The Best of the Best: Top Ten Blog Entries

1. I'll start with my post on enviroCAB. I'm really glad that I decided to investigate and find more information about this cab service because it came in handy later on, especially in my final project. I know the cab service only started up in February 2008, but I'm really interested to see how this service will be used in the future. I think that if these taxis were widely used around DC, people would be much more interested in the use of hybrid cars. If people saw these taxis on a day to day basis, they would be much more inclined to look into the issues. I think that the mere advertisement of environmental issues in such a way will really pervade society and be able to influence people to get interested or involved in issues related to the environment.

*EnviroCAB:
Today I was walking around I street and saw a white and green taxi with the phrase "envirocab" written on it. So I decided to this up on the internet: http://www.envirotaxicab.com/

The cab service operates in Arlington and produces an estimated 60 percent less emissions than standard cabs. enviroCAB also offsets remaining emissions by buying offset credits. According to this website, enviroCAB's policies would actually emit zero carbon dioxide even with a "fleet of taxis". For each cab put into operation, enviroCAB also offsets the pollution of two 16 mpg standard taxi cabs currently operating in Arlington County. They claim to be the "first cabon-negative taxi service in the world." Currently 50 hybrid taxicabs are operating from Arlington County. enviroCAB was introduced in D.C. on Feb 11, 2008 as the first all-hybrid taxicab service. The taxis include (Toyota Priuses, Camrys, Highlanders, and Ford Escapes.

here are some facts listed in an article from the website:
• the first taxicab company within the Washington, D.C. region to put a fleet on the road comprised entirely of fuel-efficient, low-emission hybrid vehicles.
• the first taxicab company in the U.S. to completely offset its own emissions by purchasing “clean-source” offset credits.
• the world’s first carbon-negative taxicab service by offsetting the emissions of 100 of the approximately 685 non-hybrid taxis operating in Arlington,Va.
enviroCAB will emit 2.3 million pounds of carbon dioxide less than similarly sized standard taxi vehicles, and will offset an additional 1.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide emission for its fleet to be carbon neutral. By purchasing “clean-source” offset credits, enviroCAB will become carbon-negative by offsetting another 7.6 million pounds of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of 100 older, fuel inefficient taxis.

the number for envirCAB is (703) 920-3333

I was really surprised to see the enviroCAB driving around D.C. and even more surprised to find out that its the first environmentally friendly taxi service in the nation! I haven't seen many, but I'm really going to start looking around for these taxis. Maybe these kind of taxis will eventually take over the taxicab industry of DC and even beyond that...

2. In this next I entry I talk about the article I read with my group for class about whether clean coal can exist in China. Recently my interest in China has grown considerably. Everything from their controlling government, to their erasure of national history, to the combination of communism and capitalism, to their disgusting treatment of the environment. I'm actually a gigantic summer olympics fan and I had been looking forward to Beijing 2008 for years, in hope that my parents would allow me to fulfill my lifelong dream to attend the olympic games as my graduation present. It was huge deal for me to one day to change my mind and decide that I would not want to go to China (not like my parents would have actually let me go anyway) for the games because of their lack of enthusiasm for both the environment and human rights. Nonetheless, China has continued to intrigue me. I'm extremely interested in what China has planned for the future and how they will play a role on the global scene. I think that they are such an up and coming power that will one day have a considerable amount of control in the global scheme of things (they already have quite a bit of control), but it seems that some people may be reluctant to acknowledge this. China's policies, especially their environmental policies, have and will continue to have an enormous affect on the world.

*Can Coal and Clean Air Coexist in China?
-In China, coal produces 75% of its electricity.
-More than 4,000 miners die each year digging up fossil fuels.
-Chinese dependence on coal is most visible in the air. Smog fills the sky to form a "brown cloud", which is visible from space and accounts for 15% of air pollution.
-Many of the cities in China would fail both U.S. and E.U. safety standards with the amount of pollution in the air.
-It costs China an estimated $100 BILLION in health coasts associated with respiratory problems. (World Bank)
-According to research by Frederica Perera of Columbia, the pollution in China could actually STUNT THE GROWTH of the next generation in Chongqing.
-China has burned coal for centuries, but it is only recently that the country began to burn 2.5 billion tons ANUALLY (twice the amount of the U.S.).
-China opens one large coal-fired power plant a week on average to generate enough electricity to provide for its 1.3 billion population + fuel industries that manufacture cheap goods for both the U.S. and Europe.
-This year China surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases

Developing Alternatives:
-designed plan to reduce sulfur dioxide by as much as 10% over the next 5 years by closing small, inefficient coal plants and replacing them with larger ones. This doesn't seem to make much sense, but the abundance of new coal power plants will actually SOMEWHAT help clear the air of pollution.
-GreenGen: government launched pilot project in Tianjin to capture and store carbon dioxide produced from coal and use this carbon dioxide as a fuel for electricity generation at a power plant "GreenGen". Power and coal companies will contribute funds to create an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant where coal is converted to gas and pollutants removed before burning. IGCC could produce 250 megawatts of electricity and could cut capture more than 80% of the carbon dioxide normally produced by combustion, storing it in nearby depleted oil fields by 2015. Criticisms of the project include the fact that this process requires extra energy and requires more burning of coal just to generate the same amount of electricity.
-As the host nation of the Olympics this summer, China was somewhat motivated to clean up their pollution by relocating factories to industrial parks or on the outskirts of towns and closing small&inefficient coal power plants.
-Possible plans for turning coal into liquid fuel (however, this is a costly transformation and can emit twice as much carbon dioxide as burning coal and even consumes more energy)

Interesting points: A good amount of China's air pollution is outsourced smog from industry that has migrated from the U.S. and E.U. to China in order to maintain low prices and clean Western skies. 23-33% of China's greenhouse gas emissions can be linked to Western exports.

3. In this next post, I mention my visit to New York over the weekend and my first real encounter with Freeganism. I find the concept really interesting, even if it a bit radical. I'm not sure if I would actually be able to live that way, but listening to the freegans and their ideas really motivated me to stop wasting so much of my own stuff. Its incredibly sad to think of how much food we waste when there are so many people who are literally starving in this world. Its also stunning to think of all the plastic we waste in the process, and we don't even realize it half the time! I mean, I knew that we are a wasteful society but I didn't really realize HOW wasteful we really are until I dug through the trash cans myself...

Freeganism:
An interesting side note: This weekend I went to NYU to visit a few of my friends, and on Friday night I had the opportunity to accompany my boyfriend on a tour around the city about Freeganism for his sociology class. We dug through trash bags and found so much packaged food that was perfectly fine. Many stores are required to throw away their extra food, even if the food is fresh or just made that day. We found a bunch of plastic containers of packaged sushi. The woman leading us on the tour, who was a freegan, pointed out to us that not only is a considerable amount of food wasted, but a considerable amount of plastic is wasted in the process as well. Its interesting because this is something that many people don't even realize. I feel like this is a huge hidden/unacknowledged problem relating to the environmental issues of our day

4. In the article that examined whether Gore's findings in An Inconvenient Truth were scientific or not, there is mention of the evacuation of the Cateret atolls in Papua New Guinia. I found this portion of the article very interesting and even looked up more information on the topic. Its absolutely insane to imagine that an entire area of land could be washed away. Its even more insane to imagine that the life of an entire society on this island is threatened by this possibility. Its hard to imagine an entire population of people just picking up their lives and moving somewhere else, especially in this case, where many of the islanders are very poor and have not traveled outside of the island. This raises many questions: who takes care of these people? Who provides them a home? How supports them financially? How do you relocate an entire society? It stunning that we would even have to consider such questions.

An Inconvenient Truth Analysis: The Drastic Rise of Sea Level
The second claim Burton holds Gore responsible for is that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of global warming. Burton claimed that no evacuations to nations such as New Zealand had occurred, yet in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation. This evacuation is scheduled to begin in 2008, supposedly. This article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/25/science.climatechange
talks about the evacuation. For more than 30 years, 980 people have been living on the atolls. The evacuation will begin as soon as money is made available to the Papuan New Guinean regional government. The article states that by 2015 the islands are likely to be completely submerged. This has apparently been inevitable for 20 years, as storm surges and erosion have worsened so much that bits of the atolls have been breaking off from time to time. In 1995, Han island was completely inundated and another cut in half by the sea. The people there have nearly starved because salt water destroyed many of their sources of food. For many years they have depended on emergency aid because the islanders barely have any money. Little source of transportation is provided in or out of the island. According to the Red Cross, the number of people in the Oceania region affected by weather-related disasters has soared by 65 times during the past 30 years because increased numbers of cyclones, droughts and floods.
Although, these islands are totally different than the continents that Gore observes, they still serve as a model of what is to come in the future. Incidents of such severe island flood us prove that coasts of continents could be submerged and possibly change the entire map eventually. I think this is really scary thought and serves as a terrific point to support Gore. If anything at all, it sends us a warning that we need to do something about how we treat this planet, just in case these findings are true. I really don't want myself or my children or my grandchildren, or even my great great grandchildren to end up under water. People seem to be so selfish when it comes to the future. Because it doesn't affect them, they make no effort to plan for those in the future. I don't understand how people can be so thoughtless.

5. I think its great that there is now accessible technology to help people calculate their own personal carbon footprints. I think that this can really make people aware of their impact in the world and at least motivate some people to get involved in environmental issues. I know that I myself have people more aware of my impact since being introduced to carbon calculators. I make an attempt to unplug things when I'm not using them, I try to but energy efficient products...I think that if devices such as the carbon calculator are circulated around society enough, that people will really start applying environmentally wise decisions to their daily life.

Carbon Footprint Investigation

Source: https://climatefriendly.com/shop?gclid=CJHnq_-7u5YCFQIWFQod3SdALw
When calculating my air travel, this website said my emissions calculate to 1 Tonnes. My air travel was pretty much nonexistent, except for one trip to Disney World for my senior class trip. The calculator estimated that a flight from Philadelphia to Florida was 2029 miles. I found some of the facts that this website offered concerning air travel to be extremely interesting, particularly when it is mentioned that a round trip flight for only one person between the U.S. and the UK creates the same amount of emissions as driving a car for more than a year. A round trip flight from Europe to Asia-Pacific has the same emissions as driving a car for up to two years! It amazes me that my one, short trip to Disney World, although it is no flight to Europe, could be just as harmful as months of driving! I think its interesting to think in these terms, nowadays when some families try to save money they may consider driving to Disney World rather than flying. Not only could driving there possibly save money, but it could help save our atmosphere.

http://www.carboncounter.org/?gclid=CKnelOi9u5YCFQNvHgodMQwtLQ
With this website, I first calculated my emissions while living in Washington DC. Because I do not use a car here, my calculated emissions were considerably low. According to this source, I emit 5.05 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. I emit only 4.07 metric tones per year in home electricity, where as the national average reaches 11.6 metric tones per year. While living in DC, I myself emit nothing in automobile emissions (!) as opposed to the national average of 5.02 metric tons per year. Of course this does not take into account the fact that I use a considerable amount of transportation to get around the city of to travel home (taxi cabs, trains, my parents driving me around, etc.). Unfortunately, my carbon footprint grew significantly (14.52 metric tons per year!) when I calculated my life at home in New Jersey. My use of electricity at home came very close to the national average of 11.16, climbing all the way up to 9.15 metric tons per year. My automobile use, a whopping 4.39 metric tones per year, came even closer to the national average of 5.02 metric tones per year. It startling to see such a contrast in these calculations. I think that the lower emissions in DC are partly caused by my growing sense of responsibility. Because I am forced to take care of my things, clean up after myself, etc., I seem to pay more attention to things like turning the tv off, unplugging my phone charger, printer, or camera charger. I've become more aware of my actions now that I don't have someone following behind me who would just turn off the tv or turn off the lights in the room.

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
This carbon footprint calculator was by far my favorite. I found it to be the most comprehensive in several aspects. I calculated my household impact when living with my family of three in New Jersey, and found that my estimated greenhouse gas emissions are 48 tones of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, which is below the U.S. national average. The United States average of three people per household is about 80, and the world average is about 17 CO2 eq/year. I think that our carbon footprint is less than the national average because we have taken some steps to be energy efficient. Although we are by no means the most environmentally friendly family, we have taken steps such as buying an energy efficient Maytag washer and replacing some of our incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs. I was able to calculate my individual carbon footprint within my family household and found that my estimated emissions are only 13 tons of CO2 eq/yr, which is also below the national average of 27 tons of CO2 eq/yr. However, it is much higher than the world average of 5.5 tons of CO2 eq/yr. Although my emissions do not compare to the world average, I believe that my impact may be less severe than that of the national average because I have taken steps to recycle whenever possible. If I see a bottle lying in the middle of the street, I pick it up and bring it to the nearest recycling can. I have even gone as far as carrying emptying bottles in my purse just so I can wait to recycle them. Sometimes I even take my friends bottles to prevent them from carelessly throwing them out. I also am a vegetarian, and have been my whole life, which seems to offset my emissions. I have also tried to eat organic food, although at this time in my life its not necessarily economically feasible.

Conclusions:
When I calculated my carbon footprint in all of these sources, I found that my lack of air travel really minimizes my carbon footprint. This makes me feel a little bit better about my lack of travel. I was actually introduced to the carbon calculator during my senior year of high school in our Global Seminar class. We were all astounded at our personal impact. Some of classmates and I found that our emissions were not as intense in comparison to the national average, but were much more severe when compared to the world average. This unfortunately seemed to show that our country is a leading source in the energy crisis. It also shows that as much as we clamor for change from our government, we ourselves might not be making a considerable amount of effort, ESPECIALLY in the eyes of those living in other countries.
My family and I have begun to make attempts in offsetting our emissions. We now buy energy efficient appliances when our older appliances cease to function. However, we have not made dramatic changes like getting rid of all of our inefficient appliances and immediately replacing them with energy efficient ones. But I think that we are taking a serious, yet gradual step, in the right direction.

6. This article looks at the business world and their role in contributing carbon emissions. The article suggests ways in which to place restraints on companies and techniques in which to hold the companies and customers accountable for the amount of carbon emissions being produced. I think that its interesting idea. It may be a bit invasive, but that may be the kinds of steps that we need to take in order for companies to cut back on their carbon emissions. If corporations cut down on their carbon emissions, we would make huge strides in terms of helping the environment.

Leave Only Footprints: measuring and Managing Corporate Carbon Emissions

article contents:
-no standard tool for measuring carbon footprint quite yet
-3/4 of businesses attempting to measure carbon footprint, yet only half of them attempting to implement programs to reduce/offset emissons
-"myriad of methodologies" makes it difficult to get an exact measure, causes the entire process to become much more complicated
-Innovest tested Carbon Beta model which not only measures the carbon footprint, but looks at the carbon risk management architecture, the ability to recognize opportunities driven by climate problem, and the performance improvement trajectory over time.

The article mentions holding companies accountable for not only their own emissions, but their customers and suppliers emissions. McElroy refutes this idea in the article, suggesting that accountability should be held at the point of the particular emission, not "up or downstream from it". I think that this idea brings up an interesting point. If companies are held responsible for the emission of other people whom they are connected to, this may encourage them to take fast and drastic action to regulate their emissions, which ultimately yields enormous benefits for the environment. This would facilitate the fast-paced action needed to stop the environmental crisis in its tracks. Yet, as appealing as this concept may sound, it seems unlikely to come into affect. I feel as if companies should not be responsible for the emissions that their own company does not directly produce. Although they are playing in a role in the emissions of their suppliers and customers, the company itself is not producing these emissions. I think that maybe if some sort of compromise was put in to place, for example companies could be held responsible for their suppliers emissions but not their customers, than this may facilitate a reasonable amount of change. It would encourage companies to associate themselves with other environmentally conscious companies, and may ultimately drive those companies who neglect to follow up on modern energy policy out of business. Customers, however, should be personally responsible for their emissions in some way, rather than throwing the blame on the companies.

7. I have not got around to reading Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded", but the article written about the book really intrigues me. Friedman talks about the idea of America leading the way in alternative forms of energy in not only an environmental sense, but also in a political sense. He mentions that if America stepped up the plate and led the world environmentally, that our country would gain a tremendous amount of respect worldwide. I can't help but agree with him. I think that our country needs to take some bold steps in our policies to regain to respect and also to facilitate global environmental progress.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded

I was excited to see that Thomas Friedman had come out with another book related to the topics he had previously written about. I started to read his book "The World is Flat" when I was entering my senior year of high school. Unfortunately I was never able to finish the book, but I was able to conclude that Friedman has some worthwhile ideas contained in his literature. The article on the book talks about Friedan's proposal of an "ambitious national strategy" focused on the concept of "Geo-Greenism". This concept not only concentrates on what we need to do to save our planet, but also how we must make out own nation more healthy, innovative, and productive to spur both security and prosperity. He suggests that America must be the one to lead this initiative in the world. Although I have not read through the complete argument, I have to agree with the idea that America's leadership in alternative forms of energy could transform America's current reputation in the world. I think that through the innovation and leadership that such a task would require, the rest of the world would gain a tremendous amount of respect for our nation and no longer view us as a waning world power. Friedan reminds us that this "green revolution" that is so often talked about, never seems to be put in to action. This statement reminds me of something that seems to pop in my mind every day. Why do we talk so much about alternative energy and how we are experiencing a world crisis, yet nothing seems to get done? I know that it is often difficult to view progress in this position, but it seems as if this problem is being presented rather dramatically, yet no dramatic action occurs in response. I still don't understand why we don't have fuel-efficient vehicles, or why cleaner forms of energy are not being widely used.

8. In this post, I talk about the key points from the sustainability at GW plenary. I have mixed feelings on GW and their attempts to be environmentally friendly. For example, we have those triple trash cans where one is used for trash, the other for mixed paper, and the other for bottles and cans. We have stickers on our light switches in all of our dorms that say "Conserve Energy!". When I came to GW, I was under the impression that the school was very environmentally friendly. My view changed however, when I actually came here and realized that there are still many things that the school can improve upon. We still use ONLY plastic in all of our dining locations, unlike many schools which use actual dishes and utensils. Not only do we ONLY use plastic, but we use way too much of it!. We have those huge plastic containers and barely any plain plates to use. I have read various articles that put GW in the very bottom of schools that have taken major steps toward sustainability. Although I may not see GW's current environmental policies as the most progressive, I hope that the presentation at the "Sustainability at GW" plenary can bring improvements to the school in the future.
Sustainability as GW Plenary

-website on sustainability, plans for university
Carbon Neutrality-zero carbon emissions
-office set up, in process...
-GW not best when it comes to sustainability, probably in middle range? Found sources refuting this and claiming that we are in the worst five. ex; http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200809/coolschools/five.asp
-new recycling-color coding
-recycle with numbers 1 through 7
*no food,garbage, etc.
clear bags=recycling
black=trash
-water usually goes straight to sewer system then to potomac..GW making steps to create green roof to prevent this from happening, less air conditioning/heating needed, creates insulation
sustainability-responsibly, carry us into the future, environmentally, economically
-new lens, where did this come from? (bottle of water) etc. *ask questions* value chain

9. In the post, I talk about the things I learned from the presentation on the current state of our economy given by our guest speaker. It is still difficult for me to understand the economic crisis in its fullest extent, probably because I'm not the biggest fan of money in general. I still found the presentation very valuable in further understanding (or attempting to) the economy. When we talked about how low the price of gas had become, it did not fully hit me. It wasn't until I came home over Thanksgiving that I realized how much the price had decreased. It was about $ 1. 50 where I live! That reminded me of something my dad, and of course many other people, have been suggesting for years: placing a tax on gas. If we taxed gas now and brought it up to 3 or 4 dollars like it was before, it would discourage people to drive, therefore weening us off of our dependence of foreign oil, allowing us to develop new forms of alternative energy, all while putting the money form the tax back into the U.S. treasury. The extra money would end up back in our hands, rather than overseas. This may be a good idea, considering that the desire to develop alternative forms of energy has probably become less urgent in the eyes of many people at a time when gas is sold at such a low price.

Economic Presentation:
I found the presentation very interesting, even if it was a bit over my head. I'm really not into money or economics or any thing of the sort, and its really difficult for me to wrap my mind around the rationality of all of it...but the presentation helped me understand the current economic situation a bit more.

In the presentation, it was explained that the current economic situation can be contributed to rising oil prices (up to $ 145 a barrel and $4 at the pump), the tripling or more of grain prices, ad the spike in prices of many raw materials such as copper and cotton. Gas prices finally went down to about $55 a barrel and $2 at the pump. This situation provides relief for consumers but could potentially hinder the progress of conservation gains.

It is too late to avoid a recession, but lower prices may make the recession itself milder. There also could be possible conflict with economic recovery with the use of price floors, green market solutions, cap and trade, and carbon taxes. Some believe however that Green spending could possibly help economic recovery.

In terms of the housing market issues:
Homebuilding is down nearly two-thirds. House prices are down nearly 20 % and could fall even lower. Mortgages are very hard to obtain at this point. Many homeowners can't pay their loans, which is causing foreclosures to double to a near 3 million annual rate. Mortgage "paper" were loans that turned into security, clogging world banking and portfolios with 11 trillion of "bad papers".

There will always be credit cycles. Credit busts are preceded by credit booms. But now banks will not lend to customers or each other. Sectors are now credit starved, including non-Frannie/Freddie mortgages, mergers, acquisitions, local government projects, auto + consumer lending.

There have also been problems in over-investing. An investor could guess wrong on technology, not know competitors' investments, misjudge pricing power, costs, + profits, or misjudge future market sizes. These small misses can drastically affect business. People do not know how to value things anymore because many new products are complex and there is no regulated way to trade them. Accountants do not know how to price these items. If accountants don't know how to price them, neither do many CEO regulators and rating agencies don't know either. Problems worsen with prepayments, bad collateral, and by simply pretending that the problem is not there. Other problems have resulted from insurance abuses. Its a good idea for insurers to have reserves to pay out losses and be regulated. However, Frannie and Freddie wrote 3.6 trillion of mortgage pool insurance with no reserves.

What can we do about this economic situation? We can "spend like crazy", embrace infrastructure and temporary tax cuts, forget the budget, while still helping the poor and saving the environment. We can rethink corporate leadership and governance, remove perverse incentives, and even become comfortable with bankruptcy because after all, its not liquidation, its protection from creditors.



10. I like this next post because I find it unique in the sense that the plenary we attended was mainly focused on different energy resources and was not very controversial. The plenary was very factual and informative. Its interesting that there are so many different ways that we could produce energy and power our world, yet we rely primarily on one method. Many of these other methods may be new and not fully developed, but its exciting to maybe get a sneak peek into the future and hope that some of these forms of alternative energy will progress to the point that is beneficial for the world.

USGS Energy Resources Program Plenary

USGS Energy Resources Program-energy research and info for natural resources security, energy mix scenarios, climate change models
-don't handle solar or wind power-handled by other department

Global Conventional oil resources-took a picture of map of wold and expressed areas with highest oil resources and production
-shows the disconnect
-assessed that about 650 billion barrels of oil left to be found
-showed map of domestic oil production in U.S., but alot of these area are not accessible for various reasons, such as economics.
-Our country has a long history of activity, but significant potential remains, esp. with unconventional)continuous) resources and reserve growth

Reserve growth-when group estimates resources in the reserve, estimate number, usually a low number

unconventional resources: an important part of the national energy potential
-include gas hydrates, methane...

Conventional-drill rig, reservoir of oil
unconventional-not yet produced, not economic, on the horizon
-now no longer referred to as unconventional, but continuous, resources that are more promising
-unconventional production is a growing source of U.S. gas supply
-unconventional gas can become conventional and add to energy mix
-barnett shale gas production in texas
-new ways of producing resources popping up every few years

Truly unconventional-gas hydrates-found underground in ocean sediments, in the artic
-offer great potential
US has between 200,000 to 320,000 TCFG of in place gas in the form of gas hydrate
-if just a small fraction can be produced, that could dwarf the more than 1200 TCFG of UD conventional natural gas reserves and technically recoverable resources
-concentration of gas hydrates varies in different formations-gas hydrates in sand have more produceable potential

James brought up an interesting point in class. All of the other material that has been presented to us has been highly criticized by various sources, for example, "An Inconvenient Truth". This plenary, however, concentrated more on scientific fact, which in a sense seemed refreshing.