Thanks for your support. We've moved!
http://www.greengopost.com/
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The 2 I's that keep America chugging along
The best professor I had in business school was the wisest. He once commented that only two things fuel the American economy: immigration and innovation. I was reminded of that last summer when I went to the InterSolar Conference in San Francisco—most of the vendors there were either German or Chinese . . . with Indian, Canadian, and Japanese companies having a strong presence as well.
Take our energy policy. Our dependence on fossil fuels made sense generations ago during the industrial age, and frankly, as with cholesterol, sun exposure, chemical dumping, and deforestation, we just didn’t know any better. We do know now, but we’re so behind other countries on the renewable energy front . . . and companies here in that space (many of which have been started by immigrants) are struggling to find a footing and funding. Meanwhile, cloudy Germany is the leader in solar technology, the Chinese and Japanese are exploring fuel options using technologies that we can’t even pronounce, and the country with the most flex-fuel vehicles isn’t the US (thanks or no thanks to corn ethanol), but . . . is in South America (more on that country later!)
Remember that business school term, “economies of scale” (no, not cheap reproductions of Louis Vuitton crocodile suitcases) . . . as long as the USA is married to cheap, polluting fossil fuels, there’s no incentive to focus on other sources of clean energy . . .meaning those innovators who want to market their new technologies have no market, which means the prices remain high, which means there are no incentives for consumers or businesses to take a hard look at more sustainable energy—and construction—and water conservation approaches.
Take Obama’s announcement on new fuel standards last week. Hasn’t this been discussed since the 1970s? The automobile manufacturers and unions resisted for years, and we know how the results turned out. I know it was like pulling teeth to get all these folks around the table to finally agree to some tepid new standards, but it’s a step. But is it too late? In a recent online discussion in which I participated, an executive across the pond made this statement which is spot on: “When oil prices rise again, American truckers won't be able to deliver essential goods and America hasn't exactly got a good railway network alternative. Cheap energy has destroyed American innovation and created a very wasteful culture.”
I won't go into the immigration debate now--but it's a fact that most new companies with the most cutting edge technologies in any industry are founded by immigrants . . . combine an anti-immigrant government policy with a poorly thought out energy agenda, and the future certainly doesn't look sunny.
Take our energy policy. Our dependence on fossil fuels made sense generations ago during the industrial age, and frankly, as with cholesterol, sun exposure, chemical dumping, and deforestation, we just didn’t know any better. We do know now, but we’re so behind other countries on the renewable energy front . . . and companies here in that space (many of which have been started by immigrants) are struggling to find a footing and funding. Meanwhile, cloudy Germany is the leader in solar technology, the Chinese and Japanese are exploring fuel options using technologies that we can’t even pronounce, and the country with the most flex-fuel vehicles isn’t the US (thanks or no thanks to corn ethanol), but . . . is in South America (more on that country later!)
Remember that business school term, “economies of scale” (no, not cheap reproductions of Louis Vuitton crocodile suitcases) . . . as long as the USA is married to cheap, polluting fossil fuels, there’s no incentive to focus on other sources of clean energy . . .meaning those innovators who want to market their new technologies have no market, which means the prices remain high, which means there are no incentives for consumers or businesses to take a hard look at more sustainable energy—and construction—and water conservation approaches.
Take Obama’s announcement on new fuel standards last week. Hasn’t this been discussed since the 1970s? The automobile manufacturers and unions resisted for years, and we know how the results turned out. I know it was like pulling teeth to get all these folks around the table to finally agree to some tepid new standards, but it’s a step. But is it too late? In a recent online discussion in which I participated, an executive across the pond made this statement which is spot on: “When oil prices rise again, American truckers won't be able to deliver essential goods and America hasn't exactly got a good railway network alternative. Cheap energy has destroyed American innovation and created a very wasteful culture.”
I won't go into the immigration debate now--but it's a fact that most new companies with the most cutting edge technologies in any industry are founded by immigrants . . . combine an anti-immigrant government policy with a poorly thought out energy agenda, and the future certainly doesn't look sunny.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ontario thumbs its nose at Ottawa and Washington
The cap-and-trade debate is getting more fired up . . . or offset . . . or making others green with dollar signs or exasperation . . . the provincial government of Ontario is about to introduce legislation pushing a cap-and-trade system.
Picture California, Texas, and New York, and the next six largest US states' population combined, and you've got the idea of how influential Ontario is in Canada. It's home of the country's capital and largest city, and has most of the country's largest banks and cities.
While the province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, was evasive about some tough questions, including if and when the provinces coal plants would close, the degree to which polluters would be penalized, or even how the system would work, the impending legislation shows that this debate won't go away--and may be one of the cogs in sorting out how we can wean ourselves off of fossil-based fuels.
And any step taken by a Canadian government is a great step--yes, the USA consumes about 25% of the world's energy, but surveys show that the country with the highest energy consumption per-capita is . . . Canada!
Picture California, Texas, and New York, and the next six largest US states' population combined, and you've got the idea of how influential Ontario is in Canada. It's home of the country's capital and largest city, and has most of the country's largest banks and cities.
While the province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, was evasive about some tough questions, including if and when the provinces coal plants would close, the degree to which polluters would be penalized, or even how the system would work, the impending legislation shows that this debate won't go away--and may be one of the cogs in sorting out how we can wean ourselves off of fossil-based fuels.
And any step taken by a Canadian government is a great step--yes, the USA consumes about 25% of the world's energy, but surveys show that the country with the highest energy consumption per-capita is . . . Canada!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Forget Green - What about White?
It's a headline too cool to pass up . . . Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants roofs around the world to be painted white.
It sounds ridiculous at first--what about hydrogen, solar, switchgrass, etc.? But if the data rings true, painting cars, houses, and roads white or a pale color would be equivalent to taking every car off the earth for 11 years. Even if that's an exaggeration, Dr. Chu is onto something. It makes no sense painting your house a dark color with a black roof if you live in Southern California. And ever walk down a street in Phoenix in August? As far as cars go, Japan would already be ahead--they all drive white cars as it is, and lighter colored cars would use less fuel to run air conditioning units (then again, they show dirt, so that's more water being consumed, but anyways . . .
It's no secret it'll take us years to wean us off of fossil fuels--doubtful in our lifetimes. So it's approaches like Chu's that'll give us opportunities to save the earth.
Geesh, why wasn't this in the stimulus package? Could you imagine the queues at Lowe's or Home Depot for free white paint?
It sounds ridiculous at first--what about hydrogen, solar, switchgrass, etc.? But if the data rings true, painting cars, houses, and roads white or a pale color would be equivalent to taking every car off the earth for 11 years. Even if that's an exaggeration, Dr. Chu is onto something. It makes no sense painting your house a dark color with a black roof if you live in Southern California. And ever walk down a street in Phoenix in August? As far as cars go, Japan would already be ahead--they all drive white cars as it is, and lighter colored cars would use less fuel to run air conditioning units (then again, they show dirt, so that's more water being consumed, but anyways . . .
It's no secret it'll take us years to wean us off of fossil fuels--doubtful in our lifetimes. So it's approaches like Chu's that'll give us opportunities to save the earth.
Geesh, why wasn't this in the stimulus package? Could you imagine the queues at Lowe's or Home Depot for free white paint?
How can we become energy independent?
There is not one straight path to energy independence and efficiency. While some sources such as biofuels and hydrogen are “sexy” and “exotic,” they are not a complete solution to the fix we find ourselves in.
I find that the environmental movement has too many constituencies that can’t seem to agree on anything. Also, what does “green” or “clean” mean? For example, some folks are aghast at the thought of nuclear energy—it’s harmful, dangerous, etc. But France gets 70% of its electricity though nuclear energy, and our current dependence on fossil fuels has a horrible effect on our air, land, and water. Biofuels have the “cool” factor, but the corn ethanol push in the US had a disastrous effect on fuel prices. Solar, hybrid battery and wind also have their toxic issues, and algae and cellulosic technologies aren’t ready for prime time.
There also isn’t enough emphasis on energy efficient technologies—while we wait for the next generation of fuels to become more cost effective and abundant, let’s face it, folks, we’re still using fossil fuels. So why not encourage r&d of technologies that will improve the grid, that will allow large buildings and warehouses to create their own energies through mini-turbines, or battery storage technologies that will allow homes to become mini-utilities?
And I love the idea of the Southwest being a vast solar field, the plains from the Dakotas to Texas living off of T. Boone Pickens’s wind, and Florida becoming a haven for algae. But what works in one region won’t fly in another—some fuels are perfect for a fleet-based approach in the transport sector, such as DME or used cooking oil for buses and trucks, or plug-in hybrid cars for commuters.
In the end, none of these technologies will work if there isn’t a market—it’s not politically correct to say so, but that’s the truth. A combination of government incentives and timely private investment can get us on the right path to a cleaner and more sustainable future.
I find that the environmental movement has too many constituencies that can’t seem to agree on anything. Also, what does “green” or “clean” mean? For example, some folks are aghast at the thought of nuclear energy—it’s harmful, dangerous, etc. But France gets 70% of its electricity though nuclear energy, and our current dependence on fossil fuels has a horrible effect on our air, land, and water. Biofuels have the “cool” factor, but the corn ethanol push in the US had a disastrous effect on fuel prices. Solar, hybrid battery and wind also have their toxic issues, and algae and cellulosic technologies aren’t ready for prime time.
There also isn’t enough emphasis on energy efficient technologies—while we wait for the next generation of fuels to become more cost effective and abundant, let’s face it, folks, we’re still using fossil fuels. So why not encourage r&d of technologies that will improve the grid, that will allow large buildings and warehouses to create their own energies through mini-turbines, or battery storage technologies that will allow homes to become mini-utilities?
And I love the idea of the Southwest being a vast solar field, the plains from the Dakotas to Texas living off of T. Boone Pickens’s wind, and Florida becoming a haven for algae. But what works in one region won’t fly in another—some fuels are perfect for a fleet-based approach in the transport sector, such as DME or used cooking oil for buses and trucks, or plug-in hybrid cars for commuters.
In the end, none of these technologies will work if there isn’t a market—it’s not politically correct to say so, but that’s the truth. A combination of government incentives and timely private investment can get us on the right path to a cleaner and more sustainable future.
Cap-n-Trade . . . or Cap’n Crunch?
There’s been much discussion in the US and abroad about moving to a cap-and-trade system. How can I put this term in layman’s terms? Okay, I’m a dog owner, so let’s give you a real life scenario (if there’s such a thing in LA): There are 10 dogs in our neighborhood and none of us can afford a dogwalker, so we take turns walking each other’s dogs. So, we all get 4 chips, each good for one dog walking hour. If I walk the neighbor’s dog, I get a chip, and vice versa. Maybe I’m delaying doing the housework or working in the garden, so I keep walking other neighbors’ dogs, collecting more chips, which I may need if I leave town for a week and need lots of folks walking the shih-tzu while I’m gone. But there’s a problem: dogs leave a mess, and oops, some of us aren’t so good at picking up the dog poop. So the neighborhood association sends us all nasty-grams and the amount of dog walking chips are reduced . . . so we need to get more creative . . . one neighbor on Occidental puts her dogs on a treadmill, I tie the garden hose to my shih-tzu so he can water the plants, etc. . . . we all have to get creative as to how to exercise the dogs to reduce their waste or well suffer the fate of Santa Cruz, where dogs are banned from walking in parts of town (oh, I could start a ranting blog on this—but I digress—again).
Okay, maybe not the best analogy, but you get the concept—in cap-and-trade, companies that pollute can trade or buy carbon credits—the government reduces the number of carbon credits each year, with the idea that companies, utilities, etc., will find new clean ways of obtaining energy.
Cap-and-trade has caught on in Europe, with CEOs there saying they were behind this system and are urging the USA to get on the bandwagon. It won’t be easy, in the US, however, and results in Europe are mixed. There’s the argument that companies will just pass on the costs to consumers, and some areas could get even more polluted while other areas get more “green.” And the recent Waxman-Markey Bill floated in Congress is either a tepid or disastrous attempt, depending on one’s point of view. For example, while the bill pushes alternate sources of energy, hydropower and nuclear energy aren’t considered “clean,” despite the fact they emit ZERO emissions (my stance on nuclear may get me in trouble) . . . others are upset that 85% of the credits will be given without any cost to the electric utilities . . . with the result that well, we could end up with even MORE air pollution.
And like many bills that flail through Congress, Waxman-Markey, to some, has been devoured by special interests, most prominently the utilities. Finally, the coal industry could get a US$10 billion carbon capture sequestration research bootie, caps on greenhouse gases and carbon emissions are too weak, and many complain that requirements to create renewable energy sources are way too weak . . .
Cap-and-trade is not perfect, but it’s one part of the puzzle that we need to look at if we’re going to stall global warming. But cap-and-trade as proposed by the current Congress will be like Cap’n Crunch cereal—looks good, you want a lot of it, but in the end much of it is artificial and there’s just no value—and it could even harm your health.
Okay, maybe not the best analogy, but you get the concept—in cap-and-trade, companies that pollute can trade or buy carbon credits—the government reduces the number of carbon credits each year, with the idea that companies, utilities, etc., will find new clean ways of obtaining energy.
Cap-and-trade has caught on in Europe, with CEOs there saying they were behind this system and are urging the USA to get on the bandwagon. It won’t be easy, in the US, however, and results in Europe are mixed. There’s the argument that companies will just pass on the costs to consumers, and some areas could get even more polluted while other areas get more “green.” And the recent Waxman-Markey Bill floated in Congress is either a tepid or disastrous attempt, depending on one’s point of view. For example, while the bill pushes alternate sources of energy, hydropower and nuclear energy aren’t considered “clean,” despite the fact they emit ZERO emissions (my stance on nuclear may get me in trouble) . . . others are upset that 85% of the credits will be given without any cost to the electric utilities . . . with the result that well, we could end up with even MORE air pollution.
And like many bills that flail through Congress, Waxman-Markey, to some, has been devoured by special interests, most prominently the utilities. Finally, the coal industry could get a US$10 billion carbon capture sequestration research bootie, caps on greenhouse gases and carbon emissions are too weak, and many complain that requirements to create renewable energy sources are way too weak . . .
Cap-and-trade is not perfect, but it’s one part of the puzzle that we need to look at if we’re going to stall global warming. But cap-and-trade as proposed by the current Congress will be like Cap’n Crunch cereal—looks good, you want a lot of it, but in the end much of it is artificial and there’s just no value—and it could even harm your health.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Making the Sea Green
We always hear so much about hybrid cars, solar panels, and now when we think about farms, wind comes to mind.
True--homes, cars, and factories emit much of the pollution. But there are other culprits as well. Research indicates that air travel is especially harmful to our earth’s atmosphere, making Continental’s recent biofuel test flight compelling (more on that later!). But ships use energy that’s especially dirty—the diesel by which they are often fueled belch out emissions that would make your favorite oil company CEO blush.
So what are we to do? A conference I was recently at almost left a permanent smirk on my face. I was at a panel where one person said that we need to stop importing goods—oh, and on the other hand, we should grow LA’s economy and put people to work by shipping organic products.
Okay, this is an odd argument not worth picking apart. We are no longer villagers who can grow and produce everything we need in our neighborhood. Nor should we. LA’s biggest employer, after all, is logistics—not entertainment—and international trade is the circulation system of our global economy. Trade builds economies, economies foster jobs, jobs keep us buying goods and services—the Venetians invented this, and I think they were on to something.
Yes, hybrid cars are cool and sexy—after all the American Idol Top Two got 2010 Hybrid Ford Fusions, so they must be cool. And yes, I salivate at the opportunity to get my roof solar’d up so I can become a mini-utility.
But why aren’t we focusing on creating clean fuels for the engines behind our economic growth? Clean-fuel ships would be a start. The ports of LA and Long Beach are on a start, moving towards cleaner-running trucks. But what about the ships? Maersk is starting in the right direction with their LPG and LNG fueled tankers. But with neighborhoods near ports often suffering from high pollution levels, there needs to be more focus on having tankers and ships run from renewable and cleaner sources.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
DME: another potential renewable fuel?
Biofuels. Solar. Wind. Tidal. Algae. Switchgrass. In the alternative energy debate, there are many sources of energy that are exotic, even “sexy.”
There’s one source, however, that has much potential but falls under the radar: dimethyl ether, or DME.
DME can be substituted for LPG (liquefied petroleum gas, which fuels many buses in Southern California). It emits almost no emissions, burning cleanly with hardly any particulates. Its sources are abundant: DME is created out of natural gas, petroleum, and coal extraction, and it’s also a byproduct of biomass. In fact, you’ve probably already come across it—many cosmetic products are sprayed out of cans using DME as a propellant.
Currently DME is used as a cooking fuel in China and some third world countries—it’s a cost-effective energy source that’s not subject to the wild fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices. And baby steps are being taken in using DME as a transportation fuel—Volvo in Sweden has been experimenting with DME-powered trucks, and currently Japan is the leader in DME research and technology. Sweden, however, has an interesting feedstock for DME—black liquor (no, not something in an LA $15 martini!), a byproduct, nasty byproduct, of pulp and paper processing. What was once a pollutant could now be an unlimited source of fuel for Sweden’s trucking fleets.
Of course a switch will not be easy. Governments may balk at pursuing a fuel that comes from a “dirty” or “fossil” source. It’s expensive to retrofit refineries, fueling stations, and vehicles to accommodate a new transport fuel. Like other non-petroleum fuel sources, DME would probably have its best application in a fleet approach—as a source for a network of municipal buses, taxis, or trucks that can run all day and then fuel up overnight.
My feeling is, we’re already mining coal and extracting oil and gas—why not use DME as another tool in our energy kit?
There’s one source, however, that has much potential but falls under the radar: dimethyl ether, or DME.
DME can be substituted for LPG (liquefied petroleum gas, which fuels many buses in Southern California). It emits almost no emissions, burning cleanly with hardly any particulates. Its sources are abundant: DME is created out of natural gas, petroleum, and coal extraction, and it’s also a byproduct of biomass. In fact, you’ve probably already come across it—many cosmetic products are sprayed out of cans using DME as a propellant.
Currently DME is used as a cooking fuel in China and some third world countries—it’s a cost-effective energy source that’s not subject to the wild fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices. And baby steps are being taken in using DME as a transportation fuel—Volvo in Sweden has been experimenting with DME-powered trucks, and currently Japan is the leader in DME research and technology. Sweden, however, has an interesting feedstock for DME—black liquor (no, not something in an LA $15 martini!), a byproduct, nasty byproduct, of pulp and paper processing. What was once a pollutant could now be an unlimited source of fuel for Sweden’s trucking fleets.
Of course a switch will not be easy. Governments may balk at pursuing a fuel that comes from a “dirty” or “fossil” source. It’s expensive to retrofit refineries, fueling stations, and vehicles to accommodate a new transport fuel. Like other non-petroleum fuel sources, DME would probably have its best application in a fleet approach—as a source for a network of municipal buses, taxis, or trucks that can run all day and then fuel up overnight.
My feeling is, we’re already mining coal and extracting oil and gas—why not use DME as another tool in our energy kit?
How does my garden grow? Or not get eaten?
I've been asked a few questions about how to keep those bugs out my garden without using chemicals:
Well, bugs aren't all bad--but to control those caterpillars, I use 1 tsp. of dish soap, 1 tbsp of canola oil, and mix that with 32 oz. of water in a spray bottle--
Another thing I'm exploring: Neem Oil! My doctor recommended it to me . .. basically doesn't kill the nasty pests, but makes them stupid--the critters don't lay eggs, they don't mate . . . it's available at any good Indian supermarket or the 'net. Mix it with water, maybe a little canola oil to emulsify it!
I've also tried releasing ladybugs in the evening for natural pest control--the key is to make sure your garden isn't damp.
But the main thing is . . . you have to constantly check and sometimes you have to remove the pests by hand.
Yeah, gardening is a far cry from a Costco run!
Well, bugs aren't all bad--but to control those caterpillars, I use 1 tsp. of dish soap, 1 tbsp of canola oil, and mix that with 32 oz. of water in a spray bottle--
Another thing I'm exploring: Neem Oil! My doctor recommended it to me . .. basically doesn't kill the nasty pests, but makes them stupid--the critters don't lay eggs, they don't mate . . . it's available at any good Indian supermarket or the 'net. Mix it with water, maybe a little canola oil to emulsify it!
I've also tried releasing ladybugs in the evening for natural pest control--the key is to make sure your garden isn't damp.
But the main thing is . . . you have to constantly check and sometimes you have to remove the pests by hand.
Yeah, gardening is a far cry from a Costco run!
Powered by Arsenic!
Okay, so I admit I’m old enough to remember (vaguely, I’m not that old!) when Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House! Solar power is coming into its own. We have dreams about the Mojave becoming the new Saudi Arabia of solar, and LA, especially Pasadena, is becoming the solar hub. Last year, I went to InterSolar, a huge solar industry trade show that was in the US for the first time.
And the foundation of solar technology is silicon. Why? Well, silicon is cheap and abundant—the films get better and better . . .and thinner and thinner. Silicon can also be insulated easily, and the cells can also charge quickly.
But there’s a new technology that could give silicon a run for its money. It’s called Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) . . . which is a combination of, well, gallium and arsenic, which sounds kind of creepy. Compared to silicon, it has a much higher concentrated electron velocity, which in plain English, means that the energy reaped from the sun can transfer much more quickly. GaAs also transmits light much more efficiently—silicon is actually poor at transferring light. Finally, all those sun rays can not only be churned along quickly, but GaAs can be applied in a much thinner layer than silicon-based films on solar panels. There’s also the possibility that these GaAs panels can be manufactured at a much smaller size . . . so perhaps we won’t have to pave over the Mojave after all . . . and in fact, as what often happens with green/clean tech, you try to solve one problem, and you open a can . . . just remember Senator Her Majesty Feinstein’s recent fit of pique over proposed solar farms in the California desert.
So the gist of this is . . . greater efficiency at a smaller scale. And yes, this technology has toxicity concerns, but so does the current silicon-based technology.
It’s worth exploring, isn’t it?
Arsenic . . . it’s not just for murder mystery novels anymore . . .
And the foundation of solar technology is silicon. Why? Well, silicon is cheap and abundant—the films get better and better . . .and thinner and thinner. Silicon can also be insulated easily, and the cells can also charge quickly.
But there’s a new technology that could give silicon a run for its money. It’s called Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) . . . which is a combination of, well, gallium and arsenic, which sounds kind of creepy. Compared to silicon, it has a much higher concentrated electron velocity, which in plain English, means that the energy reaped from the sun can transfer much more quickly. GaAs also transmits light much more efficiently—silicon is actually poor at transferring light. Finally, all those sun rays can not only be churned along quickly, but GaAs can be applied in a much thinner layer than silicon-based films on solar panels. There’s also the possibility that these GaAs panels can be manufactured at a much smaller size . . . so perhaps we won’t have to pave over the Mojave after all . . . and in fact, as what often happens with green/clean tech, you try to solve one problem, and you open a can . . . just remember Senator Her Majesty Feinstein’s recent fit of pique over proposed solar farms in the California desert.
So the gist of this is . . . greater efficiency at a smaller scale. And yes, this technology has toxicity concerns, but so does the current silicon-based technology.
It’s worth exploring, isn’t it?
Arsenic . . . it’s not just for murder mystery novels anymore . . .
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Obama's Ambitious Plan
Today President Obama announced that folks from various and industry groups are backing him up on his plan to reduce greenhouse gases and improve automobile fuel efficiency.
It’s about time.
Critics will pick apart his plan. Environmentalists say he didn’t go far enough. Those on the right will say he’s increasing cost to consumers. It seems like Detroit has rolled over and played dead, as the auto industry has collapsed and doesn’t have the lobbying might it once had.
I won’t get into all the arguments pro and con—this is a debate that has gone on for far too long . . . but what I like about Obama’s plan is that it gives us time . . . time to consider a complete shift in auto technology, whether it’s plug-in hybrid or alternative fuels such as those that are methanol-based or (wishful thinking) biofuels or hydrogen.
Whether you care about climate change or not, the reality is that oil is going to spike in price again—we don’t know when, but it will. And industry can adapt and change—there are examples of this happening at a micro level all the time—which I’ll eventually get to discussing . . . so stay tuned!
It’s about time.
Critics will pick apart his plan. Environmentalists say he didn’t go far enough. Those on the right will say he’s increasing cost to consumers. It seems like Detroit has rolled over and played dead, as the auto industry has collapsed and doesn’t have the lobbying might it once had.
I won’t get into all the arguments pro and con—this is a debate that has gone on for far too long . . . but what I like about Obama’s plan is that it gives us time . . . time to consider a complete shift in auto technology, whether it’s plug-in hybrid or alternative fuels such as those that are methanol-based or (wishful thinking) biofuels or hydrogen.
Whether you care about climate change or not, the reality is that oil is going to spike in price again—we don’t know when, but it will. And industry can adapt and change—there are examples of this happening at a micro level all the time—which I’ll eventually get to discussing . . . so stay tuned!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Could Korea become the little green giant?
Sooner or later I had to write about Korea—I lived there in the mid-1990s and every time I return, I’m amazed at all the changes.
The secret is out that Korea’s the most wired planet on the earth. But now it’s become a green technology hub. When I lived there, Korea was only as green as the face masks many people wore when walking the streets. Okay, that was mean . . . the city does have an impressive public transport system, and I loved how your garbage bill was based only on how much you threw away—you had to buy special garbage bags in which you’d toss your trash and woe would be the poor person who got caught throwing his trash away in a supermarket bag!
But overall the city was a toxic mess. There weren’t enough parks, traffic choked the streets, and I finally understood what “ring around the collar” meant at the end of the work day. Things weren’t much better in the countryside—the country has almost no virgin forests left, and I remember Korean friends who shrieked when they saw what they considered exotic wildlife—squirrels and frogs. Consumerism had its ugly effect: I could never understand why every cookie or choco-pie had to be individually packaged . . . and never mind the melons in the beautiful gift boxes.
Now Seoul is changing. Now that Korea has become an economic powerhouse (recent financial troubles aside), Seoul’s leaders and citizens are focused on making the city a much better place to live.
The most impressive change has been Cheonggyecheon, a river that was paved over to become a highway, and is now a river again. What was once a concrete mess when I lived there is now a bubbling stream lined with paths and trees where residents can take a break from all the urban madness.
I could go on and on about the innovation, but one approach at Korean electric vehicle technology caught my eye—the country’s up-and-coming KAIST university is working on a workaround for the current issues that are vexing efforts at perfecting the electric car—rather than relying on recharging batteries with hybrid or plug-in technology, KAIST’s engineers and students are relying on power provided to the cars through induction strips laid into the roadway. No rails or overhead wires would be necessary; instead, a car with a battery one-fifth the size of a typical car battery would have enough oomph to run for about 80km (50 miles)!
Seoul’s city government is providing US$2 million for researching this system; stay tuned!
The secret is out that Korea’s the most wired planet on the earth. But now it’s become a green technology hub. When I lived there, Korea was only as green as the face masks many people wore when walking the streets. Okay, that was mean . . . the city does have an impressive public transport system, and I loved how your garbage bill was based only on how much you threw away—you had to buy special garbage bags in which you’d toss your trash and woe would be the poor person who got caught throwing his trash away in a supermarket bag!
But overall the city was a toxic mess. There weren’t enough parks, traffic choked the streets, and I finally understood what “ring around the collar” meant at the end of the work day. Things weren’t much better in the countryside—the country has almost no virgin forests left, and I remember Korean friends who shrieked when they saw what they considered exotic wildlife—squirrels and frogs. Consumerism had its ugly effect: I could never understand why every cookie or choco-pie had to be individually packaged . . . and never mind the melons in the beautiful gift boxes.
Now Seoul is changing. Now that Korea has become an economic powerhouse (recent financial troubles aside), Seoul’s leaders and citizens are focused on making the city a much better place to live.
The most impressive change has been Cheonggyecheon, a river that was paved over to become a highway, and is now a river again. What was once a concrete mess when I lived there is now a bubbling stream lined with paths and trees where residents can take a break from all the urban madness.
I could go on and on about the innovation, but one approach at Korean electric vehicle technology caught my eye—the country’s up-and-coming KAIST university is working on a workaround for the current issues that are vexing efforts at perfecting the electric car—rather than relying on recharging batteries with hybrid or plug-in technology, KAIST’s engineers and students are relying on power provided to the cars through induction strips laid into the roadway. No rails or overhead wires would be necessary; instead, a car with a battery one-fifth the size of a typical car battery would have enough oomph to run for about 80km (50 miles)!
Seoul’s city government is providing US$2 million for researching this system; stay tuned!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Maybe the energy firms will come around . . .
Constellation Energy’s CEO Mayo Shattuck just sent out a statement that the Baltimore-based corporation, which operates about 35 power plants in 11 states, is supporting the House’s climate change bill.
Whatever you think about the climate change bill, or energy companies in general, this is a critical step in getting energy firms to focus on the technologies that can at least stall, if not reverse, climate change. Some will scoff that the new technologies are already there, but at this point, most “green” energy technologies are still more expensive than fossil fuel-based sources.
If we could get more energy firms like Constellation—a HUGE name—behind this House bill, but more importantly, convince them or incentivize them to invest in renewable energy sources, this would create more demand, better scalability, a fall in green tech prices could make these them more attractive to investors . . . I need to pinch myself, it’s still a dream!
But before I run out and buy my solar-powered hybrid plug-in care with matching appliances, I need a reality check: I often think renewable energy is analogous to public transportation; both need to be cost-effective and offer seamless transition to consumers, or they won’t grow. Combined with a smart grid, better energy storage, and improved fuel efficiency technology, we could be well on our way . . . wind in the prairies, sun in the southwest, the occasional nuclear reactor . . . well, more on that later . . .
Whatever you think about the climate change bill, or energy companies in general, this is a critical step in getting energy firms to focus on the technologies that can at least stall, if not reverse, climate change. Some will scoff that the new technologies are already there, but at this point, most “green” energy technologies are still more expensive than fossil fuel-based sources.
If we could get more energy firms like Constellation—a HUGE name—behind this House bill, but more importantly, convince them or incentivize them to invest in renewable energy sources, this would create more demand, better scalability, a fall in green tech prices could make these them more attractive to investors . . . I need to pinch myself, it’s still a dream!
But before I run out and buy my solar-powered hybrid plug-in care with matching appliances, I need a reality check: I often think renewable energy is analogous to public transportation; both need to be cost-effective and offer seamless transition to consumers, or they won’t grow. Combined with a smart grid, better energy storage, and improved fuel efficiency technology, we could be well on our way . . . wind in the prairies, sun in the southwest, the occasional nuclear reactor . . . well, more on that later . . .
Friday, May 15, 2009
Baby Brown Seals or Brown Kids?
Environmentalism. It’s not just for white people anymore.
Or is it?
This thought crossed my mind after I got my mail today. We have a very heated and NASTY race for LA City Attorney. The new C.A. will hopefully not lie about attending an Ivy League school on a scholarship and whose spouse will not be convinced that it’s okay to drive an SUV on the city’s dime, drive like a maniac, and then bill the city for the repairs. But seriously, voting for city attorney is not like voting for . . . oh I don’t know, school board or city council, where decisions are made that immediate affect our lives. Let’s face it, the winner gets to manage a large law firm full of lawyers who get paid far less and work way more--and then the winner will have a steppingstone to another office—which is why I’m voting for the older guy, since I figure he’ll be more focused on his job and not salivate when mayor Antonio Villar (change your name back, you’re not married to the wife you cheated on!) is out of office.
Which is why I usually smirk when I fill my recycling bin daily with hysterical mailers from the younger candidate, saying the older guy is a polluter, environmental Ebola virus, etc. The smirk turned into a sneer, however, when I saw a picture of a baby seal with a target superimposed on it. I didn’t even care what the mailer was about—the baby seal irritated me enough. Oh and by the way these campaigns were wasting paper and fuel by having all these mailers delivered, but I think that point was lost on both campaigns.
Now, this is where many in the environmental movement gets it wrong: why do they love to rely on pictures of baby seals to get people worked up? Why don’t they show pictures of kids in the inner city who live near power plants or toxic dumps? Why are they favoring baby brown seals over babies in poor neighborhoods, where pollution often has the most horrific effects?
I went to a conference at a local university a few weeks ago, and I swear, there were so many older, white people, who seem to believe that environmental consciousness means wearing loose fitting Guatemalan clothes and diversity means telling the token African American at the conference, “Oh, you should meet my friend Lola, she’s black.” One woman was quite simply stupid enough to say the one problem with climate change was overpopulation. I wanted to yank her by the canvas shopping bag and tell her, “Well, actually, all the industrialized countries have low birthrates, and the truth is, stats show that an Indian child uses one-tenth to one-twelfth of the resources of an American child,” but I sipped my organic green tea in frustration instead.
The saner folks at this conference were those that asked what environmentalists would do—and how green tech would help--to assist those kids who live near those power plants and waste dumps. They also pointed out that solar panels are great, but those chemicals used in the film are toxic, and where would they end up? I think the answer was for them to Obama-ize and community organize, but in the end, this is my frustration:
In building support or their causes, I wish these activists and organizations would show the pictures of families who are stuck next to a belching power plant or seeping dump instead of doe-eyed cute animals. And as for that city attorney candidate, I’d rather focus on improving the quality of lives of folks in my beloved city—I like seals and seal loins and whales and polar bears and I’m sorry about their plight, but I haven’t seen many of those seals traipsing about in my neighborhood.
Climate Change and Henry Waxman
Every day I check the green tech news feeds and the biggest boldest headline today was titled, “US Lawmakers Formally Unveil Climate Change Bill.” I haven’t read it yet—I’ve been following the debate, and I’m fearful of what the bill will say. Overall, I tend to side with the Democrats on the environmental issues, but I find that the biggest hypocrites on such matters are in the Democratic caucus. Take Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in the waters off of Massachusetts. Heaven forbid a source of clean energy spoil his views from one of his family’s many estates (bought of course with old Joe Kennedy’s bootlegging money, dad’s sleazy pulling out of the stock market before the 1929 crash, and of course making bad B movies, but I digress!).
But what brought on the gag reflex was seeing a picture of Henry Waxman, Democratic representative from west LA, below this news headline. We’re talking about a man who for years opposed the LA Metro’s Red Line extension under Wilshire Boulevard to Santa Monica. His excuse: methane gas levels underground were too dangerous to justify building a subway. Code words: my constituents in wealthy enclaves such as Hancock Park don’t want it “impacting” their neighborhoods. Long story short: Waxman sponsored a bill that banned federal funds for the Red Line (aren’t we slamming some GOP governors right now for basically doing the same thing—refusing federal funds for local projects?).
I’m not sure what the big deal is. We’re happy to have immigrants mow our lawns and take care of our kids (while having precious little time for playing with their kids on their lawns), but let’s not make it easy for them to get to work.
Waxman’s opposition to the Red Line extension has had hideous results. Traffic on the west side of LA is AWFUL—I reminded about it today as my friend and I were stuck the 10 freeway after attending a meeting at UCLA. The air quality this afternoon was horrible—I can’t see the Century City skyscrapers from my backyard today. I cringe when I have to go the west side, thinking about the traffic; my west side cronies rarely make it to downtown or the west side for the same reason.
There is somewhat of a happy ending (no Waxman wasn't forced to pick up garbage on the I-405 shoulders!)—transportation officials and the City of LA strong-armed Waxman into lifting a ban, he agreed that if engineers could determine that digging under Wilshire would be safe, the engineers checked, and suddenly the bulldog decided that the technology has improved and all is good.
The tragedy about this example of misguided political posturing is that we’re stuck with out rails to the bay for years, traffic is still getting worse, our workers are less efficient, and the air isn’t getting better.
And I have to watch this man on the news shows crowing about this bill? I think Waxman’s mug shot should be shown on Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the Woooooooooooooooorld” segment . . .
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Are We Finally Over the Hemp?
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently introduced another bill in Congress (with Barney Frank, of all folks!) to allow farmers to cultivate legally industrial hemp. It’s about time! Decades ago, Congress banned the production of hemp in its incremental war on drugs—one of the more ill-thought changes in public policy this country has weathered. Industrial hemp has only trace amounts of THC—you’d have to smoke a few acres to get a high, most likely getting a headache in the process—but because of fear mongering and competing lobbies in DC, we’re stuck with a dinosaur of a policy.
Oh, you can buy hemp products—the $20 body butter at mall chain stores, the granola from Trader Joe’s has it, and it’s even used in car doors such as the Dodge Viper. Uh . . . but you can’t produce it. So, we import it from big hemp producers such as Canada and France. So imagine if you liked to drink beer but couldn’t . . . legally drink it out of bottles or cans . . . or was allowed to buy cigarettes but . . . it was illegal to walk into a tobacco store? This is basically the logic behind our government’s policy on industrial hemp. We have to import it, adding 10-15% to the cost, and meanwhile, American farmers are being cheated out of a potentially lucrative crop.
Hemp has all kinds of uses. It’s a strong fiber—George H.W. Bush’s parachute that saved his life during WWII was supposedly made of hemp fiber. Unlike cotton, it’s more environmental because it doesn’t require toxic insecticides or other agrichemicals. Hemp is used in cosmetics, can be processed to purify soil and water, and yes, it has Omega-3’s acids, which are supposed to keep your arteries clear and heart pumping. But wait, there’s more! Hemp also has great potential as a substitute for wood pulp in paper.
Furthermore, it grows like a weed (pardon the pun!), so it has potential as a renewable energy source. Rudolf Diesel—remember him?—used hemp oil to fuel his self-named engine, and Henry Ford was reputed to have grown it on his estate in the late 1930s in proving that hemp was a viable fuel source.
So why is it still illegal to grow industrial hemp in the US? Well, our wise leaders in Congress, ever fearful of losing reelection (I thought gerrymandering took care of that?), won’t allow it (Paul himself admitted that he’s not optimistic about this current bill’s passage), because well, if you’re for hemp, you’re for marijuana, if you’re for marijuana, you’re for hard-core drugs . . . you get the picture . . . though I want to ask some of these politicians, “If you could screw France, your favorite whipping garçon, wouldn’t you jump at the chance?”
It seems to me that with all the excitement over algae, switchgrass, wind and solar, we could make room for industrial hemp. But I think of Congress, and I’m reminded of what Mark Twain once said, “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.”
Oh, you can buy hemp products—the $20 body butter at mall chain stores, the granola from Trader Joe’s has it, and it’s even used in car doors such as the Dodge Viper. Uh . . . but you can’t produce it. So, we import it from big hemp producers such as Canada and France. So imagine if you liked to drink beer but couldn’t . . . legally drink it out of bottles or cans . . . or was allowed to buy cigarettes but . . . it was illegal to walk into a tobacco store? This is basically the logic behind our government’s policy on industrial hemp. We have to import it, adding 10-15% to the cost, and meanwhile, American farmers are being cheated out of a potentially lucrative crop.
Hemp has all kinds of uses. It’s a strong fiber—George H.W. Bush’s parachute that saved his life during WWII was supposedly made of hemp fiber. Unlike cotton, it’s more environmental because it doesn’t require toxic insecticides or other agrichemicals. Hemp is used in cosmetics, can be processed to purify soil and water, and yes, it has Omega-3’s acids, which are supposed to keep your arteries clear and heart pumping. But wait, there’s more! Hemp also has great potential as a substitute for wood pulp in paper.
Furthermore, it grows like a weed (pardon the pun!), so it has potential as a renewable energy source. Rudolf Diesel—remember him?—used hemp oil to fuel his self-named engine, and Henry Ford was reputed to have grown it on his estate in the late 1930s in proving that hemp was a viable fuel source.
So why is it still illegal to grow industrial hemp in the US? Well, our wise leaders in Congress, ever fearful of losing reelection (I thought gerrymandering took care of that?), won’t allow it (Paul himself admitted that he’s not optimistic about this current bill’s passage), because well, if you’re for hemp, you’re for marijuana, if you’re for marijuana, you’re for hard-core drugs . . . you get the picture . . . though I want to ask some of these politicians, “If you could screw France, your favorite whipping garçon, wouldn’t you jump at the chance?”
It seems to me that with all the excitement over algae, switchgrass, wind and solar, we could make room for industrial hemp. But I think of Congress, and I’m reminded of what Mark Twain once said, “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.”
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Green Tips from Abroad # 1: Argentina
I hate plastic. It’s kind of like saying “I hate air” as it’s all around you. I’m the one who will take a plastic fork home, run it through the dishwasher with all the rest of my plates and cookware, and reuse it a few more times out of guilt. Yes, supposedly plastic is recyclable but I’m dubious. I keep reading about the section of the Pacific Ocean that has a span stretched as large as Texas full of plastic junk and it just gives me the creeps. Yes, Whole Foods and other stores have the disposable cutlery that’s made out of potato, but if they end up in a landfill, they won’t decompose. But those landfills will become golf courses or malls anyway, right, so I guess it doesn’t matter. (Oh, golf courses, a million gallons of watering a day, the news just gets worse, eh?).
Which leads me to plastic packaging. It drives me nuts. I cringe when buying electronic equipment the size of my hand in plastic packaging the size of my torso (how do you open those beasts, anyway?). And one reason why I try to cook as much as I can is that getting food to go is an ecological disaster. Yes, it’s been a couple decades now since McDonald’s stopped putting their burgers in Styrofoam, but the over-packaging from fast food and restaurants is still appalling. I used to fly weekly out of LAX (the world’s largest Greyhound station), and sadly enough, the only decent place to eat is at McD’s. So I’d get my healthy salad and a yogurt parfait, with all the accessories wrapped individually in plastic, and just wince when I realized that there was more packaging than stuff I could actually eat. It’s outrageous!
So let me give an anecdote about Argentina, a wonderful place I’ve visited three times and could move to in a heartbeat. Now, on the surface, Argentina is not Green Ground Zero. Automobile mission standards, I surmise, are either ignored or non-existent. Buenos Aires really is the Paris of South America—dog poop is everywhere and your eyes will itch on a summer day from all the exhaust. And yes, garbage really can ruin the atmosphere in San Telmo—there’s that old world mentality that you can throw something away, cause the garbage crews will just pick up your trash (maybe) overnight.
But a couple things struck me—first, food. Even the most snobby Porteños eat seasonally. At the produce stands, I’d ask where everything was from, and nothing was from Peru or Chile—or even Brazil—peaches are eaten in summer, apples in winter. Oranges have flavor, tomatoes have color, lettuce isn’t dismembered and placed in a cellophane bag. There wasn’t this American neurosis of well, if I can’t have my strawberries during season, I’ll have it shipped from the other hemisphere!
Second . . . food to go. Neighborhoods are loaded with little bakeries and cafeterias that serve savory tarts, empanadas, pizza that would make New Yorkers blush, breads, cookies, pastries, etc., which of course are fantastic. What I loved was that rather than putting everything in a hideous plastic to-go container, they were simply wrapped in butcher paper, taped shut, and loaded into a bag (yes, sometimes plastic bags, which I’ll kvetch about later, but none of this Safeway nonsense of 2 items per bag!). And you know what? This old school packaging worked! Nothing spilled or leaked, my goodies were warm, and even if the packaging wasn’t recycled, surely less space in a landfill was consumed.
At one point during the last trip to South America, I regressed and while waiting for a boat in the nearby river delta town, Tigre, we wanted a snack and well, the closest place was McDonald’s. Well, what the heck. Face it Americans—90% of you who have traveled abroad have been to a McDonald’s to see “what it’s like” and the other 10% of you are liars. Anyway, we shared a salad, and sure enough—it was in monster plastic packaging. I felt deflated. This is a global trend I don’t want to see.
My crowing about eating seasonally and not over packaging in Argentina doesn’t mean that country is the picture of ecological health. They have a farming lobby that is powerful and resists most reforms, and after all, Argentinean beef means lots of . . . Argentinean cow manure. But my point is that sometimes the old ways of doing things are cheaper, more practical, and in the end . . . more sustainable.
I’ll pick on the East Asian countries and their insistence that every cookie or choco-pie in a package be individually wrapped later . . .
Which leads me to plastic packaging. It drives me nuts. I cringe when buying electronic equipment the size of my hand in plastic packaging the size of my torso (how do you open those beasts, anyway?). And one reason why I try to cook as much as I can is that getting food to go is an ecological disaster. Yes, it’s been a couple decades now since McDonald’s stopped putting their burgers in Styrofoam, but the over-packaging from fast food and restaurants is still appalling. I used to fly weekly out of LAX (the world’s largest Greyhound station), and sadly enough, the only decent place to eat is at McD’s. So I’d get my healthy salad and a yogurt parfait, with all the accessories wrapped individually in plastic, and just wince when I realized that there was more packaging than stuff I could actually eat. It’s outrageous!
So let me give an anecdote about Argentina, a wonderful place I’ve visited three times and could move to in a heartbeat. Now, on the surface, Argentina is not Green Ground Zero. Automobile mission standards, I surmise, are either ignored or non-existent. Buenos Aires really is the Paris of South America—dog poop is everywhere and your eyes will itch on a summer day from all the exhaust. And yes, garbage really can ruin the atmosphere in San Telmo—there’s that old world mentality that you can throw something away, cause the garbage crews will just pick up your trash (maybe) overnight.
But a couple things struck me—first, food. Even the most snobby Porteños eat seasonally. At the produce stands, I’d ask where everything was from, and nothing was from Peru or Chile—or even Brazil—peaches are eaten in summer, apples in winter. Oranges have flavor, tomatoes have color, lettuce isn’t dismembered and placed in a cellophane bag. There wasn’t this American neurosis of well, if I can’t have my strawberries during season, I’ll have it shipped from the other hemisphere!
Second . . . food to go. Neighborhoods are loaded with little bakeries and cafeterias that serve savory tarts, empanadas, pizza that would make New Yorkers blush, breads, cookies, pastries, etc., which of course are fantastic. What I loved was that rather than putting everything in a hideous plastic to-go container, they were simply wrapped in butcher paper, taped shut, and loaded into a bag (yes, sometimes plastic bags, which I’ll kvetch about later, but none of this Safeway nonsense of 2 items per bag!). And you know what? This old school packaging worked! Nothing spilled or leaked, my goodies were warm, and even if the packaging wasn’t recycled, surely less space in a landfill was consumed.
At one point during the last trip to South America, I regressed and while waiting for a boat in the nearby river delta town, Tigre, we wanted a snack and well, the closest place was McDonald’s. Well, what the heck. Face it Americans—90% of you who have traveled abroad have been to a McDonald’s to see “what it’s like” and the other 10% of you are liars. Anyway, we shared a salad, and sure enough—it was in monster plastic packaging. I felt deflated. This is a global trend I don’t want to see.
My crowing about eating seasonally and not over packaging in Argentina doesn’t mean that country is the picture of ecological health. They have a farming lobby that is powerful and resists most reforms, and after all, Argentinean beef means lots of . . . Argentinean cow manure. But my point is that sometimes the old ways of doing things are cheaper, more practical, and in the end . . . more sustainable.
I’ll pick on the East Asian countries and their insistence that every cookie or choco-pie in a package be individually wrapped later . . .
Urban Gardening-Thanks Michelle Obama!
When we think about being green, we often conjure recycling, riding our bike to work, shopping at Whole Foods, or climbing a tree to save a community garden like Daryl Hannah, who has had nothing better do to since her role in 1989’s Steel Magnolias. Okay, I’m being facetious here, but you get the picture. But thanks to the Obama’s, gardening is the rage, and that’s a good thing.
My current green project is my new baby: the backyard garden. I’ve always loved gardening. Well, actually the idea of it. My grandmother in Fresno always had fresh mint in her backyard that she’d clip and add to her incredible Armenian dishes. My parents gardened in Cupertino. My contribution was picking the tomatoes when they were ripe: I was perfectly content letting my father do all the labor, but I was more than happy to eat the results. Years later, when I lived in Bencia, I grew tomatoes in pots on my condo’s balcony, much to my downstairs neighbors’ chagrin, who often got doused with water as I oversoaked my Early Girls every morning before driving to Silicon Valley to see my clients (cancelling out my green efforts in the process!).
So now it’s back to gardening. Armenians have farming in their genes, and while the closest thing to a farm Armenians in LA see are the flower beds in Glendale’s new Americana shopping center, I must be faithful to my ethnicity.
There are many reasons to garden: I’ve seen figures suggesting that every US$60-$70 in buying plants can reap $US1000 in vegetables. True, that’s about a week’s worth of salad from Whole Foods, but anyway, that’s probably not far off the mark. Also, think of all the plastic we consume when we buy food at the store, the fuel used in hauling our groceries, not to mention the chemicals used in pesticides. Yes, organic produce is better, but when it comes from New Zealand or Peru, you’re doing the environment no favor. To me, the pleasure of connecting with the land, to watch a seed grow from nothing to your dinner plate, are simple joys that are missing from our lives. We’re so disconnected from our food—I do love Costco, but I can’t bring myself to buy apples that come in plastic containers perfectly contoured around each and every piece of fruit—those containers look great on the façade of a Palm Springs home, but not around your food. And while I’m not a parent, I think one of the greatest lessons one can teach his child is the miracle of cultivating food from the earth. And who wouldn't want those toned arms like Michelle Obama?
I’ll write more on this later, but for now I have tomatoes, eggplant, musk melons, peppers, squash, pumpkins, green beans, lettuce greens, herbs, and fennel. My favorite is some French Sorrell I scored from Sunset Blvd. Nursery . . . it looks like spinach or some other baby green, but when you bite into it, you get this watery crispy sensation . . . lemony, and then that little tinge of astringency in the back of your throat—it’s awesome—I need to plant more!
There are countless websites that can give great pointers on raising a garden, so I won’t go into too much detail. My favorite happens to be Sunset Magazine. Here are some tips I’d like to share based on my experience:
My current green project is my new baby: the backyard garden. I’ve always loved gardening. Well, actually the idea of it. My grandmother in Fresno always had fresh mint in her backyard that she’d clip and add to her incredible Armenian dishes. My parents gardened in Cupertino. My contribution was picking the tomatoes when they were ripe: I was perfectly content letting my father do all the labor, but I was more than happy to eat the results. Years later, when I lived in Bencia, I grew tomatoes in pots on my condo’s balcony, much to my downstairs neighbors’ chagrin, who often got doused with water as I oversoaked my Early Girls every morning before driving to Silicon Valley to see my clients (cancelling out my green efforts in the process!).
So now it’s back to gardening. Armenians have farming in their genes, and while the closest thing to a farm Armenians in LA see are the flower beds in Glendale’s new Americana shopping center, I must be faithful to my ethnicity.
There are many reasons to garden: I’ve seen figures suggesting that every US$60-$70 in buying plants can reap $US1000 in vegetables. True, that’s about a week’s worth of salad from Whole Foods, but anyway, that’s probably not far off the mark. Also, think of all the plastic we consume when we buy food at the store, the fuel used in hauling our groceries, not to mention the chemicals used in pesticides. Yes, organic produce is better, but when it comes from New Zealand or Peru, you’re doing the environment no favor. To me, the pleasure of connecting with the land, to watch a seed grow from nothing to your dinner plate, are simple joys that are missing from our lives. We’re so disconnected from our food—I do love Costco, but I can’t bring myself to buy apples that come in plastic containers perfectly contoured around each and every piece of fruit—those containers look great on the façade of a Palm Springs home, but not around your food. And while I’m not a parent, I think one of the greatest lessons one can teach his child is the miracle of cultivating food from the earth. And who wouldn't want those toned arms like Michelle Obama?
I’ll write more on this later, but for now I have tomatoes, eggplant, musk melons, peppers, squash, pumpkins, green beans, lettuce greens, herbs, and fennel. My favorite is some French Sorrell I scored from Sunset Blvd. Nursery . . . it looks like spinach or some other baby green, but when you bite into it, you get this watery crispy sensation . . . lemony, and then that little tinge of astringency in the back of your throat—it’s awesome—I need to plant more!
There are countless websites that can give great pointers on raising a garden, so I won’t go into too much detail. My favorite happens to be Sunset Magazine. Here are some tips I’d like to share based on my experience:
To answer the question, “When should I start?” the time is NOW! Even though we are well into spring, you will still be in great shape if you plant seedlings before Memorial Day.
Amend your soil—most likely the soil in your yard is in poor shape, and this is the toughest part of starting a garden. But once you do the initial digging, tilling, hoeing, and heaving, you’ll be fine for years. Think of it as your initial investment. I use a mixture of 3 parts potting/vegetable soil, 1 part peat moss, 1 part manure (horse manure’s the best—the cow manure from the big box stores is crappy for many reasons, pardon the pun!)
As for those instructions on how far apart to plant your seeds or seedlings—follow them! Being greedy and trying to cram too much in your garden will not pay off in the long run—your plants will compete for nutrients and not produce as much in the end. The exception is salad greens . . . plant the seeds, and as you thin them, you’ve got sprouts, and as they get bigger, you have leaves! As you pluck the sprouts or leaves, snip the dirty roots off so that they aren’t a pain to rinse. Carrots are okay, too, as you can eat the sprouts and greens as you thin them. I get enough salad for two of us daily.
Mulch, mulch, mulch. It’s cheap, but to really save some money, you should be able to find it for free! Where do you think the stuff you dump in the green recycling bins goes? In LA, there are stations all over the city where you can take as much as you want for free! You can never mulch too much—it keeps the soil warm, retains moisture, and keeps out weeds.
Compost—it’s another way to save money and keep your soil healthy. If you have critters like raccoons and skunks like we do in LA, you can buy plastic (don’t lecture me) contraptions that’ll store and cure the compost—and most likely your town has a program similar to LA’s where you can take a class and get a composting bin at a reduced cost.
Visit your local nursery. Big box stores are a necessary evil in my view—they are good for stocking up on the stuff you need to supply your garden. But you’ll get better plants and seeds at your local nursery, and it’s worth the extra price. Furthermore, I’ve received terrible advice—usually I get indifference or a shoulder shrug--at the large stores. My experience with nurseries such as Sunset Blvd. Nursery is that they give great advice and tips as to what you should grow in your garden, depending on where you live, how much sun you get, if you’re on a slope, etc.
Water only in the morning, unless it’s a very hot day—don’t water after 1pm. Too much moisture in the ground overnight can cause little nasties such as fungus, mildew, etc., that can ruin the soil. But DO mist your plants daily with a water bottle or sprinkler—my $7 Vigoro attachment does the trick!
Got birds and squirrels? Bird scare tape will scare off our feathered friends, ShakeAway products will harmlessly keep rodents away, and my favorite tactic is to line rows of small plants with bamboo skewers (see above pictures), sort of like an organic barbed wire fence—a technique I learned in Turkey. I guess no animal is stupid enough to end up as shish-kebob, so it seems to help!
No backyard? Only concrete? Use pots—you should use at least 18 inch pots for squash and tomatoes, otherwise you’ll starve your plants in the long run.
Rotate your crops annually—if you plant tomatoes in an area one year, do squash or something else the next: planting the same vegetable year after year will exhaust the soil, making it more susceptible to pests.
Happy gardening!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Will Alternative Energy be saved by . . . Big Oil?
Big Oil?
Oil companies are easy targets. Well, first of all they are big, we see their logos everywhere, and we can picture folks like Dick Cheney and his cronies in an underground secret conference room, plotting to pollute the world while lining their pockets, laughing like Heath Ledger’s Joker while they conspire to sabotage any new fuel technology that comes along.
Look what’s happening with alternative fuels right now. Just a year ago, US$150 a barrel prices had some of us dreaming about a solar powered Prius (or Alfa Romeo) by 2012. Okay, that’s far fetched. But corporations with whom I had spoken were creating scenario plans of US$500 a barrel oil, and switchgrass and algae were looking like the new gold. Surely rising fossil fuel prices would finally force us to change our lifestyle and end American addiction to Middle Eastern oil.
A funny thing happened along the way. Gas prices took a nosedive while the global economy tanked, dragging everyone and everything (except for health care services and iPods!) into a fiscal black hole with the falling stock market and wrenching credit crisis.
Among the casualties: investment in renewable energies. Depending on what metrics you use, investment in renewables during Q1 of 2009 is at only one-third of what VC’s tossed at clean fuels during early 2008. It’s not all bad news: fuel cell investment, at ZERO during Q1 of 2008, is over US$40 million, and fuel storage and energy efficient products saw an uptick in investment.
I believe that part of the problem is there are many technologies out there, but not one is a single viable solution. Each technology, while solving a problem, opens the door to other environmental issues. But this debate aside, let’s just face it: there are a few hundred companies in the renewable energy space; many of these lack funding, and without funding and a market, many are doomed.
Could large, multinational, corporate (sorry, this may be getting vulgar here) energy companies become part of the solution? Yes, I do roll my eyes when I see the TV advertisements saying how green and progressive BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron are and how they are working hard to save the environment. But let’s not get too cynical here. I’ve spoken to oil company executives in Texas, many of whom realize that fossil fuels will not be the long term solution—and whether the reserves really do run dry, or regulation under Obama leads to their strangulation—many in the Big Oil club are trying to figure out how their current business model can adapt to new forms of energy that are emerging on the horizon. As one exec at an ExxonMobil subsidiary said to me in Houston: “We’re successful cause we’re smart—we’re a company run for and by engineers, we’ve got the processes down, and we’re nimble.” He’s right—I was raised by an engineer—they are smart, focused, and well, nothing gets by them. And whatever your opinions are of big oil, one fact can’t be disputed: they have money! So before we rip into these companies with the standard clichés about how evil and polluting they are, let’s see what happens in the next few years. After all, look at high tech—how many companies have Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google swallowed? Don’t be surprised if you see this in the clean tech center. These technologies will only improve and become more scalable, and if there’s profit, you bet some of those companies in the S&P 500 will perk up and sink in their money.
Oil companies are easy targets. Well, first of all they are big, we see their logos everywhere, and we can picture folks like Dick Cheney and his cronies in an underground secret conference room, plotting to pollute the world while lining their pockets, laughing like Heath Ledger’s Joker while they conspire to sabotage any new fuel technology that comes along.
Look what’s happening with alternative fuels right now. Just a year ago, US$150 a barrel prices had some of us dreaming about a solar powered Prius (or Alfa Romeo) by 2012. Okay, that’s far fetched. But corporations with whom I had spoken were creating scenario plans of US$500 a barrel oil, and switchgrass and algae were looking like the new gold. Surely rising fossil fuel prices would finally force us to change our lifestyle and end American addiction to Middle Eastern oil.
A funny thing happened along the way. Gas prices took a nosedive while the global economy tanked, dragging everyone and everything (except for health care services and iPods!) into a fiscal black hole with the falling stock market and wrenching credit crisis.
Among the casualties: investment in renewable energies. Depending on what metrics you use, investment in renewables during Q1 of 2009 is at only one-third of what VC’s tossed at clean fuels during early 2008. It’s not all bad news: fuel cell investment, at ZERO during Q1 of 2008, is over US$40 million, and fuel storage and energy efficient products saw an uptick in investment.
I believe that part of the problem is there are many technologies out there, but not one is a single viable solution. Each technology, while solving a problem, opens the door to other environmental issues. But this debate aside, let’s just face it: there are a few hundred companies in the renewable energy space; many of these lack funding, and without funding and a market, many are doomed.
Could large, multinational, corporate (sorry, this may be getting vulgar here) energy companies become part of the solution? Yes, I do roll my eyes when I see the TV advertisements saying how green and progressive BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron are and how they are working hard to save the environment. But let’s not get too cynical here. I’ve spoken to oil company executives in Texas, many of whom realize that fossil fuels will not be the long term solution—and whether the reserves really do run dry, or regulation under Obama leads to their strangulation—many in the Big Oil club are trying to figure out how their current business model can adapt to new forms of energy that are emerging on the horizon. As one exec at an ExxonMobil subsidiary said to me in Houston: “We’re successful cause we’re smart—we’re a company run for and by engineers, we’ve got the processes down, and we’re nimble.” He’s right—I was raised by an engineer—they are smart, focused, and well, nothing gets by them. And whatever your opinions are of big oil, one fact can’t be disputed: they have money! So before we rip into these companies with the standard clichés about how evil and polluting they are, let’s see what happens in the next few years. After all, look at high tech—how many companies have Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google swallowed? Don’t be surprised if you see this in the clean tech center. These technologies will only improve and become more scalable, and if there’s profit, you bet some of those companies in the S&P 500 will perk up and sink in their money.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Los Angeles – A Green Nirvana?
Yet another friend with whom I’ve connected on Facebook asked me, as if I hadn’t heard this before, if I know that Los Angeles is the smoggiest city in the country. True, at face value, LA is about as green as the lead paint on the hamburger joint down the street from our home in Silver Lake. The only reason Silver Lake reservoir isn’t green with envy, I mean, algae, is that it’s part of the city’s water drinking system. And yes, I do forget that LA has spectacular mountains nearby—when I see them—and I count my blessings that I can sometimes see the Century City skyscrapers from my backyard. Beverly Hills residents always seem to knock down houses to build McMansions, plastic bags fly around Beverly Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, but hey, I can hear the ocean from our house—wait, sorry, that’s actually the sound of the 101 Freeway during rush hour. The only stars in LA seem to be the ones commemorating forgotten celebrities in the cracked pavement on Hollywood and Vine, since we surely can’t see the ones in the sky at night. Woody Allen’s snide quotes about LA are probably true . . . we don’t throw our garbage way, we “make it into television shows!” And all those emissions probably result from the one culturally redeeming quality of LA according to Allen, in that we can turn right on a red light.
Well, Facebook friend, your little comment wasn’t quite accurate. It reminded me of an article in The Economist last year that (gasp!) proclaimed that LA is one of the greenest cities in America—as stated by the Brookings Institution, hardly an organization that sticks up for us slackers in the West. Angelinos eked out 1.41 tons of carbon each in 2005, narrowly beating—don’t laugh—residents in Portland, Oregon!
Okay, before we get excited about Botox-Land beating the capital of Granola-Land, we should acknowledge in fairness that Brookings excluded local traffic and industry carbon statistics because they are unreliable. But if you think about it, this study is onto something. Despite LA’s reputation for sprawl, many residents pack into the bungalows and ranch houses that dot the city’s landscape—and no, I’m not just talking about immigrants. Countless homes in our neighborhood are split into two or there units and have an in-law—and Brookings notes that many people live two or even more in a ROOM. And yes, though our sprawl goes on for miles and miles, you don’t find the huge suburban homesteads on one-half acre plots that you’d see in outer Washington, DC, Philadelphia, or New York. Our weather is mild, so many houses don’t have heating or cooling, so we’re not using and abusing our utilities to the degree our relatives in Florida or Minnesota are during the changing seasons. We use coal as a fuel source much less than many areas in the Midwest. Finally, even though California’s government barely functions, the environmental laws for better or worse have worked: Los Angeles does not have the brown sky that my father recalled in the 1960s and 70s, the smog alerts from my grammar school days are gone, and neighborhood groups have been successful in building neighborhood parks on what once were patches of concrete. The fact that the city government of Los Angeles loses millions of dollars each year from folks who clean out recycling bins to make some pocket change is one anecdote that the city is greening. And recently, I can’t find gardening equipment at a big box store or local nurseries to save my life—thanks in part to the Obamas’ White House garden, vegetable gardening is taking the city by storm across all demographic groups.
Indeed, Los Angeles wants to become the capital of green technology, and based on what I’ve seen at local conferences, the sincerity is there. Pasadena has become Silicon Valley of the solar industry, and the ports of LA and Long Beach are taking steps to reduce emissions from diesel trucks. The area has had an ambitious project to encourage even more telecommuting (some argue the concept was invented during the 1984 Summer Olympics here). Few here would brave a bus ride from downtown LA to the ocean, but the city does have a respectable public transport system that residents use, and I always tell visitors that if they are staying in downtown, they can see much of LA by Metro’s Red Line during a conference or business trip and can skip the car.
Yes, there is much work that needs to be done. I grit my teeth when I see more trash than I’d like on the sidewalks, the Exposition light rail line is a joke, and residents could be smarter about their shopping habits and water consumption. But the Brookings Institute study shows that thinking “green” is not just about air quality, sprawl, or recycling. There’s not just one true way of measuring what being “environmental” means. We have a ways to go before we shed the image with which pop culture has burdened us, but Angelinos are off to a green start.
Well, Facebook friend, your little comment wasn’t quite accurate. It reminded me of an article in The Economist last year that (gasp!) proclaimed that LA is one of the greenest cities in America—as stated by the Brookings Institution, hardly an organization that sticks up for us slackers in the West. Angelinos eked out 1.41 tons of carbon each in 2005, narrowly beating—don’t laugh—residents in Portland, Oregon!
Okay, before we get excited about Botox-Land beating the capital of Granola-Land, we should acknowledge in fairness that Brookings excluded local traffic and industry carbon statistics because they are unreliable. But if you think about it, this study is onto something. Despite LA’s reputation for sprawl, many residents pack into the bungalows and ranch houses that dot the city’s landscape—and no, I’m not just talking about immigrants. Countless homes in our neighborhood are split into two or there units and have an in-law—and Brookings notes that many people live two or even more in a ROOM. And yes, though our sprawl goes on for miles and miles, you don’t find the huge suburban homesteads on one-half acre plots that you’d see in outer Washington, DC, Philadelphia, or New York. Our weather is mild, so many houses don’t have heating or cooling, so we’re not using and abusing our utilities to the degree our relatives in Florida or Minnesota are during the changing seasons. We use coal as a fuel source much less than many areas in the Midwest. Finally, even though California’s government barely functions, the environmental laws for better or worse have worked: Los Angeles does not have the brown sky that my father recalled in the 1960s and 70s, the smog alerts from my grammar school days are gone, and neighborhood groups have been successful in building neighborhood parks on what once were patches of concrete. The fact that the city government of Los Angeles loses millions of dollars each year from folks who clean out recycling bins to make some pocket change is one anecdote that the city is greening. And recently, I can’t find gardening equipment at a big box store or local nurseries to save my life—thanks in part to the Obamas’ White House garden, vegetable gardening is taking the city by storm across all demographic groups.
Indeed, Los Angeles wants to become the capital of green technology, and based on what I’ve seen at local conferences, the sincerity is there. Pasadena has become Silicon Valley of the solar industry, and the ports of LA and Long Beach are taking steps to reduce emissions from diesel trucks. The area has had an ambitious project to encourage even more telecommuting (some argue the concept was invented during the 1984 Summer Olympics here). Few here would brave a bus ride from downtown LA to the ocean, but the city does have a respectable public transport system that residents use, and I always tell visitors that if they are staying in downtown, they can see much of LA by Metro’s Red Line during a conference or business trip and can skip the car.
Yes, there is much work that needs to be done. I grit my teeth when I see more trash than I’d like on the sidewalks, the Exposition light rail line is a joke, and residents could be smarter about their shopping habits and water consumption. But the Brookings Institute study shows that thinking “green” is not just about air quality, sprawl, or recycling. There’s not just one true way of measuring what being “environmental” means. We have a ways to go before we shed the image with which pop culture has burdened us, but Angelinos are off to a green start.
Hybrid Cars: Freedom or Fallacy?
The hype has died down a little since the price of crude oil collapsed from last year’s high of almost $US150 a barrel, but even at $50-60 a barrel, hybrid cars get plenty of buzz. Angelinos dream about scoring a used Prius with one of the coveted clean air vehicle tags, and Honda and Toyota are gearing up for a heated advertising battle pitting the Insight versus the Prius. Once maligned as the vehicle of choice for only the tree huggers or techie early adopters, these vehicles are going mainstream. Perhaps those nasty auto manufacturers and oil companies that allegedly conspired to rip out LA’s Red Car tracks in the 1950s, only to replace them with freeways (they’re not free, Californians!), will finally, finally, get their comeuppance!
But are hybrids really the answer? I’m not a car expert—all I know is that I wish I could live without one, as I did when I lived in Seoul in the mid-1990s--Give me a 10-line subway system, 24 hour buses, and taxis with white-gloved drivers any day!!!—BUT, there’s been plenty of banter detailing how there are many car models that are more fuel efficient than the darling Prius. And don’t even get me started on hybrid SUV’s, which don’t deserve much more than snickering—the recent and future rises in oil prices, recent economic collapse, and consumer trends will see that trend die.
But forget about the discussion over performance and fuel efficiency. The Atlantic has a disturbing article on the rare metals that are critical for hybrid battery technology. Until the 1990s, one mine in a remote section of California was responsible for metals that only the Berkeley-bound kids could locate on the periodic chart table: neodymium was the new gold after europium demand diminished (c’mon, you know that was what made those red tones in your old color TV!). Long story short—these rare metals became too expensive to mine when another source emerged—yes, you guess it—China! Depending on how well the USA and China can maintain relations, we could be falling for another environmental bait-and-switch: trading in Middle Eastern oil dependence and volatility for a dependence on Chinese rare metals.
And lest I forget, with the current fleet of hybrid cars, once you enter the highway, you’re using—gasoline. So this opens another can: how many years of oil reserves do we really have? The Saudis claim decades, but there seems to be no accurate answer. We could go Palin and drill baby, drill, but let’s just face it—the oil off of our coasts, or Brazil’s, or elsewhere, is just too expensive to drill, and according to one energy expert with whom I’ve spoken, oil companies just want those leases so their balance sheets look good.
I am also dubious on other fuel sources: corn ethanol is a disaster that Midwestern senators and AMD can barely defend, and while it’s great that French fry oil can fuel some diesel engines, biofuels really should only be considered for a fleet approach. Never mind hydrogen: the amount of energy necessary to fire up such a car is a cruel joke.
Perhaps plug-in hybrids are the answer. After all, most of us only drive 40-50 miles a day, even with a commute. Ford will start producing plug-in hybrid vehicles in 2012, and President Obama has slapped the wrists of domestic auto manufacturers, saying that Japan is the leader in plug-in technology. While Obama was criticized for what some believe is an inaccurate assessment, this is an opportunity to get the auto companies to revamp their business models and incorporate new technologies into their manufacturing. After all, in an ideal world, if everyone recharged their batteries overnight, this would only add another 3 to 7% strain on the electrical grid—and note that all this recharging would be done during off-peak hours. Now if we’re to believe the author of The Atlantic article, we’d be in a fix, but if alternative technologies can be developed—and if the government would add some horsepower to the Department of Energy’s SBIR program, surely the move towards plug-in technology could occur in the next decade. If we’re serious about weaning ourselves away from fossil fuels, we need to remember what Rahm Emanual said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The time for such a shift is now!
But are hybrids really the answer? I’m not a car expert—all I know is that I wish I could live without one, as I did when I lived in Seoul in the mid-1990s--Give me a 10-line subway system, 24 hour buses, and taxis with white-gloved drivers any day!!!—BUT, there’s been plenty of banter detailing how there are many car models that are more fuel efficient than the darling Prius. And don’t even get me started on hybrid SUV’s, which don’t deserve much more than snickering—the recent and future rises in oil prices, recent economic collapse, and consumer trends will see that trend die.
But forget about the discussion over performance and fuel efficiency. The Atlantic has a disturbing article on the rare metals that are critical for hybrid battery technology. Until the 1990s, one mine in a remote section of California was responsible for metals that only the Berkeley-bound kids could locate on the periodic chart table: neodymium was the new gold after europium demand diminished (c’mon, you know that was what made those red tones in your old color TV!). Long story short—these rare metals became too expensive to mine when another source emerged—yes, you guess it—China! Depending on how well the USA and China can maintain relations, we could be falling for another environmental bait-and-switch: trading in Middle Eastern oil dependence and volatility for a dependence on Chinese rare metals.
And lest I forget, with the current fleet of hybrid cars, once you enter the highway, you’re using—gasoline. So this opens another can: how many years of oil reserves do we really have? The Saudis claim decades, but there seems to be no accurate answer. We could go Palin and drill baby, drill, but let’s just face it—the oil off of our coasts, or Brazil’s, or elsewhere, is just too expensive to drill, and according to one energy expert with whom I’ve spoken, oil companies just want those leases so their balance sheets look good.
I am also dubious on other fuel sources: corn ethanol is a disaster that Midwestern senators and AMD can barely defend, and while it’s great that French fry oil can fuel some diesel engines, biofuels really should only be considered for a fleet approach. Never mind hydrogen: the amount of energy necessary to fire up such a car is a cruel joke.
Perhaps plug-in hybrids are the answer. After all, most of us only drive 40-50 miles a day, even with a commute. Ford will start producing plug-in hybrid vehicles in 2012, and President Obama has slapped the wrists of domestic auto manufacturers, saying that Japan is the leader in plug-in technology. While Obama was criticized for what some believe is an inaccurate assessment, this is an opportunity to get the auto companies to revamp their business models and incorporate new technologies into their manufacturing. After all, in an ideal world, if everyone recharged their batteries overnight, this would only add another 3 to 7% strain on the electrical grid—and note that all this recharging would be done during off-peak hours. Now if we’re to believe the author of The Atlantic article, we’d be in a fix, but if alternative technologies can be developed—and if the government would add some horsepower to the Department of Energy’s SBIR program, surely the move towards plug-in technology could occur in the next decade. If we’re serious about weaning ourselves away from fossil fuels, we need to remember what Rahm Emanual said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The time for such a shift is now!
Gananche - an Introduction
Green is the new black—hip, cool, sleek. To some it may be the new blue—depressing if you read about the continuing trends in global warming, pollution, and environmental damage our lifestyle are creating in the world. I guess to some it’s the new red—if you’re to believe the price tag that all of these newfangled green technologies will have on governments’ budgets and companies’ balance sheets.
I’ve been attending a lot of “green” events in Los Angeles (in my 2002 Altima, which is probably not the greenest vehicle), and I hear a lot of discussion, angst, optimism, and well, a lot of noise. I decided to start this blog in order to have a discussion about all we hear—what is green, what isn’t, and what we can do to minimize our effect on the environment. I also want to broaden the definition of green while slamming the door shut on “green” processes and products that well, aren’t necessarily green.
My interest in environmental technology dates back to the 1970s. Once in a while, my dad would pack my brother and me in the car and we’d drive to the DeAnza College Recycling Center. I was not an athlete and couldn’t throw a ball with aim or distance, but I sure loved throwing the brown, green, and clear jars and bottles into the huge blue bins and listening to them crash and shatter. Dad always insisted we clean out glass containers as we used them up and we’d keep them in the backyard until it was time for a DeAnza run.
Aluminum cans also were saved—we’d rinse them out, store them in bags, and crush them with this contraption my handy father made—a heavy weight connected to a pipe, painted light blue—and this was the extent of my weightlifting as a 9 year old—I’d struggle to lift this beast and crush the 7up, RC Cola (remember that brand?), and Shasta cans. My triceps’ foundation rest on that can crushing contraption!
I’m half Armenian—I never got that Armenian entrepreneurial gene, but the closest I did get that bug was when, from prodding from my parents, I realized that if I wanted to see the movies, I could go from door to door around the neighborhood and ask for everyone’s aluminum cans. I suppose even back then enough people were aware of recycling so that they had saved their cans and would give them to the skinny 9 year old with the Donny Osmond haircut—though I think most people probably thought I was a weird little kid who looked like one of the kids in the Arrested Development 70s flashbacks. Eventually we’d gather enough cans so that we could load up the station wagon (which probably got 10 miles to the gallon) and go to some recycling center in the industrial part of San Jose—they’d weigh the cans and I’d have enough money to see some movies at the Meridian Quad theaters.
I’m sure at some point I asked my dad what the point of all this was. I don’t remember my exact question, but I do remember him saying, “Don’t people think about where all this trash goes and that we don’t have enough space for all of it?”
I think my quasi-Armenian heritage, inherent in my father’s fiscally conservative approach to the family budget, also had an effect on how I live my life. I hate wasting food, I’ve started to garden (admittedly with Home Depot products, sorry), I reuse those 32-ounce yogurt containers, and like my grandmother, I keep attractive tins and jars for storing food and spices. When we’d visit Grandma in Fresno, we’d leave with bags of goodies, including chocolate chip cookies in huge Folgers coffee cans and sometimes homemade jam in old pickle jars. She was a genocide survivor, lived through the global depression of the 1930s, the war shortages of the following decade, and while running a little grocery store in the Calwa section of Fresno, lived simply and saved her money.
So it is with this introduction that I dedicate this blog to my father and grandmother. She lived her life sustainably without probably even thinking of the environment the way we do now; her son was aware of the effects our lifestyle has on the earth when it certainly wasn’t cool to do so. Gananche is the Armenian word for green; how they have lived is certainly possible at a macro level.
I hope to raise awareness of the environment and to let us live more sustainably. I want to be practical, not preachy; educational, not egotistical; and nurturing, not neurotic. “Being green” was once hippie-dippie and now it’s mainstream corporate--I think we can land somewhere in the middle. We can’t start driving biodiesel Mercedes and install solar panels on our roofs tomorrow. I’ve travelled to 50 or so countries and I certainly didn’t bike my way there and back, so yes, I have to watch my tone. But I look around me and I know as a people we can do better. I think we can be land somewhere in the middle, heal the earth, and yes, we are American—make some $$$ at the same time!
I’ve been attending a lot of “green” events in Los Angeles (in my 2002 Altima, which is probably not the greenest vehicle), and I hear a lot of discussion, angst, optimism, and well, a lot of noise. I decided to start this blog in order to have a discussion about all we hear—what is green, what isn’t, and what we can do to minimize our effect on the environment. I also want to broaden the definition of green while slamming the door shut on “green” processes and products that well, aren’t necessarily green.
My interest in environmental technology dates back to the 1970s. Once in a while, my dad would pack my brother and me in the car and we’d drive to the DeAnza College Recycling Center. I was not an athlete and couldn’t throw a ball with aim or distance, but I sure loved throwing the brown, green, and clear jars and bottles into the huge blue bins and listening to them crash and shatter. Dad always insisted we clean out glass containers as we used them up and we’d keep them in the backyard until it was time for a DeAnza run.
Aluminum cans also were saved—we’d rinse them out, store them in bags, and crush them with this contraption my handy father made—a heavy weight connected to a pipe, painted light blue—and this was the extent of my weightlifting as a 9 year old—I’d struggle to lift this beast and crush the 7up, RC Cola (remember that brand?), and Shasta cans. My triceps’ foundation rest on that can crushing contraption!
I’m half Armenian—I never got that Armenian entrepreneurial gene, but the closest I did get that bug was when, from prodding from my parents, I realized that if I wanted to see the movies, I could go from door to door around the neighborhood and ask for everyone’s aluminum cans. I suppose even back then enough people were aware of recycling so that they had saved their cans and would give them to the skinny 9 year old with the Donny Osmond haircut—though I think most people probably thought I was a weird little kid who looked like one of the kids in the Arrested Development 70s flashbacks. Eventually we’d gather enough cans so that we could load up the station wagon (which probably got 10 miles to the gallon) and go to some recycling center in the industrial part of San Jose—they’d weigh the cans and I’d have enough money to see some movies at the Meridian Quad theaters.
I’m sure at some point I asked my dad what the point of all this was. I don’t remember my exact question, but I do remember him saying, “Don’t people think about where all this trash goes and that we don’t have enough space for all of it?”
I think my quasi-Armenian heritage, inherent in my father’s fiscally conservative approach to the family budget, also had an effect on how I live my life. I hate wasting food, I’ve started to garden (admittedly with Home Depot products, sorry), I reuse those 32-ounce yogurt containers, and like my grandmother, I keep attractive tins and jars for storing food and spices. When we’d visit Grandma in Fresno, we’d leave with bags of goodies, including chocolate chip cookies in huge Folgers coffee cans and sometimes homemade jam in old pickle jars. She was a genocide survivor, lived through the global depression of the 1930s, the war shortages of the following decade, and while running a little grocery store in the Calwa section of Fresno, lived simply and saved her money.
So it is with this introduction that I dedicate this blog to my father and grandmother. She lived her life sustainably without probably even thinking of the environment the way we do now; her son was aware of the effects our lifestyle has on the earth when it certainly wasn’t cool to do so. Gananche is the Armenian word for green; how they have lived is certainly possible at a macro level.
I hope to raise awareness of the environment and to let us live more sustainably. I want to be practical, not preachy; educational, not egotistical; and nurturing, not neurotic. “Being green” was once hippie-dippie and now it’s mainstream corporate--I think we can land somewhere in the middle. We can’t start driving biodiesel Mercedes and install solar panels on our roofs tomorrow. I’ve travelled to 50 or so countries and I certainly didn’t bike my way there and back, so yes, I have to watch my tone. But I look around me and I know as a people we can do better. I think we can be land somewhere in the middle, heal the earth, and yes, we are American—make some $$$ at the same time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)