Archive for March, 2009

Sustainable?

What does it mean to be sustainable? Does it mean that we are able to support and maintain ourselves environmentally? Does it mean that we can support and maintain ourselves economically?

I would argue that it means both.

We can not charge ahead with environmental changes that we can not support in the long run economically.

This is illustrated in a recent study conducted at Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada. He points out that as we push towards “greener” sources of power the economy suffers. This is because governments typically subsidize green projects.

In fact they subsidize them extremely heavily. The end result is that organizations are being paid up to 11 times the going rate for comparable services and products if they make use of green products and energy sources.

Now the need to move towards environmentally friendly solutions seems to justify such aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, as in all aspects of life, there are consequences from such actions.

Every dollar that the government overspends on “green” solutions is a dollar that can not be applied to other projects – even green projects. In fact, Calzada calculates that every time a “green” job is created, 2-1/2 conventional jobs are lost because of the extra funding required.

This is simply not sustainable. When people lose their jobs they will be unable to pay to heat their homes. Do you think that they are thinking about what damage to the environment will occur if they light a fire or take some more drastic action?
Read the rest of this entry »

The problem I have with many companies that offer “green products” is that some of them are offering conventional products with a “green label”.

Proctor and Gamble is taking the environment seriously. They are doing their part to reduce their CO2 emissions and create environmentally friendly products. In addition to that they are actually measuring their performance in relation to their sustainability goals.

Wow, a company that is keeping itself accountable.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have know problem with a company making a profit, even on green products. After all, if there is no profit, then there is no incentive for the company.

What I do have a problem with is companies gouging their customers or marketing products that provide little improvement.

Well done P&G, you deserve a (reasonable) profit.

You can read the full article at Environmental Leader.

Alternative energy sources are our future. We need to develop new sources of generating power in sustainable and clean ways. Solar power and wind turbines are two such possible sources of power.

But as I wrote in a previous post, we need to make sure that we are not destroying one part of the environment (or eco-system) to save another.

Now I want to make it clear that I understand no matter what we do, we’re going to have an impact on our environment. The question is, “how do we minimize that impact?”

Senator Feinstein is raising concerns about building solar farms in the California desert. She points out that the eco-systems out there are extremely fragile and need to be protected.

This of course puts her in an interesting position. She is protecting the environment from alternative energy providers. If they do nothing, there is no progress made and the environment continues to be damaged. If they move ahead they damage the environment while creating the power plants.

Frustration over these issues is showing, as this excerpt demonstrates.

The first key to realize is that there is an effort for cooperation, and I applaud that.

The second key is to recognize that we often become very closed minded about solutions. We need to be open and discuss alternatives so that we can find what is economically feasible while still minimizing the impact on the environment.

Here’s a quote that demonstrates how we need to change our attitudes…

Will yeah Bill, Los Angeles would be the perfect place to build a solar farm. After all, the damage has already been done there.

A Solar Panel on Every Roof?

A solar farm does not have to be a huge clearing of land with acres of collectors. What if we put solar panels on top of every roof top in L.A.? There would be much less environmental impact than in the desert and their would be acres of collectors feed the need for power.

The problem of course is that farms make money for investors - collectors on rooftops save money for families, businesses, apartment buildings, etc.

We need to figure out our priorities - is it about making money or saving the environment. Then we need to work in cooperation and find solutions that will be the most sustainable while having the least impact.

You can read the entire article at The Los Angeles Times.