This is my second trip to USA. One thing which totally caught my attention and also surprised to me a huge extent was the use of paper in this country.
If the students taking this class get a chance to visit the east side of the world they will notice some systems in society is way more efficient than the system in this country which is so intensive.
Use of (paper napkins in the bath rooms for drying hands)/or even a dryer can easily be replaced by each guy carrying a handkerchief. It might sound funny to you guys, but you go to India, every hygienic conscious person carries one. Besides, use of paper in restrooms can easily be replaced by use of water. I wont go into more details, All I can say is there is wastage of paper everywhere in this country. paper industry is not only intensive energy wise, but you do not know how many trees are brought down to meet the paper supply of this paper intensive country.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A Greener Apple
I thought it would be useful to post on a topic in green design that I find interesting. I'm a computer guy so I'm only talking about Apple computers, but there are many more topics/products out there. Feel free to post your own in the comments or in another post.
Apple had come under criticism from a few environmental groups about toxic materials in their products. In order to reduce the harmful impact of their products, Apple removed a lot of toxic chemicals, introduced LED backlit computer screens, made a majority of the computer recyclable and reduced packaging for the new MacBooks. These changes affect the amount environmental impact not only in the use cycle of the computer, but in the manufacturing, transportation stages of the computer's life.
But are these changes enough? Or are they even doing something? A Wall Street Journal article posted at the end of last year questioned how green Apple really is. Is this just "green-washing" or are they making a difference? Both?
Whether or not Apple is as green as they say, it would be hard to argue that building and design standards are taking environmental impacts into account. Whether it is solely more profitable for a company to reduce the packaging and manufacturing steps or because of a philosophical belief, it bodes well for everyone.
Apple had come under criticism from a few environmental groups about toxic materials in their products. In order to reduce the harmful impact of their products, Apple removed a lot of toxic chemicals, introduced LED backlit computer screens, made a majority of the computer recyclable and reduced packaging for the new MacBooks. These changes affect the amount environmental impact not only in the use cycle of the computer, but in the manufacturing, transportation stages of the computer's life.
But are these changes enough? Or are they even doing something? A Wall Street Journal article posted at the end of last year questioned how green Apple really is. Is this just "green-washing" or are they making a difference? Both?
Whether or not Apple is as green as they say, it would be hard to argue that building and design standards are taking environmental impacts into account. Whether it is solely more profitable for a company to reduce the packaging and manufacturing steps or because of a philosophical belief, it bodes well for everyone.
Friday, April 18, 2008
thoughts on bush’s climate change goals and speech
So after seven years in the White House, President Bush has finally proposed a plan to mitigate climate change and curb our greenhouse gas emissions. See here. Unfortunately, the President’s approach and justifications leave much to be desired, and seem more like leaving the problem to future administrations, and leaving us with the impression that his Administration made a (positive) difference.
One of the most startling/puzzling/frustrating things about the speech is that it makes the U.S. out to be the leader on climate change, when in fact we are the laggard. Bush’s speech has an air to it that the rest of the world hasn’t been addressing climate change correctly, and that our way is the solution. This is pretty ridiculous considering that we have failed to regulate CO2 emissions, join the Kyoto Protocol or any other number of actions the rest of the world has undertaken.
It should be noted that the Kyoto Protocol isn’t perfect, and I partly agree with Bush’s assessment that it does not address India and China, but waiting for over a decade to impose regulations (well, even admit that CO2 is a problem) is irresponsible.
What’s most disappointing in the speech is the President’s view of the authority and regulations that are in place and how they should be applied to climate change. Take his stance on the Clean Air Act for example:
It’s a shame that laws designed to protect the environment can’t be applied to a problem that affects the environment (sarcasm).
Keep in mind that Representative Dingell is from Michigan’s 15th district, which is the heart of American auto manufacturing (Detroit, Dearborn etc…). Of course he would oppose any regulation on GHG emissions on vehicles.
It’s interesting to hear Bush talk about limiting the role of government in terms of the environment, when everything else his Administration has done has increased the role of government in our lives. Not quite the conservative platform.
But for good measure, we get a little scare tactic of the cost of the environment vs. our economy. Surely we don’t want to raise taxes or curb economic growth (which seems to be the only way we measure economic success, for some reason).
The idea is not to cripple the U.S. economy (we’re doing a great job at that through other practices), but to set the rules of the road so industry can adapt their businesses. No power generator wants to install emission capture equipment without knowing exactly what their competitors have to do. Government must step in and set CO2 limits.
But to keep all of this in perspective, Bush’s plan might be a pretty realistic assessment of what the U.S. will have to do to reduce emissions. This is not necessarily a good thing, because I think it implies/reinforces the idea that the U.S. is lazy. While setting goals of capping emissions by 2025 seems far off, it might be the only practical solution, or at least the most reasonable.
David Victor, head of Stanford’s program on energy and sustainable and development spearheads this idea:
Maybe it’s a case of better late than never, but it’s insulting to hear President Bush urging action on climate change when the rest of the world has been waiting on us to act. As with other real problems, this Administration is leaving this up to the next one to deal with.
One of the most startling/puzzling/frustrating things about the speech is that it makes the U.S. out to be the leader on climate change, when in fact we are the laggard. Bush’s speech has an air to it that the rest of the world hasn’t been addressing climate change correctly, and that our way is the solution. This is pretty ridiculous considering that we have failed to regulate CO2 emissions, join the Kyoto Protocol or any other number of actions the rest of the world has undertaken.
It should be noted that the Kyoto Protocol isn’t perfect, and I partly agree with Bush’s assessment that it does not address India and China, but waiting for over a decade to impose regulations (well, even admit that CO2 is a problem) is irresponsible.
What’s most disappointing in the speech is the President’s view of the authority and regulations that are in place and how they should be applied to climate change. Take his stance on the Clean Air Act for example:
As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate.
It’s a shame that laws designed to protect the environment can’t be applied to a problem that affects the environment (sarcasm).
For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”
Keep in mind that Representative Dingell is from Michigan’s 15th district, which is the heart of American auto manufacturing (Detroit, Dearborn etc…). Of course he would oppose any regulation on GHG emissions on vehicles.
It’s interesting to hear Bush talk about limiting the role of government in terms of the environment, when everything else his Administration has done has increased the role of government in our lives. Not quite the conservative platform.
But for good measure, we get a little scare tactic of the cost of the environment vs. our economy. Surely we don’t want to raise taxes or curb economic growth (which seems to be the only way we measure economic success, for some reason).
The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
The idea is not to cripple the U.S. economy (we’re doing a great job at that through other practices), but to set the rules of the road so industry can adapt their businesses. No power generator wants to install emission capture equipment without knowing exactly what their competitors have to do. Government must step in and set CO2 limits.
But to keep all of this in perspective, Bush’s plan might be a pretty realistic assessment of what the U.S. will have to do to reduce emissions. This is not necessarily a good thing, because I think it implies/reinforces the idea that the U.S. is lazy. While setting goals of capping emissions by 2025 seems far off, it might be the only practical solution, or at least the most reasonable.
David Victor, head of Stanford’s program on energy and sustainable and development spearheads this idea:
That is a pessimistic assessment, but it may be realistic. Look, for example, at the E.U. where, after getting all the credit for the unification of Germany and for the shift to gas in the U.K. (all of which lowered emissions), total E.U. emissions are now, once again, inching back up. I am sure that the Bush goal is achievable; a more aggressive goal is probably also achievable, but at higher cost. My sense is that a more aggressive goal would be worth that cost; I don’t know if the American people are yet prepared to pay for it.
Maybe it’s a case of better late than never, but it’s insulting to hear President Bush urging action on climate change when the rest of the world has been waiting on us to act. As with other real problems, this Administration is leaving this up to the next one to deal with.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Dubai's World Islands cause environmental concern
The Economist featured an article on Dubai’s land reclamation projects off the coast to create a collection of islands that form an image of the world. As luxurious and wonderful I’m sure it would be to visit or live on an island of the world these projects have environmental impacts including ecosystems disturbance. While I think it’s important to protect the animals that live in area, it seems more important to realize what is at stake for the global community in building real estate developments like this. The energy resources to build and support this kind of a life style seem rather extreme. Fresh water resources are scarce and the Economist article notes that most of the water supply in Dubai comes from desalination which uses lots of energy!!! I can’t understand why building these little islands seem like a good idea when global climate change is such a concern worldwide. We should be helping to preserve the land and water we have now, not creating new land whose future may be short lived if we continue with our current behavior.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Is Energy Really an Issue in the Primaries?
Energy and environmental policy is obviously very important to those of us taking Dr. Webber's course, but while public awareness is increasing, I still feel like energy and the environment are on the backburner in these primary elections. Many other blog posts highlight the energy and environmental policies contained on candidates' websites. While this information is easily accessible for those who are interested, is it really what people are talking about when discussing the presidential primaries?
I've felt for a while that the short answer is "No," simply based on how often I notice energy related issues pop up in primary news or debates. To test this hypothesis, I went to the websites of 5 major news outlets (CBS, USA Today, Fox, MSNBC, CNN), searched news articles for "primary" and "policy," and found 5-10 recent (Feb.-Mar.) articles from each site that deal directly with the primaries (43 articles total). To get a rough estimate of how often energy and the environment is in the news relative to other major issues, I counted the frequency of the words "energy," "climate," "environment," "security (national, not social)," and "economy" in each article. I am aware that the news does not conclusively indicate the priorities of the American people, but the media has financial incentive to give the people what they want, so I figure this would make a good litmus test.
Total frequency of each word:
Energy - 11
Climate - 1
Environment - 31
Security - 19
Economy - 82
As could be expected, the economy is a clear winner; it had broad mention over many articles. Environment appears to do a good job making the news; however, all but 3 of these instances came from articles dealing with the NAFTA comments Clinton and Obama made in the Ohio debate indicating a desire to hold Canada and Mexico to stronger environmental restrictions on imports. So the primary reason for mentioning the environment was to promote fair trade and the protection of American industry rather than to focus on environmental policy. Also worth noting is that 9 of the 11 instances of "energy" were contained in just 2 articles, and the word "climate" only showed up once!
We could argue over the validity of my methodology or the quality of my analysis, but I think that this shows some good evidence that energy and the environment is, at best, a second rate issue in this primary election. At the Obama energy panel discussion last week, Dr. Kammen emphasized that in order for major changes in U.S. energy policy to occur, the public must strongly indicate within the first 100 days of the new presidency that we are voting based on energy and environmental issues and that dealing with related challenges is of the highest importance.
I think it's clear that we have work to do.
I've felt for a while that the short answer is "No," simply based on how often I notice energy related issues pop up in primary news or debates. To test this hypothesis, I went to the websites of 5 major news outlets (CBS, USA Today, Fox, MSNBC, CNN), searched news articles for "primary" and "policy," and found 5-10 recent (Feb.-Mar.) articles from each site that deal directly with the primaries (43 articles total). To get a rough estimate of how often energy and the environment is in the news relative to other major issues, I counted the frequency of the words "energy," "climate," "environment," "security (national, not social)," and "economy" in each article. I am aware that the news does not conclusively indicate the priorities of the American people, but the media has financial incentive to give the people what they want, so I figure this would make a good litmus test.
Total frequency of each word:
Energy - 11
Climate - 1
Environment - 31
Security - 19
Economy - 82
As could be expected, the economy is a clear winner; it had broad mention over many articles. Environment appears to do a good job making the news; however, all but 3 of these instances came from articles dealing with the NAFTA comments Clinton and Obama made in the Ohio debate indicating a desire to hold Canada and Mexico to stronger environmental restrictions on imports. So the primary reason for mentioning the environment was to promote fair trade and the protection of American industry rather than to focus on environmental policy. Also worth noting is that 9 of the 11 instances of "energy" were contained in just 2 articles, and the word "climate" only showed up once!
We could argue over the validity of my methodology or the quality of my analysis, but I think that this shows some good evidence that energy and the environment is, at best, a second rate issue in this primary election. At the Obama energy panel discussion last week, Dr. Kammen emphasized that in order for major changes in U.S. energy policy to occur, the public must strongly indicate within the first 100 days of the new presidency that we are voting based on energy and environmental issues and that dealing with related challenges is of the highest importance.
I think it's clear that we have work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
