Blogvertorial

The Carbon Neutral Journal: Don’t (just) dis Hummer

By Keith Peters, 3-06-07

	Keith Peters

The Hummer (any Hummer) has become the default "bad car" in many folks' minds. Indeed, every sighting of a "Dummer" elicits snide remarks among my friends—well-earned, I might add.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hasty to judge? According to GreenerCars.com, there are at least 12 "meaner" vehicles, in terms of their environmental impact. And nine of them can be seen on the roads in western mountain towns as often as you might see a Hummer.

The Volkswagen Touareg is rated the biggest offender, followed closely by three different models of Mercedes Benz 320 CDI diesel SUV, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford F-250, Dodge Ram 2500 Mega Cab and Lincoln Navigator. Other mean vehicles on the list include a Lamborghini, Bentley and Maybach, but I haven't seen any of those in the parking lot atop Teton pass.

Here's how GreenerCars.com rates vehicles:

We analyze automakers' test results for fuel economy and emissions as reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, along with other specifications reported by automakers. We estimate pollution from vehicle manufacturing, from the production and distribution of fuel and from vehicle tailpipes. We count air pollution, such as fine particles, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and other pollutants according to the health problems caused by each pollutant. We then factor in greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and combine the emissions estimates into a Green Score that runs on a scale from 0 to 100. The top vehicles this year score a 57, the average is 30 and the worst gas-guzzlers score around 14.

FYI, Touareg earned the 14, and all 12 mean machines scored 20 or less. How about the Hummer? Don't know. To get the scoop on all 1300 vehicle ratings, you've got to purchase the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy's Green Book.

Lesson learned: don't save all your disrespect for Hummer owners, there are plenty of other environmental offenders out there to dis.


February 22, 2007 Stop the madness!

At first, I thought I'd pulled a Rip Van Winkle and gone to sleep for a month. But, after following the links from a blog post titled Carbon Neutral Flatulence to an actual news piece in The Australian I realized that what I'd hoped was an April Fool's joke was real—and really damaging to the credibility of carbon offsets.

In my damn the skeptics rant, last week, I felt compelled to counter the point of view that carbon offsets are counterproductive. In that post, I outlined the three major categories of skeptics:

1. those who argue that carbon offsets are not effective
2. those who see carbon offsets as the easy way out, allowing people to pay someone else to deal with the problem
3. those who say carbon offsets interfere with other effective measures to combat climate change because they allow people to distance themselves from the real problem

Now there will be a fourth group of skeptics: those who don't/can't take the threat of global warming seriously because some carbon offset company will offset the methane in your cat's farts for a mere $8/year!

To top it all off, the offset company in question--Easy Being Green--looks to be a legitimate player in the carbon offset world. It's chief executive, Paul Gilding, is a former head of Greenpeace International. With all his campaign experience, you would think he would know better than to make a joke when so many folks are already skeptical of climate change and the potential of one of its highest profile remedies.

Serious problems call for serious actions, not levity.

February 16, 2007 Damn the Skeptics

For a change, I'm not going to berate those folks who deny there is global warming and/or try to undermine the science that says we've got a big problem.

Instead, I'm taking on the cynics who espouse the point of view that carbon offsets are counterproductive; some have even said buying carbon offsets are "worse than doing nothing". Scam is another term that is often bandied about.

In my humble opinion, carbon offsets are better than nothing at all.

To be sure, as a recent story in the International Herald Tribune points out, there's a risk that carbon offsets:

...give people the mistaken impression that they can keep on polluting, or that such individual efforts can solve global warming...

And I couldn't agree more that:

...much more fundamental change is needed.

But we've got to start somewhere. And the skeptics who discount the value of carbon offsets run the risk of turning off folks who would otherwise do nothing about climate change—not even think about it.

Just the other day, an acquaintance proudly told me that she had just "zeroed-out" her carbon account for 2006 by sending $600 to Terrapass. Six hundred dollars in self-imposed carbon tax—that covers an awful lot of flying and driving!

Of course I hope this woman and her husband will take the next step and make the effort to significantly reduce the amount of flying and driving they do in 2007. But I've got to applaud them for beginning to tune-in to the climate change issue and account for their carbon "sins".

Carbon offset skeptics can be lumped into three categories:

1. those who argue that carbon offsets are not effective (these folks primarily question the impact of planting trees)
2. those who see carbon offsets as the easy way out, allowing people to pay someone else to deal with the problem
3. those who say carbon offsets interfere with other effective measures to combat climate change because they allow people to distance themselves from the real problem

Of course, all three points of view may be valid. But isn't there great value in the carbon neutral concept that fostered the 2006 Word of the Year? Isn't building basic awareness and appreciation for the reality of climate change the most important thing we can do right now?

Don't you have to learn to walk before you can run?

February 8, 2007 What would you do?

A friend in Park City wrote to tell me how much she enjoys the Carbon Neutral Journal. She also mentioned that her two middle school-aged boys are especially interested in the topic of global warming and are studying it at school. She wondered if I were interested in speaking to school groups.

As I've said all along: I'm not an expert on how to solve the problem of global warming and, thus, hadn't thought much about the opportunity to speak to school groups. I'm also not inclined to make the 600 mile round trip to Salt Lake City for just an hour's talk. Even though I've pre-purchased the carbon offsets for a year's driving, I really am trying to cut down on the driving I do.

Without giving it much thought, here's my response to my friend's email:

Yes, my goal is to develop public awareness (not so much for what I’m doing, but what’s going on in general) … traveling to get the word out would seem to negate some of my efforts to become carbon neutral. I certainly would not fly somewhere to speak, and I’d prefer to have a road trip tie in with other activities (like driving to Palm Desert to visit my mom).

My wife disagrees. She thinks I shouldn't pass up the chance to speak to any group of kids and should schedule this trip as soon as possible.

I wouldn't have thought of using reader’s comments to resolve a disagreement, but what the heck, let's give it a try.

What should I do? Schedule the trip to ASAP and feel good about this particular use of fossil fuels, or schedule the trip for later this spring, when I can tie it into a visit to my mom's?

As they say life is full of choices.

February 1, 2007 State of Denial Address

Didn't anyone tell our President that carbon neutral was the 2006 Word of the Year?

While he finally mentioned the serious challenge of global climate change in his State of the Union Address, "W" clearly (and consciously) avoided a lot of the terms I rely upon to get my point across in the Carbon Neutral Journal. The New York Times has a nifty search tool that analyzes the words used in all seven of Bush's State of the Union Addresses--check out these search results:

global warming - never used
carbon neutral - never used
renewable energy - never used
wind power - never used
geothermal energy - never used
carbon sequestration - never used
carbon offsets - never used
carbon emissions - never used
greenhouse gases - never used
climate neutral - never used
global climate change - used once (2007)
biodiesel - used once (2007)
alternative fuels - used twice (2007)
clean coal technologies - used twice (2005, 2007)
safe nuclear energy - used twice ( 2006-07)
ethanol - used four times (2005-07)

So, what do all these words add up to in terms of potential policy change? In an analysis of the speech in the Washington Post, Samuel Thernstrom, a former Bush environmental aide, said:

“To be perfectly frank, I thought it was an appalling disappointment for everyone, whether you're on the right or the left. We had all been led to expect … that we would hear a very substantial initiative from the president. Instead, Bush's plan is essentially trivial, it's marginal.”


January 24, 2007 Turn off your #@*$% vehicle! Please.

To be sure, it's been bitterly cold throughout the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West this year. Nevertheless, I don't buy the argument that leaving your car running while you grab a cup of coffee, pick up the mail, drop off your child at daycare, etc. is necessary—nor is it good for your car or truck (not to mention the environment). Furthermore, I cannot comprehend anyone leaving a vehicle running while they go grocery shopping or have a meal at a restaurant!

But it happens all the time. And not just here in Jackson—it happens in small mountain towns everywhere. (Many big cities, like Denver, have ordinances that prohibit idling your vehicle for longer than 5-10 minutes within any one-hour period, which still seems excessive to me.)

Are we so addicted to convenience and comfort? Or is it because we live in remote communities with relatively little crime and, thus, live without fear of big-city consequences--like having our vehicle stolen?

It's ironic (and predictable) that the coldest days bring the most abuse. Quite often, the coldest days in mountain valleys also bring with them a temperature inversion that traps all those extra pollutants from countless idling engines close to the ground. (As I write this, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's website reports 8°F at the base, 26°F at the top of the Gondola and 23°F at the summit of Rendezvous Mountain—a classic inversion.)

Here's what the guys at Car Talk have to say about the need to warm up your engine:

“If you live in western Siberia, northern Minnesota, or some place like that, think about adding a block heater to your engine. That's a small electric engine heater that plugs in at night. It's almost required equipment for diesel engines in frigid climates. But it can be used on regular gasoline engines too. And for less than a hundred dollars, you can be virtually guaranteed that your car will start, even on the coldest, butt-freezes-to-the-driver's-seat mornings. A side benefit of this is that you'll have instant heat in the morning. Actually, that may be the greatest benefit!

One note of caution: If you do get a block heater, try to remember not to drive off with your car still plugged into your house.”

Some would argue that modern vehicles (non-diesel engines) don’t even require a block heater, and that block heaters burn unnecessary CO2 producing power—and they’re probably right on both counts. In fact, I suspect that the biggest benefit of either excessive idling and/or block heaters has to do with the butt-in-the-driver’s-seat comfort factor many of us are so addicted to.

So, my mountain folk friends, I don't care if you choose to leave your front door unlocked or leave the keys in your car, but do us all a favor: turn off your #%@* vehicle and save fuel, save money and save your engine. Please.

January 18, 2007 Gotta Have It? Think Again

In my consulting business, I frequently cite the wonders of Apple Inc. and the strength of their brand. I marvel at Apple's design expertise and am in awe of Steve Jobs' ability to manage the media around a product launch -- last week's launch of the iPhone is a prime example.

I've been a faithful Apple computer user for 15+ years. I even fought the corporate conversion to PCs at Nike, arguing that I was the creative type and deserved the "Apple exception" granted to Nike Design. These days, my iPod shuffle is a constant and unobtrusive companion.

To be sure, my initial reaction to the iPhone was typical: I gotta have it! Then I asked myself: Do I really need it? Answer: Of course not. My Nokia phone works perfectly well.

As a frequent reader of the Carbon Neutral Journal stated in a comment to a post a couple of weeks ago:

“Refusing to buy stuff is the single most environmentally significant contribution any of us can make. Don’t buy it, and the mines can’t sell the raw material, the electric companies can’t sell their wattage, the transportation companies can’t spew their emissions, the manufacturers don’t have materials handling and waste disposal problems, and the landfills don’t have new contributions.”

If that rant wasn't enough to make me pause before I added my name to the iPhone "sign-up to learn more" list, I recently stumbled upon a tremendously creative Greenpeace parody of Apple.com; visit Green My Apple for a terrific, thought provoking rant about Apple's environmental shortcomings.

You'd think the Apple flacks would offer a response to Greenpeace, wouldn't you? Yet, try as I might, I could not find anything on Apple's website, not even with a specific search on the press info page for a response to Greenpeace.

Having been on the other side of NGO and consumer campaigns while at Nike, I know how it feels when the spotlight shifts from products to corporate values. And I learned by experience that you can't just ignore the problem and hope it will go away.

Bottom line: for as much emotion as it stirs in me, I don't really need the iPhone (yet), but I sincerely hope that Apple will do something about the piece of their brand image that needs some work--the green piece.

January 11, 2007 Plant a Tree for Me

That's the name of Dell Computer's newly announced program to help offset the effect of computer energy consumption on the environment.

It's great to see industry giants take advantage of huge media events to promote an idea like this (Michael Dell announced Plant a Tree for Me at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas the other day), but regular readers of the Carbon Neutral Journal know that I'm an advocate for reducing electrical consumption first, and paying for offsets second, so I'd like to share the following story with you.

In the glut of pre-Christmas ads for 21st Century toys, a couple of carbon neutral tools caught my eye: the first, is a concept eco-laptop called the e-Book from LG Electronics in Korea (gotta have it!); the second, LocalCooling, is a free desktop application for PCs that optimizes your computer's power consumption by using a more effective power save mode (requires Windows XP and 2.5 MB).

According to LocalCooling.com, their goal is to introduce 100 million PC users to the application, which they estimate could prevent over 300 billion kilograms of CO2 emissions—in just the first year.

Now that's a BIG idea!

To bring this story home to Jackson, I was asking my friend Toby of Nuts & Bolts about the things he and his colleagues were doing to reduce their carbon footprint. When I brought up LocalCooling, Toby said he hadn't heard of the application, but immediately made the following pledge:

“Of the estimated 300+ computers we work with in the Jackson Hole area, we view 2007 as a great year to begin implementing power saving strategies to save money on energy and equipment wear and tear for our clients. We will begin working on a centralized way to calculate these numbers and the energy we are saving.”

Sounds like every Nuts & Bolts' client is going to become a part of the carbon neutral movement.

Now that's a GOOD idea!

January 4, 2007 Turn down the lights!

My wife and I typically visit her parents for Christmas, and one of my mother in-law's favorite things to do is to drive around Colorado Springs to see all the holiday light displays. Of course, she's a bigger fan of this particular custom than I am. This year, however, we both agreed that things had gotten out of hand when neighborly one-upsmanship resulted in one home looking like it had been "toilet-papered" with lights (sorry to say, the photo didn't turn out).

What is it about our values that leads to this? Have we no self-control? Why do we, as a culture, insist upon squandering the limited resources we have?

Restraint doesn't even have to be based on a commitment to reduce one's carbon footprint; you would think plain old good taste would keep someone from "decorating" their 5000+ square foot home so outrageously.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge folks' holiday cheer. And the Carbon Neutral Journal is not at all about telling other folks what to do; it is, however, all about informing and encouraging folks to take personal responsibility for their carbon footprint. The fact is: this particular display was ridiculous. So, too, were their neighbors' displays; even though they were more attractive, they were every bit as excessive.

Next year, why not limit yourself to a few strings of LEDs (light emitting diodes) that use 10 times less energy than mini-lights and 100 times less energy than incandescent bulbs? They last longer too.


January 1, 2007 me & my journal

I’m not an expert on how to solve the problem of global warming. I’m a storyteller. So, I guess it’s only natural that I’m undertaking the task of telling the story of my family’s efforts to become carbon neutral in 2007. While much of what I write will be personal, I intend to make the Carbon Neutral Journal as informative, practical, provocative and useful as possible. Over the course of the year, I’ll be exploring the choices available to folks interested in reducing their carbon footprint; I’ll be applauding individuals and organizations that are doing their part; and I’ll be ranting about those who are not. To be sure, becoming carbon neutral will involve extra effort, discipline, sacrifice and expense. To varying degrees, so do exercising, dieting and scooping your dog’s poop.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: most New Year’s resolutions fall by the wayside by February; most new gym memberships quickly go unused; and once a couple of extra holiday pounds are lost, so goes the discipline to eat right. That’s why I’m making my carbon neutral resolution so public. I don’t want to have any potential inconvenience sidetrack my vow.

I hope you’ll choose to join me.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.