Our World and Everything in It

There was a lot more car traffic this Thanksgiving than usual. People opted to either drive to their destination or simply stay home. On the news I saw some of the awful traffic backups around the country. It made me wonder about using roundabouts more because they not only relieve traffic congestion, but save gas, and idle time, which conserves on the amount of emissions in the air.

Roundabouts are used in place of an intersection where cars enter a circle until they exit onto another street. Because there is no stopping there is less gas used to accelerate, and/or idle. Everyone moves along at a steady pace.

Michigan is in the process of redoing many of their roadways. We should be seeing more roundabouts. A new single lane roundabout in Northville was completed earlier this year, one of 17 roundabouts in Southeast Michigan. Ann Arbor may soon see a roundabout at US-23 and Geddes Rd.

Roundabouts in other areas of the country like Carmel, Indiana have reported a “78% drop in accidents involving injuries, not to mention a savings of some 24,000 gal. of gas per year per roundabout because of less car idling.” According to a Time Magazine article called “You Want a Revolution,” Carmel’s mayor Jim Brainard received a climate-protection award this year from the U.S. conference of Mayors. Brainard thinks, “As our population densities become more like Europe’s, roundabouts will become more popular.”

That same article stated that the U.S. has about 1000 roundabouts in 25 states. With a lot of U.S. roads getting a makeover, it seems that roundabouts should be a no brainer.
The only problem is the fear of change many drivers feel. Anybody that has encountered a multiple lane roundabout like those in Boston knows the fear I’m talking about.

A single lane roundabout isn’t too bad, but more than one lane and “Oh Boy!” I got into a multiple lane roundabout on Hilton Head Island, SC and past the street I was trying to exit onto more than once. So there is a knack for navigating a sophisticated roundabout.

But there is an up side for “roundabout fears.” A report claimed that because the roundabout is a fairly new concept in the U.S. and a little confusing, the trepidation at entering one actually slows drivers down, and calls for a more alert approach to navigation, certainly a good thing. No wonder there are less accidents. It’s also very hard to enter a circle and get out of that circle while talking on a cell phone. But I bet we see drivers try to do it anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1838753,00.html

http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/news/index.ssf/2008/11/traffic_roundabouts_planned_at.html

http://sustainablemanitowoc.blogspot.com/2008/09/roundabouts-help-save-drivers-time-and.html

High tech gadgets are among the top favorites as gifts for Christmas. The news showed Christmas shoppers storming the stores this morning where one man commented that there were only 14 Wii’s on the shelf but he got one of them at a great discount. It would have to be worth it to get me there at 5:00 am. It looked like a herd trying to squeeze through the corral gate at once, then off and running through the store. These shoppers must have cased the place first. The man got his Wii, but Wii’s, Xbox, and the like rely on the latest laser technology. Laser technology can be expensive, and it’s not just the purchase price. He may have got a deal at the store but not on his future energy bills.

Laser technology uses a lot of juice, as much as two new refrigerators. Unbelievable. But one of the CBS affiliates I was tuned into said the average family that owns one of these units often leave them on costing that average family an extra $100/yr. in electricity for idle time. Nationally that cost is one billion dollars. It’s obvious we’ve barely begun to conserve energy and this is just one example.

Not only is it a waste of money to forget to turn these off, the environment takes a hit as well for nothing more than forgetfulness. A billion dollars annually is a lot of electricity. We need to remember to turn our techie things off. But the trouble is that nowadays we have so much more of the stuff in our homes it’s no longer the same old mantra, “Turn the lights out when you leave the room.” It now applies to the laptop, printer, cell phone charger, Plasma TV, DVD player…

I watched a segment on ABC news about people greening up their RV’s. The RVer that was interviewed showed what he did with his fifth wheel. I figured sooner or later the RV industry was going to catch onto going green. There are too many used campers and RV’s for sale.

The RVer in the interview added solar panels along the front, what would be the upper berth over the driver. He added a small wind turbine on the back. He said it powers everything inside he wants it to. He devised a way to catch rain water whenever possible, and runs it through an inline filter. And finally he maps out where he can buy B10 biofuel. So far he said he has been lucky to find it.

More entrepreneurship is needed in this industry. I blogged about “trashing out” homes in need of some ingenuity, now the RV industry could use some ingenious mechanics out there to recycle some of the really nice RV’s I’ve seen for sale. Between solar, methane, wind, and all types of fuels that will hopefully debut in the very near future, surely with a little modification here and there, some mechanic, somewhere can launch a guilt free, economical cruising home.

I hope it’s soon because I would love to criss cross America with an RV. Throw the pets on board and visit all the national parks before they’re ruined by developers that bought some of the land auctioned off by the Bush administration. It’s more likely this will happen than not. My husband retires in 3 years. I have a degree for writing so…”Have laptop; will travel.”

Tips on greening up an RV: http://www.ehow.com/how_2269205_green-rv.html

Check out this website’s comments section. Someone has been installing solar panels in RV’s for 6 years and knows what to expect and the costs. Another commenter is looking to convert his old VW camper to hybrid. Now that’s what I mean about ingenuity. http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/21/what-could-be-done-to-green-up-rvs-here-are-coachmens-ideas/.

http://thesustainableearthproject.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-ol-guzzling-rvs-reconsidered-are.html

I recently watched Planet Green’s presentation about Contessa Foods developing a green frozen food manufacturing plant. It’s the only such plant awarded a LEED award by the US Green Building Council. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED is a third party certification program and nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings.

This plant was designed to conserve as much as possible and as a result, Contessa Foods cut both their energy consumption and related emissions by 50% within one year. 

Now if Contessa can do this within a year, why can’t everyone figure out ways to really lower their consumption of energy? It is the easiest and most prudent thing to do right now. We have high gas prices and want to drill yet we’ve hardly scratched the surface at conservation. Speed limits haven’t been lowered, people haven’t even been told to stop running outdoor lights. We did these things without a whole lot of griping in the 70’s, but now we have the audacity to just demand more without cutting back first. Remember the years no one had Christmas lights around their houses? You were the bad guy if you put them up.

Contessa Foods is a good guy. According to Contessa’s CEO, John Z. Bazevich,  “Until now, the USGBC has never LEED-certified a frozen-food manufacturing facility. As a leader in our industry, we didn’t wait for environmental standards to be established. Instead, we collaborated with LEED and decided to raise the bar for the entire industry and to do the right thing for the long-term sustainability of our environment.” Attaboy!

Imagine if all manufacturing had that attitude? Think of the money they could save too.

Contessa stands out in 5 areas of the LEED rating system with:

• A solar-power array that reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730,000 pounds each year, producing an effect similar to conserving 276 acres of pine forest – roughly the size of 209 football fields, including end zones – each year.
• A heat-recovery system that captures waste heat from the refrigeration system and redirects it to preheat water for the plant’s boilers.
• Variable frequency drives that adjust the amount of power supplied to motors at specific times or under specific conditions to minimize energy use.
• An innovative loading dock that prevents the loss of refrigerated air, reducing temperature fluctuation – and energy use – in the loading dock area.

What I saw on TV was an impeccably clean plant where all the rooms within are distinctly cut off from the others, the idea being to keep heat with heat and cold with cold.

Their motto at Contessa: “Reduce, Redirect, and Reuse. It’s a good model to follow for sure.

Read more about what Contessa accomplished:

http://myseafoodshow08.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewPressRelease.aspx?id=35922&cid=4217488

At one hundred kilowatts per hour per for one device, Swell Fuels lever operated pivoting float is something we should be using right now. A World Wire article stated: “The patent-pending device uses a pivoting float and a lever arm that unfolds to capture the up and down motion of ocean waves, producing electricity in the process.” How ingenious.

Swell Fuels is ready to go with this product but guess what? Politics and special interest groups are blocking this and many more innovative ways of creating energy for the future. We’re being told by many different articles including one in the Detroit Free Press this weekend about wind power, that the costs and time involved in alternative energy is too much, that’s why we’re not moving forward. Baloney. Innovation is being blocked to say the least.

Read more about this curious but effective invention: http://world-wire.com/news/0808120002.html.

Americans may be looking at 4-day workweeks soon in efforts to offset energy costs. Both Utah and Idaho’s state employee are on 4 tens. Some good things are happening as a result of the energy crisis. Not only are workweeks getting shorter, but employees are also allowed to work from home more and more. This can be good. This can be bad.

I can weigh in on the shortened workweek.  I worked 4 ten-hour days back in 1984. The extra two hours were split between morning and afternoon. My schedule started an hour earlier and ended an hour later than usual. So the bad thing was getting up earlier and getting home later. With longer hours, you might be a little more tired at days end also so after-work-projects aren’t likely to happen. But if you’re running your kids around most evenings anyway, this shouldn’t be a problem.

The real problem with 4-day workweeks is latch key kids. If working parents can tackle this problem then the rest of the attributes for working 4 tens are all positive. For one thing, your car is spared the trip. If you don’t use that up running all over town on Friday, then it’s a plus. It was reported that Utah figured all of its employees collectively saved $100,000 in gas money by not working on Friday. One woman said she only saved $72.00 for gas money during the month but finds the extra time spent with her kids invaluable.

From an employer’s point of view, a successful switch to 4-day workweeks depends on associated companies that work a 5-day workweek. Back in the early 90’s I actually worked a 3-day workweek for the same salary as 5 days.  I negotiated that by showing all the work I was doing that really belonged to others on the payroll. I got my way, a 3 day work week with Tuesday’s and Friday’s off, because I was able to show I was not only doing all of my duties in 5 days, but a bunch of other people’s also. Since I was a purchasing agent, and did payroll the 3-day problem came up. Tuesday was a slow day at work, and well Fridays, let’s get real here. I told my employer quite frankly that not much of anything would get purchased on a Friday anyway. Most of those orders will not hit someone’s desk until Monday. You’re not likely to get a sales rep to come around on Friday either. It’s like Friday “work” days dissolve somewhere around noon for quite a lot of professions. Most things are stalled until Monday because someone is usually missing on Friday. My employer acknowledged this. He was notorious for disappearing on Fridays. Monday and Friday off would have been sweet but that would have been pushing the envelope. I acknowledged that I needed to be there for payroll on Mondays. The best thing was when the company decided I needed to work 40 hours again. My wages almost doubled.

Like ABC news stated this morning, now is the time to negotiate for shared hours, shorter workweeks, and/or working from home. I did it when there was no energy crisis, late 80’s and early 90’s. A good employer should have no problem paying for a job well done regardless of the time involved. If you have a job that doesn’t involve other associates on 5 day work weeks, you’ve got a good case for a 4 day workweek. Prove you work faster and more efficient than most and you’ll probably get your way. It’s win win right now.

Once you get used to 4 days, and really using that Friday in an organized way so you can kick back on Saturday AND Sunday, you’ll probably find you do much less running around altogether. The solitary time away from the rat race is priceless. It might be good for America to learn to relax and quit all the running around. It would certainly be good for the environment.  

Late last Friday night our Michigan Senate watered down and passed energy legislation that took months to put together. There was no attempt at bipartisanship here.  As a result Michigan has a pretty shabby RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standards compared to surrounding states. What took the wind out of the sails of this legislation was the deletion of mandates. There will be no mandates on business, which means business may or may not choose to reduce it’s consumption of fossil fuels by choosing other sources of energy.

The Senate decided to go the route where state government would lead by example and be the first to reduce it’s dependency on fossil fuels by choosing alternative energy and also through conservation. The idea is that business would likely follow suit—but they don’t have to!

The positive side of this move by the senate is that taxpayers will be spared the cost of switching to alternative energy sources, and struggling business in MI won’t have to spend more to comply with any mandates. The state will bear the burden for moving forward. This is protectionism and admirable, but it also degrades Michigan’s RPS to nothing. States that have a strong RPS have reaped big  rewards in economic growth as a result. Michigan is missing the importance of a strong RPS. It equates to jobs and investment into the economy.

So the biggest downside is that Michigan’s economy will not likely pick up soon despite the “Green Gold Rush” that is on right now. On top of that, among all the cities in the country that had dismal spring housing sales where that market dropped again, Detroit area home sales were actually up 8%. That was on the news. So Michigan is primed and salivating for economic growth from anywhere that more than likely will not happen thanks to this senate’s quick and rash decisions last week.

Also, Michigan ranks in the top fifteen states in the country for wind generation, but there were few incentives and little interest in wind production in the bills. Yet according to an article on Metro Mode’s website, “[A] fully harnessed wind industry could result in up to 50,000 Michigan jobs, ranging from construction to assembly to engineering to research.” In this instance, the Republican lead Senate in Michigan is actually blocking progress and job growth. Wind is nothing to overlook in Michigan where there are constant shoreline breezes.

 The last negative to the final version of the bills is whether or not the environmental changes that take place within the state government will require outside contracts. I don’t like the sound of government contracting. Senator Waxman has uncovered billions of wasted dollars in contracts on the federal level both in Afghanistan and Iraq. This kind of thing looks like just another opportunity for friends to get paid.

 Environmentally friendly voters should drop a line to our state senate. The cons outweigh the pros for their decision on this latest round of energy bills relative to the loss of a lot of new jobs, and new money into our economy from somewhere else besides the auto industry for a change. Michigan’s economy is supposed to be undergoing change remember? 

Read about RPS in MI: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/12/renewable-portfolio-standards-environmental-resume-for-states/

Entire article on Metro Mode about MI windpower: http://www.metromodemedia.com/features/MichiganWindPower0064.aspx

I was watching Planet Green about solar energy, specifically residential solar panels, and found out answers to a lot of questions. An average 2000 sq. ft. home would need to use 24–3 X 5 ft. solar panels to supply 90 to 95 percent of all electricity to the home. The panels sit on a rail and install within hours. The current produced from the solar panels goes to an inverter box hooked to the home’s main electrical box. The inverter converts the direct current into the U.S. alternating current and that’s about it.

Now for the cost. Depending on the size of the house it would cost 15 to 25 thousand dollars for the solar panels. With federal rebates the cost is lowered to 12 to 20 thousand dollars. This is very affordable for many people, and for those that can’t afford to eat, let alone put panels on their roof, I don’t see why the U.S. doesn’t just supply the darn things.

I figure if there are 300 million people in the U.S., then there are more than likely 100 million homes. The average cost of 12 to 20 thousand dollars for solar panels is 16 thousand dollars. If the government can get trillions in debt over a made up war, and keep pork barrel spending in the millions, not to mention earmarks on bills that amount to millions, then why doesn’t Uncle Sam just bite the bullet and supply 100 million homes with solar panels? The total cost would be 1.6 billion dollars but over a 4 year time period, it would come to a paltry 400 million per year.

I say paltry because of all the stupid waste I’ve read about. If you read, you know. It’s as if there are two alternate worlds. One world is where our officials come from regarding the environment, which is totally disconnected from anything I’m watching on Planet Green lately. I’ve actually written to the offices of senators, the governor, and reps asking whether they have someone on the payroll to just watch all the latest innovations that are available because our leaders seem completely out of touch, and keep trying to feed us a bunch of bunk that we must drill for more gas, drill for more oil, fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel. They’ve had their blinders on so long they fail to realize it’s the 21^st century, and we’re able to watch and see for ourselves that there are an awful lot of alternatives out there besides the same ole, same ole. I think it’s criminal the way we are blatantly lied to.

Just yesterday I watched as Gerald Brown, Great Britain’s new prime minister, and President Bush agreed that 1000 new nuclear plants will be built world wide in order to meet energy demands. This is the big alternative we’re being fed now. But why? Furnishing homes with solar panels is so much cheaper, and immediate. There is no 5 years of building a nuke plant, with the end result being no reduction in energy costs at all. Instead of paying big oil, we pay the nuclear industry, and still end up with radioactive waste that doesn’t dissipate for 1000 years.

Evidently helping consumers deal with global warming is one thing. Helping consumers deal realistically with global warming once and for all by getting homes off the grid will never happen because big utilities won’t be able to get a piece of the action. Heaven forbid we affect the monopolies of America in such a way they would no longer be viable, and therefore unable to gouge us at every turn. We should be feeling more and more like pawns everyday. 

Check out this news from the Sierra Club: “Cars That Never Need Gas. Wish you never had to fill up again? Darrell Dickey doesn’t. He drives an electric car that’s charged by photovoltaic panels on the roof of his house. He’s one of three drivers who told us how they got into owning cars that are charged by wind or solar power.  As Dickey puts it, ‘For $45,000 we got a car and fuel for the rest of our lives.’” It covers the electricity on his house too.

Heck I paid more for my premium gas guzzling Cadillac 9 years ago. For anyone who pays a lot of money for their cars, this is a possibility. Throw in the house electric and what a deal! 

Read about other people who are taking the initiative to help themselves while they help the environment.  http://www.sierraclub.org/wecandoit/home/electric_cars.asp.

I read Mitch Albom’s column in the Free Press this past Sunday, and although I agree with him, I think it was well, um, a little bit dated. His perception that environmentalists are a league of people still derided as Chicken Littles is a little off. As long as I’ve been writing this blog, I think maybe I’ve been called a Chicken Little twice. I had one opponent that appeared to be a drinker going off into raves eventually calling me a cur so as to not get axed from the website for calling me something worse. But that was long ago. Another opponent eventually came to terms with the fact that on a lot of levels we are simpatico. We agreed that we do indeed create trash and should be cleaning up after ourselves, whether or not it does or does not contribute to global warming. Isn’t this moment of agreement in the environmental argument all that’s needed? Because cleaning up after ourselves is the first step to realizing just how much garbage we actually create, which should logically lead to more conservation efforts regardless of global warming.

In this light, how the pro-environmental argument is presented seems to make a heck of a lot of difference. Finding common ground brings people to agreement faster, and that’s what seems to be happening. Unlike Albom, I’m seeing a huge surge of environmentalism on TV and the Internet lately. My 85-year old mother pointed it out to me about 2 weeks ago. I paid closer attention after that and she’s right. There are all types of commercials on TV that are telling people to buy in bulk, don’t shampoo their hair every day, you know insidious mantra that eventually gets an entire population moving toward conservation without knowing it. Admit it. We’re herded more times than not and industry with the help of the media is like the rancher.

I blogged about industry moving the green market quite a while back. Industry’s push to go “green” is getting increasingly stronger because they can’t afford high energy costs either. GE can hardly keep up with the demand for its industrial wind turbines. Green rooftops are appearing on city buildings everywhere thanks to newly formed environmental organizations like Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. And just look up companies growing in leaps and bounds like Sun Edison, who provides an affordable way for industry to benefit from rooftop solar panels, that is, if they aren’t already planted green. Retail giant Wal-Mart starting moving to go green, and now companies like SC Johnson are looking to supply those big stores with their “totally” green .products. Even Conoco Philips (Big Oil) threw in the towel, and joined Tyson Chicken to create biofuel from chicken fat at no real profit, just because it’s the right thing to do for the environment. And when moguls like Ted Turner make statements that it’s absolute suicide to continue to pollute and consume the way we do, well, try calling terrible Ted a “CL.”

I’ve lost count of all the home improvement shows that tout “green,” as well as, media outlets like PBS, Discovery, Science, and National Geographic channels that consistently show the latest findings and discoveries regarding the environment and man. I’ve even watched Canadian TV like “The Outsider,” or “The Fifth Estate” air documentaries about U.S. government cover ups of scientific reports relative to global warming. I’m seeing more and more green shows coming out of Canada now. And I can’t say enough for organizations listed as links on my blog like EarthJustice, The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others that don’t think twice to take on the U.S. Government or anyone else over the environment and wildlife. While we sleep, or go about our usual day, these guys are out on cold oceans, at the edge of public forests, in congress, and everywhere they need to be to stop bad things from happening to our world and everything in it.

But best of all when I see Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich in a commercial urging citizens to contact congress to push ahead to embrace environmentalism, it’s a clear indication that forces are looking to gather against the old energy lobbyists and the spin machine. This was topped off last week when Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee for Oversight and Reform, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson, that he need be prepared to testify regarding the recently released Union of Concerned Scientists Report documenting extensive and widespread political interference with the work of scientists at EPA. Yes!!!

Add to that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA should be regulating CO2 emissions from autos as part of the Clean Air Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals vacating the EPA’s “Clean Air Mercury Rule,” literally throwing out the EPA’s cap and trade system for mercury, and demanding the EPA set new standards for the coal burning industry within two years. Concurrently, it also vacated the EPA’s “Incinerator Rule.” This bodes exceptionally well for the Chicken Little movement.

The timing is uncanny, but unlike Mr. Albom’s perception of environmental efforts, this past Sunday, for the first time in a very long time, I was optimistic about environmentalism, my faith in America restored. After researching the onslaught against our parks, our air, our water, animals, and their habitat for so long by the Bush/Cheney administration, I finally sensed a real, hardy shove back by the other powers that be, which is American industry and ingenuity. They don’t seem to suffer low self-esteem as a “Chicken Little” crowd at all. Had Mitch written about the “CL” complex a year ago I might have wholeheartedly agreed. But now, all I see is the “greening” of America, like it or not. As for “Chicken Little” calling, sticks and stones…