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.

Big Environmental News shaping up that you may not have heard through traditional means:

Texas has approved funding that will help in the development of a state with lots of wind for producing electricity.  This will help build transmission lines from rural areas to more heavily populated areas, enough to carry 18,500 megawatts of electricity.

Gore noted that this is economically viable for reasons related to increasing prices of coal and oil due to increased demand and that as solar and wind generation meet larger economies of scale, they will become cheaper.  He said further that coal and oil markets act in an opposite manner: the more we use them, the pricier they become.  Additionally, Gore noted that he believes we should be taxing what we burn, and not so much what we earn.

Bush Lifts Moratorium on Offshore Drilling

The ball is now in the hands of Congress regarding whether or not offshore drilling in new areas would be allowed.  The plan may sound okay on the surface of a nation in need of oil/gasoline, but the oil would likely take at least ten years to start pumping, and by then, where will other sources be at?  It’s time to start replacing oil with renewable, carbon-free sources, now that it’s becoming economically viable, and the national security and global warming situations require it.

Today, Al Gore had his moment.  Perhaps bigger than his Nobel Peace Prize, Gore gave a speech today that may be his crowning achievement: leading the country he was denied the chance to lead.  Whether you think he deserved to lead or not, he was denied the chance.

Today, Gore enthusiastically endorsed the idea that the United States can and should change our economy over to completely renewable sources of carbon-free sources of energy within ten years.  Can’t be done?  Try landing on the moon in ten years’ time!

Gore compared the challenge to the one John F. Kennedy announced thirty-nine years ago to land on the moon.  To summarize the main point of this speech:

He said the United States and the rest of the world were facing unprecedented problems, including growing demand for electricity, dangerous changes in the climate driven largely by emissions of carbon dioxide and political instability in regions that produce much of the world’s oil.

He continued:

“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.”

I love to see Mr. Gore using both his political and environmental credibility to shift the debate from short-term half-measures to, “let’s fix this problem in the next decade,” kind of thinking.  That is important for the next President to be able to tackle this problem head on–that is to say that having the debate moved toward fixing the problem soon rather than allowing the energy industry to drag its feet.

One last point: Gore matched up the idea of taxing carbon use with the idea that one would cut payroll taxes.  That sounds like a plan many can believe in, because it would tax people’s income less while keeping government revenue (needed to pay the bills!) from decreasing.  Gore said we need to be taxing what we burn rather than what we earn.

We’re not here to talk about all of that junk, but all of that in your car’s trunk.  The advice herein will likely save you money and improve your envirohuman impact.

As is often the case with improving one’s envirohuman impact, the math required is not only addition but multiplication. Travel is another case where multiplying the effect of your actions will likely yield a better indicator of where you could easily trim your negative impact.

With travel, the big multiplier is often the distance traveled. Let’s say you travel an average of 300 miles a week in your car (you commute and use your car for errands). In addition to the normal gear found in your car, you have left your hiking bag in the trunk since last summer. You don’t need that space for anything (typically) and you never know when the mood will strike you to take a hike (you tell yourself).

Seems harmless enough, anyway. Simple calculation will show us that if you tote an extra ten pounds of gear in your car, that’s equal to unnecessarily moving 1.5 tons one mile each week (300 miles X 10 lbs. = 3,000 lbs moved). That’s equal to moving 78 unnecessary tons of gear one mile each year.

And that’s calculating by only having ten extra pounds in the car.  If you have fifty pounds extra (some of us are looking down at our stomachs) with gas prices at the highest ever in the U.S., you would do well to cut out extra weight in your vehicle — folding chairs, baseball bats, the tools and excess wood you left after helping a friend with a project — it all adds up to extra weight that you essentially are paying for your car to move.

And all that junk inside your trunk (your hump.  your hump, your hump, your hump) might be a place to cut corners, too — (Check it out!) it costs money to eat, it costs money to haul “that junk” around, and despite what some will tell you about the sight of having a little too much back there, it is in fact, “unhealthy” to be overweight.  All insensitive joking aside, if you find yourself a little overweight, losing a little by moderate exercise and slowly decreasing your caloric intake to a healthy level (discuss this with your doctor or a nutritionist) could help both your gas mileage and make you a healthier person, less likely to develop heart disease or diabetes.  Food production and transportation in most cases has a significantly negative envirohuman impact as well, so eating less helps in that respect, also.  As if you need one more reason, having healthier eating and exercise habits can also be better for the environment.

And the environment pays, too! Burning through extra gas hurts your pocketbook, but it contributes to global warming and pollutes our environment as well!  So if it totals fifty pounds of unneeded weight average in your car over the course of a year, it’s like moving 390 extra tons one mile every year.  Depending upon the efficiency of your car (and driving habits), that could represent a lot of gas money, but also a whole lot of carbon dioxide and other gases expelled from your tailpipe, into our atmosphere!

Another way to look at it? Think of it as driving one ton an extra 390 miles every year.  So it might be pretty close to you driving an extra week every year, if the extra gear totals 50 pounds.  Whatever your average gas cost for a week of driving would be close to the cost of driving that extra weight around with you every year.  That’s costly for both you and the environment!

Action item: clean out the extra gear in your car. No, don’t remove needed tools, flashlights, and other safety gear you might need if your car breaks down or if you have a flat, but that baseball bat, folding chair, hiking gear, or other stuff you leave in there as a matter of habit should all be asked of it, “do I really need this in my trunk?”  Check not only in your cargo area, but the inside of the vehicle might also have extra unneeded gadgets that you might do well to leave at home.

The best way to improve your envirohuman impact via your vehicle is to leave it at home more.  Consider walking, biking, and using public transportation more, or even giving up your vehicle completely and using a car share program when you feel you “need” a car for a task or errand.

Summer and air conditioners go hand-in-hand for most of us. But while in the winter, you might try to increase moisture in the air using a humidifier or putting a pan of water on the radiator, during the summer, you should reduce the strain put on your air conditioner by making moisture less available for evaporation.

What do I mean? In the most subtle ways, you can probably find a few places where you may be failing to do this, putting unwanted stress on your air conditioning system and costing you more to cool your home.  Plus, remember to mentally tie electricity use to pollution!

• Turn on the exhaust fan while you shower to force the steam out of the bathroom. Just remember to turn it off afterward so you do not continue to vent cooled air out of your house.
• Make certain your dish drainer drains water onto a drainboard — whether built-in as part of the sink or more likely, a plastic mobile one — so to drain the water directly down the drain. I used to go without the drain board (yes, I know not the smartest thing for many reasons) and had a nearly constant source of moisture in my air.
• Ring out your rags thoroughly after use, so that they do not have a large abundance of water which would add extra vapor to your air.
• If you have decided to hang your clothing to dry to improve your envirohuman impact by using the clothes dryer less, be sure to dry them outside when possible to limit the amount of vapor they let off into your home’s air.
• Lastly, remember to use your tea kettle for boiling water, so as to minimize the amount of time you’re boiling water (which saves gas or electricity!) and decreases the amount of water evaporated in the process.  If you do not own a kettle, covering the pot of water decreases the amount of water expelled into the air and makes the water come to a boil faster.

The rest of the EnviroHumanImpact staff and I have discussed this topic ad-nauseum but I think it deserves some attention here.  Hopefully, this can establish some groundwork for many following stories and commentaries on what is an incredibly complex topic.

The main question I’d like to pose is, “Is $4.00 per gallon gas ultimately good for the environment, the economy (particularly the U.S. economy), and you the consumer?”

What’s causing the massive increase in the price of gas?

Let’s answer first why we have $4.00 per gallon in the U.S. in the first place.  Most economists and laymen alike will tell you that it boils down to two main things: 1) Global Demand: Rapidly increasing world demand thanks to explosively developing countries such as China, Malaysia, India, Tawain, Brazil, and the list goes on and 2) Market Speculation: Speculators on the world markets bidding up the prices in order to profit on the commodities markets, specifically crude oil.

Global Demand vs. Prices

So how about those emerging markets?  Well, they’re on their way out of the stone-age and into the modern era, going straight from third-world to first almost overnight!  So with literally millions more people able to afford automobiles that are increasingly available with the needed fuel and road infrastructure in place and expanding, it not just U.S. consumers using the gas anymore.  But as we’ve seen in the U.S., as prices increase, demand feels the squeeze, right?

According to an article at CNN.com, demand for gas actually fell in the U.S. this March by 4.3% year over year.  How about a little perspective? That’s the first time the month of March saw a decline since 1979 and the greatest decline (4.3%) of any month of the year since 1942!!!  So the economy works, prices rise and demand falls.  Once demand falls, prices should realign and come back down, correct?

Wait, demand fell in March by over 4% when the price of a barrel of oil was between $100-$110 per barrel and since then, we’ve seen oil peak at over $140 per barrel!  So where’s the disconnect? Well, surely there is some speculation; however, until the last week or so, many of these developing countries had remained committed to providing their residents with cheap fuel using government subsidies.

So as prices increase in the U.S. and around the world, those countries’ demand has decreased but in many of them, prices just have not increased like they have in the U.S.  Their demand does not go down because their prices have not gone up! Their governments know that in order to foster their rapid growth, cheap fossil fuels are essential in the short term, similar to the subsidized building of railroads and interstate highways in the U.S. (and the subsequent maintenance).  Well, that is until they begin to basically bankrupt those governments in the process.

For instance, according to an article on Forbes online, Malaysia is a net exporter of oil and subsidizes its fuel to the tune of over $16.5 billion a year, or approximately four times the combined budget for national defense, education, and healthcare!  Well, with crude oil between $130-$140, they just cannot keep it up forever, so they just raised their price of gas by 60 cents per liter, which is an increase of about 40%.

Who else has felt the heat and changed their approach on fuel subsidies?  Only China, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tawain and Pakistan!  Obviously, some pretty major world demand drivers are starting to take action on reducing their subsidies.  All the while, many of these countries are battling rapid inflation,  as high as 25% according to some experts!  It will be very interesting to see if world demand decreases as more of the subsidies are removed, hopefully (at least from U.S. consumers’ perspectives) resulting in a decrease in crude prices.

Don’t forget about Speculators

While some economists will claim that the 20-30% of the price of any good traded on the open markets is the result of speculation, it’s clear that speculators are playing a significant role in the price of oil based on the volatility of the commodity’s price.  It’s not just the actual users of crude pushing up the prices, it’s hedge funds, banks, and virtually anyone else with access to crude on the futures exchanges!  And because of its ubiquitous use in so many products and in the vast majority of shipping products and raw goods, oil’s high price has a wider impact on the economy.

But step back a moment and assume the role of these investors or “speculators.”  Granted hindsight is always 20/20 but consider the following and how they influence speculation (as opposed to actual supply and demand):

1. Wealth in numerous emerging markets is exploding for millions of people who are buying cars and consuming more oil and petro-products than ever before.
2. With new countries representing a larger percentage of the overall market, prices are less and less tied to just U.S. demand for crude.
3. While the price for crude literally skyrockets, these countries fail to feel the pinch as their gasoline prices are subsidized by their governments.
4. Top oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia, have claimed in the past that their production capacity is maxed out; however, even with their recent statement (see link later in this article) to ramp up production, their “sour” crude is more difficult and costly to refine since it’s not “light and sweet.”
5. Countries like the U.S. refuse to drill in environmentally protected areas where billions and billions of barrels may exist, giving speculators reason to believe production will remain close to the same.  It is estimated that upon a decision to drill (certainly an environmentally contentious decision) that it would take ten years for any of the oil to reach the market.
6. From an investment standpoint, energy (especially crude) has really been the only sector bringing consistent positive returns over the past 6-9 months, compared to the overall U.S. market, which is down about 13% in that same period.
7. U.S. refining capacity has stagnated so that even if output of crude oil were increased, the amount of oil that the U.S. would be able to put to market would also be limited in the short term, meaning continued high demand on a tight resource.
8. Since crude oil is priced on the open market in U.S. dollars, the weakening of the U.S. dollar has significantly driven up prices for the United States

So again, assume the role of speculator and what reason do you have to believe that prices are going anywhere but up based on the global macroeconomic picture?  Without change in some of the above situations, the speculator’s main fear is the “bubble” bursting and prices dropping significantly overnight.  The question remains whether this is truly, “speculation,” or rather if the increased demand is being built into the price of oil.  Consider Iron Ore, which is not traded on the open market like crude but has also seen a 96% price increase over the last year.  Perhaps it really is just growing demand from emerging markets.

Changes on the Horizon

As mentioned earlier though, some of these points are changing or have already changed.  Developing nations are cutting fuel subsidies like tone-deaf American Idol contestants, Saudi Arabia has recently changed its tune on production capacity, and President Bush and many other lawmakers are making the very contentious call for U.S. drilling off its coasts and in ANWR.  Even if some of these never come to fruition (and perhaps some won’t from an environmental standpoint), they at least signal changing winds and may help to cool some of the rampant speculation that has seen little reason to simmer otherwise, however experts say a decade or more would pass before any of that oil could reach the market.

The big point here:  Investors (or speculators) are not necessarily investing based on current, actual supply and demand but where they see prices going based on many of the aforementioned points.   Ultimately, just signaling that any of these might change could be enough to curb their bullish betting.

What about the Environment?

So what does $4.00 per gallon gas mean for the environment?  Well, unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that less gas and oil is being consumed around the world compared to when it was at $1.25 because more people are using more oil than ever worldwide.

What it does mean is massive change in already developed countries, specifically the U.S., Canada, most of Western and Eastern Europe, among others.  Recent fuel prices have been a firm wake-up call to all U.S. consumers and businesses that our, “dependence on foreign oil,” is not just political posturing but a real and potentially crippling problem that must be addressed, because of the limits of the resource, not to mention the envirohuman impact of consuming it as if it were water.  Still, some persist in the idea that we should simply find more supplies of oil, even though it will in all likelihood remain extremely costly and supplies are ever shrinking as demand increases.

The answers: 1) technological innovation in the form of alternative fuels and energy, increased efficiency in cars (less weight), and cars that can run on electricity (which can be derived from clean wind, solar, and hydro- sources), 2) reduced use by consumers (already in progress), meaning a needed expansion in rapid mass transit, 3) better urban planning, where a consumer needing to save money on fuel literally has the option of public transportation, walking or biking to many of their destinations, and 4) infrastructural changes that will make hybrid cars, smaller cars, plug-in, and hydrogen cars all more than feasible options.

The last 12 months  have seen more attention to developing alternative energy by consumers, politicians, and corporations than ever before.  While much of it may be just window-dressing, much of it is not.  The economic viability of various energy projects may not have been possible with competing means (read: oil) as cheap as they once were, but with oil over $140 per barrel, these projects are seeing new life.

While environmentalists have called for alternative fuels and fuel conservation measures for years, it may just be the free market that moves the world into those fuels after all.  Better late than never for some, quite a bit late for others.  And the free market has yet to actually solve the problems of fuel shortages, ensuing increase in cost, and the associated pollution due to rampant fuel use and abuse (Hello, Hummer).

Whose Economy stands to benefit or be damaged?

The effects of $4.00 per gallon gas has left the world at somewhat of an economic crossroads.  We are in the middle of a gigantic shifting of wealth from heavy oil consuming nations to heaving oil producing nations.  Globe and Mail recently ran a fascinating article depicting what they call “The Dubai Miracle.”  Basically its all about how all of the “new money” is taking hold in these middle eastern oil producing nations.  The changes are, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Ultimately, it’s another case of the “haves” and the “have nots.” Or perhaps the “Have Oils” and “Have Not Oils.”

So, in the short term, countries like Saudi Arabia will see the most unbelievable economic boom of their long and storied histories while the U.S., Canada, and Britain will try to keep their economic heads above water until they can develop viable alternatives to oil.  Alas, the silver lining, consider it the new “Space Race” or rather the “Race to new Energy,” which will hopefully yield healthier, less polluting, and less dependent economies.

While the U.S. will hopefully make a renewed push towards alternative energy, which may or may not be subsidized by the government,  they won’t be the only ones, and many in the industry would rather oil remain king.  What we do have is an opportunity to innovate and develop the “next big thing” and hopefully prosper immensely from it.  Provided the world does not end in nuclear war, there’s always another round to be played, another inning to take, another quarter to conquer.  It seems pretty clear who’s winning right now (or perhaps just catching up), but the big question: Who’s got next?

What about You?

Finally, where do you, the consumer, the mom, the dad, the employee, the small businessman, or teacher fit in with gas at $4.00 per gallon?  Well, unfortunately, there is no easy short-term fix (assuming you’re not one of the “Have Oils”).  Sure you can cut back on your consumption of oil and gasoline wherever possible but for many, riding a bicycle to the office just is not an option.  Some will find ways to alter a diesel engine to reuse cooking oils at restaurants and others will purchase a more fuel-efficient car or use public transportation if its available.

So in the same way the company you might work for is trying to keep its head above water despite the price of fuel, you too can keep your head above water by focusing on simple ways to limit your consumption, whether by owning a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle or switching to non-petroleum based product alternatives.  You can use a reusable bag and reusable water bottle to reduce the amount of plastics, made from oil, you consume.  Even the little actions add up when multiplied across the population.  Encourage yourself and friends to support companies that are helping make the leap into the 21st century alternative fuels because their success just might bring the next “Dubai Miracle” back home to your backyard.

What do you think is causing the rise in prices?  Disagree with the author? Tell us about it below!  We love a good debate!

Piezoelectric Crystals.  Piezoelectric Effect.  Think about a floor that produces electricity as people walk, dance, and move across it!

This caught my attention for its seeming simplicity but probable complexity.  I first saw an article about this on the new “green” section on huffingtonpost.com.

According to the Wikipedia entry on, piezoelectricity, “the word is derived from the Greek piezein, which means to squeeze or press.”  Electricity is generated from this pressure.

But a dance club that is able to generate 60% of its power from this effect?  Wow!  Clubs use a lot

One of my favorite blogs, Lifehacker, recently linked to an article about how you can make a DIY (Do It Yourself) solar powered lawn mower, which was originally published by Appropedia here.

Well, it takes a little bit of work because they take you through everything for replacing the actual gas engine with an electrical one but it’s very thorough, even for building the solar panel and hooking everything up. If you’re looking for a slightly easier way to do this, I’d recommend just buying an electric mower and building a solar panel to charge it.

Honestly, I don’t normally like to do this, but for now, I’m going to step up onto my soapbox and proclaim:

“Ethanol is not the solution to our energy crisis in the US or around the world! More than cruel joke than responsible solution, ethanol does neither of the two main benefits that its proponents suggest: it does not and will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and is not even that much more environmentally friendly!”

Now, until just a few months ago, like many others, I believed that ethanol was part of the solution to our rising cost of gasoline and moving

From the New York Times on May 31, 2008, by Floyd Norris, the story begins that Americans are driving less. Whoo Hoo!

In normal times, the number of miles driven in the United States rises each year, as more people drive more cars and as rising housing costs force some commuters to move farther and farther from their jobs.

But the Federal Highway Administration estimates that in March — the most recent month for which data is available — vehicles traveled 246 billion miles. That is a lot of driving, but the figure is down 4.3 percent from the previous March.

Monthly comparisons can be volatile, since changing holidays and weather can have substantial impacts that have nothing to do with decisions to drive less or more. But the trend seems to have begun last winter. In the 12 months through March, the total miles driven — 2.99 trillion — were nearly 1 percent below the figure for the 12 months before.