Can global warming bring world peace?

The predictions about climate change are depressing. Every time I go to a speech about the topic, I leave feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. So I want to suggest we look at this issue differently. If we can get all countries to focus on global warming (since it will impact us all), this might unite these countries around a common goal. With a focus on one major issue, I would guess that a lot of petty issues that countries argue over today may get downplayed, or simply go away.

Think about the Armageddon-type movies, where the aliens come to destroy the planet, and all people of the world unite to save the planet. This wouldn't be quite as exciting as those movies, but the purpose is the same. Consider sports teams. If you have players focused on their own accomplishments, not winning as a team (the common goal), then distractions and fighting within the team increase (and they never reach the goal).

OK, I know the term "world peace" is not really possible, but I think a world where countries are not engaged in active fighting and war (within their own country or with another country) is possible. However, without a major change in focus, we will never get there. In fact, at our current pace in destroying the planet, we are headed for even more global conflict, which will take us further away from "world peace".

Wars typically start over water, changing patterns of rainfall, food production and land use. These are the major consequences cited in most research on global warming.

The United Kingdom (UK) government commissioned a report called the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which suggests global warming could shrink the world's economy by 20%. This report has been widely circulated, and has been brought up in the UN Security Council.

"With scientists predicting that land and water resources will gradually become more scarce in the coming years, and that global warming may irreversibly alter the face of the planet, the United Nations Security Council today held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on security." [Read article here].

So here is where we are at today: Global warming will overall negatively impact water, food production, land use, and change the patterns of rainfall. These changes historically lead to war and conflict, and will negatively impact the economy around the globe. No country is exempt.

If we can change the focus, the opposite can occur. We reduce global warming, which minimizes the impact on food and water. We rally around a common goal, and focus our resources on growing all economies through clean energy and more sustainable practices. Global warming and climate change might be the ONLY issue that has the potential to rally all countries around the world.

We don't have a choice. If we wait for the disasters to occur, it will be too late. Aligning countries to this message is not impossible. We are actually getting closer (aside from the major powers of the world). It is up to us who live in these major powers (China, US, EU) to force our leaders to make this change, and change immediately.

We can actually "kill two birds with one stone" by focusing on reducing global warming, in order to save ourselves from climate change AND achieve world peace!

Raise the price of carbon, then send everyone a check in the mail?

I recently attended a presentation from the Citizens Climate Lobby group. They are a group that helps citizens organize around climate change through politics. Marc Reynolds, Executive Director of Citizens Climate Lobby, gave a great speech about how citizens can get involved and make a difference.

He talked about the CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend Proposal, which is actually very simple. If we increase (tax) carbon, that will make it easier for people to choose renewable or clean energy, or conserve what they use. He used smoking as a successful example of how increasing the tax on cigarettes has led to a reduction in smokers. Reducing carbon is no different. If we want to reduce the impact of climate change, we need to reduce our carbon usage. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to accurately price carbon, based upon its impact on the environment. Today, no one has to pay for the impact of carbon, so it gets treated equally in the open market as other sources of energy that are less damaging to the environment. All this would make it a fair playing field.

Here is an overview video:


But won't this increase the cost of electricity and gasoline for everyone? Yes it will. That is why they are proposing to take the taxed income, and send it back to the people to offset their increased utility and gas costs. Then over time, that amount would be less and less, as we replace carbon energy with better sources of energy.

The other good approach is that the tax will increase steadily over time, so that there is a clear path in the future that shows what the price will be, and it eases people into the additional cost. Businesses can invest in different energy with some confidence, and the price impact to all of us is more gradual. After 10 years, they feel it would be priced more appropriately.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. It actually appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, whereas other climate bills and legislation have been proposed by one side or the other. If I hear any updates, I'll post them here.

My life as a "vegetarian" - mid-year update

As a followup to the blog posted in February this year, called "2011 - Year of the Vegetarian," I thought people might be interested in how things have been going at the half-way point of 2011.

As of June 30th, I have recorded 40 times where I ate meat. Just for clarification, meat means seafood, chicken, pork, and red meat. Basically, if it came from a living animal, then I count it. I don't count eggs, since the chicken didn't sacrifice it's life for my meal.

Since I regularly eat three meals a day, that is 181 days x 3 meals per day = 543 opportunities to eat meat. 40/543 = 7.3% of the time I ate meat. Less than 10%, which is much better than I anticipated at the beginning of the year.

As I stated in my last blog about how I counted these meals, I actually ate more meat than the 40 meals, but I didn't count meals where I didn't have much of a choice in what was served.

That being said, in hindsight, I should probably keep track of those meals, and remove them from the denominator, to give a more accurate percentage of how often I avoid meat (when it is my choice). My guess would be closer to 10% of the time, if I took out those meals. Not bad, but I wouldn't call myself a vegetarian quite yet.


If you recall, I also penalized myself $5 for each meat "violation" so I've dished out $200 so far this year to organizations like EDF, CarbonFund, WWF, and Ocean Conservancy. I think next year I'm really consider picking organizations I DON'T like, so it really hurts to donate that money. Right now, I don't feel bad eating meat, because I know I'm helping these organizations. I go back and forth on this, so if anyone has some advice, let me know.

Overall, I am pleased with my progress so far. It has been difficult, and I have some reliable meals I usually fall back on, such as Cheba Hut's Majic Mushroom sub, cheese or spinach pizza or breadsticks, egg and cheese breakfast biscuit from McDonald's, lemon poppy seed or blueberry muffin, black bean burger and fries, spinach and mushroom enchilada from El Banditos, and macaroni and cheese with bread and veggies.

The most difficult item to give up has been Quiznos' toasted subs, partly because it's located near my work. Unfortunately, they are actually doing a really good job with their compostable cups and wrappers, but I'm not a big fan of just eating a veggie sub, so I've been avoiding them quite a bit. If they would make a portabella mushroom sub, I'd be there almost every day!

Look for my end of year update next January, along with my new plan for 2012!

Electricity metrics: Driving the wrong behavior!

I am working on some energy reduction projects at work. One potential project is to improve the efficiency of some of our equipment, so it uses less electricity.

The problem is that the savings don't actually reduce our electric bill, but it does reduce the electricity that our energy provider would have to supply to us. Let me explain...

First, I am not an electrical engineer, so if I state something wrong, please go easy on me, as I'm attempting to speak in layman's terms.

This has to do with something called "power factor". Basically, the electricity provider has to generate more power for its customers, if the power factor on equipment and machines are lower than ideal (less than 100%).

Poor power factors are typically caused by older equipment, or over-sized motors, or equipment with internal problems or poorly designed. You can learn more here: Wikipedia: Power Factor or a simpler explanation at Washington State EnergyIdeas

Most people at at their home pay for the amount of kilowatt hours consumed per month. Same with companies. However, the electricity provider has to provide enough power to cover the "apparent" power, which is usually more than the actual kilowatt hours (KWH) consumed.

For example, let's assume I have a refrigerator that consumes 10 KWH per day in my home. If the power factor is poor, then I might actually be consuming more like 11 KWH, which is what the electricity provider has to supply to my house. The extra 1 KWH is released as heat into my house and essentially wasted.

So I pay for 10 KWH, but I actually used 11 KWH. I don't actually directly pay for the extra 1 KWH that I needed, due to my poor power factor. So if I fixed my refrigerator so the power factor was improved, and I now consume exactly 10 KWH (instead of 11), my electricity bill doesn't go down. There's no motivation for me to save electricity by investing in some upgrades to improve the power factor.

For large companies, there are extra fees that are charged if the overall power factor is too low (say below 85%), so the utility companies attempt to cover their costs that way. However, usually the fees are charged depending on what range of power factors they fall within.

For our company, we fall within the middle of the range, so we would have to invest in significant improvements to power factor in order to see a benefit on the bill (the point where the extra fees would be removed). Since it is unlikely that we will make that large of an investment, we have decided not to pursue those opportunities. Usually this involves installing a capacitor bank, which stores the energy and reduces the loss of energy.

So here's the issue: Because our company is not charged by the utility company for the actual amount of electricity we require, there is no financial incentive for us to do the right thing by improving the efficiency of our equipment (other than reducing our carbon footprint). The solution would be to charge us for the apparent power (11 KWH in our home), instead of the actual power used by our equipment (10 KWH).

Just another example of metrics driving the wrong behavior!

2011 - Year of the Vegetarian

I've finally made up my mind. I'm going to cut out meat from my diet in order to reduce my environmental impact. This is coming from someone who loves meat, and didn't really start eating fruits or vegetables until a couple years ago.

OK, so maybe I don't expect to never eat meat again, but here is the system that I've developed for myself, that I feel I can stick with over the long term.

1) If I have a choice between meat and no meat, I will choose no meat. If I choose meat, I will make a donation of $5 to an environmental cause. I haven't decided which one yet, but I think it should be related to forest restoration or water quality, since those areas are affected by large-scale cattle producers. This should help me feel the pinch if I do have a breakdown, but not make me feel as guilty. More of a "stick" approach than a "carrot", but we'll see how it goes...

2) If I don't have a choice, and the food will go to waste, then I will still eat meat, and not feel obligated to donate money. For example, I was teaching a class for work (in a different city than I live) where the food was provided for us. It was catered in from a BBQ restaurant. There was no on-site cafeteria, so I felt that I didn't have another option than to eat the BBQ. I also did not have a rental car (used public transportation), so I couldn't have easily left and gone somewhere else. In addition, if I didn't eat, the food would have been consumed by someone else. At a different location under similar circumstances at work, I was actually near a cafeteria, so I stepped out and got something to eat without meat, since they provided the lunch meat sandwiches for free. So when there are no other options, the consequences of producing and delivering the meat have already been realized, so I might as well enjoy it. Since my actions would not directly impact the re-ordering of more meat to replace what I consumed, I didn't penalize myself for eating the meat. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, then that action directly causes the restaurant to order more meat to replace what I ordered. If I don't eat the catered BBQ, then I doubt the person is going to see the leftover meat and conclude that BBQ is not a good option for catering in the future. One could argue that, but to keep things simple in my mind, I'm going to allow myself to eat the meat in those situations.

As I said earlier, this is a complete turn around from how I grew up my whole life. I have said numerous times while growing up, the following phrase: "I don't like any fruits or vegetables, except I will eat a banana."

That didn't change until I met my wife, and I learned that most vegetarians don't avoid meat because they don't like it, but because they have a strong dedication to reducing the impact of eating meat (I'm guessing animal cruelty or environmental impact). That changed my perspective completely. The next step involved the preparation of meals that didn't involve meat. Since she is a wonderful cook, and I am pretty busy, she makes all the meals, and doesn't put any meat in them. Therefore, if I want to eat, I'm going to have to be a vegetarian while at home. She did a great job of easing me into it, using some fake meat products, so my body didn't go into shock. If I was on my own, I don't think I would be making this kind of dramatic change in my diet. I have that common disease of "male refrigerator blindness" and struggle to figure out what to make when I get home. Bottom line, without her, I would probably stop and eat fast food way more often than I do now, which would probably mean more burgers and chicken. My wife, however, is the female version of MacGyver with what she can find in the fridge and turn into a delicious and healthy meal.

In summary, this decision was not a dramatic change, but has been taking place over the past couple years. Although I am proud of myself for making this change, I am concerned that if it takes an environmentalist like myself 2-3 years to eliminate meat from their diet, how long will it take the rest of the world to do the same, if they don't have the same "carrot" or motivation of reducing their environmental impact? I don't know if we can wait that long...

If you also want to take credit for eating little or no meat, read more on our website at HelpSaveEarth.org under "Eat Less Meat"