Feb 062013
 

Alternative to GDP?

After a miss last week (I was at a conference), we’re back on this week (Thursday, 6pm, Benedum 341). What are we discussing? How we measure success as a country or city.

Why is this important? Because it forms part of the central narrative of our civilization – we want to know that things are improving, and we base the decision on a specific set of metrics. This standardly includes GDP, and might also have unemployment, energy intensity per unit of GDP, or the trade deficit/surplus (related to GDP). But GDP is a pretty unscrupulous indicator – a charity buying $5M in baby food for impoverished families has the same effect as $5M of damage from a tornado. And it may not capture all or any of what we might want to consider ‘success’ in a sustainable world. So – let’s talk about that.

This is one part macroeconomics, one part social sciences, and one part wonky metrics. Reading is relatively light – have a look at this Time article on GDP as a poor indicator and the two major indices mentioned in it, the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI), and the Happy Planet Index (HPI – this will almost certainly become confusing). Then think about what metrics you think actually matter, and bring those to the discussion with you. It should be a fun time!

FacebookTwitterShare
Jan 162013
 
416161_312381692142468_1572080587_o

Designers presenting Free the Planet’s Spring 2012 line at last year’s show.

Free the Planet needs entries for the 2013 Recycled Fashion Show!

We are looking for student-made clothes and wearable art of any kind that incorporate recycled materials. Prize awarded for the crowd’s favorite design!

Last year we had a dress knit out of plastic bag yarn, clothes made of cardboard, and dresses made of trash bags. You can be as extravagant or simple as you wish!

The show will be Friday, February 8th and will include live music, food, and a raffle! If you wish to participate, please contact freetheplanetmail (at) gmail.com.

The Recycled Fashion show is a part of Waste Week, a week-long awareness of how we can reduce waste and how it impacts our lives. Waste Week is the first week of RecycleMania, a national recycling competition between colleges and universities.

336191_312381515475819_847821349_o

FacebookTwitterShare
Nov 272012
 

Well – it’s been a while. We’ve gone to a few events and talks, had Thanksgiving, and now we’re back for another standard discussion – this time, at Andrew’s suggestion, on transition fuels and the current state of hydrocarbons.

So – to start, here’s the Post Carbon Reader chapter on hydrocarbons in North America. If you want some more technical data, check out The Oil Drum (try searching a country or state), or the EIA’s reserves data (I’ve linked natural gas, you can easily get to anything else – it’s a well built site). If you’re not familiar with it already, read up on Peak Oil.

Now, for transition fuels, this is more of a discussion. One good and two quick articles:

  1. Fred Pearce’s piece in e360 on environmentalist irrationality around nuclear and natural gas (he’s not necessarily right, but it’s a good piece).
  2. Rocky Mountain Institute position on NG as a transition fuel.
  3. Letter in the Gainesville Sun from a group that doesn’t support any of them.

Come prepared to discuss what technologies you think qualify, how we should use them (if at all), and what policies or changes need to happen to make that use effective.

FacebookTwitterShare
Apr 112012
 

Just spreading the news about the 2012 Pittsburgh Conference Lectures.  The series kicks off with a free screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” at Carnegie Mellon University’s Mellon Institute Auditorium at 7:30pm on Wednesday, April 18th. (RSVP: swainer@andrew.cmu.edu).

Thursday, April 19th has two lectures:

  • “Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Some Science and Solutions” by Dr. Robert Jackson, Duke University. at 4:45PM (free to public)
  • “Shale Gas and its Environmental Interactions” by Dr. Robert Jackson, Duke University.  6:00PM Cash Bar Social, 7:00PM Dinner, 8:00PM  (Lecture is free to the public. Dinner: $20 regular, $10 student. Cash or check. RSVP: swainer@andrew.cmu.edu) 

And finally Tuesday, April 24 is a dinner and lecture hosted by the ACS Pittsburgh Chemists Club and Environmental Group at the Spaghetti Warehouse (26th & Smallman Streets, Strip District) with a Social Hour: 6:00 pm, Dinner: 6:40 pm, and presentation: 7:45 pm titled “Green Chemistry: Sustaining A High Technology Civilization”

Looks like a great opportunity to get out there, learn a little more, and network!

 

FacebookTwitterShare
Mar 282012
 

Join the parade, as we travel by bike, foot, skates, with a hula-hoop, or however your heart desires to show your support for fossil-free transportation and celebrate Earth Day!  The event will begin at the Chatham Eastside Campus and travel to Phipps Conservatory.  So come out to share songs, stories, and celebrations, and show your support for cleaner air.

FacebookTwitterShare
 Posted by at 11:17 pm
Mar 282012
 

Speaking as part of the Distinguished Lecture Series in Environmental Science, Technology and Policy: Human Dimensions of Technology, Charles Perrow is a Research Scholar and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Yale University, and Visiting Professor at Stanford. His primary interest is the impact of large organizations on society (Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Cor­porate Capitalism, 2001), and their catastrophic potentials (Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies 1999). His current interests are in the vulnerabilities of the country’s critical infrastructures to natural, industrial, and deliberate disasters, cov­ered in The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters. The 2007 edition is updated in a 2011 edition covering the 2008 economic meltdown, the 2010 Gulf oil spill, and the ongoing global warming.

FacebookTwitterShare
 Posted by at 11:07 pm
Mar 272012
 

At some point, I stopped talking about climate change as a major focus. It became an occasionally-stated problem which provided motivation for tackling many many things, but my focus turned to more immediately tangible items like peak oil, resource depletion, water, and food. Like President Obama, whether because of controversy or because other things were more pressing, it slipped from the center of my sustainability vocabulary. In the recent flurry of climate change news, it seems like it’s time to tack back.

I should note that it’s not like I don’t do education on climate change – I ran three workshops (counting an FTP meeting) on the science thereof in the past semester, and intend to keep doing so – if your group is interested in learning, I’m happy to teach. But those were mostly internal education, ‘teaching the teachers’, and my external focus let climate change drift to a monumental background issue, taking the approach that if we solve these other things, we’ll also ‘solve’ climate change.

But that isn’t so, so how I do things needs to shift. Climate change, for all its unique difficulties in getting people to care, is a ginormous problem that will affect everyone, everywhere, in pretty nasty ways, and whose effective mitigation is so far from what we’re aiming at that we’re going to have to deal with billions of people hungry, thirsty, or dead. No, that’s not really exaggeration, unfortunately – but it might creep up on us.

I do a certain amount of talking about how to refute common arguments, but what I fail to do is to give climate change, and the mitigation and adaptation thereof, proper time in any discussion – even if we deal with peak oil (and I’m skeptical on that), we need to make sure we deal with the carbon emissions from electricity as well, and there isn’t really a shortage of coal. Dealing with other problems – redesigning transport and food systems so that more people have access to food and mobility for less money and less petroleum – is good, but it won’t be sufficient for mitigation of climate change. Not to mention that treating climate change as a bonus solution ignores the clear need for adaptation all over the place. In many ways, I think talking about adaptation is more depressing and scarier than mitigation, because at least with mitigation you can pretend it isn’t already happening, or that it won’t happen if we just act fast enough. But that, as they say, ‘just ain’t so’.

So here’s my promise (and I say this as someone who does a bunch of education, and is looking to do a bunch more with TransitionPGH when I get out of Brasil): I will put climate change back in its place as one of the key things people should care about. I will point out that it is happening, it is manmade, and it will already be bad (and that we’re trying to keep it from being a lot worse). I will talk frankly, given sources, about the costs – social and economic and environmental – of our present path, while pointing out that these are average figures, and it could be a lot worse. And I will maintain my emphasis that no one should ever use the term ‘believe’ in relation to climate change, as it is an opinion based in scientific findings and not an intangible gut feeling.

I will not stop talking about the other issues – I’m convinced that they’re a better way to get people (particularly low-income communities) to engage with environmentalism. I will still talk about energy efficiency as saving money and being less reliant on oil. But I’ll remember to include that small reduction in climate change – and the particular need to push for governmental action on it – as a serious reason, rather than one to mention offhandedly. I’ve done a poor job at making caring about climate change an important piece of sustainability with moderate audiences, and I promise to help rectify this.

 

(Endnote: You should really read through some of the linked articles, particularly the last one. Then you should join me.)

FacebookTwitterShare
Mar 082012
 

Hi! The engineering school is holding an electronic waste recycling drive.

Heres the info:
People can drop off their E-waste every weekday at 4pm in the ESC office (Benedum G32B) from March 14th to 22nd. If you are in the engineering school, you get E-week points for donating.

FacebookTwitterShare
Feb 242012
 

This past Wednesday, Free the Planet brought Larry Gibson to Pitt to speak. Larry has been named one of CNN’s Heroes, has been on ABC’s 20/20, has appeared before the United Nations, and is the face of activism against mountaintop removal. But what struck me most is that Larry is a real and genuine person. Hearing him speak about the travesty that is mountaintop removal made me lose faith in humanity – how can we allow such an environmental and humanitarian disaster, that we’d normally associate with third world countries, occur in our own? Getting to know Larry as an activist, however, restored my faith in activism.

Lately, I’ve been incredibly cynical about activists and their tactics. Today, “mainstream activism” is just as manufactured as politics. It is just as much of a game as the system it’s trying to change. Activism, like party politics, has become cookie-cutter. With the advent of social media, national campaigns have become possible, and while it’s great to have a cohesive message across the nation, it doesn’t have to be an assembly-line creation. I’m sick of “toolkits” telling you exactly how to create and perform your action so that it can be just like every other action on this issue. I’m sick of talking points sent out via email across the nation – if you oppose something, you should be able to state why using your own intellect and your own words. If you can’t adequately do that, then I don’t think you know enough about the issue to hold such a strong opinion on it. But it’s almost as if organizers today discourage that – just like partisan politics, you have to mindlessly repeat their rhetoric. Thanks in part to activism and political involvement, I’ve become great at both writing and recognizing complete fluff. I can write a whole paragraph that sounds so elegant and powerful that it moves you to action, even though when you look past the word fluff, you can see there’s not much there at all. Activism, like politics, has lost its personality, which makes it hard for me to hold on to my passion. Larry Gibson, however, shattered this image of modern activism that has been troubling me lately, and has given me hope.

Larry has what activism today too often lacks – personality, and his own individual and unique stories and reasons for doing what he does. This made him an incredible inspiration. He was also a great character. He’d jump from one point to another drastically different one so quickly that for a moment you’d wonder how in the world he managed that transition, but then you’d get so wrapped up in his new narrative. And Larry had so many stories – sad ones and funny ones. And he had such a unique way of telling them – if you listened to him for only thirty seconds, you might wonder why the heck you were listening to this man and his ramblings and even what they had to do with mountaintop removal, but then out of nowhere he’d reach an eloquent and powerful message illustrated by his anecdote. You’d be left in awe, thinking about what he just said, and then just as quickly you’d find yourself in the middle of another anecdote.

One time, in particular, I was wondering why on Earth Larry was talking about his affinity for barbecued chicken, and I was still confused yet also amused when he went on to say that one time while eating some, he felt something sandpaper-like on his cheek, and it turns out there was a black bear right there, licking the sauce off his cheek. I was captivated by this story, but right as I was wondering what on Earth it had to do with mountaintop removal, Larry sprung the profound implication of this anecdote on us: they used to not see black bears very often on his mountain, because they had a vast swath of wilderness to roam on. But now, with his land pretty much being the only intact land left on his mountain, the black bears have nowhere else to go, and end up nearer to homes in larger numbers than they’d ever been before.

Another story told in a similar fashion was when Larry was the keynote speaker at some Christian college I don’t remember the name of. Apparently he jumped onto a guy sitting in the first row and said, “If I were holding a gun up to your head right now and shot you, would it be murder?” The answer was obviously yes, and I was really wondering where he was going with this. I soon found out – “So is it still murder,” he said, “if I were to kill you slowly?” Yes, it is. And that is exactly what the extractive industry is doing to the poorest people in Appalachia – slurry ponds open to the air, right near communities and schools, schools with asthma rates of ninety percent because of the horrid air quality…

Larry was talking about how they eventually kicked him out of the United Nations because he refused to give the floor up. But Australian delegates were moved by what he had to say, and asked him to accompany them to talk about it more when they met with the U.S. Larry also met president Obama once. He saw Obama in two places, and Obama recognized him because of his neon Keepers of the Mountains gear. Obama asked what he could do for Larry, and Larry told him to pay attention to the War of Appalachia, where three and a half million tons of dynamite are used daily to turn mountains into moonscapes.  Obama told Larry that he should submit his concerns to his state environmental regulatory agency.  Larry essentially took that as a joke; everyone knows it wouldn’t result it anything.

Larry had some strikingly accurate ways to describe the process of mountaintop removal. It was literally turning a mountain upside down, he said. First, they cut down all the trees. But instead of putting this timber on the market (and West Virginia has some pretty good quality timber), they just throw it into a neighboring valley – potential income for a state struggling with poverty, just cast away to get to the coal underneath. Are we so ravenously addicted to this substance that we can’t even take the process slower to maximize benefits? Next comes the soil. Three inches of topsoil takes three thousand years to form, but a matter of days to dump into a valley next to a mountain. The mountain is then effectively just rock, the rest of it having been turned upside down. And the reclamation process that the industry claims works? Larry knows better, and has the perfect analogy for it. “Reclamation,” he said, “is like putting lipstick on a corpse.” You can’t hope to redo what it took nature millennia to craft.

An even better story was when Larry attended a speech by George Bush. They weren’t supposed to allow signs, but Larry wrapped a sign around his body and went in anyway. It said, very simply, “Stop Mountaintop Removal.” Well, he held it up and was kicked out by these guys (to paraphrase him: by men in black, all in black suits, sunglasses, definitely secret service agents), but they made a vital mistake: they didn’t take away his sign, and he snuck back in before they even returned. Several more times, I think he said, he was kicked out but got back in. For such a cute old man, he was definitely a troublemaker. “I’ve been arrested with the best of them,” he said, and he definitely was. One time, when protesting in front of the White House with tons of people from Appalachia, he said “I’m not paying my fee!” with regard to his arrest. “What I’m doing is legal, what they [the extractive industry] are doing is not!” Then, from behind him, he heard someone else say, “I’m not paying mine either!” It was Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s leading climatologist.

There were some darker stories Larry told too. Like the drive-by shootings he’s had at his house, the bullet holes that dot his front door, the dogs he had – one was shot and the other actually hung, simply because Larry refused to give up the land that his family has lived on for centuries to such a destructive cause. He sees the harm that it does to Appalachia – southern West Virginia is one of the poorest places in our nation, and the people cling to the coal industry because they think it’s the only jobs they’ll ever have, but the industry is screwing them over not only by harming their health, but also with the practice of mountaintop removal. It takes much less workers to extract coal this way than through traditional mining methods, and systematically destroys the potential for another sector of the West Virginia economy – outdoorsy tourism. West Virginia, Wild and Wonderful – but slowly, thanks to mountaintop removal, becoming moonscaped and toxic.

Larry brings people on tours throughout his property so they can see the devastating effects of the process. He talked, almost tearfully, about how the birds don’t chirp their way into springtime anymore. “If Ray Charles came to my house,” he joked, “he wouldn’t be able to tell if it was spring or winter, ‘cause there’re no more birds!” Kids who are brought on his tours often see the dead birds on the ground and asked Larry why he is killing the birds. Larry doesn’t have the heart to tell them that it’s the air that is killing the birds, because then they’d wonder what they were doing breathing that air.

Larry Gibson is the kind of activist that is become rarer and rarer, but the kind we need more of. He is a genuine West Virginia man who won’t call himself an environmentalist, but merely a concerned citizen. He is so concerned for his land, his family and friends (a completely disproportionate amount of whom have died of various cancers due to their proximity to extractive processes), his neighbors, and the people of Appalachia that he has dedicated over thirty years of his life to this struggle. “I’ve been fighting for you before you were even born,” Larry told our young audience. The coal companies told Larry that his land was worth $65 million, but even that wouldn’t convince him to give it up – he would not let his land join the acres of land that were sacrificed to satisfy America’s greedy energy demands for only a mere fleeting moment.

Larry Gibson is the face of the struggle against mountaintop removal. He has endured death threats, health complications affecting his community, his family, and himself, and the incessant dismantling of the beautiful mountains and ecosystems surrounding him – there is no better face that this struggle could have.

FacebookTwitterShare
Feb 122012
 

A few weeks ago, the Port Authority put out a press release highlighting necessary fare increases and service cuts that will be required to balance their budgets (which is required). You can view the press release and detailed maps here, but some highlights include:

  • The loss of 40% of the network’s routes, mainly losing access to inner ring communities (outside the city core)
  • The elimination of much of the 64 and 75 routes, eliminating some key cross connections between Oakland, Squirrel Hill, South Side Works, and the Waterfront. The 75 would only be cut on weekends.
  • The elimination of airport service from the 28X route.
The cuts are well thought out for what the system should be doing – if you need to cut 40% of your system, you should do it in a way that preserves the ability of the poor and carless to get to work, and maintain service to your primary users. So many routes are cut on weekends, routes to the suburbs are cut, and almost none of the routes into Oakland are outright cut.
But, even though that preserves the core mission, you lose almost everything else: the ability to get between neighborhoods with ease, the ability for college students (who don’t have cars) to get to entertainment centers on nights and weekends, or for anyone to get back home after drinking. You lose the possibility of living in those inner ring communities and trying public transit occasionally, or learning to like it, and the possibility of building transit-oriented communities. And you lose connections between transit systems – namely, that Pittsburgh would become the only major city I can think of without a public transit connection between its airport and city center. That’s a travesty – our airport isn’t close enough for it to be easily connected, and I’m sure the extra 20 minutes per run costs a bunch of money, but it’s a public service that needs to be there if we want to tout Pittsburgh as a thriving city, let alone a ‘green’  one.
There are a variety of systemic issues that have led to this problem – funding sources, changing priorities, the lack of tolling on I-80, etc. Personally, I think that this release was an excellent threat – a vision of ‘this is what it will look like if you go forward with current policies without changing things’. It was well timed for this, and we’ll see what happens at the state level, where they’re going through transportation funding plans now. If you ever go anywhere in Allegheny County (whether it’s by public transit or by car on roads which are less congested because of it), you should toss in a comment or go to a hearing about the issue, and tell your friends.
However, there are places where we should push our democratic representatives, and there are places where we can do more ourselves, and the universities are an example of the latter. In 2010, Pitt and CMU students, because of our bulk deal with Port Authority,paid $.98 and $.75 per ride respectively, rather than the cash fare of $2.25 or even the overall average of $1.46. That’s after some significant increases in our fees. To my mind, this is not just a place to call for more government funding. For the value that we as a community obtain from having unlimited access around the city and countywe should pay more.
I realize that this is a tough thing to say. Tuition keeps going up (again, variety of reasons), families or students are struggling to pay, and increasing fees is never a popular option. But when we pay $180 per person per year in total security and transportation fees (which funds Pitt’s shuttles as well as our Port Authority payment), we get something worth >$1600. We could probably manage to do a better job of supporting the public infrastructure that we depend on, particularly since we don’t pay the property taxes that would normally help do so.

I don’t want this to come from the county – for something like this to happen, it has to come from those who will pay more, via a petition of graduate or undergraduate students and work by SGB and/or GPSA. It can’t come from above, and it can’t go to pay for pensions – I’m sorry, but that was a poor thing to ask students to pay for. For students to voluntarily pay more to help maintain a functioning transit system which they use frequently is a much better deal.

I’d suggest that the proposal go something like this: Pitt students (UGrads, Grads, or both) agree to increase annual transportation fees by 25%-50%, with all of the money going to an increase in payments to Port Authority. In return, the 28X maintains service to the airport, thus providing not only Pitt students but visitors a valuable service.

Hopefully, the extra money would be more than enough – and then it could go to other routes, either as PA sees fit, or places that are in the interest of Pitt. I’m edging into a privatization argument that I don’t want to get into, so I’m going to stop here, with the final statement that public transportation is an unmerited good, that it requires both local and higher-level support, and that right now, Pitt and other universities could and should pay more for the benefits they receive, helping to make the system better for everyone.

FacebookTwitterShare