carbon computing

According to a new IBM ad, the world's datacenters produce more carbon in a year than 36 million homes. There are about a 110 million households in the US, for reference. 

IBM's conclusion? The world needs smarter IT, and presumably IBM is ready to deliver those smarts. So much for the hype. Do you wonder how much extra carbon those smarts need?

My solution for the datacenter mess? Take a look at what is stored in those datacenters. Do you think I exaggerate when I estimate that 99% of the information is completely useless? I am willing to bet most of it is duplicated many thousands of times over. Probably 90% of it is never looked at by anyone at any time. A lot of it is printed out over and over again to decorate reports, office memoranda, powerpoint presentations, and the like. Never mind the trees!

Take a look at your own computer. How many email messages are in your inbox? 5,000 plus? How much of your hard disk is filled with junk that you never ever use? Remember the days when 20 megabytes was a lot of storage space? That is not too long ago. Now, anything less than a gigabyte is considered puny.

And who do we have to thank for this? How about Microsoft? Have you noticed that the Office suite has grown several orders of magnitude in the last decade? But why? Does it have more functionality? Is it more useful now? I bet if you are honest with yourself you will admit that it doesn't. You may conclude that it is worse now than 10 years ago, when it did not have all those bells and whistles that you never look at. I certainly think it is worse.

IT is just a micro version of the larger problem. Resources are too cheap so nobody values them. There is too much cheap storage available so what do people do? They get lazy. They keep everything around. They store stuff just in case they might need it one day.

Here is an interesting computing idea. Next time you buy, downsize.

clean energy

Arnold, our governator had some good news for all Californians. Tesla, a company he called "the sexiest car company," will build its second generation electric vehicles in California. The first generation were built in England but the second generation was up for grabs. New Mexico was in the running, and so were other states. But the governator, who bought a Tesla, stepped in with some generous tax breaks. No doubt many are delighted that we are taking a step in the right direction. When it comes to electricity, California is a low carbon emitter. The state produces just 47.24 million metric tons or about as much as Wyoming. The low figure is no doubt due to all the hydro-electric dams in the state. We wrecked one of the most productive salmon fisheries in the nation by doing so, but hey one has to make sacrifices somewhere.

When it comes to transportation and residential use though, we don't do so well. As you might imagine, transportation is really killer. 227.78 million metric tons, the highest in the nation and surpassing Texas at 192.34 by a "healthy" margin. Time we switched to electric cars, don't you think? Although electric is emission free for the car, it is not pollution free as some seem to think. It is also not a shortcut for using less energy.

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a 3,000 pound metal box over a given distance. More so when you also have to lift it, as most of California is far from flat. Barring minor differences in efficiency, it does not matter much how this energy is delivered, be it by coal, gas, hydrogen, electricity, or gravity. More or less the same amount of energy is needed and an equivalent amount of harmful byproducts is produced. In many cases, less carbon, but more toxic heavy metals. Pick your poison the saying goes.

The only way to change the equation is by making the box lighter or not moving it as far or as high. In other words, drive a smaller car and drive less. That is the only solution. Unfortunately, the best way and so far the only way to insure that this will happen is to make energy more expensive.

The same is true for heating and cooling. It takes a certain amount of energy to deliver a quantity of heat or remove it from a building. Both are "needed" a lot in California apparently. You might not think so given our great climate, but reality is different indeed. Many Californians insist on living in normally uninhabitable places. Many also "require" 3,000 plus square foot housing and a wide variety of appliances to deal with inconveniences such as cold shower walls and the like. When it comes to residential carbon emissions, California is second only to New York with 30.27 million metric tons versus 38.02.



When it comes to housing, smaller dwellings would make a huge difference. Better insulation would help too. And not heating or cooling the entire residence when only a few rooms are in use is another idea. While we are at it, abandoning housing that is far away from centers of activity, or located in inhospitable places such as the Coachella valley is also worth considering. When it comes to location, it appears that the subprime crisis will lend a helping hand here.

There is a lot we can do folks, but remember not to deceive yourselves. When it comes to energy use, self-deception is easy to do. Turning off the A/C and opening the car windows may seem like a smart idea, until you consider the increased drag at highway speeds. There are many other examples. Remember the laws of thermodynamics, succinctly summarized as "there is no free lunch!" Don't try to be clever with energy. Substitutions don't work.

a detroit marlboro man

And there it was for all to see, complete with cowboys on horseback and cattle running around in the corral. The latest gas-guzzler truck from Detroit, called the 2009 Dodge Ram. Another indication of how cars are sold. Not because they are practical or useful, but because they evoke images of the Old West, freedom and the range. Ironically enough these cars will do their part in destroying that sensitive ecosystem that was once the American West.

Not to be outdone, Ford had its own blue-jeans clad cowboy leaning on the new F-150, another gas guzzling monster. Take a look at the NY Times image, where you see the dressed for success corporate type explaining the benefits of a red F150, complete with the new "Marlboro man." And just like Marlboro, this one is bad for your lungs too.

To show that it has something for everyone, Detroit also showed the Hummer HX concept car. That one for people who get off on military style transportation. No cattle here, although one can wonder why there wasn't a fake IED to give it a more realistic touch. Ouch ! I can sense we are crossing a line that few want to cross. We prefer to stay on the Rambo side of things, lest too much reality intrudes and douses our buying appetite.

Looking at all these bright images one wonders what car shows are really all about. On the one hand we had a dozen or so, hybrid, fuel-cell, electric and other alternative fuel cars that won't hit the markets until years from now if ever. As if to say, look we do have conservation in mind. We realize how unsustainable our life-style really is. We too are citizens of the world and we want to do our part -as long as the profits roll in that is. For now let's just imagine how things could be.

On the other hand we have gas-guzzlers galore. Oversized, overpowered, "performance" cars to be featured in America's never ending traffic jams. 450 horsepower idling in traffic at 4.5 mph, but sure to impress the girls and the neighbors. And like the Marlboro man, shiny and healthy looking on the outside, but sick and cancerous on the inside.

I challenge the Hollywood crowds and the upper classes to forgo this madness. To buy a small car. To drive less than 10,000 miles a year. To stop flying unless there is an emergency. To go live in a smaller house and turn the lights off at night. It would make so much more sense. And it would do no small part in ensuring we all have a future on this planet.

carbon economy

In 1997, US carbon emissions stood at 1480 metric tons per year. Of that total 480 million tons was caused by transportation alone. Transportation is something we as consumers can easily influence. Our everyday behavior can make a big dent here as was shown by a pronounced dip in emission at the end of the 1970's and early 80's. That is when the first energy crisis hit. During that time gas was expensive and it was sometimes hard to get. And it had a direct impact on our behavior. Carbon emissions dropped by almost 25%. Since 1983, and despite new clean technology, carbon emissions in the US have risen 25%. We are back to square one.

There are three easy things you can do to affect emissions from transportation. One, you can drive less. Two, you can buy locally grown food. Both of these are good for your health too. And they would go a long way to cure the obesity epidemic everyone is talking about.

Three, you can buy American goods. That is the patriotic thing to do.

There are also things you can do that look good but amount to nothing. These are often highlighted in commercials, because they all involve buying new things. And the most visible is to buy an oversized hybrid. If you are doing it to look good and impress the neighbors, go ahead and get that hybrid SUV or hybrid luxury sedan. If you are environmentally conscious, don't bother. You'd be better of buying a small car.

The remaining 1,000 million metric tons are only partly and indirectly under our control. About half is due to industrial emissions and it will probably take tough legislation to change things here. That means don't hold your breath. Much of the industrial output goes to other countries, especially developing nations that have a nearly endless appetite for durable goods. But to pay for those goods they need hard currency and that they get through exporting cheap consumer items that we eagerly pick up. Every Chinese gadget and toy you buy directly supports this machine. But it is hard to resist cheap shiny trinkets.

The final 520 million metric tons are split between residential at 300 million, and commercial at 220. Residential is theoretically easy to influence. In practice though it is deeply imbedded in habits and changing habits is a tough thing to do. That is what New Year's resolutions are all about and we all know what that means.

Additionally, we have also cast our habits in stone, or at least in buildings that we are stuck with for a life-time. These buildings, or houses are by all measures over-sized and wasteful, but unlike vehicles, they are much harder to change out. Houses last a long time.

So we need to resort to the following. Lower the thermostats. Turn off the lights and appliances when you don't use them. Unplug those that have stand-by modes. Don't buy new items with stand-by modes. PG&E in California is running a campaign to get rid off stand-by modes. It is a smart idea.

Try to live without battery operated gadgets. You really do not need a GPS to drive around your neighborhood, and the few times you go somewhere else, take a map. You won't have to listen to that annoying voice either.

Limit the use of unnecessary items such as hair dryers, space heaters, and especially clothes dryers. Use solar energy or -in winter- hang your clothes in a heated garage, basement or utility room. Your clothes will look better and last longer too. This is the cheapest form of solar energy. No upfront costs other than a laundry line, and immediate substantial payback. This could save you hundreds of dollars each year.

If you still think we humans are too puny to affect the global environment, consider this. Of the 1,480 million metric tons of CO2 we produce each and every year, only about 1/3 can be reabsorbed by ALL the forests in the US. The remaining 2/3's enter the atmosphere and stay there. You can say we rely on forests elsewhere to capture the excess. But so does everyone else. And the result is obvious. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily in the last 50 years. It is time to do something about it before it is too late.