From Guest Blogger Amy Nielson: How to Choose an Insurance Company That's as Eco-friendly as You Are



Photo credit: Orphek — http://www.orphek.com
Initially just an innovative way to provide the lights on indicator lamps and remote controls, and then developed into an exciting way to add colour to interior design projects and modern venues, the light emitting diode is now wending its way through the lighting market on an eco-warriors mission to replace the standard incandescent bulb.
Industry and large businesses have been catching on to the environmental and practical benefits of LED bulbs for a while now, but were afraid to make the transition as it seemed like a whole lot of extra work and expense to replace incompatible standard light fittings. (more…)
The move to alternative energy is a crucial one! The news that we will surpass 4 degrees in global temperature is dire news. How do you feel with a 4 degree temperature, that’s 102 degrees? Life cannot sustain that. We ALL live in a fairly narrow temperature band.
As critical as removing carbon is, there is more than one way to skin a cat…the use of biochar is very promising! This is an example of reframing problem from energy to carbon reduction. Understanding the depth and breadth of the change we need to make is critical. (more…)
Here’s a hopeful piece on climate change, suggesting that warming may be capped at less than 2 degrees C, even though our emission of greenhouse gases continues to grow. Though obviously I’d like to accept any good news, I have to say that I don’t understand this. If X causes Y, and we’re producing more X, aren’t we going to get more Y?
Here’s a presentation from The Energy Collective on a “breakthrough” solar technology that sounds like complete malarkey to me (though I’d be interested in readers’ take). In any case, it raises a larger issue: don’t reporters have some responsibility to look into the validity of what they’re covering and representing as real innovation?
Trust me, you’d be pretty unimpressed with me if I promoted all the ideas I come across in a given week as legitimate “breakthroughs” just because that’s what their “inventors” want me to do.
How credible is it that a spinning cone of PV is going to represent a huge improvement in efficiency in converting light into electricity? Does it make sense that all the gadgetry involved in getting the thing to spin is going to be cost-effective and trouble-free? Isn’t the fact that there are no real-world working models a blindingly bright red flag?
Yikes.
As evidenced by this article, building EV charging stations that combine solar charging, batteries, and grid backup is still considered news, though there have been hundreds of examples of systems that do this. In fact, one of my “Craig Shields … At Your Service” clients was EV for Oregon, which offered this work of art.
Can solutions like this work? I guess we have to define “work.” Obviously, there is nothing theoretically impossible about the idea, but that doesn’t make them practical. The price tag of one of these bad boys is well into six figures, making the process of justifying the investment a considerable challenge.
We sure hear a lot about DONG Energy, arguably the world’s most progressive large energy company, majority-owned by the Danish government, but sporting numerous large private owners as well. Through its investment in renewables, including this 210 MW offshore wind project in the North Sea, they’ve reduced the carbon intensivity of the energy they generate overall by over 65% since 2002.
Speaking of good work done by the traditional energy sector, I have the first of many hundred interviews lined up later this morning for our new “Corporate Role Models” blog, in which I’ll be speaking with someone from Chevron’s “Energy Solutions” group. These folks have some impressive case studies under their belts, and I’ll be interested in hearing what they say.
According to the Writer’s Almanac on Monday:
It was on this day in 1754 that the word “serendipity” was first coined. It’s defined by Merriam-Webster as “the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for.”
…. The invention of many wonderful things have been attributed to “serendipity,” including Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Charles Goodyear’s vulcanization of rubber, inkjet printers, Silly Putty, the Slinky, and chocolate chip cookies…..Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin after he left for vacation without disinfecting some of his petri dishes filled with bacteria cultures; when he got back to his lab, he found that the penicillium mold had killed the bacteria…..The principles of radioactivity, X-rays, and infrared radiation were all found when researchers were looking for something else. (more…)
One thing I like about the French is the fiercely independent stances they take on important matters. They tend not to ask permission, but rather to use their own wits and take tough positions on key matters.
As one might expect, energy policy a perfect example of this characteristic in action. I don’t recall the French soliciting world opinion when they went big with nuclear in the 20th Century. And here they are, making long-term policies on renewables that will act as firm commitments, enabling everyone: investors, developers, and private citizens to be a part of a plan that will span decades, and ultimately take France to what I have long predicted will be a position of world leadership in this space.
The fact that the U.S. doesn’t have an energy policy is disgusting. Big Energy owns our Congress, and thus we can expect an indefinite continuation of the status quo: a playing field that favors fossil fuels, with an ongoing sprinkling of confusing, on-again/off-again legislation to bring waves of intermittent hope and despair to clean energy. It’s revolting.
In the meanwhile, France boldly and confidently charts its course of commitment and responsibility.
Now, if I could just get those Parisians to treat me a bit better, I’d be a true Francophile.
In response to my piece about a recent reduction in VMT (vehicle miles traveled), frequent commenter Larry Lemmert writes:
I don’t think that this decline has anything to do with altruistic motives. People are driving less because their income is going down on the average due to less people working now than 10 years ago……
You raise a good point, Larry. Is altruism behind this thought process? For some, yes. For others, hell no; it’s a matter of personal micro-economics; in some cases, they simply need less mobility, or they see car ownership as offering declining utility and rising cost, while the alternatives are becoming more viable every year.
I believe young people in particular are starting to question the value of owning a big piece of super-expensive steel that they may not really need, not unlike the phenomenon 10 years ago when 20-somethings rethought the assumption that they needed a land-line-connected telephone in their homes.
As other folks have commented, VMT is really only about 3% from its peak, so it’s a bit premature to assert what if anything this means, but I look at this as the harbinger of a significant trend. Look at this in terms of a macro-trend in transportation. How confident are we that mobility in 2050 will be accomplished predominantly with individual car ownership? I find it perfectly credible that we’re wisely beginning to question the validity of having a 4000-pound piece of steel, declining in value every day, parked 23 hours a day, with a single occupant 75% of the time it’s in operation.
Some will see this as “doing the right thing,” where others will view it as common sense.