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 11:23 am (LC, Sustainable Solutions, Water)
The issue that really hits home for me is water conservation. I am from New Mexico so we don’t get very much rain, ever! Yes I have seen snow (although most people are very surprised by this) but as a whole the southwestern region of the United States is drying up. The average rainfall in New Mexico is around 12 inches or less per year.
In New Mexico we conserve water, but places like Kansas and really wet (or rich) places seem to take water conservation for granted. Something that the University of Kansas can do is to have more efficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets in all of the dormitories and Greek housing. I personally love the beautiful landscaping and gardens that we have around campus, but I am sure we can have more efficient water use when it comes to lawn care and gardening. We don’t have to go as far as xeriscape, like we have in New Mexico, but just conserving even a little can help in the long run. We can still have the nice landscape but instead filled with many beautiful shrubs and plants that thrive with far less water than other species. Also I always see the lawns being watered when it’s really windy, or being watered too much and the water is running down the street. Shorter and better-watched watering times would help a lot too.
I know it is not a huge issue in Kansas, but it could be one day, so maybe the University of Kansas could start headstrong on this and lead our way to a brighter, wetter future.
- Julie
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.
4 Comments
November 19, 2008 at 11:17 am (Energy, LC, Sustainable Solutions)
When you grab your phone from the charger every morning and lazily drop the cord back on to the desk, one would never suspect the wire to have any ulterior, darker motives behind charging your precious iphone. However, it is in fact, a vampire cord! Rest assured you have little risk in being attacked late at night by the charger, but it is making an impact on your life. Chargers and appliances that most all of us utilize on campus continue to use power even while not in use, unnecessarily burning fossil fuels and cash for your microwave to sit there.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that US consumers and businesses waste over 4 billion dollars annually from this needless standby power. Now some appliances may need to be plugged in continuously, in which case power isn’t necessarily being wasted, but your fans, chargers, microwaves, coffee makers, lamps, and neon beer signs don’t need to be sucking down extra power when you aren’t using them.
The simplest solution is just to unplug the stuff you’re not going to use for a while. Using power strips are a good way to consolidate electronics and allow you to unplug all your little energy thieves at once. Going the distance, you could also buy EnergyStar labeled appliances that meet strict energy requirements before hitting shelves, saving you cash in the long run with lowered energy bills. Unplugging wasteful vampire appliances can save up to 10% on monthly energy bills. Sometimes a little self-awareness is all people need to change their habits and become a little more sustainable.
- Joe
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.
4 Comments
November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am (Green Building, LC, Sustainable Solutions, Water)
Campus gardens are beautiful. There is no argument there. It seems as though some kind of flowering plant is always in bloom, no matter what season. It’s here that the problem arises. Sustainable gardens incorporate plants and flowers native to the area. They flourish in their native environments, requiring little if no maintenance, fertilizer, and extra water. Sustainable gardens also include perennial flowers that do not need to be reseeded.
Looking around KU, I have seen many people working hard in the various gardens, shoveling fertilizers and compost into gardens, digging up dead annual flowers, and watering existing plants. With the size of campus, and the number of gardens that can be found, I really wonder how much time and money are wasted on these not so “green” gardens. Furthermore, I am also curious about the affects of the fertilizer on campus. Could this be contributing to the nasty surface scum on Potter Lake? I think so. If you are familiar with the Potter Lake Project, students working to make it less of an eyesore also reported it to be polluted last year. Or even just how much water we are wasting irrigating those flowers.
I can turn the water off while I brush my teeth for the rest of my life and it won’t even come close to the gallons of water KU would save with sustainable gardens. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that KU has taken steps for a more sustainable existence. But I think that we can do more. If we convert the unsustainable gardens as KU to gardens that integrate native plants, perennial flowers, and plants that attract insects beneficial to the environment, KU could save time, money, and most of all, the environment.
- Taylor
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.
1 Comment
November 19, 2008 at 10:56 am (Green Building, LC, Sustainable Solutions, Waste Reduction & Recycling, Water)
I am a huge proponent of xeriscaping. Many people don’t know what it is, so I’ll define it as Webster does: xeriscape is defined as a landscaping method developed especially for arid and semiarid climates that utilizes water-conserving techniques (as the use of drought-tolerant plants, mulch, and efficient irrigation). Basically, its returning the environment in your front lawn to what the environment would have been like before your house was there. I have been in the landscaping business for about four years, and have had enough experience to completely verify all of these statements. The basis of the argument for the use of xeriscape is that “turf” lawns require fertilizer, extra irrigation, and gas extensive maintenance. With the use of native plants, it eliminates the need for fertilizer and irrigation, and drastically reduces the need for maintenance. In southern Florida, there was a law put into place that made a lenient form of xeriscape mandatory. They found that this simple form of xeriscape reduced the water use for irrigation by half. The other benefits, of course, being less water pollution due to the negated need for fertilizer. The air will also be much cleaner, due not only to reduced gas consumption, but also because bushes and trees produce much more oxygen than turf grass. Here in Lawrence, I see many houses that run irrigation systems every day. They are being run to support these really thirsty lawns of fescue grass that, in reality, should not be used as a turf grass in any other place than Seattle. The use of xeriscaping in Lawrence could improve the water and fertilizer consumption greatly. In short, xeriscaping will provide a better local ecosystem and will be more naturally beautiful.
- Dan
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.
1 Comment
November 19, 2008 at 10:06 am (LC, Sustainability Shift, Sustainable Solutions)
One misconception that I received from Debate in high school is that paper is cheap. I saw more paper wasted than I have seen trees. To prepare for speeches hundreds of articles were printed off from news sites by all teams from all schools. Most of these articles were never used because the process of obtaining them was random; we really did not pay attention to whether we truly needed them. However, I soon learned that this paper is not cheap; cutting down trees has many devastating impacts on the environment. By using recycling paper, we can cut down on deforestation; however, less than five percent of paper contains recycled fibers. Not to mention all of the paper industries emit the fourth-highest level of carbon dioxide among manufactures.
KU’s surveys have shown how much paper is used by staff and the amount of paper is required to be turned in by students. However, small steps can be made by not printing unnecessary items, such as syllabuses and research materials that can be saved and read on your computer, and to use double-sided printing when needed. Using a laptop is also an option for note taking. Always recycle any paper, and unlike the Debate teams, think before you print unnecessary items.
Super Shift: When paper is necessary, try purchasing recycled paper, it may actually work just fine, especially when the life of that paper will not be long. Try to decrease the amount of paper you use by fifty percent.
- Ashlee
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
October 13, 2008 at 4:53 pm (Energy, Generally Green, Sustainability Shift, Sustainable Solutions)
This morning when I got to work, I did something not everyone does: turned on my computer. Seems like a basic step for all of us to get started with our work day, right? But it is only necessary if you turned the computer OFF the night before. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case with computers at work or in our homes. Whether for reasons of convenience (are you really going to get that much done with an extra 30 seconds?) or concerns that turning the computer off and on is hard on the hard drive, we seem to think the computer needs to be on 24 hours a day.
Here at KU, shutting down is recommended in the list of conservation measures sent out each year by the Office of the Provost. It was even enough of a concern that the Governor of Kansas included a statement in her Executive Directive on Energy Conservation and Management calling for computers to be turned off any time they won’t be used for a period of 4 hours or more.
So why are we still leaving them on at night? I recently plugged my computer into a device that measures how much electricity is flowing through the power cord. With my monitor on, it was running about about 100 watts. So walking away from the computer without turning it off is like leaving a 100 watt lightbulb burning all day in the closet. You wouldn’t do that would you?
So try saying “goodnight” to the gigabytes before you leave work or before you go to bed. You’ll be amazed at how saving a little extra energy at night won’t even slow you down the next day. And the planet will thank you for the good night’s sleep.
Super Shift: Already giving your CPU some Zs? Try shutting down anytime you are going to be out of the office for more than an hour and change your power settings to turn the monitor off after 5 minutes of inactivity and the system to go into standby (or better yet hibernate) after 30 minutes.
1 Comment
« Older entries
