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!

Environmentalist McKibben drives home urgency of climate change to Iowans

Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben spoke to a captive and energetic audience in Iowa City last night, courtesy of the Office of Sustainability at the University of Iowa. His message was both pessimistic and optimistic, but was most importantly honest.

McKibben started out with the current (and depressing) state of the environment. The earth has risen only about 1 degree in temperature, but already we are seeing the major impacts of that increase in glacier melting, increased floods, increased high temperatures, and increase in disease spread (through warmer climates). We are above the 350 parts per million limit that scientists believe is sustainable for the planet (currently at 390, see image below).

After establishing the current state of affairs, he next showed us his efforts to date with the recent 10/10/10 events, which is a part of the overall 350.org movement. I was amazed at how global this initiative has become, especially since I have not heard that much about his organization. He has made an impact on nearly every country in the world, and it continues to grow each year. He even self-admits that he is not a motivational person and knows very little about how to drive a grass-roots effort like this, but it is clearly working. It reaffirms that anyone can make a difference.
Finally, his message was that people have to make political changes to make dramatic reduction in our emissions. The technology is already here to do that (solar, geothermal, wind), but the policies and investment isn't there yet. He mentioned that 70% of your time should be spent on local actions and 30% on political action.

Video clips are available on the Daily Iowan website
Here is McKibben's latest book, Eearth: Making of Life on a Tough New Planet...






And here is the first book he wrote, which was widely popular, called "The End of Nature"

Are the skeptics correct that global warming is a hoax?

My education is in statistics and Six Sigma, so when I saw this article, I had to check it out...

Surface Temperature Data Quality Suspect – Casts Doubt on “Global Warming” Hypothesis

Essentially, the article contests that the data being used to justify an increase in temperatures could be lacking. The author, Thomas Pyzdek (a well-respected Six Sigma guru), points to the location of the temperature monitors as a source of error, due to their surrounding conditions.



"The bottom line is that 89% of the sites examined to date are in categories 3, 4, or 5. In other words, they fail to meet established NOAA requirements."

In Six Sigma, it is critical to make sure (with good solid analysis) that the data you are looking at is valid. This is a VERY common error that people make. More often than not, I usually find a problem with the measurements when I'm working on a project. People naturally assume that the data is valid, therefore we should accept it as is. Since this website is very data-focused, any actual or perceived issues related to data collection and reporting of temperature changes needs to be understood and addressed right away.

This leads me to my original reason for the post. Is global warming real?

At first, I thought it was a hands-down decision from the scientific community that it was real, but the more I've opened up my eyes, I can't discredit the nay-sayers (as evidenced by the article above). If I've learned anything over the past few years, it is to never assume or take for granted something, even if it seems right to you, and even if the majority of people think it is right. That alone doesn't make it true. Science and evidence is what will eventually win out, whether we like the results or not.

So let's assume that the jury is still out on global warming. Does my website go away? No! When I look at the reasons for why we need to make these changes and take these actions to be more green, the reduction of CO2 is not the only reason.

Even if we can live with CO2 emissions, we still have the following issues to address:

1) Water quality and scarcity
2) Pesticides in our food
3) Dependence on foreign oil
4) Destruction of our lands (for coal, livestock, urban sprawl, etc)
5) Landfill overflow
6) Animal extinction

Just to name a few...

Bottom line: If carbon emissions actually has no impact on global warming, then all we have lost is just the fear factor of potential natural disasters and harmful living conditions in the future. I would expect that this is not the main reason people are going green, instead it is the impact on their local environment and their pocketbooks that will have the biggest impact, and that is not affected by global warming.

Why do we need placemats??

My wife and I sat down at IHOP today, to enjoy a delicious breakfast. After a few minutes, the waitress came over and slide a paper placement underneath our menus.



At first, I didn't think much about it, but then I started to wonder why we NEEDED a placemat. What is it's purpose? If there is no real purpose for them anymore, why are they (and all other restaurants) killing trees and wasting money to use them?

1) To keep the table clean? I don't think so. You have to wipe the table off anyways, so what is this thin piece of paper going to improve?

2) To keep hot plates from damaging the table? Well, if it's too hot, the waiter/waitress will probably put a 2nd plate underneath (since they have to carry them). Even if heat was an issue, I don't think the flimsy paper will stop much.

3) To protect the table from scratches? Maybe, but again, it is really thin paper, so I don't think it will do much to prevent damage of any sorts.

4) Sanitary purposes? I guess if some food fell off your plate, and landed on the placemat, you might be more inclined to eat it from there, rather than if it fell on the table. That wouldn't appear to be a very sound reason (from the restaurants perspective) to justify the expense.

5) Children's coloring book? Of course, but I don't think that was the original intent. With that line of thinking, only children should get them, not adults, and that's not what I've observed.

5) Advertising? That is the only logical explanation I can think of. Maybe the sight of a steak and eggs breakfast on their placemat will persuade someone to order it? It didn't for me, by the way.

I think the placemat used to have some more significance, when it was really a mat, and could protect the table, or looked nice in a formal dining setting. However, just setting a piece of paper under my plate seems to be a complete waste of a tree, and I think we should start refusing them, just like the stacks of napkins they give you at the drive-thru, or using paper towels to dry your hands in the restroom (I prefer the pants method!).