I have had many a philosophical conversation with friends and colleagues over the years about the solving environmental issues - many of which concluded in the same point - economics and environment are linked. Period.
The following four examples of creative carpooling are living proof of that point as the price of of gasoline continues to go up and up and up.
Check out this news link from CNN - employees of a company in California are paid $500 by their employer for turning their vehicles into moving billboards. This approach may not put more people in an SUV or encourage employees to drive smaller vehicles or take alternate transport, but it certainly helps them financially. Ok, not the best example, but the next three are pretty cool!
Are you travelling a few hundred miles next weekend or just a few miles? Or any other time for that matter? Perhaps someone else is doing the same trip at about the same time by themselves in a vehicle...costly for the driver and the atmosphere. Look no further than http://www.pickuppal.com/ - a cool website that links drivers and passengers. It is a great tool for saving money for the driver and passenger and the enviornment.
I recently talked with a gentleman from a large public employee union and he told me that they now pay a premium per mile/km for members who carpool to meetings and other union related events. What a great idea!
And finally, a buddy of mine recently told me that his wife and three other friends from the neighbourhood go to the grocery store together two to three times a week. This saves six to nine trips to the grocery store every month and gives them an opportunity to catch up.
Times change, energy prices change, businesses change and people change. These creative examples prove that there are many ways to solve a crisis - what solutions do you propose?
Check out http://www.greennexxus.com/ fur hundreds of ways to solve the crisis.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Cost to Combat Global Warming - What a Headline Does Not Tell
I read a headline today that states Study: $45 Trillion needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half. By reading the headline one would assume that solving the climate crisis is going to bankrupt the world - can anyone imagine that amount of money? The headline kind of makes it sound like a very expensive proposition doesn't it? Let us dig a bit deeper into the numbers with some quick back of the napkin math:
That $45 trillion is to be spent over 40 years as additional cost to produce green power from sources such as nuclear, wind and carbon capture. The study assumes an annual growth rate for the global economy of 3.3% per year. Let's even leave that out of the equation for a minute.
$45 trillion over 40 years = $1.125 trillion per year for 40 years. $1.125 trillion divided by 7 billion people (roughly the average world population between now and 2050 - again, very conservative number) equals $6,429 per person per year for 40 years. $6,429 divided by 40 years equals $161 per person per year. Divide $161 per person per year by 365 days and you get the whopping cost of $0.44 per person per day for 40 years to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050 according to this study.
Ah, but you say, a couple of billion people in the world live on less than $1.00 per day, so let's assume that only the population of the U.S. absorbs all of the cost (that is probably not fair as they are responsible for 25% of global energy consumption). This assumption takes the cost up to $1.61 per American citizen per day for 40 years to cur greenhouse gases in half by 2050.
So, for less than the cost of a trip through the donut shop drive-thru for a large morning coffee we can solve the climate crisis. Sounds like a fair deal to me!
Now why can't the headline put it in that context?
Please see my next blog for more on this subject from a different perpective.
That $45 trillion is to be spent over 40 years as additional cost to produce green power from sources such as nuclear, wind and carbon capture. The study assumes an annual growth rate for the global economy of 3.3% per year. Let's even leave that out of the equation for a minute.
$45 trillion over 40 years = $1.125 trillion per year for 40 years. $1.125 trillion divided by 7 billion people (roughly the average world population between now and 2050 - again, very conservative number) equals $6,429 per person per year for 40 years. $6,429 divided by 40 years equals $161 per person per year. Divide $161 per person per year by 365 days and you get the whopping cost of $0.44 per person per day for 40 years to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050 according to this study.
Ah, but you say, a couple of billion people in the world live on less than $1.00 per day, so let's assume that only the population of the U.S. absorbs all of the cost (that is probably not fair as they are responsible for 25% of global energy consumption). This assumption takes the cost up to $1.61 per American citizen per day for 40 years to cur greenhouse gases in half by 2050.
So, for less than the cost of a trip through the donut shop drive-thru for a large morning coffee we can solve the climate crisis. Sounds like a fair deal to me!
Now why can't the headline put it in that context?
Please see my next blog for more on this subject from a different perpective.
What a Headline Does Not Tell - The Sequel
My previous blog entry discussed the economics of a recently released study claiming that the cost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 would be about $45 trillion. Seems like a lot doesn't it? Please read my previous entry to see how that translates into less than a cup of coffee per day. Now let's look at this problem (solution) from a business opportunity point of view.
The report claims that 32 new nuclear power plants will have to be built every year and an additional 17,000 wind power units added every year, as well as outfitting 55 coal and gas fired plants with carbon capture technology each year from now until 2050. That is a $1.125 trillion market - hey, how can I get a piece of that?
Seriously, two things come to mind on that note:
1) If I am a large provider of energy products (say fossil fuel based) I would be thinking - hmm, perhaps we should switch to renewable energy. There appears to be a bit of a future there!
2) if I am a government leader (provincial, state, federal) I would be thinking - hmm, we need to train thousands of our youth in developing these new energy technologies and encourage investment and R&D in our jurisdictions - looks like an economic opportunity to me. Alas, as we all know, access to skilled trades people is an ever increasing challenge - you better get on this one fast!
Every decade or two has a golden economic era - the boom years after WW II brought us millions of vehicles from Ford, GM and Chrysler and the last 15 years have seen the birth and maturity of the Internet.
I sincerely hope that the next couple of decades are the golden years of renewable energy - not only for the economic value, but because it is the right thing to do.
The report claims that 32 new nuclear power plants will have to be built every year and an additional 17,000 wind power units added every year, as well as outfitting 55 coal and gas fired plants with carbon capture technology each year from now until 2050. That is a $1.125 trillion market - hey, how can I get a piece of that?
Seriously, two things come to mind on that note:
1) If I am a large provider of energy products (say fossil fuel based) I would be thinking - hmm, perhaps we should switch to renewable energy. There appears to be a bit of a future there!
2) if I am a government leader (provincial, state, federal) I would be thinking - hmm, we need to train thousands of our youth in developing these new energy technologies and encourage investment and R&D in our jurisdictions - looks like an economic opportunity to me. Alas, as we all know, access to skilled trades people is an ever increasing challenge - you better get on this one fast!
Every decade or two has a golden economic era - the boom years after WW II brought us millions of vehicles from Ford, GM and Chrysler and the last 15 years have seen the birth and maturity of the Internet.
I sincerely hope that the next couple of decades are the golden years of renewable energy - not only for the economic value, but because it is the right thing to do.
Where are the Energy Police?
My family had a quick lunch yesterday at a local fast food chain restaurant (it was one of the healthier food choice chains).
I couldn’t help but look around the restaurant while we ate – I noticed a number of things that bothered me. Ok, before you read any further, the food was good, so that wasn’t the issue.
First of all, the restaurant was freezing – it must have been about 10 degrees Celsius, at best. My wife asked if the employees were cold. Their response was ‘no, this oven keeps us warm’. It was about 16 degrees Celsius in Fredericton yesterday (no need for A/C) – I couldn’t understand why they felt it necessary to freeze their customers.
Then there were the lights. The front of the restaurant is all windows; there really is no need for lights to be on in the seating area during the day. Yet, there were the usual fluorescent tubes in the ceiling and individual incandescent bulbs on above every table – 15 of them (yes, I counted).
Then there were the fans. Not only was the air conditioner blasting sub-zero air onto the customers, but there were four ceiling fans running at the same time.
I did some quick math and estimated that they are wasting about $5,000 to $10,000 per year in that one location. Multiply that the thousands of restaurants they operate and presto – you get a bunch of money and a bunch of greenhouse gas emissions.
So, I put this out to the readers – what would you do in this situation? Are there any Energy Police out there? Let me know if you have ever seen something like this and talked to the manager or taken similar actions – I would love to know!
I couldn’t help but look around the restaurant while we ate – I noticed a number of things that bothered me. Ok, before you read any further, the food was good, so that wasn’t the issue.
First of all, the restaurant was freezing – it must have been about 10 degrees Celsius, at best. My wife asked if the employees were cold. Their response was ‘no, this oven keeps us warm’. It was about 16 degrees Celsius in Fredericton yesterday (no need for A/C) – I couldn’t understand why they felt it necessary to freeze their customers.
Then there were the lights. The front of the restaurant is all windows; there really is no need for lights to be on in the seating area during the day. Yet, there were the usual fluorescent tubes in the ceiling and individual incandescent bulbs on above every table – 15 of them (yes, I counted).
Then there were the fans. Not only was the air conditioner blasting sub-zero air onto the customers, but there were four ceiling fans running at the same time.
I did some quick math and estimated that they are wasting about $5,000 to $10,000 per year in that one location. Multiply that the thousands of restaurants they operate and presto – you get a bunch of money and a bunch of greenhouse gas emissions.
So, I put this out to the readers – what would you do in this situation? Are there any Energy Police out there? Let me know if you have ever seen something like this and talked to the manager or taken similar actions – I would love to know!
Taking the 'N' Out of NIMBY
The term NIMBY, an acronym for Not In My Back Yard was coined about 25 years ago to refer to groups of people or communities who didn't want things like airports or landfills 'in their back yard'. It occurred to me over the weekend that perhaps we need to collectively start a new term - IMBY - In My Back Yard.
Two 'by chance' conversations I had this weekend led me to think that perhaps there is a place in the world for IMBY.My street was re-paved last week, not with regular pavement, but with chip seal, or crushed rock. Chip seal consists of a thin layer of petroleum based tar to which crushed rocks adhere (over time). The street surface is not exactly conducive to skateboarding, but, as my good neighbour pointed out - our street uses much less oil based products this way vs. being paved with regular asphalt. Good point - for that alone, I am willing to stay off my skateboard.
Another chance conversation happened with the gentleman who builds the homes in our community - Fred Herkert of Starlite Homes. Fred builds high quality homes, and has recently decided to build R2000 +++ homes from now on - essentially going beyond this energy efficient standard - good on him! He has even built a home on spec with a solar heated hot water system. We will be featuring this home soon on www.greennexxus.com.
Two chance conversations - two great examples of IMBY - things I want in my back yard.
Two 'by chance' conversations I had this weekend led me to think that perhaps there is a place in the world for IMBY.My street was re-paved last week, not with regular pavement, but with chip seal, or crushed rock. Chip seal consists of a thin layer of petroleum based tar to which crushed rocks adhere (over time). The street surface is not exactly conducive to skateboarding, but, as my good neighbour pointed out - our street uses much less oil based products this way vs. being paved with regular asphalt. Good point - for that alone, I am willing to stay off my skateboard.
Another chance conversation happened with the gentleman who builds the homes in our community - Fred Herkert of Starlite Homes. Fred builds high quality homes, and has recently decided to build R2000 +++ homes from now on - essentially going beyond this energy efficient standard - good on him! He has even built a home on spec with a solar heated hot water system. We will be featuring this home soon on www.greennexxus.com.
Two chance conversations - two great examples of IMBY - things I want in my back yard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
