So, from my last post following my efforts to track and lower my own ecological footprint, we can clearly see that the earth is doomed and we are all basically going to hell. Just kidding. If I believed that I wouldn't really be wasting any time worrying about it.

But then, why do I worry about it? Why do I spend time writing about it?

*from The WorldWatch Institute; State of the World 2004: Consumption By the Num

Since this is the most subjective part of the whole project, and I have no hopes (nor goal) to make anyone change their ethical beliefs or value system, I will forego any long lectorious writing. Instead, I will just say that I feel a need -no, a responsibility- to pay attention to my own consumption habits. Tracking my ecological footprint is simply a took that I hope will help me to reduce my consumption by setting future goals and accounting for current consumption in relation to those goals.

I have come to feel that it is a responsibility because I know the current trends, and I can't help but ask myself ethical questions. Of course, I don't have a list in my pocket, and the questions change depending on the situation, but here are a few that I have adapted from Radical Simplicity.

• Can the earth support billions of people living at the same level of consumption as I currently do? (we already know that the answer is no.)
• Do my consumption patterns negatively effect other people's (now or in the future) ability to meet their needs?
• Does the money I do spend have a net positive effect on the ability of other people (now or in the future) to meet their needs? Or, does it have a net negative effect?
• Do other species on the earth have a right to exist and meet their needs?
• Do I have an inherent right to use more resources, and deprive others of their right to meet their own basic needs, because of my race, gender, nationality, or social standing?
• Are wars fought over the resources that I consume? Would I be willing to die fighting in those wars myself? Or, would I want those wars fought in my hometown?
• Would I be willing to work in the same conditions, and for the same wages (figuring for the difference in value of local currency) of those who produce the goods I consume?

I'm guessing that the reader already knows how I would answer all of these questions. But how I would answer is really only important for me. It puts the current reality into perspective, as well as keeps me focused. The more I ask myself what I really value and believe, the more I live according to those values and beliefs.

I wonder what questions other people ask themselves?

Posted by bastish at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

*from The WorldWatch Institute; State of the World 2004: Consumption By the Num

Since measuring one's ecological footprint is very much about consumption, a logical place to look for the current state of the world, is the WorldWatch State of the World Report for 2004 which centered on the consumer society. Some brief highlights:

• The global consumer class (users of televisions, telephones, and the Internet) totals some 1.7 billion people —more than a quarter of the world
• Nearly half of global consumers now live in developing countries, including 240 million in China and 120 million in India
• even as per person consumption expands, the absolute number of people also continues to grow—close to 3 billion human beings are likely to be added by mid-century.
• Some 41 million passenger vehicles were produced in 2002, five times as many as in 1950. The global passenger car fleet is growing by about 11 million vehicles annually.
• Auto sales in China alone increased by 60 percent in 2002 and by more than 80 percent in the first half of 2003. By 2015, if growth continues apace, industry analysts expect 150 million cars to be jamming China’s streets—18 million more than were driven on U.S. streets and highways in 1999.
• Consumers across the globe now spend an estimated $35 billion a year on bottled water.
• In 2000, one in five people in the developing world—1.1 billion total—did not have “reasonable access“ to safe drinking water.
• In 1999, some 2.8 billion people—two in every five humans on the planet—lived on less than $2 a day.
• 2.4 billion people worldwide—two out of every five—live without basic sanitation.
• Providing adequate food, clean water, and basic education for the world's poorest could all be achieved for less than people spend annually on makeup, ice cream, and pet food. (come back tommorrow to see this table)

It's clear that population growth is a major problem in terms of the earth's ability to support human society, but often we focus solely on the raw per-head population counts of developing nations. It is helpful to keep in mind a population measurement I learned from Manfred Max-Neef, which, instead of counting one Chinese and one American as two equal people, instead counts each person based on how much of the ecosystems resources they use (similar to ecological footprinting). Max-neef calls this new hypothetical person an "ecoson" (ecological person).

When counting population by ecoson, it becomes clear that the areas which are actually "overpopulated" are not China and India, but rather the developed world, where our consumption far outstrips the earth's ability to sustain. This is not to say that China or India are not also "overpopulated". They are... in the sense that "overpopulated" means that there is a larger population than the ecosystem can support. What too often is forgotten however, is that if we in Japan, US, or Europe actually depended on our local ecosystem to provide the same amount of resources we currently consume, we are way more overpopulated than China and India. We are lucky enough however, to be able to use their resources as well... in a sense, our overpopulation seems to exacerbate the problems of their overpopulation.

That being said, much of what the bullet points above, as well as the WorldWatch book, illustrates is that the population in terms of ecoson is quickly rising in the developing world as well. If we were to equally divide the usable area of the earth among all the people of the earth, we would have to meet our individual needs with 1.9 hectares (4.7 acres) of land. Considering that the current world average is already 2.3 hectares -and growing, and that if everyone on earth consumed as much as the average American we would require four earths, (only a few less earths if we only consumed as much as the average European).

The question that no one can answer -not even the most optimistic scientists and futurists, (well, that's not true... science fiction writers have lots of ideas) is, where will the extra resources come from? Attempts to replicate working ecosystems have only served to illustrate just how complex our world is. Why do I bring this up? Just to point out that there is currently no realistic scenario on the horizon that would allow us to live in space stations (as I often hear people (who read science fiction books watch science fiction movies) say will "probably" happen when faced with the truth of our current over-consumption)

And, if you haven't noticed, everything I have written so far has been pretty human-centric. I haven't even mentioned the needs of other living creatures to get their fair share of the earth's resources. As WorldChanging's Alex Steffen points out in his must-read essay (though I don't agree with it all), Winning the Great Wager

[W]e're already using between 40 and 50% of the world's "net primary productivity." What that means, for those of us whom math makes sleepy, is that humans are using about half of all the life on earth – that about half of all the plants, insects, microbes and mammals alive on the earth are being sucked into the systems that go to feed our needs. Think of every living thing on the planet as a river. We're diverting half of that river to suit our needs, already.

[W]hile we're busy sucking up all that "net primary productivity," there are a whole mess of other critters -- from salmon to tigers to little bacteria and beetles we're never heard of because they remain undiscovered by science -- that can't get what they need. Clearcuts; overgrazed grasslands; eroding farmlands; fishing boats strip-mining the sea; huge toxic plumes in the air and water, radiating out from our cities: our current over-use of nature is driving species extinct all around us.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on filling pages with statistics and facts documenting the unsustainable state of our consumption. I'll stop here though. And just to be clear, I don't think that spouting all these depressing facts and figures does any good to convince anyone, or change anyone's mind who doesn't already believe that our current lifestyle is no sustainable. These figures do, however, help me to keep things in perspective. They are not so much shocking me into reality, as they are acting as grounding points. being surrounded every day by a society that refuses to acknowledge the reality, it is helpful to come back and review these so I don't get swept up in the denial.

Next time, I move on to "awareness" of some possible (not prescribed) moral and ethical reasons that one might want to pay attention to their ecological footprint.

Posted by bastish at 04:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Last time I wrote about my plan to make a plan (resisting the urge to simply jump ahead and start "going green" without one) to follow my ecological footprint. I wrote that the first step of the planning process was the "A" (awareness) of ecological footprinting.

Now this "awareness" naturally means that I understand what ecological footprinting is, but it also means that I should understand my own reason for using this tool. My reason is further based on:

• Awareness of how the ecological system I am a part of works
• Awareness of the current state of that ecological system
• Awareness of my own ethics and values

While I had originally intended to lump these all together into one post, as I began to write it grew, and grew, and grew. To make it less tiresome to read, I will simply break it down into three more "bite-sized" posts.

What is ecological footprinting? ↑menu

This is something I have written about before, and has been covered well by many other sites, so, at the risk of further boring anyone who has made it this far, I will pretty much copy and paste:

The Ecological Footprinting is an accounting process used to quantifiably measure the total area required to produce the food and fiber that a single person, family, or organization consumes, absorb its waste, and provide space for its infrastructure.

Footprinting by itself does not regulate how you live, nor does it pass any moral judgments. It doesn't tell you what you should or should not do, it doesn't tell you if what you are doing is "good" or "bad". It is simply an accounting tool , and as with business accounting, the numbers, in relation to the goals, speak for themselves. By tracking our footprint, we can estimate the environmental impact a population's consumption habits have with regards to:

• Land and water resources used to raise livestock, harvest crops, or mine materials.
• Energy resources needed to manufacture and ship the goods to our door.
• Energy resources required to recycle waste.
• Land and energy resources used to assimilate non-recyclable waste.

How does our ecosystem work? ↑menu

As huge of a topic as this is, my guess is that most people have some basic understanding if only based on simple intuition. Even answering these questions based with my liberal arts background I can see that I have some understanding of at least how the ecosystem does not work.

1. How much earth is there?
2. Are the earth's ecosystem resources infinite?
3. How much of the ecosystem resources do humans use?
4. How much of the ecosystem resources are humans expected to use in the future?
5. How many other species do we share that ecosystem with?
6. What are those species' resource needs?
7. At our current rate of consumption, how much will be left for future generations?

As for how it does work, I'm obviously not qualified to go into details, but I am confident enough to say that, in a broader sense, it all boils down to a few realities based on thermodynamics. While the ethical reasons for following my ecological footprint are certainly not shared by everyone, there is just no way to get around the laws of thermodynamics, no matter who you are.

Someday I may get into a deeper explanation of what I mean by these bullet points, but for now... Basically, what this is supposed to be saying is that what we have here now is what we get -we have to make due with it. New material resources do not spontaneously appear, and all of our energy resources originate from the sun. Likewise, our waste does not spontaneously disappear. Some waste can readily be broken down and re-integrated into the system. This takes an input of energy, which comes from the sun.

Posted by bastish at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If he can do it, why can't I?. That is a general idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while.

Another theme in my thoughts is related to what I do when I find time between volunteer farming, interning, fermenting beans, making tofu, hunting wild boar, collapsing on the kitchen floor, and having cameras snaked down my throat, I try to follow some great sites that highlight hopeful new ideas and technologies that will usher us into the "bright green" future. There are some amazing things going on out there in almost any field you can imagine.

Yesterday's post was documenting my effort to bring these two themes together. While I am not too stubborn to see the benefits of many of these up-and-coming technologies, I don't feel like I am a part of it, after all, I am only reading about them, but not using them. I am also a bit fearful that this may be because too much focus on technology leads us to feel safe and content to just sit and wait for the hydrogen economy so that we don't have to do anything -we don't have to make any sacrifice. On the other hand, if Bill McKibben can go a year following the basic concept of "eat local", why can't I stop reading about these things and concepts that will save the world, and start using/practicing them?

That being said, the goal is not to "try out cool technologies", nor to "see how primitive I can get". The goal (something I have longed to do for years now, is "simply" to lower my ecological footprint. If I can do that by using lots of cool gadgets, great. If, however, it takes a little sacrifice and not eating imported bananas (actually I don't eat bananas anyway), so be it. I suppose that it will constitute a combination of both new technology and old fashioned will-power and thinking before I consume. But I hope that I will at least be able to find out, once and for all, if it is possible for me to live as a responsible member of not only the global society, but also the global ecosystem.

And although this is not intended to be a competition between "bright green" and "radical simplicity", I am sure that I will sometimes have a tendency to frame it as such (sorry about that). For example, yesterday I was looking for alternative energy options that are available, affordable, attractive, fit my lifestyle, and most importantly, will lead to the largest decrease in my overall ecological footprint. As it turns out, there are a lot of great products out there, and even more that are on the horizon, but my tentative conclusion from yesterday is that, in my current situation as a renter, I am probably better off just being more conscious about how much on the grid energy I use -and that, extremely regrettably, none of the technologies currently available seem to fit my particular usage patterns (of course, I have a feeling that if the current fossile fuel / nuclear subsidies were given to renewable instead, there would be no way I can afford to use the grid -I'd be forced to get the amazingly affordable solar panels). I was really looking forward to hanging out a solar panel, but I don't want to have to buy an iPod to make it worth it.

So, getting to the whole "ecological footprint" thing.

Yesterday I did what I usually do, and started without a plan. I just decided I wanted solar panels, and started searching as well as really paying attention to the electric meter above my door. While I encourage people get out of their seat and look at the meter right now, write down the number and then look at it again tomorrow, or in a few hours, I am going to take a step back because, it's time for a plan.

"Finally", I think to myself, "I can use something I learned last year." While the stages of effective planning and acting are not new, and in fact most people follow them unconsciously, last year I learned a nifty little acronym to summarize them. It's helpful for me to keep it in mind because sometimes I'm not such an orderly person and can have a tendency to jump ahead to the juicy "action" part before I have a plan.

Anyway, the nifty acronym I learned last year was simply ABCD.

This ABCD planning method is just a basic framework that we naturally apply to many life decisions, wether we realize it or not. When it comes to getting more specific about what a plan for lowering my ecological footprint actually looks like, I'm lucky that I don't have to make the plan up all by myself from scratch. Jim Merkel has already done a lot of the leg work regarding how make and carry out your plan, and he even published it in his book Radical Simplicity. I am simply following along and applying the process he outlined to my own life. The only difference is that, as I wrote above, I am going to be on the lookout for ways to lower the footprint without being "radically" simple. i.e. using bright green technology to keep as much complexity as I want and is appropriate while still meeting my goals.

And now, I am tired of writing, so consider this part two (yesterday was part one) in my new ecological footprint series. If you want to, feel free to follow along, try it out, rip it apart, tell me I'm a crazy idealistic moron, or tell me that I am not "radically simplistic" enough.

Posted by bastish at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The random goal is to cut our on-grid electricity usage in half... even with winter coming up. (it's part of a bigger goal to see how small of an environmental footprint we can get away with, but I'm taking it one step at a time)

A couple days ago I was curious about how much it would cost to do this with solar panels or micro-wind energy alone, but then my president mentioned a radical new idea... something called cosovo... consovo... ah! "conservation!" that's it! "conservation"!. I started thinking "I'f it's good enough for the pres, it's good enough for me", so I have also added that into my plan.

I have to admit though, that if I can reduce my usage by half by simply conserving it's sure not as fun as buying cool high-tech solar panels. So yes, I will look for places I can conse... dang, forgot the word again... oh yeah, "conserve". But I am still curious to see how realistic it would be to use solar alternatives -keeping in mind of course, that I live in an apartment and can't do any construction on the roof or anything like that. And I'm pretty sure I can't sell anything back in.

To make it worse, some items, such as the ceiling lights and built in electric water heater controller are pretty much restricted to using the in-house energy source. (on a side note, while looking over the light fixtures I discovered that one of them is broken and could easily electrocute a curious bird -gotta remember to cover those exposed areas up). But... the lights that were in here when we moved in are not energy efficient, so I could replace those bulbs at least. -gotta figure out how much that will cost.

Anyway, I would be happy with reducing our on-the-grid usage by half. I made a quick audit to see what kind of things we have sucking up energy on a pretty much regular basis during the day. As I write this, the following items are plugged in:

• my computer
• computer monitor
• radio
• telephone
• fridge

And sometimes:

• microwave (usually unplugged unless it is in use)
• desk lamp (only used for reading when I am not using the computer)
• oscillating fan (on hot days, but probably no more this year)

And coming soon:

• small space heater (though the apartment is south facing and small enough that it doesn't need a heater on sunny days)

I was not sure how much I needed in an average hour during the day, so I checked it out today. One hour's usage with the things in first list: 200 W. I then unplugged the fridge (don't tell Tomoe) for an hour. Still using the computer, monitor, radio and telephone, the new total came to 100 Wh. Sure, I could be off by 50 Wh depending on which angle I look at the dial from, but it gives me a rough idea.

My first stop was Tree Hugger Solar section. Nothing much there that would be any help to me. Most of it was either large scale solar projects, or small, portable, useless-gadget chargers. I hate to be negative about solar products, but most of them are not even enough to run my iBook which uses around 50 W/h. Although it would be useful to charge my camera battery on the road, I am sure it takes more energy just to produce and ship the solar charger to me than I use charging my camera battery once a week. In the end, if the goal is to reduce energy consumption, we're much better off just not buying the iPod.

The most interesting thing I saw there were the 20 Watt Powerfilm and ICP Mobile Solar Panels which can be rolled up for portability. This Folding 30 Watt Solar PV Panel with Case also looked nice. When I first saw them I thought the wattage was too low, but after getting a rough estimate of me pre-conservation hourly electricity usage at home, which may be too low to justify the cost of getting a 150 W/h panel set-up, the small scale trickle charge option has started looking better.

The problem, of course, (besides not being able to run my radio and fridge with it) is that with these I assume I am paying extra for portability, but I don't need portability. The only "small gadget" I have to charge with this is my iBook (and my camera once every two weeks). I would much rather get something that puts out more power -enough to store in batteries that can then be used to run the appliances I use in the house, i.e. the radio, telephone, fridge, and maybe even space heater.

As for cost, of course I would love to quickly make up the entire investment by lower electricity bills, but it wasn't a requisite (again, I rent, so if I get a set-up that produces more juice than I use, I don't think I can really sell it back into the grid). As for how much more I can afford to pay per month, I am not sure yet, but thinking about how much money I waste on stupid shit like beer and the occasional i-tune, I guess I can afford to pay a little more for my kids' future.

And now the moment of truth..... The prices below are general ballpark figures after a couple hours of research. I guess I should add the electricity used by my computer or those couple hours to the cost of the PVs as well. I also have not yet looked into the second hand route for the battery, inverter, and controller.

140 W/h (2x70watt) solar panels (Japanese) small enough to hang out my window. JPY88,000 (US$776)
1 Battery (lasts about 3 years) JPY60,000 ($529)
1 Inverter 30-40,000 ($264 - $352)
1 Controller 20,000 ($176)

Total: 200,000 ($1,764)

So how low can I expect my post-conservation electricity bill to be, considering that I can't move entirely off grid without also buying a lot of new lamps and a solar water heater. Given the after-conservation usage, how long would it take to make up the cost?

Hmmmmmm. I have a little math to do when I get my next monthly usage statement, but it looks like I may have to stop conserving to make solar worth it. Maybe we can start turning the air-conditioner on when I am not home (when I am home I much prefer a fan), as well as use the central heating in the winter -but that will most likely cause me to die of heat stroke. I'm going to have to think about this a little more.

Even if I was not able to settle the apartment compatible solar power option issue, I did find this really awesome invention that blows my mind.

tan through speedos.

And what really looked enticing -if only we had more than an average of 5 m/h wind- is this 400 watt AIR-X Small wind turbine. For only $700 it can be put right up on your roof without a tower or anything.

Posted by bastish at 06:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)