Presidential Candidates: Put Your Energy Where Your Mouth Is

Green, as we all know, is the latest buzz word in every corner of the country. "Green" alternative energy supplies, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric, are talked about on a daily basis by laypeople on the street and congresspeople in Washington. Indeed, this topic is quite popular with John McCain and Barack Obama in their respective presidential campaigns.

Voters want to know what plans and ideas these candidates have about staving off our addiction to oil, due to its effects on climate change as well as its effects on our pocketbooks, among other reasons. And these candidates regularly bandy about how they would change things by investing in alternative energy sources, and so forth.

What I want to see happen is a candidate say-- "Okay-- I'm going to send a message to America and the world. When I get in the White House, I will turn it into a 'Green House' by installing solar panels on the roof, ensuring that the lighting fixtures use CFL bulbs, and make any other feasible retrofits to make this the most efficient building it can be."

Personally I can't think of a better way to make a point and encourage fellow Americans to do something about the dire situation we are in than by leading by example.

Unfortunately, leading by example is not always a hallmark of politicians. Let's see if either one of them goes for this alternative route...

More Green = Less Green?

I've long been a supporter of the so-called green movement and I'm encouraged to see it succeeding in everyday life, from people determined to buying cars with better gas mileage to shoppers using fewer disposable bags to homeowners replacing their incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights.

The increase in these types of actions, to me, is all great news. It means we're conserving our resources, helping to make our world more sustainable, and also in many cases saving money.

Which is where I'm getting increasingly curious as to whether or not the green movement is causing at least part of the readjustment in the stock markets.

Considering the fact that Americans are driving less year over year and that cars are getting more efficient, it should help to cut back on money spent on gasoline. Additionally, if people are using reusable bags to carry their groceries, that's another huge source of petroleum that is not wasted. Or having people use more energy efficient light bulbs means saving money on electric bills. All of these initiatives and others inevitably will result in less money for the oil, electric, and industrial companies. And as these initiatives increase across the country and worldwide, it will have a major impact on corporate bottom lines... read: less profit.

So perhaps part of the sell-off on Wall Street and other stock markets around the world is a result of this fundamental change in society of being more green. If less money is being wasted on oil, electricity, etc. then it means more money to spend elsewhere, but it would also mean less money for those industries and fewer jobs. The net result could end up in people saving more money, or it could result in deflation which could shake up the entire system. Perhaps it will be the starting point of taking wasted money away from companies and putting it back in consumers' pockets, which means a fundamental change in the way we spend money in the future.

I'm clearly not an economist, just a rational observer of what's going on and I would be curious to learn more about the impact of green practices on the bottom line regarding corporate greenbacks. Eventually we'll start to see long term trends, but in the meantime we will have to do our best to adjust to the changes.

More Trashing of the Environment?

Sometimes I just don't get it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" apparently doesn't ring true with certain national leaders any more.

The Endangered Species Act has helped bring back animals from the brink of extinction and all of the sudden a certain administration wants to go and throw it out the window. Check out this article for more information.

While some of the arguments in the article make some sense, I really just have no trust or faith in the current administration to do virtually anything that benefits the public, and I don't see how changing the Endangered Species Act really helps us in general. Sure, businesses and industries might benefit, as is stated in this quote in the article:

In recent years... some federal agencies and private developers have complained that the process (of conducting reviews before construction projects) results in delays and increased construction costs

Sorry guys about the delays, but I think that's inevitable in the construction world regardless of animals, but let's not forget the long term... I hope the people behind this law change understand the consequences on their actions on future generations. I truly fear for what our kids and grandkids will encounter in years to come and hope that we can be better stewards of this world. On the one hand I feel as though we've made progress with the attention on all things "green", but on the other hand I wonder if we're really in it full throttle when I read news like this.

Now let's see what else we can break...

There is Hope Yet for Green Buildings

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday covered the "green" changes being made by the powers that be at The Friends Center in Center City Philly. The building itself is a 34-year-old office building for Quakers and is undergoing significant renovations to the tune of $12.5 million. Thankfully, they have decided to take this project on with an eye on saving the environment. The nuts and bolts of this project include:

• A vegetated roof that covers 8,000 square feet. By laying down topsoil and planting sedum, the roof will insulate the building, eliminate about 90% of the building's rain runoff, last 3 times as long as a new roof would, and provide new CO2-catching plants for the environment
• Photovoltaic cells, which will convert the sun's energy into electricity, up to 2 percent of the building's usage, with the potential for more to be added in the future.
  
• Rainwater recycling, whereby rainwater will collect in tanks for storage and used to flush toilets, virtually eliminating the potable water consumption of the occupants.
• High performance glass windows, which will admit more sunlight and minimize solar heat, helping to reduce energy consumption by 4 percent
• and more...

This is the kind of vision, planning, and progressive thinking that Philadelphia, and the world, really needs. We can no longer be users and abusers of the environment if we want to stick it out on this planet for a few more centuries; instead we must follow the lead of groups like this one and start conserving. Thanks, Friends, for leading the way!

Organic Book, How to Be A

Just got back from Barnes & Noble. Really should go there more often because I love books, but I digress.

Saw an enticing new book about living an organic lifestyle. Forgot the name and couldn't find it on Amazon.com because there are so many other books on the subject, but if I come across it again, I'll update this blog accordingly. But I digress.

The book caught my eye because it was colorful and solid, a coffee table book with actual interesting information like how to grow an apple tree and cooking organic meals. Bold pictures, engaging topics.

I turned to the back cover to check the price. $25. And what do I see under the price, in large capital letters?

MADE IN CHINA

So you're telling me that a beautifully printed book with a plethora of tid-bits on how to live an organic lifestyle (presumably to make life better for the reader, and subsequently live off the earth more efficiently), but you're going to have the book printed in China?

Ponder this for a moment.

Here's a brief background of what probably went into the production of this book:

1. Trees chopped in either USA, Canada, or Brazil, most likely, since China is rapidly becoming scarce on natural resources like, say, trees.
   
2. Chopped trees shipped to China for processing to turn into paper.
3. Ink-- well, quite frankly I don't know where ink comes from, but you can fill in the blanks about where it may have originated.
4. Books printed in China, packaged in materials shipped from USA.
   
5. Books shipped back to USA for selling.

Think about the "un-organic" nature of this process. And think about the organic nature of the book's contents. It's easy to say you're "green" or "organic" or "environmentally sound", but apparently not so easy to perfect in real life.

Just a suggestion... if you're going to print a book about being organic, don't digress. Go all the way and make it an organic book too.