Topics
29 Comments
-
Re: Ideas needed for homeonwers to switch to CFL's
2008-10-09 17:25:51 UTC
Hi Stuart,
We decided back in 2005 to make it possible for people everywhere to take the first step, the first "simple action" on climate change, and to convert awareness to action by getting friends and neighbours to deliver free CFL bulbs door to door in their own neighborhoods.
Your project appears to have been remarkably successful, and you certainly deserve congratulating. But while this message is not in any way intended to pour cold water on your efforts and achievements, I can't help wishing for some deeper discussion of the implications of what you are doing, and also of how Steps 2 ...infinity can be as successfully managed - because this must never be allowed to stall at Step 1. The complacency trap is obvious: Make a few small changes in lifestyle, even change all the light bulbs, and cut down a bit on trash collections by recycling rather than putting recyclables in the garbage, and some people may honestly think that their share is now done - aren't they already doing so much more than the neighbour? We are only too aware of the need to pursue these matters far, far deeper than is represented by a few CFL replacements, yet how many people are as willing to go the whole hog voluntarily before it is forced upon them? Indeed, some warn that doing a little bit and feeling comfortable about it is even counterproductive because of the complacency trap; the WWF Chair in his article "Weathercocks & Signposts" argues forcibly of the need to grasp the whole picture, and of the inherent dangers to public attitudes by making out (even unintentionally) that the necessary reductions are relatively small and painless. Some are beginning to suggest that small starts may do no actual good at all (see the new "100 Hours Warning"), and are now somewhat ruefully looking at these issues in a different light (excuse pun!) and wondering just what is the most effective line to pursue. Certainly there can be no harm in persuading a community to take that initial step, PROVIDED you and all the other promoters have a clear, holistic view of the bigger picture. That vivid vision of "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel" is horribly applicable, and those who advocate ways of avoiding the gnats do need to be fully aware that the sooner those camels are tackled too, the better. How many people, I wonder, will drive to a local shopping centre in order to buy a stock of CFLs without appreciating that they are thereby doing far more harm than any number of CFLs can be expected to undo at all soon? I believe one answer is to initiate action at all levels simultaneously. What you are doing is an excellent way to initiate involvement, but that becomes even more effective when leaders undergo the same 'deprivations'. When leadership visibly undertakes more drastic programmes for CO2 reduction there is much more hope that the populace will agree to follow suit, than if such a programme merely appears on a piece of paper in the letter box or is promulgated through some impersonal advertisements. What you have to avoid at all cost is the feeling that those who toe the Green line are being martyrs to the cause while the rest of society continues to burn up the precious savings without a care. Advancing on all fronts simultaneously takes skilled and brave tactics, and I am not the one to advise on those. I can only wish and hope to be part of that larger planning because I feel passionately that it is the only way we are going to achieve real changes along the lines necessary.
Best wishes,
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC, Canada) -
Re: Very cool on mercury concerns re: compact fluorescent bulbs
2008-07-01 10:20:26 UTC
Hi Francois, there apparently is a study that states that CFLs should only be used in summer as the fact that they do not give off much heat (unlike incandescents) forces furnaces to work more in winter Is it seriously suggested that people usually have enough lights on all over the house to warm it up in winter? Mon Dieu! What sort of lifestyles do people lead? The purpose of a light is to enable you to see what you're doing when natural lighting is insufficient, not to heat your house!
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC) -
Re: Cutlery: Plastic vs. biodegradable vs. flatware
2008-06-21 11:30:23 UTC
Hi Rod,
We often see this kind of "what is best ... question." I have participated in many discussions about standards for using so called life cycle analysis and have argued the relevance or lack of relevance of them for many years. The problem is that most non-objective analyzes and many objective analyzes don't evaluate all environmental media, Thank you for spelling all that out - it was needed! But at the same time, behind so many of those questions is the implicit, "If I switch from product A to product B, where B is designated more 'green' than A, I will feel better about myself and can face the environmentalists with the confidence that I'm doing my bit", whereas what ALL of these messages need to say first and foremost, to shout and to yell from the rooftops, is "REDUCE, REDUCE, REDUCE". It won't help the situation more than one or two iotas if we generate a set of replacement industries that manufacture wonderfully green products. The very fact that they manufacture anything means that resources will get irreversibly used up. Slowly, the green-friendly operation of designated products will extend the lifetime of their running materials and may gradually reduce demands on certain energy sources, but if we could stop manufacturing altogether, that step alone would have a far greater impact overnight. If we re-introduced some sense of 'elbow grease' into daily living (cleaning, gardening, fewer power tools), outlawed unnecessary packaging, obliged people to bring their own cutlery to conferences and parties, made unsolicited mail illegal, surtaxed recreational driving, abolished domestic outdoor lighting, reduced garbage collections to one per month and rationed water per head/household, I think the reductions in carbon footprints would be so enormous that everyone would turn round and say, "Why didn't you tell us to do this before? It's so simple." Of course, in tandem we have got to do much more in the way of community services: frequent (small, bio-gas-powered) buses to all parts, composting collections or services, discounts on rain barrels, cloth-bag alternatives in stores, mobile shops, and so on, but that will also be a wonderful opportunity to open up and encourage community neighbourhoods So often this very listserve asks the "What is the best" question, but I rarely see an answer which says, boldly and baldly, "Use LESS". I'm saying it now. Use LESS. "Use LESS" has got to be the top priority for everyone, every time. Yes, it means lifestyle modification, of various degrees depending on the individual. It doesn't mean making a painless change from one (often unnecessary) product to another. It means avoiding many products altogether. There is no sensible palliative like "purchasing carbon offsets" such as some airlines boast; it means not flying the damn things in the first place. It means re-learning how to write letters, recalling how to make our own entertainment, reading science papers instead of going on conference trots, feeding waste food to animals (my Dad used to raise his chicken on fish scraps he collected by bike from a local fishmonger), preparing products in bulk which we decant into our own containers, and limiting very severely what is absolutely un-re-useable and therefore has to be dumped. Interestingly, all this does NOT mean turning the clock back, because we need to involve innovative technology (e.g. developing bio-gas buses, home teleconferencing, simple sterilising units, printing newspapers - if you must have the things - on some kind of papyrus that only lasts for a few days and then becomes hay, to be re-used as compost or as building insulation). "Zero-living", in fact.
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC) -
Lawn Mowers, Cabbages and Kings
2008-06-10 11:53:01 UTC
Hi All,
The recent discussions on this topic exemplify rather well how even a band of guys with their hearts in the right place are easily stymied when it comes to facing the larger picture. Proceeding from a question of the carbon output of different types of lawnmower, we have at last begun to glimpse the real heart of the matter: that radical question as to whether a lawn is in fact "necessary" in the first place. I suppose people who regard their lawns with fondness need to irrigate them, so we then look at devices that tell us when we've used a reasonable amount of [potable] water and can programme the system to shut off. Little human effort or initiative is called out, and nowhere is the deeper question asked, "Is it more important that I use water to beautify my garden or that it be left in the river for farmers downstream who need to irrigate the food that they struggle to grow?" (I know it's not usually such a straightforward situation, but ultimately we all draw water from the same basic sources). Anyone with the ability to add 2 + 2 and get the right answer must concede that using fossil fuels more quickly than they are laid down will result in exhaustion of the supply sooner or later. That important sense of urgency which Adam injected hasn't penetrated a lot of skulls yet, but some of us *are* growing concerned, and we're tuned into this listserve to learn, and to seek inspiration about ways in which the inevitable can be delayed just a little bit more. But if we can stay the crunch for (say) 51 years instead of the 50 that we may be heading for, that won't help us to *be prepared* for what our kids and their kids are going to have to face (thanks to us). Holly put her finger right on it: I, too, am in the process of ridding myself of as much lawn as possible and limiting the use of my gas powered push mower ... The paradigm shift required to readjust our thoughts about generally acceptable landscaping practices must run concurrently with [our] personal efforts to do so. Citizens seem divided into three camps. The first (Do-Nothing) supposes that it will happen one day but there are enough crises every day that need more urgent attention, so reacting to the Environmental issue is shelved until it happens (and perhaps it never will). The second (Do-Something) wishes that more would listen to the warning sounds, and believes that simple, costless, painless measures largely crafted on CBSM principles will be effective in converting the masses to toe the line voluntarily. The third camp (Doomers) sees the big picture as frighteningly close, and argues that only panic will activate us out of our present lethargy. Somewhere in between the Do-Something and the Doomers camp is an area for energetic activity. But even there, we are pretty ineffective without appropriate leadership. We may persuade our neighbours to turn off outside lights, but we can't reduce the light pollution and energy wastage from municipal lighting. We can recycle odd pieces of paper that have no further use, but cannot stop the flood of unsolicited advertising that comes in the mail nor the huge 'unreadable' sections of newspapers that are far too big for most of us to read in one day anyway. And so on. But if the municipal Council declares that all automatic irrigation systems on purely domestic properties are to be banned (but will offer a discount on rain barrels), those who still cherish the idea of a green lawn all summer will do their darndest to capture alternative supplies of irrigation water (though they will still have to administer it through a watering-can); or they may suddenly find other herbs to grow instead of grass. As Adam put it: "our challenge ... is how to develop the sense of urgency today." That sense of urgency can surely only come down from above, and is the kind of 'healthy' urgency which spurs us into considering our priorities carefully before finding alternative ways of carrying on much as before, or possibly of changing altogether. The (many excellent) projects and discussions on this listserve speak to me of that lack of leadership, of a glass ceiling that we can only penetrate collectively. At present we do not have that necessary nucleation. Our ideas are slowly growing and our interpretation is slowly maturing, but we are only preaching to the converted, and there is little sense of real progress. In order to become a Movement to be Reckoned With, the Do-Something camp has got to find a way of speaking to everyone, particularly those who don't want to listen, and that is practically impossible for individual citizens. But get the local Council on board and start imposing some mandatory bans (it may not take many to get the message home) and even the Do-Nothing camp will start asking "Why". My own style of living is what I term "Zero-living": being as self-sufficient as one can and reducing all acquisitions to what is actually necessary. For me, that means growing as much food as I can (or as the insects let me), using a bike for transportation (unless the going is dangerous), collecting and storing rainwater from all my roofs all year and the winter-time surplus from my well for fruit/veg irrigation, using lights only where needed for a purpose, and only heating the house with wood-stoves (including a wood cookstove). I write to senders of junk mail and request them to delete my name from their mailing lists (it is slowly having an effect!), I compost everything possible, and I simply don't generate any waste that cannot be recycled. I believe in all this fervently enough that I feel guilty at any infringement, however trivial, and consequently I get upset when I see others flagrantly wasting power, heat, lighting, paper, whatever - but I have no power to stop that waste except by preaching the occasional sermon about it. I'm sure many of you share these deep feelings of enthusiasm tempered with despair. If only .... if only we could harness our collective energy and become that Movement to be Reckoned With. And that doesn't really mean belonging to Green Peace or the WWF, whose members are converted anyway. It means finding a way of taking the message into every home, every workplace, every leisure area and every Govt department and insisting that it be read, discussed and acted upon.
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC)
-
Re: sustainable behavior
2008-05-03 11:01:42 UTC
Hi Erik,
Interesting opportunity! Sweden has instituted some remarkable energy-saving projects, and claims that it has *reduced* its GHG emissions by 4% since 1994 (whereas in Canada they have risen by 24%, and they may not be alone on that score). And this despite the fact that Sweden is a northern country; in December it gets dark at 2:30 pm. Things are designed on a local scale; the power-station pipes its waste hot water throughout the local township, while the excellent project, described in a talk called "Modern Alchemy", not only converts sewage into compost but also runs the local buses on biofuel extracted from it. However, what will be of particular interest in this context is to examine, or discover, the extent to which CBSM has played a role - if any. Because of the scale of Sweden's district-community projects, they are not voluntary but are clearly mandatory. How were they first started, and why? Was it sheer economics that drove them in the first place, or have more altruistic drivers been part of the incentive, even since quite long ago? How were the consumers consulted - if at all? Were the schemes first accepted as a sensible, forward-thinking plans by city councils, and sold to residents as the best hope of keeping down costs, or were there Town Hall meetings and debates and referenda, and - if so - what sort of arguments were put up, especially against? How do residents feel about those projects today? Are they proud to be a world leader in such things, or do they grumble that what was foisted on them never works as well as if each house had control over its own heating, etc. etc.? The distinction is important if other countries are to be encouraged to follow suit, and also because consumer attitude governs the longevity of such schemes.
Enjoy your visit!
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC) -
Re: hand dryers vs. paper hand towels
2008-04-17 10:16:25 UTC
Hi Cameron,
Conventional hand blowers never manage to get people's hands dry on one blow, so people tend to start them a second time. This is not unknown. When hand blowers were introduced in my own (university) institution, we read the machine's operating instructions (Points 1-3) and added Point 4: wipe hands on jeans! quite a few people perhaps a little too worried about germs apparently use the paper to open doors. Such steps are actually advocated in Health & Safety at Work codes, which is a sorry regression for sustainable living. I say that, not only because it uses up more paper than is at all necessary, but it *increases* one's risk of picking up germs. By far the best way to resist germs is to have a strong internal defence, and one gets that THROUGH exposure to germs, not by avoiding them at all costs. Unless there are contagious diseases like scarlet fever running rampant, it is wise to have a sensible but slightly casual attitude to germs, and to allow one's own body to strengthen its natural defence corps.
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, Canada) -
Re: GHG reductions lists
2008-04-08 12:33:07 UTC
Hi Emily,
I am compiling a list of GHG reductions tips lists eg. "The top ten things you can do to reduce your Greenhouse Gas Emissions." I want to compare the lists with the view of possibly creating a master list. I think the master list will be useful to educators not meant for the public as it might be overwhelming. If any one knows of any good lists please forward me the links. I don't know of such, and priorities will depend on circumstances, but I can construct one: ================================================================ 1) Don't drive; if you must travel, car-pool, bike or use public transport 2) Don't fly 3) Buy local food products as your first priority; grow your own if you can 4) Don't garbage anything that can be re-used in any form by any group 5) Re-use bags of all types until done for; eschew unnecessary wrappings 6) Put on an extra layer (e.g. sweater, socks) before turning up the heating 7) Don't print a document unless you need to keep it in that form 8) Use outdoors for drying laundry whenever possible 9) Only use lights when you actually need to illuminate a space 10) ASSESS WHAT YOU'VE GOT, AND ONLY PURCHASE MORE IF IT IS REALLY NECESSARY. And: (11) Advertise the steps you take in order to set trends and persuade others to follow. Blazon the Three R's from your rooftop, but remember that REDUCE is the most important. ================================================================ Obviously it is tailored to, and coloured by, my own experiences and practices. But it may be a useful start!
Cheers,
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC, Canada) -
Re: Energy cost in replacing old appliances with energy efficient new appliances
2008-03-27 10:30:11 UTC
Hi John,
However, when one takes account of the operating hours it may well be worth changing an inefficient item to a more efficient unit. ..... At these energy and cost savings the new high efficiency motor will quickly recoup the embodied energy contained in the motors and have a relatively quick payback period. But that is only part of the total equation, and relates only to the economic cost of purchasing and operating a new appliance. Your formula does not include the 'invisible' resources (a) absorbed by manufacturing the new appliance or (b) already consumed in manufacturing the older one, nor does it face (c) the knock-on effects of destroying, recycling or burying the old one somewhere. Reality is that we have already fitted out much of the world with appliances that are less than optimally efficient, certainly in the environmental sense, and we cannot just ignore them all and begin again making and distributing new ones for everyone. What on earth is to happen to all the old things that ideally need replacing? - Except perhaps raise NE a little, and assuage Adam's fear of imminent flooding.
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC) -
Re: Energy cost in replacing old appliances with energy efficient new appliances
2008-03-25 11:34:10 UTC
Hi Lucille,
Has anyone thought of the "embodied energy" in the material we throw away? Me, I think of such things all the time! I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more feasible to keep things working rather= than throwing away so much LARGE equipment? I am somewhat aghast at the growing concept that we have to re-fashion all our devices with "energy efficient" ones in order to reduce the operating load on the environment and that that automatically means replacing rather than (as you have artfully done!) modifying in order to achieve the same end effect. Not only does it cost the environment a lot to absorb discarded appliances, but it also costs a lot of new resources to manufacture new ones. There are definitely more factors in the equation than just "operating energy saved". Making well-informed choices must take all those other factors into consideration. We tend to overlook the resources is takes to convert scrap metal or scrap paper into something useable. If a bit of ingenious tweaking can mean that the old washer remains in place and operates more efficiently, the ONLY party to suffer is the purveyor of new washers. I don't think we need shed tears on that behalf; however, Environmentalists do need to study the antagonism which greening is almost calculated to produce among those whose sales profits will definitely be damaged. I have just fixed my old washer You are a saint! - and a brilliant exemplar of the three R's: REDUCE, Re-use, Re-cycle, IN THAT ORDER OF PRIORITY. Well done!
Elizabeth Griffin (Victoria, Canada) -
Re: Interesting NY Times Article
2008-03-22 12:19:02 UTC
Hi Peter,
Any thoughts on why people are less likely to recycle & turn off lights @ work? The foremost reason, in respect of leaving lights on, is because (as Peter hints) someone else is paying the bill. One of the arguments I hear myself using frequently in discussions on these issues at work is: "You wouldn't leave them on like this at home ...", meaning "when You have to pay for what you use". (Somewhat similarly, most people do not go out and buy handfuls of pens for use at home; they don't need to, because pens somehow migrate there from the place where they are supplied for free.) Most people are still fixated on monetary prices as the beacons of behaviour, and the same is true of recycling items in the workplace: ownership by the corporation, the faceless "Them", is something taken for granted, and habits (like throwing away blank pages of pager simply because the printer spewed them out by mistake) have not only been deeply ingrained since the days of environmental unawareness but are actively encouraged by so much affluence of resources in a well-founded laboratory or a well-equipped office. I have also observed what can only be described as "grievance behaviour": the owner of the organization where I work is the Canadian Government, and one janitor/clearer who used to be employed would (surely deliberately) switch on and leave on all the outside lights to some of the buildings. That behaviour seemed to say two things: "I'm getting my own back on the Government" and "The Government is the ultimate owner of everything Canadian, so I can use its resources as I please". Both reflect that it is the monetary cost of the commodity rather than its environmental resource value that motivates many of our reflex actions. And if our reflex actions do not have Environmental considerations at their root, we have a long, long, long way to go before we automatically let environmental considerations dominate. That there is such a clear dichotomy of home/work behaviour is thus both serious and worrying. The issue that has been raised is surely a key litmus test of how commited anyone really is to environmental matters.
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, Canada)
0 Recommends
You haven't saved any recommendations.
Messaging 0 colleagues