fuel consumption

BP, a company that would like to be known as Beyond Petroleum, published its statistical review of world energy recently. According to the WSJ, the BP report has the best data of any energy company report. You can download the report and the statistics from BP's website. If anything, the report makes it clear that we are a long way from being "beyond" petroleum. So much for advertising.

But there is some good news. Fuel consumption in the US in 2008 declined compared to 2007. Which goes to show you that there is nothing better for the environment than a good recession. US fuel consumption in million tonnes of oil equivalent declined from 2,359.6 to 2,299.0. It is not a stunning decline, but it is a start, you could say.

South and Central America did not "participate" in this decline and their consumption rose from 563.5 to 579.6. Note that the US alone uses almost 4 times as much fuel as all of Central and South America combined.

Europe and Eurasia also saw a small rise in consumption from 2,956.9 to 2,964.6. So did the Middle East, going from 577.6 to 613.5. Africa's consumption rose from 341 to 356, and Asia-Pacific went from 3,816 to 3,981.9. The latter gain was almost exclusively due to increased fuel use in China. Unfortunately, most of China's energy use is from coal. No wonder the country has now surpassed the US as the prime greenhouse gas producer.

Along with the US, the UK, Ireland, and Australia saw declines.

BP did mention that reserves are more or less stable (no whopping new discoveries), but it is happy to announce that we will have oil, gas and coal for decades to come. Pollution and global warming will get to us before we can run out of carbo-combustibles.

Happy breathing!

let's get real, wall street journal style

The WSJ has another opinion piece regarding renewable energy. Another half a page of arguments we have heard many times before. How solar and wind make up only a very small amount of our energy production. How increasing that percentage to a significant level will be extremely difficult and take a long time. How we still won't have a solution for the transport sector, a key energy hog. How it won't matter at all whether we develop solar or wind, so why bother, etc. etc. Same old, same old.

There is however, one good point all these WSJ people make. It is a point that is often overlooked by those who want to convert to renewable energy. That point is simply this: we use an outrageous amount of energy and there is currently no good way to supply such an enormous amount from alternative sources. Nor should we try to. What we need to do is go on an energy diet.

The energy hogs have a nice way of covering up the problem. They either talk about the energy America "needs" or the energy America "wants." Both of these imply that the problem is fixed and that Americans cannot survive without that vital energy. They imply this is how much we need to produce to stay alive. That is also the basic flaw in all the energy hog arguments. 

We know it is flawed because there have been times -now is one of them- when people use less energy and they are just fine. We also know it is false because it is blatantly obvious that over half of our energy is wasted. Wasted as in used to no benefit to anyone, other than perhaps the person selling it.

According to today's piece we "want" 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. The equivalent part is because this calculation converts all energy sources to their caloric equivalent in oil. 47.4 million barrels is roughly 1/6 of a barrel for every man, woman or child in this country, every single day.

However, what America "needs" or "wants" is very much driven by the price of energy. If prices are high, we suddenly can do with a lot less, as has been shown over and over again. We don't need to heat and cool entire mega-mansions, we don't need to drive six and eight cylinder cars, we don't need a power tool for every simple manipulation we perform, we don't need five TV's, three stereos, etc.

It is no exaggeration to say that we waste at least half of the oil we burn. Waste as in burning it to no benefit in traffic jams, waiting in parking lots, "warming the engine," etc. Waste as in keeping the entire house warm or cool for hours on end, when nobody is there. Waste as in leaving the lights on, or having three TVs going that nobody watches. To say nothing of all the "mobile" devices that are plugged in, or all the "important" items that are on constant standby, ready to turn on in an emergency. Can't miss that show!

Given that we apparently "need" 19 million barrels of oil a day, we could easily do with about 9.5. Natural gas is our second source and here we use an equivalent of 12 million barrels. That can easily be halved too. Coal is another 11.5 that can be cut in half. Scrap 20-22 million barrels in pure waste.

We are now down to about 25 million barrels and we haven't even considered driving a sensible small car, using public transportation, walking instead of driving. Doing away with monster fridges to cool gallons of sodas. Heating the entire house when we only use one room.

The point being, we are focused on the wrong thing. We need not replace 5 or 10% of our energy "needs" with renewables by some target date. We need to use less. It is something we can start right now. No investment is needed, no grand plan. The benefits are tangible and the gains are immediate. We will spend less money, get more exercise, be healthier, and feel better. We will reduce obesity, heart disease, and cancer rates in one fell swoop.

Here is our real energy plan for America: use less, consume less. That is change you can believe in.

water use in 2008

In 2008, we averaged less than 40 gallons per day or just under 10 gallons per person per day. I think it is probably the lowest water usage in the whole utility district. We have a 3,200 sq ft home with four people in it and a small garden, where we grow vegetables. It rains very little in California, and not at all during the summer.

In reality we have a two season climate. In winter it rains -sometimes quite hard- and in summer it is dry. In winter we average close to 20 gallons for the entire household, while in summer we use slightly more than 45 a day. The summer number is higher due to our small vegetable garden and because we do not have access to clean rain water for washing.

How do we do it? Simple, but not exactly elegant. We use grey water for everything except cooking and (brief) showers. It works. It isn't exactly what people living in the 21 st century have in mind, but it isn't entirely ominous either. We also collect rainwater (automatically) using rain barrels. One average storm can yield as much as 300 gallons of water, and we aren't even collecting all of it.

We do all that with what is probably one of the most water-wasteful washing machines in the country. It gobbles up almost 45 gallons to do a load. It is an old top loader. I know it uses as much because I collect the grey water and I need a full size rain barrel to do it. The water looks pretty grey so I guess it is appropriately called grey water. One can use it to flush toilets. It is a bit primitive and not something most Americans could live with but it works quite well.

Above all, what our experience shows is that one can easily live a comfortable life-style using very little water and very little energy. There is no need to ditch modern amenities to do so. If one is aversive towards using buckets to flush the toilet, then it would be rather easy to install an automated system to fill the tank with either rain water or grey water. The first is straightforward and our rain water is very high quality (esp. after the first couple of storms clean the roof) so it could go in as is. The grey water from the washer would probably require a filter of some sort to get rid of particulate matter. I eventually plan to install such a system but for now, things work fine as is.

actual energy use in 2008

Here are some real numbers for a 3,200 sq foot home in the San Francisco Bay Area. With four real people using real appliances, lights, etc. No fancy light bulbs (i.e. CFL's) here. No solar or wind power (it is too expensive, even with the rebate), and a truly modern life-style that includes TV, home theater, several computers and printers, iPods, broadband, microwave, 20 cu inch fridge-freezer, dishwasher, treadmill, etc, etc. 

In short, you could not tell our house apart from that of the neighbors (except that we don't light it up like a Christmas tree all night long). We don't believe in illuminating the universe. We leave that to the sun and the stars.

No shortcuts, except that we turn everything off when we don't use it. It is not hard to do. Really!

Granted, our climate is mild, but mostly we don't heat (or cool) unless we have to and then only where we have to.

Total electricity use for the year: 2,589 KwH or about 216 KwH per month. Average daily use: 7.15. These are actual numbers from my electric bill ! No fudging.

Total gas use (house is gas heated): 195 Therms or 0.53 Therms per day.

Energy bill for the year (2008): $584 for gas AND electricity, 12 months.

How are you doing?

a billion dollars later

We are in the home stretch. After raising over a billion dollars -who said there is a financial crisis?- voters will finally cast their ballots. Actually, many already have, so really what November 4 means is that we will finally know who they voted for. But that too we already know, so where is the news? There are more news-men (and women) than news.

It appears Obama will win this "historic" election. What makes it historic is surely the amount of money spent on it. That is $1 billion change you can believe in. Not small change either. As for the other change, we'll wait and see but don't hold your breath. What seems most likely is a lot of quiet backtracking and a ton of well worded and aptly delivered excuses. Why?

Because fundamentally people don't change. What we Americans really want is to keep living it up forever and then some. We want to spend more, burn more gas, buy more items, consume more. What we really want is (much) more of the same. The change has been all around us. The world has changed. The excesses of the past have come back to haunt us. The houses, trucks, boats, vacations, etc. that we could not afford. Now we want to change it all back.

Unfortunately, it is time to pay the piper. Not because of eight years of lack of oversight or trickle down, or anything like it. It is a quarter century or more of living beyond our means that is coming to get us. Twenty five plus years of the "American dream." Consumption that is about to consume us.

Let us go back to $1 gas, back to V8 trucks with leather seats and cup holders,  back to McMansions, back to cruises and other wild vacations. Back to the times of plenty. If only George Bush hadn't destroyed all our fun. But did he? For all the blame and and the low poll numbers, George W. did very little. Even his pal Cheney did very little other than make his friends tons of money, shoot his hunting buddies, drink too much, and fuel his ambitions of Stalin-like world domination. But we knew Stalin, and you Mr. Cheney are no Stalin!

The magic has not ended. Now, Mr. Obama will levy a carbon tax without raising gas prices, get universal health care without raising taxes, fix education so everyone can go to Harvard, give the middle class a break paid for by the very rich -who will probably abscond to the tax havens in the Caribbean or Bermuda- all while fighting what is probably a decade long depression, a quagmire in the Middle East, and  a  few many-trillion-dollar deficits. 

Not that McCain would do any better. He might have been more fun to watch, though. Sadly, what we really should have done is save that billion dollars for the many rainy days ahead.

reducing greenhouse gases

A statistical report by McKinsey & Co has confirmed what I have been saying on this blog all along: we the American people are the key to a reduction in greenhouse gases. Not big business, not the government, not the Chinese or the Indians, but we, meaning you and I. 

It is not the government and so the election won't matter one bit here. Neither Obama nor McCain, nor anyone else for that matter will solve this crisis. Only you and I. We will need to learn to get by with LESS. We need to consume less, we need to spend less, we need to buy less, we need to drive less. We need to fly less.

Passenger cars are responsible for 17% of all greenhouse gas emissions. More than half of that is a complete and utter waste of resources. People drive too much, too often and in cars that are too heavy and too big for their needs. Most people would do just fine driving a small four cylinder car and cutting their driving in half. There is no reason for the monster trucks -some are called SUV's because it sounds better- that Americans like to drive. No use for off-road capabilities, or towing capacity, or the hundreds of electrical gadgets that are packed into those cars.

Two percent is in airline travel. Once again, most of that could easily be avoided. Few of us really need to fly across the country all the time. 

Residential buildings and appliances are responsible for another 17%. Here again, waste is everywhere. Homes are way too big, too far away from everything, most are free-standing, and nearly all are constantly either heated or cooled ten or more degrees away from the ambient temperature. These homes are packed to the gills with stuff, most of it useless filler, and much of it energy dependent and plugged-in 24/7. 

You don't need to replace your light bulbs. You need to turn them off. You don't need a more efficient dryer. You need to hang your laundry outside.

Another 28% is under our indirect control. It includes such items as sea transportation, agriculture livestock, landfill emissions, commercial vehicles, and commercial buildings and appliances. 

Summing it all up, 64% of all greenhouse gas emissions are under our control. That is nearly 2/3's of all greenhouse gas emissions.

And here are some more interesting numbers:

We Americans make up 5% of the world's population but we burn 23% of the world's oil. We directly or indirectly control 64% of our greenhouse gas production, whereas the rest of the world only averages about 43%. That difference illustrates how wasteful we really are. Not only do we use more per capita, more of our uses are related to our personal "comfort" (read gross waste) than in other countries.

Face it, we are fat and filthy.

solar logic?

Eco-writer Allison Arieff wanted solar panels. According to her latest report in Sunset magazine she became so desperate she finally went to a solar party to find out all about it. Then imagine her disappointment when the solar expert told her she did not consume enough electricity to make it worthwhile. She writes: "We were stunned." And more, she says: "I think we even asked how we might use more electricity to validate our moving forward as planned."

I think we are missing the big picture here. People are so brainwashed into consuming that they think nothing of writing stupid stuff like that. Why would an eco-conscious person want to use more electricity? Why would they want solar panels if they don't need them? To save the planet?

What about the cost of producing the panels? The materials and labor and carbon that goes into them? Do people ever think? What about the older but perfectly fine devices that they will throw out to replace with new "solar"-compatible gadgets?

Allison is not to be deterred. She is thinking she will throw out her good gas water heater and replace it so she can use solar water heating. She also says she is confident they will use solar for electricity, hot water, or both. Gotta have that latest gadget folks! 

Here my dear friends is one reason why I am so pessimistic about our ability to solve the big problems. People just don't get it. They don't understand that the issue is one of consumption, of using too much, of throwing away good items and replacing them needlessly with other items.

Dear Allison, forget about your solar dreams. They are just another form of the consumerism that is destroying our environment. Do not throw out your good water heater. Do not buy new things unless you need them. Do not use more electricity so you can be "green."

No extra consumption is green. By definition. To be green you need to consume LESS. You need to keep using what you have and NOT buy new stuff.

energy

There is a great op-ed piece in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman. It appears Mr. Friedman is on an environmental tour of the planet. Yesterday he visited Greenland and then Denmark. He reports that Denmark is now 100% energy independent thanks to its energy policy. He also has this great quote from the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Mr Rasmussen said:" I have observed that in all countries, including America, people are complaining about how prices of gasoline are going up. The cure is not to reduce the price, but on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil."  

Of course I am pleased to hear that there are other people in the world who think like me. But what pleases me even more is that such policies have been implemented and that they have led to great successes. Unemployment in Denmark is extremely low. The Danes are leaders in renewable energy. They are also one of the happiest, if not the happiest people on earth according to other surveys.

I am sure many will shrug this off. They will say, Oh yes, those Europeans! Look at how much better our standard of living is. How much bigger our cars and our homes! And how many more toys we have! Can you hear the addicts rant? 

America's addiction to oil is nothing short of pathetic. If only we used the oil to accomplish something good. Something innovative or beneficial. Unfortunately that is not the case. We mostly waste it. We waste it outright by leaving appliances on all the time, by heating and cooling enormous houses, by watering lawns, by idling cars and sitting in traffic, etc. We waste it by driving everywhere because we are too lazy to walk or bike. And we waste more of it because we need an eight cylinder SUV to drive ourselves to work every day, or drive the kids to school.

All that waste does not even accomplish the simplest of things, i.e. to make us happy or healthy. Americans are the world leaders in obesity. We are the top consumers of "ethical" drugs and medical devices. Half the country is on anti-depressants. Medicine has become the new frontier in consumption. We now consider medicine (call it "health care" just to make a point) to part an integral part of life. Plastic surgery and related, mostly skin-enhancing procedures, are now necessary to make us feel better. Nose jobs anyone? Just another form of consumption to fill our never-ending "needs" in the pursuit of ever-elusive happiness.

Wake up America. Turn off that TV. It is controlling you. It is constantly reminding you to consume more. It is making you feel inadequate, insecure, and in need of more items. It is promising you happiness, respect, wealth, status, and power if only you buy that new cross-over, or that huge lawn mower, or get that extra credit card, or eat that new sandwich. It is bombarding you with advertising 24/7. And that is not something a human brain can handle. Turn it off and go for a bike ride. You will be healthier and happier too.

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.

the ideal solution

Most people are aware of climate change and most are smart enough to agree with the prevailing scientific view that humans are causing global warming. Those that don't, either don't get it, or more often perhaps, don't want to get it. They prefer to be left alone and continue doing the things they have always done and more. Those that do seem to care and argue against, are often misguided but sometimes it appears the issues are simply too complex for them to understand. Or perhaps they think that by endlessly repeating the same argument, it will somehow become reality.

Regardless of whether you "buy into" global warming, it is clear enough to those willing to look that we are faced with a myriad of problems that all find their roots in having too many humans wasting too much stuff. We are running out of fish, our only way to produce enough meat is unsustainable, the forests are disappearing, the coral reefs are turning to wastelands, and everywhere you look pollution is rampant, etc. etc. The list is endless and what is more important, these items are perhaps easier to understand than climate science. You may not buy that the world is getting warmer, but you can certainly see that it is getting hopelessly polluted and that our natural resources are being depleted at breakneck speeds.

But enough already, let's assume you are sensible enough to see the obvious. The question is how to fix it? It appears that the ideal solution is also the least palatable one. Many people who do understand the seriousness of our predicament, will nonetheless object to the only proven solution. That solution is also the most elegant of all and it requires no technology breakthroughs, or alternative energy, or what have you. Simply make things more expensive. Raise prices. The only way to make humans appreciate the value of resources is to make it so they can ill afford to use them. Only then will they modify their behavior and act sensibly. It appears we aren't smart enough to stop ourselves. We are like addicts who cannot refuse another drink, no matter how bad it will be for our health. And worse, even if we tried to abstain and not touch the drink, as soon as someone else did, we'd be all over them with envy and all hell would break lose.

Rising prices have several beneficial effects. Not only do they reduce consumption, they also have a negative effect on population growth. And right now, that is very important. We are near the limit of what the planet can sustain. Especially if we all live or want to live the way Americans do. If that is the goal, it would probably be better if we reduced the size of the world population by a good 30-40%. If we could somehow all agree to live sensibly, we could perhaps keep the total near 6 or so billion, but not too much more. That scenario is however extremely unlikely.

Oh, and one last thing. If we don't have the stomach to make the necessary changes, they will be made for us. That, my friends is going to start happening soon enough for most of us to notice.

the cost of change

Why is it so difficult to start saving energy? It turns out there are several reasons, ranging from laziness, poor habits to infrastructure. For example, when you live in suburbia, you almost certainly have to drive most places. You can buy a fuel efficient car, and try to limit trips by doubling up chores or carpooling with others, but there are clearly limits to what you can achieve. If you have a big house and only one heater/airconditioner you may be stuck having to heat or cool the entire house, regardless of whether you actually "use" the whole house.

There are remedies to these situations but all are expensive and unlikely to have a big return on investment. And if things don't save you money, you probably won't be motivated to do something about it. Furthermore, it isn't just about saving money, what counts is how much money you save relative to what you have or are willing to spend. Unless the items "register" you are unlikely to take action. Case in point is gasoline. It registers because you are faced with it on a regular basis. You may spend thousands of dollars on gas and that may cause you to abandon your beloved SUV. However, when you bought the monster, you probably did not worry too much about the extra $5,000 in useless options that the car dealer talked you into.

The same is true for gimmicks like $2.99 gas. If people offered you a $2,000 rebate you may not act, but buying gas cheaply certainly rings a bell. Even though the rebate has much more value. And that brings us to psychology. Psychology and habits. Habits are perhaps the most difficult of all to change. Once a person is used to doing things a certain way, they put up enormous barriers to change. Change may become frightening to the point of being unimaginable. Yet we all have energy wasting habits. Unless you spent the last 10 years of your life in a cave, chances are you picked up a great many energy wasting and pollution producing habits. If you watched TV on a regular basis and were thus subjected to thousands of ads, chances are most of your habits are insanely wasteful. Because ads are there to make you consume. And the more you consume the more you waste. Consumption is waste.

How about cutting back on your spending? Spending money for the sake of spending is not smart and it isn't patriotic either, no matter what the President thinks. It also isn't fun. People just talked you into believing it is fun. How can it be fun to throw away your money and make others rich? It is probably fun for them to watch you be so foolish. Remember that over 90% of the items that American buy end up in the trash within 6 months. Clearly these items were not all that exciting or valuable to begin with.

How about getting rid of your lawn and plant vegetables? Every time food prices rise and recession looms, more people plant vegetables. But when the tide turns, they quickly remove the "ugly" plants and replace them with a lush green lawn. They also ditch their fuel efficient cars and replace them with a "fun" gas-guzzler. What is so beautiful about a lawn or so fun about a truck with leather seats? Are you just trying to impress your friends and neighbors? Guess what, rather than be impressed they quickly set out to outdo you. And then you can counter and so on, until you are both broke.

How about ditching bottled water and sodas? Your tap water is better quality and the sodas do nothing more than make you fat. How about turning off your lights? There is a suburban myth that keeping your lights on deters crime. Give me a break. Most break-ins happen in the morning when people are out at work and when the presence of another van or truck in the neighborhood is expected.

There is so much you can do that will make a very significant difference to humanity. This is true democracy in action. You need not follow the lead of the advertisers. Chart your own path. A path that is in harmony with the environment you live in.

blue man show

If you've been following the news lately you surely witnessed the latest blue man show. No, this one is not on a Las Vegas stage, but it is just as unreal. Light blue clad Chinese "security" people forming a protective cocoon around the Olympic Torch. Despite the baby blue outfit these "pros" are not to be messed with. Some popular websites labeled them "thugs," and other highly descriptive but rather unsympathetic terms were used. Maybe the Chinese government is trying to show the world how it handles dissidents? After Tibet, who is next ?

This latest fiasco shows once again what the "Olympic spirit" is all about. Now that the epic cold war struggle is over, the torch has -quite literally- been passed to China. And the Chinese are trying to show the world how important they really are. One can only hope that people take notice. With all the undue attention given to al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations, it is easy to forget where the real threat lies. And this one won't be as easy to deal with. China is the one nation that can mobilize millions and it won shy away from a few thousand casualties here and there.

Politicians would do well to forget about phony wars, that generally achieve nothing other than wasting inordinate amounts of money. Phony wars like the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on terror, etc. These are nothing but bottomless pits for spending. And all have a negative return on investment. Neither drugs, nor cancer, nor terrorists will ever go away. Furthermore, these are not important threats in the overall scheme of things.

We should pay attention to what really matters. In our world of limited resources, China is adding "another France" every year to its unquenchable thirst for energy. Growth of such magnitude will not come to rest easily. Sooner or later something will have to give. And since all wars are about resources, this is a war in the making. So rather than spend money to beef up another dictatorship in return for some cheap trinkets, we should rein in those greedy "investors" and have them focus on our own economy.

Unfortunately that economy is turning more into a giant fluff ball with every passing day. Every time we ship a real job abroad to save a few pennies, we replace it with another fluff ball position. While that position may pay better over the short run, and economists can happily check the added value box, it won't be so good once the big bubble bursts. Like those McMansions in the desert, we won't have much use for another life-style coach when trouble strikes. Given how close to the edge we are living that trouble cannot be too far off either.

lacking fortitude

California lawmakers caved when it came to zero emission cars. Economics comes first they say. The auto-makers say it cannot be done. And we are too wimpy to make sure it does. Why not raise gasoline prices to $5 a gallon? Why not slap a pollution tax on those SUV's? That will create some incentive. Experience shows that car makers will quickly oblige and build whatever car makes the most sense.

The core of the problem is consumers of course. They are full of green talk but won't do the obvious. They want to be green but still drive around like maniacs. They want to be green but fly around the planet. They also want their big houses heated and cooled properly. And their green lawns kept disneyland clean.

The mantra is always the same. We need to preserve jobs. Even if those jobs and that economy are digging our grave. And there is more bad news. The EPA flinched too. It postponed rulings on carbon dioxide for another year. Meanwhile voters have other concerns. The economy once again. In an election year. Politicians are falling all over themselves to lower gas prices and send checks to everyone so consumption can be at a fever pitch. All the while they talk about global warming and the environment. They criticize the war in Iraq, but where will the oil come from my friends ?

That same economy caused everyone to overspend wildly and to consume like there was no tomorrow. Taking out mortgages and home equity loans with futures as collateral. Until those futures turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Now these poor Americans are hurting and they are afraid. Rather than acknowledging their mistakes and changing their self-destructive habits, they turn to the government for handouts. Encouraged by politicians and business folks alike.

Luckily, there are handouts a-plenty. Only these go to the super rich first. Are you surprised ? We always help those who need it least -or don't need it at all, first. Those rich guys made bigger mistakes so they need more help. Common sense I would say. Wouldn't you?

credit card economy

As the credit crunch continues, more people will start realizing that credit is not a good idea. Spending money you don't have is not a sustainable strategy. Yet our economy is dependent on it. It wants us to consume and consume in ever greater measure all the time. To do so, most of us need to borrow money. Even a five year old knows this cannot continue forever. But the financial gurus in Wall Street seem think it does. They call it economic growth. The better word is senseless resource destruction.

It is senseless not because humans need to live like monks. It is perfectly alright to have some fun and live well. What makes our economy senseless is that the consumption we advocate does not do anyone any good. It is wasteful. It throws away perfectly good materials to nobody's benefit -other than those who sell it and get perversely rich. Our economy is a huge wealth shifting machine. One that drains many to enrich a few. And it does so by relying on a form of brainwashing called advertising. Advertising preys on human weakness.

Advertising tells you it is OK to spend money you don't have to buy things you don't need. Life takes Visa. And with visa you can buy all the silly stuff you want. You can buy cars not for transportation, but to impress your friends and neighbors. You can ditch the car in a few years not because the car stopped working but because it went out of fashion. It is necessary to get a new car if one wants to continue to impress. You need another car. A bigger car. One that uses more gas.

The more wasteful and the less practical a car is, the better. We want it big, bulky, and ostentatious. And the same applies to everything else we buy. Big cars, big houses, big bodies. All of it driven by continuous advertising that preys on our weaknesses. If you think you are immune to advertising, dream on. Every single one of us is a victim here and there is only one escape. Turn it off. Remember tune in ? Best here is to tune out. Don't listen to it, don't watch it, avoid it at all costs. Even if it means missing your favorite show.

Unfortunately, "ethical" businesses -that is something they like to call themselves-, have become nothing more than drug pushers. President Bush had it right. We are addicted to oil and to the life-style that oil brings. Oil is our drug and like any good junkie we need ever more of it just to feel happy. We cannot possibly imagine life without it. Can you imagine ? The horror.

Much like a drug oil has distorted our perception of reality. Because of oil we think it is OK to live in the desert. Or to commute 100 miles a day. We think properties in the desert are valuable and desirable. In the 60s people often told a story about LSD users who jumped out of high windows because they thought they could fly. The story was picked up by the media and quite a few movies. The story was not real. It was meant as a warning: don't use LSD because you will be deluded and kill yourself. Think about that next time you admire that palatial estate in the desert. Green lawns, swimming pools, fountains, it is one big mirage. And it is as unreal as the notion that you can fly.

True you won't crash within seconds. But crash you will. Because properties in the desert have no value. And so it is with most of the stuff you buy and spend your hard earned cash on. It is all "air." Thin air. And we are all bloated because of it. One day that bubble will burst. Better get out of the way.

peak oil

A movement is underway of people who think we have reached or are about to reach the maximum amount of oil production on the planet. What happens next is anybody's guess but nearly all scenarios are bad with severe disruptions in the economy, everyday life, and even survival. Peak oil is based on a theory by M. King Hubbert that dates back to 1956. Hubbert correctly predicted peak oil production for the US. That event happened in the 1970s.

Peak oil has many adherents from all stripes of life. That includes individuals who hold key positions in the oil industry. Nearly all agree that we have either reached peak oil or that it will happen within the next 20 years. Since successful mitigation requires a minimum of 20 years that means we are in big trouble. Even a 10 year head start on the peak would not give us enough time to adjust to declining production without major hiccups.

There are also those who believe peak oil is not going to happen in this century and maybe never. They are the optimists and include our friends at CERA, the research outfit previously mentioned in this blog. The optimists point at the past predictions of peak oil that turned out to be false. As early as 1920, the US Geological Survey sounded a warning that grossly underestimated the amount of oil left. They estimated it at 60 billion barrels. Today's numbers from the same agency are over 2,000 billion barrels.

One thing is for sure. Unless new oil is being formed, something that most scientists think is false, we will run out eventually. And probably much sooner than any of us like to think. We are using more oil everyday. Even though population growth has slowed there are now more people using more oil than ever before.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I think we will run into trouble before we run out of energy. There are of course many sources of energy, so I will venture that we will run into major problems even before we run out of oil. And I do think that if we keep going we will run into trouble fairly soon. Definitely before the end of the century. While it is always possible that people will come to their senses and voluntarily change, I sincerely doubt that this will happen. In my view, only natural disasters such as massive pandemics, or planet-wide turmoil -read war- could intervene in a meaningful way.

The reason for my worry is that we are currently running close to the edge in many areas. We have embraced a life-style that is not easy to change and that is totally dependent on overconsumption. Our life-style is literally embedded in stone and it is impossible to change even if people somehow wanted to. Short of abandoning our "beautiful" suburbs, or even entire cities built in the desert, there is little hope.

Furthermore, nearly all our trouble spots are densely interconnected and all are on a worldwide scale. There are few if any alternatives available once things start going wrong. We won't be able to switch to other sources of food, or find other places to dump pollution, as some earlier societies reportedly did to avoid collapse.

Several models predict an abrupt collapse without much warning. Historically speaking that seems to be the most likely scenario. It is also the one I consider the most realistic.

Without warning in this context means without overt trouble or change. There are plenty of warning signs and plenty of warning calls, but all currently go unheeded. One can ignore the token efforts of installing solar panels, buying hybrid cars, and eating organic produce. These are nothing more than window dressing. Our society at large has not changed. If anything it is more determined than ever to stay the course. Witness the recent Detroit auto show. Gas guzzlers dominate the picture, while imaginary feel-good alternative fuel prototypes keep the guilt at bay.

Abrupt in this context means over a span of 15-30 years. Within this time-frame the standard of living could drop from its present Western level to below that of your average poor country in Central America. I suspect it may be worse. And that is the good scenario.

water foibles

It has been said that water will be the new oil. Severe water shortages are predicted for large parts of the world in the decades to come. It is but one side-effect of global warming and one that is generally ignored in the press. More people know of the dangers of polar ice melting with a resulting rise in sea-levels. Rising sea levels evoke images of flooding and an abundance of water. But sea water is salty and the more sea levels rise the further salt will intrude into rivers and streams. From there it goes into the groundwater. Salt water is killer for many plants, including food crops. For a land that relies on irrigation, rising salt water is deadly.

Meanwhile in California, we are getting dumped on like there is no tomorrow. The runoff is about to start flooding communities that just recently recovered from devastating floods. It is also causing mudslides, road closures, power failures, and other havoc to people's lives. However it is filling up reservoirs and that is good news for next summer. No matter how bad it gets in winter, we all know California will go through five to seven months with not a drop of rain to be seen.

I can't help but wonder why people let all this water go. Why California does not have mandatory rain water collection. Adding an underground storage tank that holds 1,000 gallons or more would not be that hard to do. But unless code requires it I cannot see many builders going ahead and doing it. Even though it would add at most a few thousand dollars to the price of the home. Given that homes (still) sell for upwards of $500K around here -and most are upwards of $1MM- it would seem trivial to add a $5,000 expense.

Unfortunately water tanks are not sexy. Not like granite countertops, "professional kitchens," and hardwood floors. All items that show a great indifference towards natural resources. Why people need professional kitchens beats me. Most go out several times a week for dinner alone. And the other nights they probably heat up a take-home pizza. But that is another story, much like driving an eight cylinder four wheel drive in everyday commute traffic.

An underground tank alone is not sufficient to solve all problems but it is a start. We would also need to add an irrigation system that uses the tank and the tank only. Since we have sun whenever it does not rain, a solar pump would do just fine. Irrigation with rain water is a first step. Even better would be to lay plumbing so toilets and showers can use rainwater too. That gets a bit more involved. Another item that would work well is washing machines. Most commonly used top load models are real water hogs, something that you would notice if you ever tried to fill a machine with hand carried water.

The current wave of storms is predicted to dump anywhere between 4 and 7 inches on the SF Bay Area. It is the second big storm wave of 2008. The previous wave dumped an equal amount and caused a ton of trouble. I read somewhere that 1 inch of rain on a 1,000 sq foot roof yields 600 gallons of water. Most houses around here have more roof area than that. Whatever the true number may be, an average middle class home in Marin could collect in excess of 4,200 gallons per storm. That is enough water to fill a small pool. The drier parts of the Bay Area would still collect 2,400 gallons or more. Yesterday I filled a 55 gallon rain barrel in less than two hours using runoff from just one waterspout.

Rain barrels are a great way to get into rain water collection. The best part is probably the education because they are not all that practical in California. The barrels are simply too small and the dry period too long. One would need in excess of 50 barrels to achieve some real results. But barrels are a great teaching tool and I would recommend that you get some. If nothing else you will learn first hand how much water a storm dumps. And how much water we waste going about our everyday routines.

I would recommend that you start carrying some water around. It will give you a feel for the power needed to haul heavy items. A better appreciation for the wasteful nature of our existence, and what it will be like when we run out of resources.

sensible steps

There are many sensible steps you can take to save energy and reduce your carbon footprint. Perhaps the easiest for people living in the sunbelt is to retire your clothes dryer. It is a strategy that can work anywhere in the country with some careful planning.

Dryers use up a significant amount of electricity and there aren't very many ways around it, i.e. there aren't energy saving dryers. On the other hand it is easy to dry your clothes in the sun (and wind) and they will look better and smell fresher too. And you won't need any anti-static wipes either. All you have to remember is to shake them out before you hang them. You also have to be careful where you put the clothespins so as not to pinch certain visible parts. It is all common sense but these days people are so unaware of basics that it is good to mention it.

A clothesline and clothespins are a minor cost and the savings are immediate. Apart from an outdoor location, it is good to also have an indoor backup location. Best are rooms or large closets that house the furnace and the water heater. These locations are always dry and warm. Most homes are large enough for a drying room.

The other thing you have to consider is your drying capacity. Chances are it will be less than you had with the dryer. So you need to make sure not to do all your laundry all at once. You may also want to reschedule if rain intervenes. If not, you will run out of space and end up with wet and wrinkled clothing. It is easy to avoid and the change to your routine is minor really so it shouldn't cause any undue hardship. A bonus is the fact that, if you run out of time, you can leave clothes hanging when dry.

Your second best bet is to replace your old refrigerator/freezer with a more up to date model. Consult energystar.org to see which models will save you the most. A slightly smaller box will save even more. It is good to remember that you are probably putting too much stuff in your refrigerator anyways. A great many items do not need refrigeration because you will consume them soon enough. Never mind the warnings on the packages. These are just there to avoid legal liability. Most things will last one week at normal room temperature. That is true for almost all prepared items like jams, preserves, etc. All these items are the way they are because of the need for preservation without cooling.

And here is another idea. One that will go a long way towards fighting obesity as well. Keep sodas and drinks out of the fridge. Not having cold soda will stop you from overconsumption. It would be even better if you stopped buying sodas altogether. Soda is nothing but packaged sweetened water and the amount of energy that goes into producing, storing, cooling, and shipping these is just plain outrageous. And about the only thing these drinks will do for you is add fat to your body. They are not good at quenching thirst and they do not provide any valuable nutrition. They are just drugs for your sugar fix.

And when you buy that new fridge, remember to keep it closed. The less you open it and the less long you open it for the better your savings will be. Think about what you want before you open the fridge and then fetch it quickly. That too will help with your weight. Don't look at your fridge like a candy store full of goodies. It shouldn't be.

election time

The economy has overtaken the war in Iraq in the minds of voters. Many no doubt feel the situation in Iraq has stabilized. Even though record numbers of troops died last year, there is a sense that things are improving. And there are a few reasons for this, not all of them a reflection of reality. First, the number of Iraq reports and the prominence of those reports has declined. That is because news organizations have new topics to focus on. The presidential campaign is one of these and campaigns always make for good stories. Especially, when come-from-behind candidates win races.

I am not sure if anyone has studied it, but it seems pretty clear that our perception of the situation in Iraq is directly related to the number of stories and the attention given to those stories in the press and on TV. When there are fewer reports and when new stories take a backseat to other news, our perception is that things must be better. We quickly forget about civil wars in other countries. Another key factor is saturation. We were pretty saturated with carnage from Iraq and it is unclear how much more we could take without yawning or switching channels. That is one reason the news organizations are so eager to switch.

There is plenty of other news of course, but not much that really interests us. Genocide in Darfur, bloodshed in Kenya, rigged elections in Georgia, and other stories fail to grab our attention. No Americans are involved and in any case, trouble elsewhere is to be expected. It just proves to us that we live in paradise.

The second war issue has a better connection to reality. Violence has indeed declined in Bagdad, where most news organizations are located. That is because there is a better troop and security presence there. Insurgents have been forced to relocate and their relocation has not been followed by the media yet. Dangerous travel conditions are one reason why. Journalists do not want to venture much outside the safe areas. And who can blame them? This war has been the deadliest in terms of press casualties. All in all, it is rather unclear what is really happening in Iraq, but my hunch is it is not very good.

There is additional trouble in Afghanistan and Pakistan but that is of lesser concern. Most feel we won in Afghanistan and that book is closed. As for Pakistan, well they do have their own troubles there, but then again so does everyone else.

When it comes to the economy, the focus is on energy. It is winter and a time when people use the most energy and are faced with the highest bills. For many it is unwelcome news. They have overextended themselves during the years of cheap credit and now they have trouble making ends meet. Energy is the item people pay for on a regular basis -every time they gas up for example- and so it quickly becomes a sore point. Ironically enough this shift is not a shift at all. The war in Iraq was about cheap oil and this new crisis is no different. All our crises are about access to cheap resources.

All of that is bad news for the environment. Rising energy prices have some effect on consumption but reducing consumption is not a virtue over here. It is not something people consider a viable option. Americans do not feel good when they have to cut back on their "essential" gas guzzling. Much like drug addicts they start showing signs of withdrawal. And like drug addicts they will go to extreme measures to make sure they get their fix.

And when that happens, companies are only to happy to oblige. Because addicts are the best customers. They are very loyal and dependable. And they are a path of minimal resistance and optimal profits. Because they aren't picky. As long as they can get enough of what they need, they go home happy.

energy tips

I found some useful tips in "How to Fix Your Life in 2008," in today's Wall Street Journal. The energy section is particularly interesting. One thing they recommend is to go to the energystar website and see how your energy bill stacks up against similar homes across the country. You can find it at www.energystar.gov under Home Energy Yardstick. I just completed my audit for 2006 and found that we are in the bottom 1%. That means we are better than 99% of homes. I am happy to say that our 2007 energy bills are much lower.

To give you some background, we do live in an above average sized home in California. It definitely qualifies as a luxury home. We are not some hermits living in the desert. We do have and use the latest and greatest appliances including a home theater system with widescreen TV -no plasma though-, gaming consoles, several computers -that are used daily and nearly round the clock-, high speed internet access, and the like. And no, I do not feel like we had to cut back or restrict ourselves in 2007. And we still have a ways to go as most of our light bulbs are the conventional incandescent type. Not because we do not like CFL's, but why replace a perfectly good bulb? When it burns out we will replace it, but for now things are fine.

We do not have solar panels, wind mills, or any other energy producing device. We buy all our power from the utility and we pay regular prices for it. Apart from electricity our home uses natural gas to cook, to heat water and for the furnace. All other appliances are electric. In our area 2006 was a year with 2932 heating degree days and 1019 cooling degree days. You can find out more about that on energy star, but suffice it to say, a regular year.

Our key improvements over the last two years have been in removing all appliances that work in standby mode. You know these boxes that are plugged in and use electricity even when they are "off." Removing these is as simple as putting them on a powerstrip and turning the powerstrip off. It is actually easier than using the individual off buttons -even with remote- that do not turn things off. Our whole home theater system is on such a strip. When we are done using it, I get up and flip the switch, simple. When I need it I flip the switch again and all the boxes light up and are ready to go. We did the same for many kitchen appliances. We no longer have fifteen clocks that all read a different time and that all need to be reset several times a year (where we live the power goes out at least 5 times a year).

But most importantly we turn things off when we don't need them. Although the WSJ does not mention this trick, I believe it is the number one energy saving method, and the easiest one too. Turn things off. It isn't hard.

There are no extra lights here to brighten the sky, and even the always-on internet box goes off when it is not in use for more than 10 minutes (say during lunch). That too is easy. The computers sleep when they are idle for 5 minutes and their sleep modes are very efficient. They spin down the disk and turn off the displays. Both reboot very quickly and I never feel I have to wait. But our key improvement for 2007 has been to retire the clothes dryer. A huge savings and our clothes look better than before. Nothing like sun and wind to dry clothes. It is the cheapest solar power you can get. The $5.00 clothesline has already paid for itself several times over. It has the best return on investment so far this year. Even though my stocks did quite well, they did not come close.