to make improvements simply for the sake of getting the next level of certification. And while the practices that are being rated are good for the environment, the rating system itself doesn't do a whole lot to protect the environment.
Practicality (10/10):
It's fabulous that someone (probably more like someones) came up with a single, unified way of measuring how Green a building is. This is something that can be done on any building and it's a very simple way for building and plant managers to see where they're on track and where they're behind their competitors.
Sustainability (3/10):
This is where I get worried. LEED Certification hasn't been around long enough to know whether people will keep up with the practices that got them certified. I'm really afraid that people are going to get their certification and give up trying to improve. Until there is a solid re-certification process, LEED may be simply a fad that might pass in 10 or so years.
Awesomeness (3/10):
Okay, I know that I'm a nerd I think LEED Certification is pretty awesome But that's just me. Most people don't think it's all that awesome. And I respect their opinions.
User Input (0/5):
Get those comments in, everyone!
Alright, let's tally those scores!
Wetland Conservation: 31
LEED Certification: 24
Sorry, LEED Certification, it looks like you won't be moving on to the next round. Better luck next year (I probably won't do this next year). But in the mean time, next week we see the match up between (3) Paperless Living and (6) Wildlife Conservation. Should be exciting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)