Yesterday, I posted a complex article, Removing the Fossil Fuel Blinders, which attempted to put together and make some sense of some of our toughest issues regarding energy and the environment.  It’s worth a read for getting a broad overview with some important details regarding these problems.

But today, I want to point readers toward looking at Exxon Mobil, an oil company that has seen record profits over the last several quarters, with the best profit ever over the last quarter.  It’s unsurprising, considering the higher prices people are willing to pay for oil.

The New York Times article I read made a point that stood out to me as especially interesting:

Exxon’s shares fell 4.6 percent, to close at $80.43.

And:

The disappointment from investors is bound to put added pressure on Exxon Mobil’s chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson, to search for new fields in politically precarious areas of Africa and the Middle East.

Hmmm, to search for new fields?  Well, the sitting President, George W. Bush, and the Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, would like to give oil companies, who are already seeing record profits, the biggest chance at lots more oil, further tying our economy to ever more oil.  This is not smart policy, it is political pandering.

Voters are smart enough to see the truth on this matter and to know that these policies are bad for the country, that it will take years (not months, as McCain has said) to see any oil, and by that time, other sources will have dried up or declined and the demand will have increased.

What do we do?  Starve those companies into investing some of their huge profits into clean, renewable fuel sources.  I said it in yesterday’s article, and I’ll say it again: those companies, like Exxon Mobil, can have a seat at the table.  Now, with demand increasing on smaller amounts of oil, and as CEOs see the need to continue to see growth, they may just see the light and the opportunity in green, clean energy sources.

This is a great opprotunity to push such companies toward a more sustainable future.  Don’t let them drill offshore or in new areas.  Let the supplies dry up.  And let’s go ahead with the technology we have and are developing for a clean energy future!

This past week, I published an article about renewable realists, and how they should remain strong, in fact, vigilant, in the pursuit of clean, renewable sources of energy for a sustainable future. Here, I will outline some interconnected stories to the issues of energy, climate change, and national security. We need well informed citizens to keep these issues in the public focus, with an eye for new, real answers that solve our problems rather than pushing them off for a later time.

Let’s start out with a summary of current circumstances.

Main Problems of the Current Energy Situation:

• Energy hurting the economy: Prices have gone up for oil, gasoline, coal, and electricity, to the point that both customers businesses of all walks of life are feeling the pinch at the pumps and the costs of manufacturing and transporting goods have gone up along with energy prices. The demand for energy continues to increase, and with it, costs.
• Climate Change: Our carbon-intensive collective lifestyle has pushed the world’s atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases toward a tipping point, after which we may see no chance of turning back, with melted icecaps, rising sea levels, flooding, millions of climate change refugees, the consensus of scientists worldwide is that life as we know it would be greatly negatively affected by the resulting rises in worldwide temperatures. Imagine great increases in flooding, ecosystem collapses, societal collapses, and even diseases that may be spread by pathogens able to live in warmer climates moving on to people who never had faced and built immunity to them. Scientists are predicting that there is great potential for the Earth’s poles to be iceless in summer months within the next five years.
• Global Security: The above two situations are compounded by their implications on national/world security. Being so dependent upon oil in general and foreign oil more specifically limits the options for how our nation acts diplomatically and militarily. Basically, it forces our leaders to act a certain way because their hands are tied by governments who control large amounts of oil. Add the implications of impending climate change over the coming decades, skyrocketing costs from higher fuel demand and dwindling supplies, the addition of climate change refugees, and border problems throughout the world — you will see a monstrous problem has emerged. When these constraints are placed on a great many world leaders, the problem is multiplied and all the more complex.

To see marked improvement on these interwoven issues, we need large energy sources that are renewable, very low or basically no-pollution, much cheaper than oil and coal (which have dramatically increased in price over the last decade), and something that improves the economic and security of the U.S. and the world at-large. The world is waiting for an economy able to take on the huge expansion of the available technologies of wind and solar power to make them more cost effective for smaller economies. Mired in expensive, dirty energy sources, it’s time for the U.S. to step up to the plate and meet that challenge.

Let’s discuss some news stories from the past weeks that are shaping these issues, ones that may have a significant impact on how the policy debates regarding these issues are shaped over the coming months, and try to find common trends and possible solutions.

Governments Subsidizing Oil

Matthew Philip discussed this issue in an article a while back, here on EHI, regarding the environment and oil, but the New York Times just published a story regarding other countries subsidizing oil (and its fuel products) for their citizens. This has a mixed effect for the U.S. the world. On the one hand, it allows people to continue to consume, because they can still afford the gas, diesel, and other fuels, because of the subsidies.

Therefore, their consumption does not decrease as prices increase, because their governments are cushioning the impact of those higher prices (the citizens don’t feel the full effect of those price increases). This is good in the sense that because it continues to keep demand for oil high worldwide (and leads to even higher demand), it forces policymakers, companies, and individuals in the U.S. to look at other alternatives, like electric cars or hybrids, running mostly off of a clean energy grid, powered by wind and solar. As the costs of contemporary fuels increase, those alternatives are literally more cost effective and overall more attractive.

This is bad in the short-term, and potentially long-term. As demand increases, costs go up, but because those people are able to increase demand relatively independent of price increases (because of subsidies), the demand continues to increase, increasing pollution and making even more dire national security situations, as unstable countries and political leaders who own large oil supplies and can control the flow through transportation channels as well, gain more influence in world affairs.

The solution is to move forward with clean energy supplies (wind and solar) and infrastructure necessary for both energy transmission and hybrid or all-electric cars to be traveling our highways or even becoming energy storage devices that charge when they are idle and can resell energy back to the grid during times when the sun is not shining as much or there is less wind in a certain area. Then, once that techonology is widespread and made cheaper by economies of scale, it can be distributed further, transforming the world’s economy and future status (by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases).

Politicians for Offshore Drilling

Many politicians have recently called for offshore drilling, most notably President Bush, who lifted the federal moratorium on offshore drilling (though Congress would have to do the same for it to happen) and Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, who is also in favor of offshore drilling.

What’s wrong with this picture? It’s irresponsible and is irrespective of what experts have said about the situation. Experts have said that it would take about a decade before any of that oil would come to market. Beside that fact, more oil wells have come online under President Bush, only to see the price of oil triple. No, I’m not pinning the blame of increased prices on Bush per se, but I’m pinning him with pining to the oil industry and potential voters for McCain who are antsy for even a sign of relief at the pumps. The very same goes for McCain, who we’ll discuss in more detail momentarily.

Such shortsightedness is not far from becoming actual policy, if, for example, McCain were to win the presidency and push for such a policy. His calls have led to a big boost in campaign funds from the oil industry, by the way. But Republicans are not the only ones pandering for votes; Harry Reid is facing a split in the Democratic Party on the issue, as he tries to make sure the issue of high gas prices doesn’t hurt Democrats in the coming election. Such pandering show the opposite of the leadership that is needed on this issue, one that has been shown greatly of late by former Vice President, Al Gore.

John McCain’s Lies Regarding Offshore Drilling

McCain is flat out lying about the offshore drilling situation or is repeating someone else’s lies and should get his facts straight. Given McCain’s recent historical misstatements (read: lies) about how the Iraq war has unfolded, I’m not holding my breath on him getting his facts straight.

First, he states that oil drilling and transportation are safe, even though he himself had to cancel a campaign photo opportunity on an oil rig just last week because of (depending upon who you talk to) either an oil spill in the Mississippi River or bad weather (Hurricane Dolly). Safe? More on that later. McCain touts that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were able to cause any spills even though, according to Grist, the hundreds of spills, collapsed rigs, and damaged pipelines, due to these very storms, could be seen from space. By no stretch of the imagination has this proven to be an industry that is safe for the environment.

Second, McCain has stated, first that drilling would bring some psychological relief (this amid the ridiculous claims of one of McCain’s former top advisers, Phil Gramm, who stated that the U.S. was in a, “mental recession,” and that we had become a “nation of whiners”). After that didn’t fly as a credible assertion, McCain just started either lying or being played for a fool by repeating the oil industry’s lies about how quickly the oil would be able to come to market.

McCain has said that in some instances, within a matter or months, he is told by industry insiders, there could be more oil to market. Why does McCain get away with stating such lies, when the Energy Information Administration, under the current administration, has said, offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices.” McCain, it seems, is full of it himself, played for a fool for repeating others’ lies on this issue, or both. It puts him in lockstep with Bush and Cheney on this issue, that is on the side of oil companies, who will lie to perpetuate an industry that is out-pricing itself against other, cleaner technologies.

Liars will be called what they are. We do not endorse one party or another on this website, and this should be a non-partisan issue, but has been highly politicized by folks in both major parties. On this issue, John McCain is a liar.

Gore’s Big Challenge

Al Gore has done a lot since leaving public office in early 2001. He has emerged as a strong voice to combat global warming, earning a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his activism. But he’s not satisfied with having boosted public awareness and support of better environmental policy regarding global warming. Now, he’s going further, enlarging the political space, as he says, so that politicians in office can discuss real solutions to these problems. Shame on both parties’ leadership for not taking bigger, better steps than calling for more oil.

Sure, Barack Obama, the Democrats’ Presidential Nominee, is not calling for offshore drilling, and is planning to spend $150 billion over ten years for clean energy sources, but where are his colleagues on this, and where are such ideas as a “Green Corp,” or other ideas. It’s a start, but it will take trillions, experts say, to create the infrastructure needed, and while the private sectore can and should kick in some of that total, more government funds will need to be shown to push forward the needed changes quickly.

Gore’s proposal, that is to change the U.S.’s electric grid over to 100% renewables in ten years, is buttressed by the situation we find ourselves in, which he succinctly states:

“When we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges — the economic, environmental and national security crises,” Mr. Gore said. “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has to change.”

So why are politicians in power not willing to talk about anything beyond cutting emissions a measley few percentage points to 1990 levels by some certain year (what a horrible argument to be having) or as that overachiever-in-chief, President Bush’s policy has been, to slow the rate of growth in emissions? Well, for McCain, it means pandering to a group of voters for votes and to an industry for money, and for some Democrats, like Reid, it’s failing to call Republicans on this bad policy that exacerbates an already burdensome problem, have a national discussion about this problem, and try to find a bipartisan way toward a solution. Both sides doing their share of pandering on this issue provides a lack of leadership for the country. Obama seems to be one of the leaders in his party willing to see through offshore drilling for what it is: a non-solution.

Gore has taken on the risk of opening up this big idea, and now that many say it is a great idea (though maybe overly optimistic) it is up for grabs for any politician or group of politicians to lock onto as a policy goal and take it all the way to reality.

What Else Contributes to the Problem?

• Voters may not be attuned to the long period of time before oil is actually pumped from the ground and that experts are saying that it takes years to even get to exploratory drilling. This makes this a situation ripe for pandering, which has happened, and then the other party has to decide whether or not to risk taking on the leadership needed, or also pandering to some voters, who the media are allowing to be lied to about the facts of offshore drilling, by a major party candidate for President (John McCain). This is a complex issue, hence the need for complex analyses.
• People get trapped thinking about being able to stick with their old economy, of burning gas for transportation, of wasting electricity, of using coal for energy, if only carbon can be sequestered or safely stored underground. Ethanol, which has had a backlash, still persists as a mandated additive in many states’ gasoline. Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, is very supportive of ethanol, more so than John McCain, who changed his position from the 2000 election to now support ethanol. Obama’s stance is obviously likely due to his close ties to the ethanol industry, even having campaign staff who lobby on behalf of the industry. Breaking peoples’ feeling of sticking with the old is difficult, but necessary if we’re going to move the economy to a clean fuel future. Ethanol has its current problems, but should certainly be looked at as an alternative fuel, if it can be derived from non-food sources, like garbage or crop refuse.
• With the report last week stating that about one fifth of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves are likely under the arctic ice cap, and near the edges, which may soon be accessible (ironically due to global warming) people may stick with the attitude that drilling more will solve the problem, because there is more oil. In reality, it postpones the eventual end of oil supplies for the problems to exist longer and to worsen before they improve.
• The cost of oil is down to about $120 from it’s peak of almost $150 a few weeks ago. While the price is still high and is unlikely to dip below $100 anytime soon, it tends to break the momentum toward more sustainable fuel solutions because people may see some relief, or hold out hope for such relief on the horizon.
• High prices of oil also can lead to even more drilling, often in areas where it was not worth it to do so before because of the associated high costs, so now oil companies are drilling in places that were previously not profitable to drill in (like parts of the Canadian tar sands).
• Oil is not safe, and oil companies do not follow proper precautions. One of our worst ecological disasters ever, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, recently had its punitive damages reduced from what once totaled $5 billion to $500 million. And such pandering to an industry that can afford to pay for the damage they have done, even over a twenty-year span, if not within a year, should have to do so, as this would deter future careless hiring practices and other precautions not taken, both of which contributed to this disaster. And don’t forget Grist’s note, above, of the hundreds of instances of damage from hurricanes (which come by every year, by the way). The oil industry is more confident that they can get off easily when they make mistakes, and are therefore less likely to take necessary precautions.

The conglomeration of issues against the use of dirty fossil fuels, like coal and oil, can also work the other way, compounding issues that might favor drilling in the public’s eyes, these above points, taken together, may move public opinion toward more drilling, even though drilling in fact is detrimental to the main problems listed at the beginning of this article, the energy and the economy, global warming, and national security.

Solutions

There is no simple solution to the problems listed here, but there are examples of promising proposals, like Mr. Gore’s, mentioned above, to reach a sustainable future that could hold promise of solving parts of this issue.

For starters:

• Mr. Gore’s proposal to move to a 100% renewable electricity grid is realistic in its optimism, because the technology exists and we need the political clout and financial means of conquering this task. Energy transmission, smart grid technology, the harware for producing the energy, all would take trillions of dollars to produce over that decade, but we’re already paying similar amounts into other economies for oil. Transforming our fleet of cars to electric or hybrid electric is a large way to move toward this future. The prevalence of political cowardice is the main hurdle for this proposal.
• Fuel from garbage is a fledgling start-up arena full of small companies trying to commercialize the process. Because this would add little carbon to the atmosphere, it may be part of a future or a transition fuel, similar to the role natural gas could play.
• Boone Pickens, an oilman from Texas, has begun a plan and even spending millions on advertisements to buttress support for his billions of dollars invested in both wind farms and transmission lines to move electricity in Texas from rural areas to urban ones. Texas State is slated to spend about $5 Billion on transmission lines, as well, further moving the state toward a sustainable future, and showing that this can be done with both public and private investment. Look for Texas to be an example for other states, or the nation on a whole, to follow, on the energy crisis.
• Opportunities abound to transform our transportation, from having more electric or hybrid cars to increasing public investments in public transportation infrastructure, making it safer, faster, more accomodating, and available to more customers.

From reading this article, you may be more distressed because of the complexity of the issues here. But, really, that is only because it is a lot of information with a great deal of confounding factors and players, some of whom add to the confusion with disinformation campaigns (I’m looking at the coal and oil industriees, and their political lackeys). Even Mr. Gore said, from the quote above, that the situation is, “deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges — the economic, environmental and national security crises.”

“Deeply ironic in its simplicity.” Yeah, it is. And what does it come down to? Try to separate those who want to do something new from those who want to do more of the same. More of the same is using more oil, drilling for more oil, and not putting the necessary political support behind drastic measures needed to alleviate the problems listed above. If you undermine the need for oil by finding other sources of energy for growing economies, the influence of those polical actors, large oil companies and nations controlling huge amounts of oil, is also undermined, and that is one of the greatest benefits to look forward to in a attaining a more sustainable future. Those nations and oil companies can transform and earn a seat at the table, also, by becoming active partners in moving toward renewable sources of clean energy. Just look at Boone Pickens.

Again, I say, renewable realists, remain vigilant!

Product Reviewed: 365 Organics Organic Cotton Balls

Place of Purchase: Whole Foods Market

Purchase Price: $2.99 for 100 jumbo cotton balls

Product replaced: Non-organic cotton balls

Ingredients: 100% organic cotton

Use: I use them for cosmetic or first-aid uses, such as applying facial toner or alcohol, when needed.

Results: These are great!  They’re affordable and very soft!  The package says that,

Organic farming helps replenish the soil and protect the quality of our water and air.  Cotton grown without the use of harsh chemicals means cotton balls that are naturally free of harmful chemical residue.  Whitened with hydrogen peroxide, our cotton balls are gentle and absorbent, with a velvety, soft texture that feels wonderful on your skin.

I hate to take a manufacturer’s word for what I can expect, because of the obvious fact that they’re trying to sell you the product.  But what they have to say seems all too true, especially how soft the cotton really is, and the fact that the 365 Organics Cotton Balls are so very large — not the case with many other cotton balls.  Sometimes, I tear them in half because it feels wasteful to use so much cotton, and they are still bigger when torn in half than many of their competitors’ are at full size.

Best of all: Mostly, they’re organic, soft, absorbent, and affordable.  Simply put.

Why try it? Because all you have to do is head to a Whole Foods Market near you and pick them up.  If you don’t live near a Whole Foods market, search out your local natural foods and products store for organic cotton balls, and other products. 

The drawback: As noted above, these cotton balls are big, which is great from a utilitarian perspective, but 365 Organics would do well to cut down the size by one half.  That would put them at about an average standard size and would eliminate waste; as is, there is almost too much cotton in each cotton ball.

EHI There! What green products are you using that you love? What products are you trying to replace? Got an idea for a product you would like to be reviewed? We welcome guest columnists; just contact us!

Environmental news you may not have heard during the week:

Political appointees in the Department of Labor are trying to push through a rule that would make it more difficult to regulate workers’ exposure to on-site chemicals.  As if the Bush Administration hasn’t done enough to undermine the environment and workers’ health and safety, one last feather in the hat for the road!

Group of direct mail marketers and their clients are trying to make what amounts to an unsustainable practice a little greener by using chlorine-free recycled paper and purging their lists of the names of both dead people and those least likely to respond.

We touched on this story last week, that the value that the EPA places on an American’s life has gone down significantly recently, meaning that regulations that protect human life will more often be deemed more expensive than they are worth.  Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, gives even more background information on this important subject.

Los Angeles’ city council voted to ban plastic bags beginning in 2010.  Shoppers will then have to bring their own bags or pay a $0.25 fee per paper or biodegradable bag they use.  The city estimates that 2 billion plastic bags are used in Los Angeles each year.

The National Geological Survey released a report this week saying that the Arctic may contain as much as one fifth of the world’s yet-to-be-discoverd oil and natural gas reserves.  More on this story in an upcoming article, availabe here on EnviroHumanImpact later this week.

Product Reviewed: President’s Choice Green 2-Ply Toilet Paper

Place of Purchase: Jewel-Osco

Purchase Price: 10 for $10 on sale

Product replaced: Non-green toilet paper, like Charmin, Cottonelle, and Quilted Northern

Ingredients: 100% post-consumer paper.  Clean and sanitary without the addition of chlorine bleach*.  Some of the recycled paper in this product may have been bleached with chlorine when originally manufactured.

Use: For any sensitive area you need to wipe!

Results: It works great!  It isn’t rough.  It didn’t leave dingleberries behind (those are those, uh, crumbs).  This product is as soft as its non-green counterparts, without the use of bleach or other chemicals. I came away from the experience with a clean behind! Yeah, I said “dingleberries,” and, “clean behind”.

Best of all: The product boasts post-consumer product, forming demand for a second-use of this useful fiber product as well as reducing demand for virgin fibers.  It also is a diversion for material that is often slated for landfills.

Why try it? Because it’s far greener than the product you are likely currently using for wiping your behind.  It’s also quite affordable.

The drawback: At 176 sheets per roll, the company would do well to double that amount, in order to get the most from the packaging.  Meaning, more paper would go into less needed plastic packaging.  It would also mean less cardboard used for the inner rolls, because fewer rolls would be used.

EHI There! What green products are you using that you love? What products are you trying to replace? Got an idea for a product you would like to be reviewed? We welcome guest columnists; just contact us!

The actually not-so-harsh reality is that the U.S. and the rest of the world needs to switch over to more renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind.  While high oil costs have generated a lot more discussion of and support for greener alternative energy sources, some will undoubtedly pish posh the idea that we have to switch — anytime the price of oil recedes, just a little bit, you can expect some brainy-hack to tell you that the second oil age is here and that everyone can quit talking about alternative energy, because, “it’s just too costly,” even though we could spend the same amount over the next ten years that would have been spent on oil on alternative oil.  Pumping up our economy, instead of pumping oil.

Really not a harsh reality…

No, it’s not a harsh reality we fact, though.  Many of our political leaders may lack the gumption to move toward a more sustainable future (or at least to move quickly).  However, a past political leader, Al Gore, is calling for the U.S. to move to 100 percent renewable electricity within ten years.  Sure, he’s not in office and so has little to lose by making such a proposal.  Yet, he still has the voice of major political figure in the U.S. and is putting forth a realistic, optimistic goal.

And why shouldn’t he?  John F. Kennedy challenged the country to support putting a man on the moon within a decade, and we didn’t exactly have the means to do that at the time of that proposal.  However, comparing Gore’s proposal to that of Kennedy’s is not fair to either proposal or messenger.  We have wind turbines and solar panels.

We have the ability to employ large number of people producing, installing, and maintaining such a system, including the hardware that generates the electricity and the grid that would support the broad range of area such systems would span.  Compare that with buying oil on the world market and you can see that jobs at home transforming to greener energy is easy.

An oft-quoted figure is that enough sunlight hits the earth’s surface in forty minutes to generate enough photoelectric current via solar cells to power the earth’s electricity needs for one year.  Wow!  Granted, we cannot cover the earth in solar cells, but we could place them strategically in a lot more places than we currently do.

Remain Vigilant

People are waking up every day.  Not just to their alarm clocks, but to the earth’s alarm systems, saying that we need to switch to renewables because:

1. The earth cannot sustain and withstand the abuse due to carbon and other elements being released into the air, rivers, lakes, soils, and seas: toxic environments and global warming
2. There is not enough nonrenewable fuel stores for everyone’s needs indefinitely.  The costs go up, and the amount available always falls.
3. Finally, it’s making better financial sense to do what is possible — it is well within the means of our scientific and financial abilities to do what Mr. Gore has proposed.

So go out and talk this up — don’t cave in to people telling you that it’s a pie-in-the-sky idea that never could gain traction.  Stay educated, discuss the issue, and give it the power of public support that it needs.  It is a solid proposal, maybe a stretch goal, but nonetheless, we as a nation should shoot for greatness, and this would be a great example of leadership for the rest of the world to follow, even if it takes us twelve or fifteen years.

Ever cook with a gas stove? How about a gas grill?  I have used both, and there is one noticeable difference in the way that these two cooking appliances are lit at the time of ignition of the natural gas that makes me cringe.

So what am I talking about?

Not for all gas stoves and ovens, but for the great majority of them, they are lit by the pilot light, which is just a small flame that remains lit all of the time, burning a small amount of gas at all hours of the day.

I cringe at those lit using a pilot light instead of an electrical spark, because that flame burns gas constantly.

As an aside, if you’re a gas stove user, you know that if your pilot light goes out, you are likely to smell the natural gas in your home.  Furthermore, if you don’t have another pilot light somewhere else to burn off some of that gas, and it is allowed to continue to build up in your home, you might eventually get an explosion like one seen in the Ed Norton character’s apartment in Fight Club. Or at least that’s what we see happen in the movie (see video at the end of this article).

But how much gas is actually burned by a pilot light?  Well, I did not know that particular figure, so I did some research.  I had very little success finding concrete numbers, but that’s mostly because that would vary according to many conditions and by individual appliance.  But to give you an idea, according to Wikipedia:

In domestic heating systems with pilot lights it has been estimated that on average half the total energy usage is from the pilot light, each pilot light using from 240–500 W of gas (8–16 GJ/year).

The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation provides this online calculator to estimate how much gas your  pilot lights are using, as an option among all of the other possible gas burners in your home.  You may be using a great deal of gas up every day, every year, with each passing gas bill, in large part to pilot lights.

So, what can I do about my own situation?

A much better way is to have an electrical ignition, like the ones typically found on most gas grills.  It’s also available on some gas stoves.  Gas is energy-intensive to extract, it releases some carbon dioxide, and it costs you money to burn!  It would be worth one’s while to buy a gas stove with electrical ignition the next time you buy one (or opt for electric!).

Cooking is energy-intensive, but as our economy hopefully makes the move toward renewable electricity sources, electrical appliances will show their worth even more, pilot light aside.  In short, Our pilot lights are just not necessary.

Also, as noted on the Ideal Bite, you can also save by turning off your pilot lights for gas fireplaces or heaters for those months during which you are not using those appliances.

Just be sure to also shut off the gas supply to those appliances for those times, and do some reading or talk to your gas supplier if you have questions or concerns about how to do this safely.  Get informed first, then tend to the problem.  If at any time, you smell gas, you should stop, get of out the house, and call your gas supplier for instruction.

And, just for fun, here’s that scene from Fight Club – I love the fly-through graphics:

SMFFFFFFsssttT, AHHHHH…HOT!  And ohh, so good!  You already know what I’m drinking…

That was me, sipping my first cup of coffee in a quite a while.  Well, actually, I had coffee this past weekend, but it was of the freeze dried variety — samples I received in the mail at some point and had saved for just such an emergency.  They tided me over, but really, blech.  So it’s actually been a while.

And I’m actually using a cup and saucer, like in the picture, which I never do, but this cup of coffee is special, you see.  No, I’m not — I just liked that stock photo.  Alright, yes I am, but it’s just a coincidence.

I had run out of coffee (which just should not happen; I love coffee!) a couple of weeks ago and I had planned to replace this item with a more sustainable, socially responsible coffee.  I just had not gone to my local Trader Joe’s since then, and after work yesterday (after work, going home is often the best option — but is it home without coffee?), I bit the bullet and made the actually short trek to the store. Not that I couldn’t go to a few other stores for such coffee, but I had already paroused those at Trader Joe’s a while back, and frankly, I was sold.

When I arrived home, I wanted to brew some coffee right away, but managed to hold myself back for I knew it would be better in the morning, and if I were to drink it at night, I would not get enough sleep in order to awake soon enough to actually brew and enjoy my morning cup of joe.

I found many Fair-Trade, Organic coffees at Trader Joe’s, but finally settled on an extra dark roasted bean, Trader Joe’s Organic, Fair Trade Café Pajaro Blend, from small family farms in Nicaragua, Peru, and southern Mexico (just to give some detail of exactly what it is), which I ground in the same aisle of the store (I really should get my own grinder for fresher coffee, but then again, more consumption, sigh…).

I brewed my coffee using my French press, so it’s extra strong, and I of course employed my tea kettle for boiling the water.  Yeah, I’m about to make myself puke for patting myself on the back, but just as a reminder, using a tea kettle can save energy!

I just wanted to share this because, not only is the cup extra good because it’s been so very long since I had a cup of coffee, but I also feel good about the purchase because the coffee was produced organically, meaning less environmental degradation due to chemical use, and because the small family farms were paid fair price for their crop, which is the socially responsible thing.

No, I don’t feel like I’m better than anyone for drinking this coffee (still consuming a coffee shipped from far, far away!), and I am very reluctant to write soft posts like this one, but I share this just to encourage you to make similar decisions.  The next time your coffee runs out, consider switching over to a fair trade, organic variety.  Make other changes of products in your life: organic really is better for the earth. No, I’m not better, but the coffee sure is!

My can of coffee cost me a similar price to other brands I have bought in the past, but because of the way it was grown and the way the farmers were paid, I literally am enjoying my coffee even more.  The more small changes in your life you make like this, the bigger changes you will be prepared to take on, the more positive influence you can have on your peers who will likely follow at least some of the examples given.  While the sensation of that first sip of coffee after a long drought is likely to tire, the luster of a more envirohumanly friendly coffee will unlikely fade.

SmfftthhT AHHHHH…Coffee!!!

You use your phone, computer, Ipod, or increasingly, your iPhone or Amazon Kindle to get news, check stocks, look at the weather, to buy and listen to music, read or listen to books and magazines, and any number of other functions that at one time, were chiefly available in paper formats, if at all.  Some, like the iPhone, can bring you the entire internet.

You can do these things when and where you want, provided that you have remembered to charge your device, you remembered not to leave it on the seat next to you on the train (drats!), and you have paid your bills for the services on time.

They Use Electricity, however…

Sure, these gadgets, and let us not forget the television and radio, as they have not yet gone to the wayside, are all using electricity.  But while they are using electricity, which is still, in most cases, the result of a carbon-intensive production process, water and chemicals are used in the production of paper, not to mention the trees that are cut down for the purpose.

According to this AboutMyPlanet article, regarding newspapers’ impact on the environment,

Nearly four billion trees worldwide are cut down annually for paper alone, representing about 35% of all harvested trees. However, many of the trees used for paper come from tree farms, which are planted and replenished solely for that purpose.

And further,

The U.S. Toxic Release Inventory report released by the EPA states that pulp and paper mills are among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country.

Again, yes, while these gadgets bringing evermore news and information to our fingertips at a faster pace, still do cause pollution by demanding more electricity, making and even recycling paper is a carbon-, chemical-, and overall environmentally-demanding process.

Production and Life-cycle of Newspapers

Making newspapers and having people read/use them is difficult to turn into an envirohumanly friendly process, even when it is recycled and bleached without the use of chlorine.  Printing presses use electricity to print the newspapers and trucks haul them away for distribution.  After a user is finished with his or her paper, it is hauled away by a truck, whether it is headed to a recycling facility or dump.

So, If You Haven’t Already…

Dump your newspaper subscription.  You can get much more current news from free online versions of several newspapers, cable news sources, and blogs (like this one!) using a desktop or laptop computer, Iphone, Amazon Kindle, or other such device, without the paper waste.

You’ll be using more electricity personally for reading your news, but you can tailor your experience to your specific interests, there’s much more for you to read if you should want or have the time to kill, and you do not have to buy the whole paper, which, let’s face it, (for most of us) contains a lot of stuff in which we simply are not interested.

Devices Will Be Greener

For these reason, we urge you to consider dumping your newspaper subscription (as if you still have one!).  One last thought: paper is likely to continue to come from trees and recycled sources, and the massively polluting aspects listed above are unlikely to change.  But remember that electricity should undergo a major change in the coming years: hopefully we move to carbon-free electricity!  And don’t forget that manufacturers are looking at ways in which they also can make devices even more energy efficient.