You Are Here

Month: March 2020

admin

What Shade is Your Green? Shifting Our Eco-Focus to Zero Impact

Concepts, General, Policies, Products

“Going green” is great! In so many ways, it’s fantastic that “eco-friendly” has become mainstream; there’s quite a growing industry focusing on green products and services. However,  the next thing we need to ask ourselves is, are we really being green, all the way from manufacturing to delivery and use?

Of course, every bit helps… but most often, we focus on the product at the end of the process, and forget about some of the peripherals, which are ultimately just as important in the bigger picture! Manufacturing processes, packaging, and delivery are a few of the many.

I’ve been looking at toothpaste as an example of a product that’s been “greening up,” better, healthier ingredients are being used… and yet the “standard” packaging – which has been used for a very long time – tends to be used, which is very wasteful to the environment. One product in this realm that caught my eye recently actually did a great job at green delivery of a product from start to finish, including the packaging. The company sets up the customer’s initial purchase of the product in a reusable container; then all subsequent purchases – refills – are sent in an environmentally reusable or recyclable package. The customer keeps the initial container and reuses it so there is far less waste; from beginning to end, the customer and the company end up being greener than “traditional” use of toothpaste. But that’s a blog for another day (stay tuned!)…

There are a multitude of ”green” products out there that might look “green” on the surface – particularly the product itself  – but most often, there is at least one aspect of it that isn’t, such as packaging or sourcing materials. Human nature plays a role in this too; the habit is to not solve a known potential problem until that problem presents itself, and there’s no choice but to react.

A common example of this kind of human habit is how culturally, we do a lot of things that are abusive and/or unhealthy to our bodies, – like poor eating and bad, self-destructive life habits – knowing full well that at some point we are potentially going to have repercussions from this behavior. Then one day, our bodies start to feel bad, we start to have limitations, we get sick… and that’s when we decide to do something about it. We get in shape, eat better, and/or quit the bad habits. Why? We think that since it isn’t a problem today, why worry about it? We will deal with that later when we have to.

This translates into how we tend to do things on the large scale. Consumer and industrial markets are full of examples like this… and unfortunately, this also includes eco-friendly products and the need for sustainable practices. We might find a green or better solution to today’s problem… even if we have the knowledge that  something in the process can present a future related issue that isn’t so environmentally friendly. However, we often write it off to “We’ll figure it out later…” Sure, it’s great to be fixing that problem today, such as employing green energy… even if there are some challenges we don’t yet have the answer to. However, the problem is, once we have that market or product, we tend to write off the future problem…and conveniently forget about it because it’s not a currently pressing issue.

When politics and finances become the primary deciding factors on issues, usually we all lose on the deal. It usually comes down to the question, “How can we manage with the least cost and only fix the immediate issue of today, right now, with the least amount of effort?” That solution then becomes the accepted standard, and then trying to get additional funding for further research or better, proactive fixes is difficult. Why? Well, the habit is to say, “We already have a solution for right now… we’ll get to that later, when it’s more pertinent…” Getting money to fix a future problem today or further improve the current solution often isn’t a good selling point to someone who holds the money… until it becomes debilitating in some way.

Green power is no exception to this. One of the areas where there’s a white elephant in the room has to do with lithium ion batteries.

Lead/acid batteries – traditional batteries – are an environmental nightmare.  Before lead becomes a battery, it must be mined, and has potential to be an environmental disaster and poses health concerns for the worker and surrounding areas. However, today, most people are familiar with the lithium ion battery.  This battery technology has advanced greatly in the last couple of decades, making it the go-to battery for the green industry.

With technology advancing, so is the need for the resources. Obtaining lithium is actually pretty hard on the environment. Very rarely we do we speak of that aspect of these batteries… yet they power everything from video games to hybrid and electric cars. Have you ever thought about where and how the raw materials are obtained? What are we doing about all of these batteries at the end of their life?

Here are some good articles around the lithium ion battery issue, and what we’re facing in their long-term use:

While we look to the future for our energy needs, we also must be wary of what that vision brings with it. For every solution, it’s vital that we look at the real cost of that solution, from the higher perspective, manufacturing from beginning to end. If the solution has environmental impacts on either end, then it isn’t the best solution, or we still have some issues to work out. Simply saying that trading a greater evil for a lesser one isn’t good enough. Though we’re taking great strides in creating more and more Earth-friendly solutions, it’s quite important for us to refine our focus so from end to end we have almost zero impact. “Zero Waste” is a great slogan… and even better one is ”Zero Impact.” We need to prioritize funding and finding the best solutions to tomorrow’s problems that result from today’s discoveries and methods… and continue evaluating and developing better solutions. Writing things off isn’t good enough anymore. Demand better of our leaders, demand better of companies… and commit to it ourselves.

You May Also Like

admin

The Cartoon of Conflicting (and Paradoxical) Information

Concepts, General, Policies

In doing research for this blog, I was actually surprised to find that the cartoon “Non Sequitur” is still running in newspapers, as I would enjoy its snarky commentary when I would still look at a physical newspaper! (It’s somewhat surprising that there are still a LOT of printed newspapers… but that’s a blog for another day…)

Non sequitur: noun

A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. “This cat has a long tail; therefore, blueberries are healthy.”

The beauty of Non Sequitur as I knew it is that it was a beautifully encapsulated representation of the things we are experiencing around us – institutionally, politically, and culturally – by showing us visually the non sequitur – and paradoxes – in which we often lose perspective in everyday life.

Paradox:  noun

A self-contradictory statement that at first seems true. Ex: “Nobody goes to that restaurant; it’s too crowded.”

When considering sustainability and renewable energy, there is an abundance of non-sequiturs and paradoxes used as the argument both for and against either/both.  However, these arguments really don’t show how they support one over the other until you take a much closer look at the details included in each argument.

For example, one of the continuing debates has to do with the land mass needed for renewable energy when compared to conventional energy production landmass.

I came across these studies:

The first two studies in the list talk about how much land mass in the United States would be required to produce the equivalent amount of energy comparing renewable to current fossil fuels. It is quite clearly stating that renewable energy would take up a good amount of land when compared to the current methods of fossil fuels. However, the study report really doesn’t discuss the amount of land used for mining drilling or rail, so it’s actually incomplete in its information. The third one was really the eye opener for me; it at least admits that there are studies that only measure the specific portion needed for generation.

The paradox (note the notation symbols… deemed to make something accurate by many):

“Renewable energy will save land^#” and “Current methods will save land*+”

Discussions for fossil fuel look at only the amount of land the generation of electrical power takes, even though renewable energy discussions looked at the total land use.

The third study places it in perspective to something people can understand, and states that they account for generally all parts needed to use fossil fuels. For example, to power 100% of the needed energy estimated by 2050, today with today’s current technology it would require about 1,550 -4,250 square miles of solar panel fields. The author states that one third of that land space needed is what we already devote to golf courses alone, AND – as with golf courses – all of that doesn’t have to be in one place. We can spread it out in land that isn’t already developed or is generally considered undevelopable, such as deserts. On the contrary, roughly 13,000 square miles of land are used for coal mining.  In employing renewable energy instead, we would recapture that land for better use, and gain back the land used for coal, oil and gas.

Budgets and money are another paradox when it comes to sustainability, which of course easily gets  a lot of attention. Because it is such a hot topic and hits close to home, cost is also one of the easiest areas to manipulate so the public sees it a certain way. A good portion of talking heads assume that the public will take their word at face value and not dig into the details… which in many cases, is true.

The paradoxes here:

“Renewable energy will save money^#” and “Current methods will save money*+”
“Renewable energy will be too big of price tag^#” and “Current methods will be too big of price tag*+”

Be careful with this one! The argument against sustainability is often talked about via a 10-20 year period, and the total dollars for that timeframe is used from the perspective of today’s cost; however, what is NOT typically discussed is that the estimated cost is over the total time frame, accounting for all factors.  For conventional energy, the dollar figure used often excludes many factors or discusses only a portion of the time frame. While not an outright lie, the public presentation gets skewed, and most of the public doesn’t dig for the details. The belief is, “It has notations; therefore, it must be true#$%^&!” Legally, the presenter of the information is just fine because in the actual speech notes or paper, there are notations! Belief is that it isn’t the presenter’s issue if those present to receive the information don’t dig into that reference and see for themselves the details that have been excluded or glossed over.

One non sequitur that has been recently prominent is

“Renewable energy (wind) kills wildlife” and “Save the birds, don’t use wind power”

Let’s talk about this for a minute…

How many birds a year are killed with oil slicks, and other fossil fuel pollution? Where is that statistic when this argument is used? Sure, oil spills don’t happen all the time, but the amount of wildlife hurt or damaged when they do is quite significant.

(On a side note: One of the most incredible paradoxes out there right now is the mass marketing – and propaganda – of a certain major brand dish soap that has been capitalizing on “helping to save animals via cleaning them up from the oil spills.” What’s the paradox? That the product is, in fact, petroleum based… and contributes to the continued mass use of petroleum… which is the reason the oil spills exist in the first place! I can’t tell you how many I’ve known who’ve actually said they use the product because of that marketing manipulation… without realizing ALL of the information! But, again, that’s a blog for another day…)

Even if you spread that damage over years, the wildlife death via conventional energy numbers is quite staggering compared to the long-term use of renewable energy.  Also, many don’t take into account what we’ve done in our population expansion altogether. How about skyscrapers? How many birds hit the windows annually? Also, when skyscrapers were first built, birds had similar issues with migration and avoidance. Now they have adjusted and work around them, but still many are killed, even by cars on the congested roads or flying into buildings. It’s the same with wind energy. Wind generators are “new” to the landscape; birds will adjust in a relatively short time, and the number of deaths will be mitigated. The argument against sustainable energy and wildlife assumes that the number of deaths at the introduction of the wind generators will continue to be the same and renewable energy will only add to the death toll that currently happens, until there are no more birds. What isn’t discussed is how with renewable energy, the scales will quickly balance, because the pollution toll will be far less, and more wildlife will actually be able to propagate and thrive. Eventually, the scales balance to be better with renewable energy. Sure, it will be several years before that happens, but it will be better long term.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Though I don’t particularly care for the use of the word enemy in this quote, I agree with where it comes from. If we don’t use the literal meaning and use it in the context of opposing thought/position, we can see that knowing both sides and understanding the details of what all the outcomes could be from both points of view is most beneficial. In doing so, we can  accept some adjustment periods where we might take some losses in a cause because the outcome is much more beneficial in longer term and bigger picture – the health and vitality of the planet and its organism – than what we’ve been doing to today.

The success of false or failed logic, paradoxes and non-sequitur, is proportionally based on the self-imposed ignorance of the masses. Those who are most invested on one side of an argument or the other – those who stand to profit or loose on the outcome – rely mostly on the assumption that a vast majority of people will not care to look too closely at the facts. This creates the paradox and allows it to thrive and propagate, sometimes even growing to the point that it is assumed to be factual… and the notation eventually gets lost altogether. How much folklore and urban mythology do we accept to be true and perpetuate every day that isn’t based on any factual data?  (Here’s a simple one that so many parents still use today: “Waiting an hour after eating before you go swimming; otherwise, you might drown!”) Think of all the things that we once believed to be true that today we can’t conceive of ever believing them in the first place.

In conclusion, it is great to be passionate about any topic! My only ask is to be open to both sides, look at all the data… even (especially) if it doesn’t support your thoughts and biases. I don’t mean look at that data and try to find ways to counter that information… I mean, open the mind to all sides of the matter before making a final decision on your favored preferences. Look at the details; look at the bigger picture and make sure in comparing one thing to another that it’s not apples vs. oranges, which is most often the case! Look for the notations and dig further and look at that information as well. All too often a writer can find a reference from a reliable source (to give credence to the piece) find one comment in it that reference material that supports their point of view (even though the rest of the reference debunks it) and use it to support their point of view.

If we don’t allow ourselves to be lied to, we won’t be the sheep that some leaders hope we will be. Ask the questions! When confronted with full facts, many paradoxes fall apart. Though, unfortunately, the snarky cartoons will have to cease… we can then move forward together, committing to perceive from the bigger picture, as the one organism we are.

You May Also Like