The Story of Stuff

I've been away from the blog for the last week, so things have been quiet around here. But that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of interesting stuff to talk about. Today I'd like to share a video: The Story of Stuff.

Ok, the video might seem a bit like something you might be shown in a high school by the substitute teacher. But it's great information, and it's presented in an accessible and interesting way. Our friendly narrator, one Ms. Annie Leonard, guides us through a tour of our "system of stuff." Extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal. The video breaks down each step in the life of our material goods, and argues against the linear system that begins with using up natural resources and ends with waste disposed in a landfill. We have finite resources, says Ms. Leonard, and we can't afford to continue running a linear system on a finite planet. Eventually, everything will end up in a landfill! The solution? We need a system based on sustainability and equity, not consumption and disposal.

All right, enough of my synopsis -- check out the video for yourself. At 20:00 minutes running time, it's longer than your typical YouTube-length clip. In fact, it seems tailor-made for twenty minutes of watching, followed by ten minutes of answering questions on a worksheet, and twenty minutes of student-teacher discussion. Be that as it may, it's worth checking out. And if you are a teacher, I can't imagine an easier lesson than one based on The Story of Stuff.

Dangerous Trends

Our current economic crisis is scary for a lot of reasons. The wide-ranging effects of such a massive shake-up of our financial system will be felt for years to come. Since no one really fully understands how we are going to fix the crisis (experts don't even know what is going to happen on a day-to-day basis), it's impossible to say with any kind of certainty what kind of societal changes we are going to see in the coming years. How long will this crisis last? What kind of changes will we all have to make to see this through? Health care, education, infrastructure -- what will our priorities be and where will we cut corners?

As you might guess, I'm extra sensitive to how the financial crisis will impact spending on clean energy projects, from both the public and private sectors. At a certain level, economic strain should encourage the development of new green technologies. With soaring oil prices, it makes sense to invest in homegrown, innovative solutions to our energy problems. American businessmen are always looking for new opportunity, especially when the economy begins to stagnate. A recession should stimulate innovation, forcing businesses to find that strategic edge. And throughout the course of this election season, we've seen promises from both candidates for an intensified investment in green jobs and green technologies. Taken all together, an economic slow-down could provide the appropriate environment for a green technology boom and an explosion in green business.

Unfortunately, we are faced with the prospect of something much deeper and more lasting than an economic slow-down, or even your garden-variety cyclical recession. The current economic crisis has the potential to be long-lasting. It may well affect the very foundations of our economy. If things become dire enough, will it start to negatively effect the market for green innovation?

And what about oil? A few months ago, when we seemed to be stuck in a simple slow-down, oil prices seemed to be on a never-ending rise. But since financial institutions began falling like so many Wall Street dominoes, oil prices have done a complete about-face. If they continue to free fall, will there be less incentive to invest in alternative fuels?

We are already starting to see indications that investment in clean energy projects has begun to dry up. There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal that says the combined effects of a credit crunch and a drop in oil prices has been an open-handed slap of reality in the face of start-up renewable energy companies. (Unfortunately, the WSJ still has subscriber-only content on their website, so what I've linked to here is just the preview.) The Washington Post ran a similar article yesterday that looks at the inverse relation between the price of oil and the demand for new forms of clean energy.

So what's to be done? Global Warming isn't going to wait for the U.S. financial markets to right themselves. And we know that we are already way behind in the race to save our planet. We don't have the time or the luxury to let this thing sort itself out. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman continues to argue for a price floor for oil: the government takes oil to keep the price at $3.00 a gallon. But will the next President have the strength to demand such a potentially unpopular policy?

There are no real answers at the moment, because we don't know where all this is headed. As individuals, we can use the power of our consumer dollar to support green companies and technologies. This means that we have to educate ourselves and learn about new options and innovations. I'll do my best here to draw attention to the best information available on green products. The payback for educating ourselves is that the consumer dollar is extremely effective. And we can support politicians who continue to push for investments in green technology, and hold those politicians accountable for their policy decisions.

Register. To. Vote.

Voting is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't exercises your privileges, you may lose them. Today is the last day to register to vote in Massachusetts. You can find all the information you need on voting in MA at the Sec. of State's website.

If you are not in MA, Google has a great feature linked to their maps that helps you find the relevant voter registration in your area. You can also register at Headcount.org.

Please do not tell me that your vote doesn't matter, or that you live in a blue/red state that's already voting for Obama/McCain anyway. That's missing the point, and I might kick you someplace really sensitive and it will hurt a lot (insert smiley face here).

Nothing could be "greener" than voting.

Turn Your Lights Out

Have you seen that commercial featuring Anderson Cooper about his Planet In Peril show? If you've been watching the Major League Baseball playoffs, I am sure you have. The docuementary apparently follows Anderson Cooper around the world as he explores the effects of climate change and how humans are coping (or not coping) with these effects. It seems like an interesting show, even if I can't seem to get over the fact that Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt.

In addition to advertising for the documentary, the commercial/Cooper also asks us to take the Sharp Lights Out challenge. I found the entire commercial to be hectic and difficult to understand, which either means I'm getting old or it wasn't a great commercial. Regardless, I found the Sharp Lights Out challenge website and now things are much clearer.

The challenge is to get people who are watching Game Four of the ALCS to turn off their lights for the duration of the game. It's an attempt to save a huge chunk of energy (I believe "chunk" is the appropriate scientific term here). If you go to the website and sign up for the challenge, you are also entered into a contest to win a Sharp AQUOS ® LCD TV.

There is an obvious contradiction going on here: you aren't really saving energy by watching television for 4+ hours. And your reward is another television, and although I don't know how much energy that particular model sucks, I highly doubt it's carbon neutral.

Cynicism aside, though, it does promote awareness of the importance of conservation (and conveniently the Planet in Peril show and the Sharp AQUOS ® LCD TV, too). Hopefully a lot of people do turn off their lights during the game. Maybe there will even be some people who do it for the sake of conservation, and not for the LCD TV carrot. Anyway, if people do indeed save some energy, that's a good thing. Awareness is always positive.

And it got me thinking -- maybe I'll have my own challenge. I'll call it the Turn-Off-All-Your-Lights-And-Television-And-Read-By-Candlelight-For-One-Night Challenge. I'm not sure what I'd give away as a prize, but I'm guessing it would save more energy per-person than the Sharp Lights Out challenge!

Recommended interview of the day

Amidst all this blabbing about the election, I thought I should take a moment to post a great interview with Thomas Friedman. The NYTimes columnist has been very active in discussing the importance of an energy technology revolution in the United States. He has a new book on the Green Revolution, Hot, Flat and Crowded, that I look forward to reading.

Take a moment to read this interview he gave recently. My favorite part is in response to a question about the famous RNC "Drill, Baby, Drill!" chant:

I mean, it is as if on the eve of the IT revolution, on the eve of the birth of the Internet and the PC, we are out there pounding the table for more IBM Selectric typewriters. Carbon paper, baby, carbon paper! That’s nuts. There’s only one mantra for America, and that’s “Innovate, baby, innovate!”

Debate Review

As I anticipated, the Presidential debate on Tuesday did a superficial job of addressing issues of climate change. All in all, it was to be expected, considering the length of the debate, the pre-determined questions, and the overwhelming immediacy of the financial crisis. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of choosing based on anything other than a made-for-television-entertainment debate. We're conditioned to absorb information in smaller and smaller bites/bytes, and there is no real platform for serious discourse.

Fortunatley, there was one direct question, courtesy of Ms. Ingrid Jackson, on climate change. The answers were vague, as you may expect when the candidates are only given two minutes. Surprisingly, McCain's answer to the direct question of climate change didn't talk much about off-shore drilling. Instead he focused on the virtues of nuclear power. He even managed to pronounce it correctly. Said McCain:

What's the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that... I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it's clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I don't doubt that more nuclear power plants are in our future, although despite McCain's assurances, there remains very real concerns about waste disposal. This was about as concrete as the Republican got on the subject. He did mention that it was a part of an overall strategy including "alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology." The specifics on these were non-existent.

Obama, for his part, was a bit more concrete in his answer, although not exactly specific. He said:

I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done...

We're going to have to come up with alternatives, and that means that the United States government is working with the private sector to fund the kind of innovation that we can then export to countries like China that also need energy and are setting up one coal power plant a week.

My favorite moment of the debate came when the candidates had to say what sacrifices they would ask the American people to make. McCain used his time to talk about a spending freeze and earmarks and eliminating government programs. It wasn't his best moment. Obama's answer, on the other hand, was a highlight for me:

Each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings. And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient. And that's going to require effort from each and every one of us.

Climate change is usually framed as an economy issue in these debates, and in many ways that is ok. Hopefully economic concerns will help drive the move to a greener way of life. But this was the only time we heard about individual responsibility. Perhaps Americans don't want to sacrifice. I remember Obama being openly mocked for his suggestion that we all keep our tires inflated. That was a low moment in the campaign. Maybe now, in the midst of a truly cripply financial crisis, Americans will be more open to the idea of sacrifice. We may not have a choice anymore.

Will they talk about the environment?

Tonight is the second of three debates between Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. After hearing precious little in the first debate, which was in fact supposed to be on the subject of foreign policy, and getting only a token nod in the VP debate, I'm curious to see if there will be any talk about environmental issues tonight.

You might ask, quite fairly, why the candidates should discussion the environment. The economy is without a doubt the most pressing issue on everyone's mind, and rightly so. I expect (hope?) that there will be some detailed discussion about economic issues, and if we're lucky, perhaps we'll even hear how each candidate might try to solve these problems. I also expect a healthy dose of foreign policy discussion, and as always a devolution into party talking points about health care and taxes and lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Where does the environment fit into all this? Without a doubt it will surface as a secondary issue in a couple of places. Obama will probably talk about creating new jobs in alternative energy sectors. McCain might relate his support for off-shore drilling to reinforce his stance that America needs to break her reliance on foreign oil. If there are direct questions about climate change, look for similar answers to the ones we got from Sarah P. and Joe B.: "We need to drill right now," and "Let's invest in clean energies."

Keep in mind that this is a town-hall style debate. Basically, that means that 80 or so uncommitted voters (let me just say, I am honestly wondering who is still uncommitted, and I can't imagine that these people are the best choices to be asking questions of such importance, because an uncommitted voter at this point either hasn't been paying attention or lacks the ability to understand the issues... anyway... ) will be packed into a room to directly ask questions of the candidates. If we are lucky, we'll get one token question on climate change in a debate that is sure to be dominated by a discussion of "Wall Street and Main Street."

If it does indeed unfold this way, it will be a shame, because the environment really is an essential component of the challenges we are facing. Talk a look at Thomas Friedman's article from last week on greening the bailout package. Friedman's ideas, which echo what I've been writing about here (or maybe that's the other way around!) are about rebuilding our economy by sparking an energy technology revolution. By focusing on a new industry, an essential industry for the next century, America might be able to turn this thing around. We could create jobs in this country, and train our workers to do these jobs. That's how you rebuild the economy -- by relying on an industry where a real, actual product is created.

"You can’t base a national economy on credit cards. But you can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart biofuels and a massive program to weatherize every building and home in America."

I fear, though, that the discussion will not get this deep. We will hear about the economy in terms of mud-slinging, finger-pointing, blame-assigning, and the Dow will continue to tumble head over heels. Any chance I'm wrong about this? We'll find out soon enough.

Vice Presidential Debate and the Environment

Before the VP debate kicked off last night, I had made the decision to tune out. I wasn't going to bother watching -- what more could I learn at this point? I know where the candidates stand on every issue. I know that some candidates have a completely different ideology than I do, and that no amount of arguing and/or facts will convince people that their ideology is wrong or dangerous. I wasn't going to learn anything new, except what some CNN Max Headroom-type pundits thought about the proceedings.

I watched anyway.

If you made a similar promise to yourself to skip the debate, but unlike me you actually followed through on that promise, I am going to give you the chance to check it out anyway. The whole misery loves company thing. The entire debate is on the YouTube. Do I recommend watching it? Not really, but there it is, if you're feeling masochistic.

You can also read the transcript of the debate. I will warn you, however, that the transcript doesn't fully convey certain folksy/cutesy moments. What the transcript does, though, is give us another chance to look at certain opinions. I'll focus right here on just the environmental issues and how the candidates addressed them. Energy policy was talked about several times during the debate (both candidates had trouble answering questions, so energy policy often popped up in answers to semi-/completly un- related questions.) The moderator, Gwen Ifill, also asked them specifically about climate change.

Governor Palin's central talking point was "energy independence." I think it's fair to say that domestic drilling is at the heart of this argument, although she did mention "alternative forms of energy." Her argument might best be summed up as, "Yes, we need alternative forms of energy. But what is really important is domestic oil production."

When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent. It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.

Senator Biden basically took the inverse position. He also mentions dometic drilling, but that is not his focus. The Biden argument sounds like this: "Yes, we need domestic oil production. But what is really important is alternative forms of energy."

Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it. China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology. We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.

Riveting stuff, to be sure. It appears that an Obama-Biden administration would be much better on environmental issues, although the level of discourse that's occurring here doesn't inspire much confidence that either ticket is a green ticket.

The direct question on climate change brought more nuggets of intellectualism. Palin says:

Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

Forget for a moment that she refers to herself as "the nation's only Arctic state," and that she has confused cause and effect when she says, "I'm not one to attribute every... activity of man to the changes in the climate." If you don't think that climate change is man-made, why would you worry about man-made solutions? Biden's response addressed this point:

I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Are there any conclusions we can draw from this debate? Sure, I can think of a few:
1) Both parties try to appeal to supporters of domestic drilling and supporters of alternative energy at the same time. While those two policies are not entirely mutually exclusive, it really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that true environmental reform is coming soon.
2) Cause is essential. Your view of the cause of a problem profoundly impacts how you would go about solving that problem.
3) Don't listen to any Max Headroom pundits because they do not enhance your understanding of anything.

Finally, I think the next President will have no choice but to put energy/environmental policy front and center in his administration, so it's important to pay attention. But at the same time, it also inspires me to continue to do things in my own life. Doing the little things to be more environmentally conscious every day makes me less frustrated about the lack of real, intelligent discourse on what is such a majorly important issue.

Max Headroom -- Part of the best political team on television