You may or may not have heard this bit of advice before now. If you're hearing this for the first time, congratulations on an easy money- and environment-saving tip. If this tip is a repeat for you, please take action -- this one is easy!
Many of our everyday appliances continue to use energy even when they are not in use. For instance, our televisions, DVD players, and gaming systems might appear to be "off," however even in standby mode, they continue to draw electricity from the outlet. And your cell charger? Most models continue to use some electricity even without the phone still attached.
That is, if it's still plugged in. The solution is easy -- unplug your cell phone charger when it is not in use. And your multimedia center in your living room? You likely had to buy a power strip in order to accomodate the many electronics packed onto your entertainment center (but if not, I urge you to go out and purchase one). Even a cheap one will do the trick and the few dollars will be made up quickly in power bill savings. I turn mine off whenever the equipment is not in use.
You're a simple "click" away from reducing your power bill and minimizing your negative envirohuman impact. Now, when you're finished watching your fave sports team kill their opponent, you can kill the juice by simply flipping the switch on your power strip (you'll want to position it for easy access).
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Green Roofs
We'll return to defining and attempting to shed light on the significance of the "envirohuman impact" soon. In the meantime, here's a great article.
Already a hit in Europe, green roofs have begun to take hold in the U.S. as another building method to help make buildings more environmentally sustainable.
Link to article: "Will 'green' roofs be a red-hot trend?"
What stood out: "In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley is interested in lowering the urban center's heat-island effects that drive up temperatures. 'He has been told by various research facilities that if about 65% of downtown buildings had green roofs, that would lower the heat by about 10 degrees,' Retzlaff says. 'So the city issues grants to offset the costs of installation and will fast-track building permits if a green roof is included.'"
My take: Wow! 10 degrees!? Imagine if an entire downtown of a city that otherwise would feel like it were experiencing a 95 degree day were instead experincing a day that feels like 85 degrees. Good for the environment? Absolutely. Air conditioners could run less and so there would be less stress on the electrical grid. Let us also not forget that plants would absorb some sound, not to mention also absorbing toxins and carbon dioxide from the air.
It's of course reasonable to ask, "What are the negative environmental aspects of green roofs?" When determining just how very sustainable the roofs are, the costs versus the benefits must be taken into account. Sounds like an "envirohumane" endeavor, however, to me.
One last thing: green roofs could be very good for business. Besides giving companies another "green" facet to tout, if people are more comfortable outside, they are more likely to go out shopping, eating, and it could even drive tourism to cities known to have cooler temperatures despite a warm or hot climate in the summer.
Already a hit in Europe, green roofs have begun to take hold in the U.S. as another building method to help make buildings more environmentally sustainable.
Link to article: "Will 'green' roofs be a red-hot trend?"
What stood out: "In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley is interested in lowering the urban center's heat-island effects that drive up temperatures. 'He has been told by various research facilities that if about 65% of downtown buildings had green roofs, that would lower the heat by about 10 degrees,' Retzlaff says. 'So the city issues grants to offset the costs of installation and will fast-track building permits if a green roof is included.'"
My take: Wow! 10 degrees!? Imagine if an entire downtown of a city that otherwise would feel like it were experiencing a 95 degree day were instead experincing a day that feels like 85 degrees. Good for the environment? Absolutely. Air conditioners could run less and so there would be less stress on the electrical grid. Let us also not forget that plants would absorb some sound, not to mention also absorbing toxins and carbon dioxide from the air.
It's of course reasonable to ask, "What are the negative environmental aspects of green roofs?" When determining just how very sustainable the roofs are, the costs versus the benefits must be taken into account. Sounds like an "envirohumane" endeavor, however, to me.
One last thing: green roofs could be very good for business. Besides giving companies another "green" facet to tout, if people are more comfortable outside, they are more likely to go out shopping, eating, and it could even drive tourism to cities known to have cooler temperatures despite a warm or hot climate in the summer.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
What's the significance?
Envirohuman impact. Here we have, again, a new word for an old concept. It's the very reason that humans care about the environment (despite not historically "taking" care of the environment so well). In essence, we care to some degree that damage to the environment could come back to hinder our own capabilities to live comfortably.
So what's the big deal about naming the concept -- taking this nearly ubiquitous "care" and labelling it?
Imagine if, when writing a business plan, prospectus, or pitching a new idea, campaign, or product, companies across the board added into the equation that produces their bottom lines the idea of the envirohuman impact of their latest projects?
Now, what if those companies had an applicable scale that took the positive or negative envirohuman aspects of the business they do, taking into consideration air and water pollution from production as well as waste from the packaging (related article from NY Times: "Incredible Shrinking Packages") and were given a number which would be figured into the bottom line of a given project?
This goes back to the idea that most companies will pollute as long as it is cheaper to do so and that unless there's a strong economic benefit for reducing their levels of pollution, companies will remain relatively slow to bring about innovations for improving efficiency related to positive or negative envirohuman impact.
Because pollution does have a cost to society, especially in healthcare costs to those who suffer from pollution- or environmentally-caused diseases, and global climate change has the potential to change life as we know it, those who pollute should have to bear the cost of their pollution, in order to give them an incentive to reduce their pollution as a matter of simple economics: it will become cheaper for the companies to reduce their pollution, because it will (hopefully) be another cost worth reducing.
Basically, a rating system that would yield a dollar cost for pollution is called for. Would-be investors would want to know about companies' envirohuman impact ratings just as they would want to know about other facets of their business profiles. A positive envirohuman impact rating would be another sign of a healthy, efficient business. In sum, it's not such a big deal to name this age-old concept, but to measure it, to give it a rating, to convert it to a cost, could stimulate the market to take over innovation of pollution-reducing methods.
So what's the big deal about naming the concept -- taking this nearly ubiquitous "care" and labelling it?
Imagine if, when writing a business plan, prospectus, or pitching a new idea, campaign, or product, companies across the board added into the equation that produces their bottom lines the idea of the envirohuman impact of their latest projects?
Now, what if those companies had an applicable scale that took the positive or negative envirohuman aspects of the business they do, taking into consideration air and water pollution from production as well as waste from the packaging (related article from NY Times: "Incredible Shrinking Packages") and were given a number which would be figured into the bottom line of a given project?
This goes back to the idea that most companies will pollute as long as it is cheaper to do so and that unless there's a strong economic benefit for reducing their levels of pollution, companies will remain relatively slow to bring about innovations for improving efficiency related to positive or negative envirohuman impact.
Because pollution does have a cost to society, especially in healthcare costs to those who suffer from pollution- or environmentally-caused diseases, and global climate change has the potential to change life as we know it, those who pollute should have to bear the cost of their pollution, in order to give them an incentive to reduce their pollution as a matter of simple economics: it will become cheaper for the companies to reduce their pollution, because it will (hopefully) be another cost worth reducing.
Basically, a rating system that would yield a dollar cost for pollution is called for. Would-be investors would want to know about companies' envirohuman impact ratings just as they would want to know about other facets of their business profiles. A positive envirohuman impact rating would be another sign of a healthy, efficient business. In sum, it's not such a big deal to name this age-old concept, but to measure it, to give it a rating, to convert it to a cost, could stimulate the market to take over innovation of pollution-reducing methods.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Let's Define "envirohuman impact"
We're going to begin over the next series of posts to examine exactly what is meant by the term, "envirohuman impact." It sounds simple and self-explanatory, and in many ways, that's true.
But it's a word of my own invention and one that I would like to see taken up for everyday use. The idea behind it is old -- it is the idea that decisions that humans make have an impact on the environment. But it does not stop there -- people have come to care increasingly yet again about those decisions.
Why? Because our impacts on the environment eventually impact our "human" lives. Hence, "envirohuman impact." Cheesy? Some might say so -- but it's a usable term for an idea for which a usable definition, rather than a roundabout explanation like that above, is coming soon.
Also, next we'll look at how this term could become very important for our society and how I hope that it, or at least its premise, might shape those decisions that have the largest envirohuman impact.
But it's a word of my own invention and one that I would like to see taken up for everyday use. The idea behind it is old -- it is the idea that decisions that humans make have an impact on the environment. But it does not stop there -- people have come to care increasingly yet again about those decisions.
Why? Because our impacts on the environment eventually impact our "human" lives. Hence, "envirohuman impact." Cheesy? Some might say so -- but it's a usable term for an idea for which a usable definition, rather than a roundabout explanation like that above, is coming soon.
Also, next we'll look at how this term could become very important for our society and how I hope that it, or at least its premise, might shape those decisions that have the largest envirohuman impact.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Bag the bags
An easy little contribution you can make toward a positive envirohuman impact: buy reusable cloth grocery bags. They're cheap and they take neither trees (as paper bags do) nor oil (as most plastic bags do) to make. And once you've purchased them, they're yours forever -- bring them with you every time you go to the store and in one more way, you're becoming part of the solution!
When you use paper, the problem is that your consumption leads to more trees being cut down or recycled paper being diverted from its other uses. Plastic bags are bad in two ways: oil is primarily used to make the bags and so a finite resource is being used for something that rarely makes it into recycling bins. Furthermore, plastic bags can take 1,000 years or more to break down in nature.
Some stores, such as Trader Joe's, sell reusable cloth bags near the checkout counter while there are also online merchants from whom you can purchase them.
When you use paper, the problem is that your consumption leads to more trees being cut down or recycled paper being diverted from its other uses. Plastic bags are bad in two ways: oil is primarily used to make the bags and so a finite resource is being used for something that rarely makes it into recycling bins. Furthermore, plastic bags can take 1,000 years or more to break down in nature.
Some stores, such as Trader Joe's, sell reusable cloth bags near the checkout counter while there are also online merchants from whom you can purchase them.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Best 'green' materials for your home
Best 'green' materials for your home
From the article:
"What's most eco-friendly differs widely, depending on your location, your climate, your project, what's locally available and on the expertise and customs of local craftsmen. It's a good bet, though, that a material is green if it:
* Saves water or energy;
* Replaces toxic chemicals with safe, healthy components;
* Conserves natural resources;
* Is salvaged; or
* Uses recycled material or agricultural waste."
This article does not discuss what are more extreme concepts for greening one's home, such as using geothermal loops for heating and cooling or solar systems on one's roof. Here, we're talking about slightly more subtle, but important building methods and materials to make one's home more environmentally sustainable, to lesson it's negative envirohuman impact.
My take: These are simple solutions. Pollution is caused in both large ways (factories and power plants spewing emissions) and small ones (such as paints that emit volatile organic compounds) but even the so-called, "small," ones matter, because there are millions of, in the case of this article, homes, that do contribute to the total amount of pollution for our society. And if large numbers of people begin to employ smarter building materials that make their homes environmentally sustainable, the positive envirohuman impact could be significant.
Perhaps the best way to look at it as each human as a polluter and that if an entire population manages to individually reduce each "polluter's" total pollution, we would see a positive result of reduced pollution, or at least slowed rates.
Coming up soon, we will attempt to begin defining the concept of "envirohumanism," a word that attempts to grapple with not only the level and amount of change to environmental quality but also how that change might affect society.
From the article:
"What's most eco-friendly differs widely, depending on your location, your climate, your project, what's locally available and on the expertise and customs of local craftsmen. It's a good bet, though, that a material is green if it:
* Saves water or energy;
* Replaces toxic chemicals with safe, healthy components;
* Conserves natural resources;
* Is salvaged; or
* Uses recycled material or agricultural waste."
This article does not discuss what are more extreme concepts for greening one's home, such as using geothermal loops for heating and cooling or solar systems on one's roof. Here, we're talking about slightly more subtle, but important building methods and materials to make one's home more environmentally sustainable, to lesson it's negative envirohuman impact.
My take: These are simple solutions. Pollution is caused in both large ways (factories and power plants spewing emissions) and small ones (such as paints that emit volatile organic compounds) but even the so-called, "small," ones matter, because there are millions of, in the case of this article, homes, that do contribute to the total amount of pollution for our society. And if large numbers of people begin to employ smarter building materials that make their homes environmentally sustainable, the positive envirohuman impact could be significant.
Perhaps the best way to look at it as each human as a polluter and that if an entire population manages to individually reduce each "polluter's" total pollution, we would see a positive result of reduced pollution, or at least slowed rates.
Coming up soon, we will attempt to begin defining the concept of "envirohumanism," a word that attempts to grapple with not only the level and amount of change to environmental quality but also how that change might affect society.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Tackling climate change: A bargain
A Bargain
From the Economist, May 4, 2007:
This story eventually gets down to an estimate of what it would cost to alleviate the problem of global warming:
"And what is the right price? The report says that to stabilise greenhouse-gas concentrations at 550 parts per million (a level most scientists think safeish) would require a price of $20-50 per tonne of carbon by 2020-30. That is along the lines of the carbon price established the European Emissions-Trading Scheme, which varied between $6 and $40 in 2005-06. It has not bankrupted the European economy so far. The IPCC’s economic models reckon, on average, that if the world adopted such a price the global economy would be 1.3% smaller than it otherwise would have been by 2050; or, put another way, global economic growth would be 0.1% a year lower than it otherwise would have been."
My Take: This is obviously a deal; put simply, it's the cost of doing business. If we fail to act, the costs to our global society would be unimaginable; if we think of no other scenario, think about the unrest that would be caused by rising sea levels displacing the great portion of the world's populations that live seaside. The positive envirohuman impact of putting a price on polluting is far reaching, because until we do so, most businesses will continue to pollute, if for no other reason, it's cheaper in the short term to do so.
From the Economist, May 4, 2007:
This story eventually gets down to an estimate of what it would cost to alleviate the problem of global warming:
"And what is the right price? The report says that to stabilise greenhouse-gas concentrations at 550 parts per million (a level most scientists think safeish) would require a price of $20-50 per tonne of carbon by 2020-30. That is along the lines of the carbon price established the European Emissions-Trading Scheme, which varied between $6 and $40 in 2005-06. It has not bankrupted the European economy so far. The IPCC’s economic models reckon, on average, that if the world adopted such a price the global economy would be 1.3% smaller than it otherwise would have been by 2050; or, put another way, global economic growth would be 0.1% a year lower than it otherwise would have been."
My Take: This is obviously a deal; put simply, it's the cost of doing business. If we fail to act, the costs to our global society would be unimaginable; if we think of no other scenario, think about the unrest that would be caused by rising sea levels displacing the great portion of the world's populations that live seaside. The positive envirohuman impact of putting a price on polluting is far reaching, because until we do so, most businesses will continue to pollute, if for no other reason, it's cheaper in the short term to do so.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Get the Greatest Envirohuman Impact for Low Investments
Sure, they cost more up-front, but compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are probably one of the easiest installments you can make to reduce your carbon footprint. While they cost a few times as much as their incandescent counterparts, they last longer and use much less energy. They also convert much more of the energy used to light than do incandescents. Incandescents have more heat output than CFLs which is bad in summer, and, believe it or not, in the winter as well. Because light bulbs are made to shed light on our lives and not give off heat, they are less efficient at heating our homes than if our furnaces worked a little more to make up for the heat you won't get from your new CFLs. Of course, you don't want your air conditioner fighting your lightbulbs in the summer.
Over the lifetime of your bulb, you can save a great deal on energy as well, because CFLs use a fraction of the energy used by incandescent bulbs with the same light output. Of course prices vary among companies, but EnviroHumanImpact rates this the #1 "best bang for your buck" pick for the small investment you can make for your home to reduce your energy use. More helpful environmental hints will follow in future posts for other little things you can do that add up to a lot when millions of people begin to partake.
That's the greatest part of the CFL hype -- it's no longer a fad -- Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's recent moves to have more prominent shelf placement for CFLs and signage detaling the real environmental and financial benefits to customers means that more and more people are discovering that this is an easy way to save the environment -- and money!
Don't feel like converting your entire home over to CFLs at once? It seems like a lot if you consider that a CFL's original cost might be 3 or more times the cost of an incandescent one (depending upon the deal you come across) and the more bulbs you have, the more it's going to cost you to replace them (that is, in the short-term; the savings from less energy use will add up later). So, replace one, or buy a three-pack until all of them have been replaced. The point is, do it slowly if replacing 20+ bulbs all at once is not feasible. Also, check with your municipality to see if free or reduced cost CFLs are available. The City of Chicago is giving away Free CFLs to residents in Spring, 2007.
Just be sure that you stick to a policy of making these wise investments and as your old bulbs burn out, replace them with CFLs to for a fast, positive envirohuman impact with the real result of less energy being used to get the same job, lighting our homes, done. Once you've made the conversion, you'll spend less for lighting, less for air conditioning, you'll replace your bulbs less often*, and you will have no sacrifice, but you'll pollute less.
*Disclaimer: CFLs tend to last longer in situations where the light is used for a longer period of time, for instance an office compared to a bathroom light. Turning the bulbs on and off many times shortens their lifespans, but the same is true of incandescent bulbs.
Over the lifetime of your bulb, you can save a great deal on energy as well, because CFLs use a fraction of the energy used by incandescent bulbs with the same light output. Of course prices vary among companies, but EnviroHumanImpact rates this the #1 "best bang for your buck" pick for the small investment you can make for your home to reduce your energy use. More helpful environmental hints will follow in future posts for other little things you can do that add up to a lot when millions of people begin to partake.
That's the greatest part of the CFL hype -- it's no longer a fad -- Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's recent moves to have more prominent shelf placement for CFLs and signage detaling the real environmental and financial benefits to customers means that more and more people are discovering that this is an easy way to save the environment -- and money!
Don't feel like converting your entire home over to CFLs at once? It seems like a lot if you consider that a CFL's original cost might be 3 or more times the cost of an incandescent one (depending upon the deal you come across) and the more bulbs you have, the more it's going to cost you to replace them (that is, in the short-term; the savings from less energy use will add up later). So, replace one, or buy a three-pack until all of them have been replaced. The point is, do it slowly if replacing 20+ bulbs all at once is not feasible. Also, check with your municipality to see if free or reduced cost CFLs are available. The City of Chicago is giving away Free CFLs to residents in Spring, 2007.
Just be sure that you stick to a policy of making these wise investments and as your old bulbs burn out, replace them with CFLs to for a fast, positive envirohuman impact with the real result of less energy being used to get the same job, lighting our homes, done. Once you've made the conversion, you'll spend less for lighting, less for air conditioning, you'll replace your bulbs less often*, and you will have no sacrifice, but you'll pollute less.
*Disclaimer: CFLs tend to last longer in situations where the light is used for a longer period of time, for instance an office compared to a bathroom light. Turning the bulbs on and off many times shortens their lifespans, but the same is true of incandescent bulbs.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Evian Criminals: The new snob appeal of tap water.
Most of us can drink our water a little more responsibly.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165124/?GT1=10034
This blog post from the Slate discusses restaurants switching from serving bottled waters from Europe to going back to tap water.
Just part of a trend to at least appear, and, in many cases, to actually be "greener" to your customers. Restaurants are more and more finding that the same customers who once savored their San Pelligrino are now thinking that the environtmental impact of having bottled water (often in glass bottles, no less) shipped from Europe or elsewhere is just too great -- that by consuming these products, they are contributing a little more to global warming, green glass bottle by green glass bottle.
This may not be limited to just water. A growing number of people are becoming aware of how far their food travels from field/factory to plate. According to locavores.com, a site for people who attempt to eat foods from within 100 miles of their residences, our food travels an average of 1500 miles before it reaches are dinner tables. Trucks spewing along all those miles of highway adds up to a lot of pollution so we can have food from all corners of the country/world.
If everyone were willing/able to go on a locavore diet, theoretically, the pollution from transporting food would be reduced to one fifteenth of what it is now. Of course, challenges exist that limit this proposition, such as some foods not growing in certain climates (to name only one, and the most obvious). Chances of a wide-scale plan that encompasses this eating habit are slim, but if it were to be adopted across the board (some how) the envirohuman impact could be great.
Back to the water: while transportation of water by truck has a greater negative envirohuman impact than water being piped into one's home, how about the bottles themselves? A very small percentage of the emptied bottles are recycled and of course some argue that it is "just tap water in a bottle." Personally, it seems cleaner to me than regular tap.
The happy medium? Use a Brita or Pur (or other brand) filtration system to protect yourself from potentially harmful pollutants in your tap water, and use a reusable bottle for your water on-the-go needs. Large amounts of oil are used to produce the plastic bottles we use and landfills are filling up, so be sure to recycle your bottles if and when you do indulge on the convenience.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165124/?GT1=10034
This blog post from the Slate discusses restaurants switching from serving bottled waters from Europe to going back to tap water.
Just part of a trend to at least appear, and, in many cases, to actually be "greener" to your customers. Restaurants are more and more finding that the same customers who once savored their San Pelligrino are now thinking that the environtmental impact of having bottled water (often in glass bottles, no less) shipped from Europe or elsewhere is just too great -- that by consuming these products, they are contributing a little more to global warming, green glass bottle by green glass bottle.
This may not be limited to just water. A growing number of people are becoming aware of how far their food travels from field/factory to plate. According to locavores.com, a site for people who attempt to eat foods from within 100 miles of their residences, our food travels an average of 1500 miles before it reaches are dinner tables. Trucks spewing along all those miles of highway adds up to a lot of pollution so we can have food from all corners of the country/world.
If everyone were willing/able to go on a locavore diet, theoretically, the pollution from transporting food would be reduced to one fifteenth of what it is now. Of course, challenges exist that limit this proposition, such as some foods not growing in certain climates (to name only one, and the most obvious). Chances of a wide-scale plan that encompasses this eating habit are slim, but if it were to be adopted across the board (some how) the envirohuman impact could be great.
Back to the water: while transportation of water by truck has a greater negative envirohuman impact than water being piped into one's home, how about the bottles themselves? A very small percentage of the emptied bottles are recycled and of course some argue that it is "just tap water in a bottle." Personally, it seems cleaner to me than regular tap.
The happy medium? Use a Brita or Pur (or other brand) filtration system to protect yourself from potentially harmful pollutants in your tap water, and use a reusable bottle for your water on-the-go needs. Large amounts of oil are used to produce the plastic bottles we use and landfills are filling up, so be sure to recycle your bottles if and when you do indulge on the convenience.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Seventh Generation
Today's post will be one of many concerning the question, "So what can I do?" We can all make changes in our daily purchases that are more environmentally responsible. If a large enough percentage of our population does so, the positive impact could be great.
I came across one website and line of products that, while I have not tried them, I likely will give a few of them a try in my own home soon.
The products at Seventh Generation are geared toward environmental sustainability and creating a non-toxic environment inside of the home (by not using dyes and frangrances, for example). The site is a great information source otherwise.
While in future posts, I might detail specific "things you can do" to make a positive envirohuman impact, in the meantime, here's something to get you thinking: http://www.seventhgeneration.com/
I came across one website and line of products that, while I have not tried them, I likely will give a few of them a try in my own home soon.
The products at Seventh Generation are geared toward environmental sustainability and creating a non-toxic environment inside of the home (by not using dyes and frangrances, for example). The site is a great information source otherwise.
While in future posts, I might detail specific "things you can do" to make a positive envirohuman impact, in the meantime, here's something to get you thinking: http://www.seventhgeneration.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)