Death of a Dream Cafeteria

An amusing Los Angeles Times opinion article talks about the failed green experiment that was the U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria.  (And here's a 2008 New York Times article about the cafeteria when the experiment was underway.)  As the L.A. Times article is primarily interested in proving one political party right and the other wrong, it doesn't fully demonstrate why the attempt to make the cafeteria environmentally friendly failed.  But it does show that there's a lot more work to be done in researching and properly adopting green technology.

Just because we can make plates and flatware biodegradable doesn't mean that doing so is always feasible, cost-effective, or even the most planet-friendly option.  We have to consider the environmental and economic cost of creating, transporting, using, and disposing biodegradable goods.  That's where life cycle analysis comes in.  If a business establishment advertises green products or services, it should display the life cycle analyses of both conventional and green options to demonstrate that, in the end, its green program is truly green.  The mere appearance of going green is not enough; you have to do your homework.

The article also makes me wonder why the House cafeteria doesn't simply use china and silverware rather than disposable stuff.  If the cafeteria used china and silverware, its environmental cost would be in heat, water usage, and sewage production caused by dishwashers and dryers.  This cost, while not negligible, might compare favorably against the cost of incineration.

Green Kitsch

Who knows how long this green movement will last?  Either environmentalism will become such a way of life that it won't be noted as a movement anymore or it will be abandoned and we'll look back on it with mixed feelings.  In any case, the blog Go Back to Berkeley is here to capture our cute, unabashed attempts to go green.  (Spotted in a post on the Quarter to Three forum.)

Let's Life Cycle Analyze Everything

Consumer products already undergo some testing, generally to meet governmental regulations or a recognized set of standards.  This testing is done to ensure that the product attains a level of quality and does not pose an unacceptable risk of injuring the user.  But there is a risk from these products that is being overlooked: the environmental risk.

Some companies perform life cycle analyses of their products, attempting to quantify all environmental impacts of a product from cradle to grave.  A life cycle analysis examines, among other things, the environmental impact of the following phases in a product's life:

• Extraction and transport of materials used to make the product
• Manufacture and transport of the product
• Use of the product, including maintenance, repair, and storage
• Disposal of the product by consumer
• Destruction of the product through landfilling, incineration, or recycling

Life cycle analysis can reveal surprising facts about how a product impacts the environment.  Unfortunately, life cycle analysis is not widespread among industry, and the companies that practice it usually do not do so on a regular basis.

As the American economy recovers and our manufacturing sector is hopefully renewed, it would make sense to adopt industry-wide life cycle analysis practices now--not to wait until we're "ready."  If all products were to undergo life cycle analysis, the vast amount of information, processed by our vast computing power, can reveal areas of improvement that can be addressed in methods more easy and efficient than traditional methods of environmental remediation such as emissions reduction.  The life cycle analysis data can be made available to the public and can lead to a new, product-level movement in environmental stewardship.

As consumers, we all buy stuff, keep it in our house, and dispose of it in our environment.  It would be useful to know how everything, from our ballpoint pens to our plasma TVs, affect the environment from cradle to grave.

The Wattage of Life

As heard on the "Cities" episode of the WNYC Radiolab podcast at about the 38-minute mark, the estimated daily wattage of the following people:

• Someone just lying in bed all day: 90 watts
• A hunter-gatherer in a New Zealand tribe: 240 watts
• A typical American who commutes and uses common household appliances, including a computer: 11,000 watts! That's more daily energy than a blue whale requires.

Eighty percent of Americans live in cities, and cities are just growing and growing like insatiable monsters.

But, because cities are such dense producers and markets of science and innovation, if anyone will solve humanity's energy problems, it will probably be a city-dweller.

Confirming McCarthy

In a previous post, I'd mentioned how Senators Inhofe and Barrasso were delaying an EPA official's confirmation because of their opposition to global warming legislation. Yesterday, they lifted the hold on Regina McCarthy and allowed her confirmation as EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.

What may have swayed them was a letter from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson conceding that the Clean Air Act was flawed for addressing global warming and lacked statutory flexibility for small sources of air pollution.

Those are interesting, but probably true concessions that didn't require a confirmation delay. Did Inhofe and Barrasso gain any ground by stalling the confirmation, or were they just putting on a show for their supporters? It will be interesting to see how they act during the country's new green movement and how Obama's EPA handles the daunting task of reigning in climate change.

Climate Change Heeldraggers

The EPA has proposed findings that may lead to regulation of greenhouse gases. And it looks like the Washington figures who will lead the fight against such regulation will be Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming.

In Senate floor speeches, Inhofe and Barrasso spoke on how climate change legislation would worsen the current economic crisis. Their language evokes a vision of a jobless American landscape, as if the Obama administration or the public would simply allow such a doomsday situation to occur. They express doubt in the scientific evidence of global warming, yet have not offered evidence to support their predictions of massive job loss and debt should greenhouse gases be regulated.

They have gone so far as to stall the confirmation of an EPA official over the issue, saying that they still have unanswered questions on how EPA action on greenhouse gases would affect industries. But since EPA hasn't even proposed a course of action yet, I think those questions would be more appropriately addressed during the drafting and proposal of climate change legislation. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion and debate opportunities when that time comes since every state could be significantly affected.

The pressure to act on global warming grows every year, as does the evidence. Inhofe and Barrasso could serve their constituents in ways better than dragging their heels as the country finally gives in to the pressure. They can more precisely determine how greenhouse gas prevention programs would affect industries and prepare those industries for the changes ahead. They can find solutions that attain a balance, and perhaps synergy, between industrial production and greenhouse gas control. With their tactics of delay and denial, they are setting up their constituents to become unprepared opponents rather than participating partners in this new environmental movement.