How To Solve The Climate Crisis

Ouch - North America

2008-08-26T10:54:00.000-07:00

I read two articles last week that on the surface seem to have nothing to do with each other, but I managed to connect them in my silly little head

The first article was in a magazine in my doctor's office - I don't even remember the magazine, but I do remember the topic.

Seven years have passed since 9/11 and seven years have passed since we were told that the site of the World Trade Centre will be rebuilt. And yet...there is still a hole in the ground. Numerous organizations can't agree on how to proceed, building permits and other regulatory agencies can't get on the same page. Seven years have passed, and there is still a hole in the ground.

In the meantime, China has built about half of the equivalent US infrastructure during the same period of time. Now, I know there are issues with their approach, etc with respect to feeding that amount of growth, but...it is a reality. North America has to wake up to this new reality.

Another reality facing North America is our slow pace in adopting the labelling the carbon footprint of consumer products. UK has begun, and now Japan. Walker Crisps (chips in North America) now state right on their bags of chips that each bag is responsible for emitting 75 grams of CO2. I actually carry two empty bags of Walker chips in my briefcase to share with people I meet.

Whether it is carbon labelling or construction or manufacturing more fuel efficient vehicles, North America has to wake up, or else we are in big trouble...

Peter Corbyn

100 Days 100 Solutions

2008-08-20T11:36:00.001-07:00

I once asked a good friend of mine about how quickly we should move on a project that addresses climate change. I will never forget his answer, "the planet is on fire, let's do it now!". Good answer.

With that thought, I have started a project called 100 Days 100 Solutions. This project, of which I seek the assistance of any and all willing to help, runs from August 5, 2008 to December 31, 2008. There are essentially 100 working days between those two dates.

Each working day for those 100 days I will post a different climate change solution for GreenNexxus members to comment on, add information and links, and add other solutions. This list will ultimately end up with 10 solutions from 10 sectors, those being residential, transportation, construction, energy sources, legislation, manufacturing, business, sports, culture and education (all one), financial mechanisms and food and agriculture.

Please vist and participate - the planet is on fire.

Thanks!

Peter

Rain Rain Go Away

2008-08-12T09:59:00.001-07:00

Hurricane Katrina, melting ice, drought, flooding - all indications of climate change. Add another - rain, rain, rain.

Eastern Canada (where I live) is experiencing roughly a 50% increase in precipitation over the last three decades. Generally this increase doesn't seem to be noticed, until this summer; the wettest on record.

It is almost the middle of August and we have had virtually two straight weeks of rain. I have had one available day to mow the lawn in the last two weeks. The stream beside my home is running like it is April not August. I wouldn't want to own a golf course this summer.

I have presented the live version of An Inconvenient Truth 65 times - one of the slides illustrates the increase and decrease in precipitation around the world over the last few decades. A few people have asked me after the presentations what the difference is between weather and climate. My answer goes something like this...

If the climate is Wayne Gretzky's or Gordie Howe's career then the weather is one game. Weather is what is happening right now. Climate is essentially a running 30 year average. There are good days (games) and bad days (games).

Gretzky and Howe had stellar careers and generally predictable results year over year - a bit like the climate. But how they did in any given game was anyone's guess (weather), yet somewhat predictable. Like weather there is good chance it will by sub-zero in February and warm in July, but how warm or how cold, or how much snow or rain on a given day - who knows.

Bottom line - the rain this summer is a drag.

Peter Corbyn

Detroit is in Trouble

2008-08-01T09:33:00.001-07:00

I spent twelve years in the automotive manufacturing industry, including four years as the Environment Director for the Canada Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association (www.apma.ca). It is a great industry in which to learn continuous improvement, creativity and how to make car seats with moody robots.

I have commented recently on the demise of Detroit, but today's news really makes me worry more about Detroit than ever before. I want Detroit to survive and thrive, but they have to turn it around very fast!

GM and Chrysler recently announced that they are getting out of the leasing business. Why? Because the after lease residual value of their vehicles have plummeted recently. Why? Because no-one wants to buy a four year old SUV today. Why? Because the price of gas is very high? Why? Because demand is going up on the other side of the Pacific. Why? Because North Americans are buying lots of stuff from the other side of the Pacific. I think that is enough why's.

Automotive leases have been attractive for years because they reduce the cost of use for consumers. Lease payments cost less than loan payments because at the end of four years, you essentially give the vehicle back to the dealer. The trouble is that the lease you signed in 2005 assumed a residual value of $15,000 on a vehicle which is now only worth $11,000 - the car company is left holding the bag.

When I heard the news today I did a less than scientific study of two four year old vehicles - a Prius and a Ford Explorer.

A brand new Prius today costs a Canadian $27k to $30k (yes, I know they are much lower in the U.S.). A quick trip on Autotrader.ca tells me a 2004/2005 will fetch $24k to $28k; that is more than a brand new Prius in the U.S. In other words - if you leased a Prius in 2005, you got great gas mileage and when Toyota gets it back, they are going to make a good margin flipping it again.

Now let's look at a 2005 Explorer. My less than scientific study brings up a cost of about $15k for a four year old Explorer. A new Explorer will set you back $38k to $50k. Do the math...how much is Detroit losing on bringing back after lease SUV's? It has to be in the billions! Ouch!

I promised myself that I am going to start writing about solutions to climate change - useful information, focused on solutions. But...this subject really bothers me (can you tell).

One more thing before I sign off...have you seen the ads on TV and billboards at some vehicle dealers - guaranteed $2.99 per gallon of gas or $1,000 worth of free gas with your vehicle...argh, did you think you would ever see the day that vehicle dealers would do something like that!

To quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time, Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

Please Detroit - turn it around, start manufacturing vehicles that will take on the Prius and Civic Hybrid; you will sell a whole bunch of them. Competition is good.

Remember Henry Ford - he built and priced cars that his employees could afford to buy - brilliant. Let's hope, one hundred years later that Detroit continues to manufacture vehicles that North Americans can afford, will want to drive and most importantly, respect the environment.

Peter Corbyn

2008-07-29T09:54:00.000-07:00

When I heard the news today I did a less than scientific study of two four year old vehicles - a Prius and a Ford Explorer.

I promised myself that I am going to start writing about solutions to climate change - useful information, focused on solutions. But...this subject really bothers me (can you tell).

To quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time, Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

Please Detroit - turn it around, start manufacturing vehicles that will take on the Prius and Civic Hybrid; you will sell a whole bunch of them. Competition is good.

Peter Corbyn

Tale of Two Car Companies

2008-07-25T06:15:00.000-07:00

Have you read the news today?

Honda just announced a record quarterly profit of $1.7 Billion and Ford announced a record loss of $8.7 Billion ($8,700,000,000). Turmoil in the automotive industry - you bet! Are all of the manufacturers losing money? Apparently not.

Honda is the home to the fuel efficient Accord, Civic and Civic Hybrid. Ford is home to the Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. In Ford's defence, they have been proactively green for a number of years, such as dictating minimum percentages of recycled content in their vehicles from their suppliers. But in reality - how well has that Focus (no pun intended) translated into sales?

I would like to think that the people leading Ford in Detroit should have and would have seen higher gas prices and raised consumer awareness of climate change coming. Why didn't they? Profit margins on SUV's 3 or 4 years ago where high, now they can't give them away. I bet they are thinking that the margin on a hybrid Focus (which doesn't exist yet) would be looking a whole lot healthier now than the margin on an Expedition today.

Who gets hurt in this scenario? Not the consumer - they can go across the street to Honda or Toyota, or even GM (by the way, check out the new fuel efficient Camaro - who'd a thunk it!). My heart goes out to the Ford employees who are losing their jobs. I have visited a few Ford plants - these are people that should still be working today if upper management wasn't asleep at the wheel (ok, another pun).

There is a lesson here for companies in other sectors - please take note. The times they are a changin'...look ahead and figure out what your new 'greener' products and services will look like one year, two years and three years from now. If you don't, your competition will.

Peter Corbyn

GreenNexxus

The Politics and Spin of Energy Independence

2008-07-23T06:47:00.001-07:00

The term 'energy independence' is getting a lot of play in North America lately. Gas prices are high (not as high as Europe) and will not likely come down as long as China and India stay on their path - in other words it could be a while, if ever!

Google 'energy independence' and you get 1.8 million hits - notice the term 'North America' - translation - Northern Alberta :)

Energy independence is being talked about by liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans. To the conservatives it means a direct line to the Alberta tar sands and subsidizing Big Oil to ramp up oil shale production in Colorado (yes, you read that right) and poking around Alaska. To the liberals it means weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and moving forward with renewable energy sources.

To T. Boone Pickens (ex oil man) it means installing a whole bunch of wind turbines in the middle of America - he makes a convincing point. Take five minutes to watch his video calling for more wind power, it is very interesting.

The point of this piece - please be careful when you read / listen / watch news about energy independence - it is a good thing for North America, as long as it means moving off fossil fuels, not digging more holes in the ground.

The way we use energy and produce energy has to fundamentally change FAST...the sooner our leaders in Washington and Ottawa realize that fact the better. And how do we help them wake up? With our votes!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Solving Climate Change One Kilogram at a Time

2008-07-22T10:31:00.000-07:00

Google 'carbon calculator' sometime - you will get about 233,000 hits. Carbon calculators help estimate your carbon footprint.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly wonder whether these types of carbon calculators are the best means to help you actually reduce your footprint.

I think my household carbon footprint is about 17 Tonnes per year based on my utility bills and how far we drive (and the size of our vehicle). This took me about 5 minutes to calculate by converting my annual Kw x Kg of CO2 per Kw and knowing that gasoline emits 2.36 Kg/litre. Realistically, does it matter if we are at 15.5 tonnes or 18.5 tonnes when what we really need to do is reduce it anyway?

I know that someone driving a Hummer 20,000 km per year has a much higher carbon footprint than a Yaris driven the same distance...do I know what the exact amount of each is - no? Do I know the Yaris is better - yes.

What's my point? The reality is - reducing your carbon footprint (or basically your energy consumption) means taking action - changing light bulbs, insulating attics, driving less or not at all, buying locally produced food, using power bars to turn off the TV/DVD/Stereo 20 hours a day, etc, etc, etc. And when all of that is done, doing more...it is an iterative and ongoing process for everyone - individuals, companies, you name it.

The GreenNexxus Green Energy Pledge helps you identify ways to lower your carbon footprint and save money - it focuses on action. Collectively GreenNexxus members have pledged to save about 475,000 Kg (just over 1,000,000 lbs) of Greenhouse Gas emissions to date. One million is a big number - it will not tell you exactly what your carbon footprint is, but it will certainly help reduce your carbon footprint by making the big number grow! Sign up, add your pledge and be part of the team that makes this number grow, grow, grow!

Creative Carpooling

2008-06-22T16:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Cost to Combat Global Warming - What a Headline Does Not Tell

2008-06-16T09:51:00.000-07:00

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.

What a Headline Does Not Tell - The Sequel

2008-06-16T09:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Where are the Energy Police?

2008-06-16T09:48:00.000-07:00

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!

Taking the 'N' Out of NIMBY

2008-06-16T09:42:00.000-07:00

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.