Energy intensity

Bush's favorite way to discuss energy is in terms of "energy intensity" of an economy, that is, the amount of energy used (or pollution output) per unit of GDP. When I went looking for stats, I was surprised to see that as of 2004, China's economy was actually more efficient than the US (ref 1). I'm sure that has changed in the last few years, but we're still not talking about huge differences between China and the US, just fractions. And this is despite the fact that all of China's recent economic growth has been based on construction and manufacturing, while ours has been in services--consulting, i-banking, dot coms--that are far less energy intensive industries.

I can only account for this because of our horrible leadership. Bush is probably the most backwards leader on the planet regarding energy. None of the candidates for 2008 are anywhere near as bad as he has been. We have stood in the way of climate change agreements (ref 2), and our standards for efficiency are lower than even China's (ref 3, p. 9). At least China and India have the excuse that they have hundreds of millions of people living without access to electricity, and they should be able to expand their infrastructure enough to get those people the bare minimum. Our excuse is that, as the richest economy in the world, we can't afford to adapt? That we developed the Hummer, and aren't about to stop driving it?

Furthermore, I have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of energy intensity. As we learn in high school econ, GDP is made up of government expenditures + investment + net exports + consumption, with consumption being the majority. Why then should we be allowed more emissions since we consume more than other countries? Our standard of living is the highest, our consumption is the highest, why should this give us the right to pollute more?

Finally, the common argument that we can't afford to adapt our economy to be more energy efficient is backwards. Many conservation measures, for example green buildings, will have a net positive effect on our economy. They pay for themselves within a year or two, and then save money for their entire lifetime after that, which, for a building, could be 100 years. Second, developing the skills and technologies to conserve and use renewable energy will be a huge growth factor in whatever economy takes on the challenge. If we let Germany or Japan build the best solar cells, then we are sacrificing a market that is potentially worth trillions of dollars. Shouldn't we try to be the world leader in these new industries? We have seen what happens to our auto industry when they fail to innovate--they become overtaken by more efficient Japanese cars. Let's not let this happen to the rest of our economy.


References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Energy_Intensity.png
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ex=1355634000&en=890e7680d210f8c4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
3. http://theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf page 9

Time for Solar

Our priorities are out of line. In our war in Iraq, we've spent far too much money and too many lives for oil rather than working for a cleaner, more sustainable energy source.

Thomas Friedman published another wonderful article in the NY Times explaining why we need to do something about energy. To illustrate how far we are behind other countries in our fuel effiency, here is a figure showing the current emissions standards in California and the US as a whole compared to other countries.



Please, check my sources:
Iraq: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm
nuclear R&D www.ne.doe.gov/budget/neBudgetfY07CongRequest.html
other energy R&D: www.ncseonline.org/Affiliates/Handbook/cms.cfm?id=904#9-2
CAFE standards by country: theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf

Livestock's Long Shadow

A recent report by the UN and a story in the NY Times raise some issues about food. As a triathlete, food is very important to me (eating is commonly known as "the fourth sport"). As an environmentalist, I now know to take it seriously because of the UN Report "Livestock's Long Shadow." The takeaway message from this report is that you can reduce your carbon footprint more by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

The argument goes as follows: getting your calories from meat is much more energy intensive than getting the same number of calories from plants. Because animals need to breathe, move a little, chat, or whatever else they do to pass the time while they get fattened and prepare to meat their maker, they are inefficient converters of plants into protein. After you consider all the methane released in cow farts, the energy it takes to fatten a cow, move it to the slaughterhouse, cut out the bones and fat and skin, package the meat, and get it to the grocery store, you've released 10 times as many greenhouse gasses as if you'd just eaten the corn yourself and skipped the middle-pig.

The NY Times article doesn't touch energy issues, it addresses health. In notes the twin key trends over the last 30 years: 1) people have become increasingly health- and diet-conscious, leading to a proliferation of health foods and nutritional products and 2) people have become less healthy, more prone to diabetes, fatter, more oft-stricken by heart attacks. The recommendations made are essentially to eat less, eat unprocessed food (produce), and eat less meat.

If you aren't yet concerned about eating meet, check out the webiste www.goveg.com, which, while a little heavy-handed, may give you second-thoughts next time you buy a sausage.

Finally, I'd like to argue the 80% case: even meat lovers can stand to eat less meat. The average American diet includes far more protein than is necessary or healthy. So if going "whole hog" is too much to ask (it is for me), try to become an 80% vegetarian. Or any percent vegetarian. Every so often, try to order something without meat when you would have otherwise gotten meat.

Vampires that suck us dry at night

The "vampire load" on the grid consists of those little electronic devices we leave plugged in that glow and get slightly warm to the touch. DVD players, computers on standby, phone chargers, really anything with a transformer consumes energy even when turned off. Sometimes they use 75% as much power as when they are on! In Australia, these account for 10% of residential power use, according to a government survey. I'd guess it is a bigger share of commercial use, as printers, Xerox machines, lights, and computers are routinely left on every night.

To some energy wonks, this is a well known problem. There was some attention devoted to it during the blackouts in NY, including a NY Times article and an appleal by Mayor Bloomberg to conserve. There is a contest for copy machines that use the least amount of power when on standby. And one fantastic suggestion by another blogger is that Microsoft set all its machines to default to the highest energy saving mode, thereby saving the an estimated 45 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year. But for most of us, this problem is not high on our priority list.

Since energy efficiency and conservation should be a high priority, what are some steps we can all take? Here are a few cloves of garlic to keep the vampires away:

• Set your computers to power saving modes that turn off the display and harddrives after some idle period
• Turn off lights and devices when not in use. Weren't we all taught this as kids?
• When possible, unplug things when not in use. Phone chargers, IPod docks, and laptop power adapters don't suffer when they are unplugged