November 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm (Climate Change, Energy, Generally Green, Social Responsibility, Sustainable Solutions)
In a November 16, 2009 New York Times article titled, “Paying Extra for Green Power, and Getting Ads Instead,” author Kate Galbraith discusses the efficiency of paying energy providers extra for green energy.
Last year, the Student Environmental Advisory Board (SEAB) purchased green energy offsets for the Anschutz Library on the KU campus. The board voted to pay the cost difference between wind energy and conventional energy to power the library through March 2010. More information about this project is available here.
The NYTimes article questions whether or not the extra money paid for projects such as the one for Anschutz is a viable option for encouraging alternative energy solutions over the long-term. SEAB’s intent was to encourage the use of alternative energy solutions and educate KU students about alternative energy in Kansas. The board considered education and outreach an important aspect of the program. However, in retrospective, the money used to pay for the extra cost of alternative energy could have gone to a project with a higher return on investment.
According to the article, a significant percentage of the money spent on alternative energy through alternative energy sales such as Westar’s wind energy initiative “went into marketing and administration” rather than actual infrastructure. The utilities are essentially collecting extra money that they promise to use to support the development of renewable energy, a pitch that some customers find persuasive.
With only about 2% of customers agreeing to pay a higher monthly bill for alternative energy, the needed investment in infrastructure such as new solar arrays and the bolstered efficiency of a smarter grid will not be possible. I advocate that rather than relying on the investment of a small percentage of the population interested in helping the environment every person should pay a little bit more for the benefit of all. The environment shouldn’t rely on student groups like the Student Environmental Advisory Board to invest in wind energy, it should be everyone’s responsibility. That is what it means to be socially responsible.
Leave a Comment
November 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm (Climate Change, Energy, Research, Sustainable Solutions, Transportation)
Discussion on the Environmental Capital blog post about tax incentives and the environment:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/16/low-countries-high-taxes-the-dutch-take-aim-at-driving/
The Dutch government plans to create a new tax on driving. Rather than an annual road tax for their cars, drivers will soon pay a few cents for every kilometer (mile) on the road, in a plan aimed at breaking chronic traffic jams and cutting carbon emissions. The tax would provide incentives for owners to consume fewer miles with “higher charges levied during rush hour and for traveling on congested roads. Trucks, commercial vehicles and bigger cars emitting more carbon dioxide will be assessed at a higher rate.”
Imagine the passage of similar legislation in the state of Kansas, you would have to pay $0.07 (seven cents) for every mile that you drove. For example, my vehicle’s odometer shows approximately 112,000 miles. If such a tax were implemented the day the vehicle was purchased, we can calculate the total cost of the tax by multiplying 112,000 by 7¢ to get $7,840 (over the 10 year lifespan of the vehicle). However, with the removal of sales tax and other hefty charges at the initial purchase of the vehicle, the average price for a car would fall between 10 and 15%, making vehicles more affordable and accessible and therefore more abundant.
Would US citizens, or more specifically the residents of Kansas, drive fewer miles based on the knowledge that each additional mile costs 7¢? Or would we respond better to gasoline tax increases such as those widely discussed during the 2008 presidential primary season? The government, both state and federal combined, tax gasoline in Kansas at 43.4¢ per gallon. Does that provide enough incentive?
An argument may arise, “the implementation fo such a tax in the state of Kansas would adversely affect people communting in rural areas where alternative forms of transportation are not readily available.” Well, just as the charges levied during rush hour and on congested roads would increase, the same could be said for reducing charges to those people living in rural areas where congestion is not an issue and where there is no alternative to long drives to the grocery store.
Please discuss further in the comments!
Leave a Comment
November 19, 2008 at 11:27 am (Climate Change, Food, LC)
Being a vegetarian isn’t just for those who don’t want to eat meat anymore, it is increasingly popular among environmentalists. While driving a Prius and turning off your lights may be one step towards ‘greening’ your lifestyle, a vegetarianism is a simpler and cheaper way to not only stay healthy but to stay eco-friendly. The production of meat products is not usually considered a productive step in the right direction but after looking at facts about methane and the greenhouse effect, I was convinced.
In the past I was a vegetarian for almost a year, discontinuing only for health reasons, my only reason for giving up meat was to try something different. Why not? After researching the effects of methane on the environment for a discussion project, I was ready to try it again, this time with other motives in mind. The United Nations recently said, “Livestock is one of the top three or four contributors to climate change”.
The University of Kansas does wonderful things to help the environment by planting gardens and recycling, but I have noticed that when I am in the dining halls looking for some basic vegetarian food, all I seem to come up with are carrots and salads. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that being a vegetarian means eating veggies, but where’s the motivation when you are forced to live off of wilted salad from your dorm’s cafeteria, well there’s little. I propose that the university takes a second look at it’s option and even considers locally grow food. I may just sound like a ranting granola eating hippy, but the truth is; I eat green to go green.
- Grace
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
2 Comments
November 4, 2008 at 9:25 am (Climate Change, Energy, LC, Sustainable Solutions)
Tags: electricity, Energy, Kansas, KU, Oklahoma, sustainability, University of Kansas, wind power
Growing up my parents would always tell me about how windy it was in Kansas, they would say that the wind never stopped blowing, and I didn’t believe them until I moved here. I also hear that it is windy in Oklahoma, but they aren’t letting all of that good wind go to waste, they are using it to power the campus at the University of Oklahoma. Starting in 2013, 100 percent of the campus electricity will come from wind power. As of today, the university is already receiving 10 percent of its electricity from wind power.
Now I’m not from around here, but I’m pretty sure the saying goes “the wind comes sweeping down the plain” and Oklahoma is gathering all of the wind for their campus. The wind also sweeps across our plains and hills and The University of Kansas should be harnessing it for our own use. Our university is environmentally conscious, putting recycling bins around campus and going tray-less at the dining halls, but this stuff is a no brainer. We are in the part of the country where the wind, a renewable resource, is unlimited and the university should be taking advantage of this.
The University of Kansas is proud to be champions on and off the field, but now OU is winning in the fight for the environment. KU needs to step up to the plate and get serious about this fight.
- Keri
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
Leave a Comment
October 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm (Climate Change, Energy, Generally Green, Sustainability Shift, Sustainable Solutions)
On October 9, KU participated in “Lights Out Across Campus”, a campaign encouraging faculty, staff, and students to shut off overhead lights and rely on the natural light streaming through the windows. In buildings where electricity use dropped for the day (compared to a day in September with similar weather), we saved 4,900 kWh of electricity, the energy equivalent of 15,327 bulbs burning for 10 hours.
When looking at a $12 million utility budget, the $300 saved by those buildings doesn’t seem like much. But add that up over the course of a year and get more people to participate, and we start to add some zeros behind that figure. And every little bit counts – not only for the power bills but for the planet.
Don’t want to sit around in the dark? You might be surprised just how much light you can get without flipping the switch. With the exception of a few rainy days in October, I get by just fine all year without a single overhead light. I have a lamp on my desk (with a CFL installed, by the way) that provides any light I need for reading, and if I move my chair closer to the window, I don’t even need that.
Give it a try and see what happens. Who knows, that pest down the hall may even think you are gone and leave you alone for a change!
Super Shift: Really?! What’s bigger than keeping the lights off all the time?
1 Comment
July 9, 2008 at 10:22 am (Climate Change, Sustainable Solutions)
Tags: big coal, Climate Change, climate plan, emissions, emissions reductions, partnership, planning
We are bombarded by contradictory opinions about how much we must reduce emissions globally, on what time frame and what the worst case scenarios could be . The potential consequences of poor – or even worse – no planning for climate change and emissions reductions leaves many people with a sick feeling in their stomachs.
The enormous numbers and ambiguous statistics used to describe climate change are usually unfathomable to the average U.S. citizen. They may see the problem as a function of big coal plants or other large industry. This type of reaction can result in apathy and, no doubt, the feeling that we’re all headed to hell in hand-basket. One might assume that thinking about planning for climate change holistically may entangle us in complicated details and the problem would remain a Class A disaster; however, this may not be the case.
By approaching the problem of climate change from a holistic point-of-view, we can sort out details that are easier to visualize, accomplish and yes, even plan for in advance. Discovering what problems can be solved through which people, building partnerships, and finding ways to make the plan attractive to all stakeholders are all part of a holistic outlook that takes a more humanized scale to this enormous issue.
We can’t force people to work out solutions to emission reductions in their daily lives, but we can try to ascertain what makes the issue relevant to their work, family, etc. Climate planning does not rely solely on retooling policies and working collaboratively with resource managers, although these elements are one crucial aspect.
We must plan to utilize every human resource as well. People dislike being generalized, and a rubberstamp solution or “band-aid” approach is not the ultimate solution. Organization of climate plans that incorporate flexibility, evaluation and re-evaluation are also fundamental to this solution. We must instill in average citizens a change from the norm to a new norm that invites participation, evaluation and flexibility. We must focus our efforts on a holistic strategy that can be adapted to the creative solutions which are applicable to the average person and made relevant to their lives. This can come in many forms from transit oriented development to urban gardens to showers at work.
Being overwhelmed by the enormity of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a scary prospect for many. The best way we can plan for climate change is to take a holistic approach that emphasizes flexibility, partnerships and support.
- Steph Mott
2 Comments
