Something in the fridge smells funny! (a serious comment on carbon emissions)

[Derik Andreoli]

Warning: "The length of this document guards it well against the risk of it being read" - Winston Churchill

I've long thought that we humans rely far too heavily on our sense of sight, hence the saying "you gotta see it to believe it".

I've also long thought that we should trust our other senses as well.  After all, just as often as we say "I saw it with my own two eyes" we say that things "just don't sound right", or that they have "left a bad taste" in our mouthes.  

Along these lines we often describe people as 'cold' and - as I learned today - ideas posted to 'ideascale' can be described as 'hot'.  But our senses don't stop there.  We also have visceral responses when things "just don't feel right", and colloquially we are instructed to "trust our gut" or our "sixth sense".  

And then there is our sense of smell.  Down in Texas, where I spent an unfortunate number of my teenage years, stories which exaggerated the truth were met with a reality check coded in the form of three short 'sniffs' indicating that a story "smelled funny".

Now I don't consider myself to be great with numbers, but when I learned that transportation accounts for only 8% of Seattle's carbon emissions, my first instinct was to blurt out "show me the numbers" because that figure does not pass "my sniff test".

Here we have Seattle, one of the worst cities in the nation when it comes to traffic congestion, and one of the best (well, probably *the* best) cities when it comes to renewable electricity generation with City Light producing 89% of its energy through hydroelectric generation.  In light of these two stats, if something about the 8% statistic doesn't smell funny to you, read on, and... 

Consider the information on the attached graphic which shows the generation of energy by source and consumption by sector.  At the national level, oil tops the list of energy sources, and 97% of transportation is fueled by oil-derived products (diesel, gasoline, bunker, jet fuel, etc.).  Of course, at 27.8% of total energy 'consumption', transportation ranks second behind electricity consumption which comes in first at 40.1%.

We also see that at the national level 68% of electrical generation comes from coal (51%) and natural gas (17%), and coal emits far more carbon dioxide than oil and natural gas.  But here in Seattle we enjoy some distinct regional differentiation in electrical generation thanks to the jet stream, plate tectonics, and some hangers on from the last ice age.  

Perhaps a clue to what smells like a lowball estimate is to be found in the report's methodology (which I've not yet seen)?  Let me explain my suspicion by way of example.

In 2004 I was the co-author of a cluster study sponsored by the Seattle Office of Economic Development.  Our task was to inventory opportunities and threats faced by the maritime industry cluster and to derive the economic impact of the cluster.  This cluster study was the first of its kind in Seattle, and it has been widely cited and emulated.  Personally, this study left a bad taste in my mouth, and my master's thesis grew out of a critique of my own study (I've always been way to critical of myself).  The gist of my argument is that the study was essentially worthless because the Seattle OED did not allow us to consider any maritime or maritime related firms outside the city boundary.  It was as if the Seattle OED believed that the firms in Seattle that repair and paint tug boats (for instance) do not service tugs stationed at the Port of Tacoma or the Port of Everett!

I suspect that this same type of restrictive methodology was applied by whoever it was that conducted the carbon emissions study.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but...

I liken such an approach to rating the efficiency of a refrigerator by stabbing a thermometer into a slab of roast beef and observing (you gotta see it to believe it) how fast the temperature drops once power to the fridge is cut off.  Of course all that grew up with refrigerators in their homes would rightly call this test 'silly' because in our youths, we all heard our mothers yell "Close the door!" as we stood in front of an open fridge pouring milk (or Kool-Aid if you are lactose intolerant).  

We all know that the energy from the fridge is lost through the interaction with the outside environment - through the opening of the door.  The fridge is not a closed system.  Similarly, Seattle is not a closed system and Seattle's carbon footprint certainly does not terminate halfway across the I-90 or 520 bridges!

I honestly don't know how the 8% statistic was derived, but it smells funny to me, and I simply don't trust it.  IMHO setting priorities according to this statistic without at least performing a technical review is unwise.  

That said, I suggest that we align our priorities with our gut instincts and view any carbon emissions study critically.  Among the questions that we need to ask: Does the study apply full carbon accounting?  If so, how?  If not, why, and what are the ramifications?

Thanks for reading,

Derik 

[Derik Andreoli]

It's always great to be the first to reply to your own email... but here are some apropos quotes to ponder.

From the permaculture farmer (farmer Mike?) in Food Inc. "I'm always struck by how successful we have been at hitting the bull's eye of the wrong target"

and from me, "Good data leads, bad data misleads"

and to finish off, two more apropos quotes from Louis Mumford:

"Our national flower is the concrete cloverleaf"  ... and..

"A certain amount of opposition is a great help to a man.  Kites rise against, not with, the wind."

And with that, I wish all a good morning,

Derik

--
Derik Andreoli
Doctoral Candidate
Geography | UW
do...@u.washington.edu

[Derik Andreoli]

BTW, here is a source for the breakdown of CO2 generated by source.  It goes well with the graphic that I sent:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

-Derik

[pbc...@earthlink.net]

Wonderful quote!

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: Derik Andreoli <derika...@gmail.com>

Sender: seattlen...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:38:46 -0700

To: <seattlen...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: seattlen...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Something in the fridge smells funny! (a serious comment on carbon emissions)

[Elizabeth Campbell]

How would we propose to adjust the major components of the open system problem in 1-3 years?  I can think of a couple of ideas, but each has a great deal of difficulty attached to it.  We can say what we think would really make a difference, and hope that proposing things like carbon tax (or congestion tax) would be established. 

I don't know what is possible to attain for open system consumption or pollution reduction.  Beyond encouragement and increase in awareness, where can we go? 

-e

--
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that WE CANNOT EAT MONEY!

[Derik Andreoli]

Warning:  Here comes another long response elicited by Elizabeth's excellent question.

I think the first step to adjusting the major components of the open system is to accept complexity and create policy programs rather than individual policy recommendations.

In creating these programs, we need to remain cognizant of the complexity of the system and constantly ask ourselves questions, like: 

"Are the CO2 emissions from the construction and maintenance of roads included in the transportation category or the built environment?"

This is an important question because policymakers probably have widely varying interpretations of the term 'built environment'.  When I hear the term, my gut instinct is to think of office buildings, residential homes, apartments, etc.  

The next question, of course, is whether it makes sense to identify discrete categories in the first place when the system is what needs to be addressed.

Back to the cement question.  Never satisfied with an unknown, I did some digging and learned that 29.4% of cement consumed in the U.S. was used for building and maintaining roads.

And through a quick visit with my neighbors over at wikipedia I learned that cement is a large emitter of CO2.  In fact through the manufacturing process, which requires the decarbonation of limestone and the firing of gigantic kilns, at least .7 kg and as much as 1.4 kg of CO2 are produced for each kg of cement.

So, my inclination is to lump road construction and maintenance into the transportation category because, if we reduce VMT, we reduce the need for new roads and the maintenance of existing roads.

As I write this, there is major road construction happening just outside my window.  All day, I get to listen to all manner of heavy construction equipment destroying the old to bring in the new.  And each of these pieces of equipment is diesel powered.  Of course the emissions from these machines probably falls into the industry category, rather than the transportation category, and this further highlights the problems endemic to Silo Town.

Thanks again for the question.  I will eventually put together some specific policy suggestions and post them to the ideascale, but just to give you an idea of what I mean by policy programs, I'll say this:

If we agree that a good goal is to get people out of their cars, this requires that there is either an alternative form of long distance transportation (say, more than .5 miles by foot or 2 miles by bike), or, that the spatial mismatch between where people live, work, shop, meet, recreate, etc. is minimized.

So, a holistic policy would address the geography of service provision in a socially just manner.  Such a policy would encourage corner stores, lots of parks, meeting centers, etc.  The policy program would also recognize the 'last mile' that groceries make (from the grocer to your home) comprises only a very small percentage of the total miles that most food travels (I've heard the average is 1,500 miles).  As such, an effective policy program would incentivize local organic food production and consumption, and force... errr, encourage... everyone to be a vegetarian (see Livestock's Long Shadow)

A holistic policy program would also incentivize the use of bikes (or eBikes, which are actually more efficient), but would still recognize that some trips will need to be made by car or some form of public transit.  This policy program would therefore encourage transit (preferably electrified transit), but also recognize that the convenience of cars is tough to beat.  In this case, carpooling and car-sharing policies could be very effective at reducing VMT while at the same time not restricting PMT (person miles traveled).

This all sounds rather daunting, but I am rather hopeful that if we formulate holistic policy programs educated by an ecological understanding of human and earth systems we can make *great* strides toward reducing CO2 emissions and our dependence on oil, while simultaneously increasing the resilience of our economy to oil price shocks.  All the while, we will be putting in place the infrastructure (for lack of a better term) for building community ties.

In closing, I apologize for the length of my emails.  Just trying to keep the conversation going and the minds engaged.

-Derik

[Christine Hanna]

On the recent emails (Re: Something in the fridge smells funny! series):

I think this is a wonderful conversation and exploration of priority areas, and I'm learning a lot, so thank you! 

AND I feel a need to ask that we focus the conversation so that we remain w/in the scope of this group's charter. There are several other similar groups in this citywide process that are focused on related sectors, include transportation, energy and land use (along with green jobs, food, zero waste, and schools). 

Granted, the charter of the Neighborhoods group (this one) is squishy and overlaps with lots of other areas. But maybe we could focus our conversation on answering a) what does a carbon neutral neighborhood look/act/feel like, and b) what are the most important activities we need to do to get there from here (where "important" is a measure of impact plus feasibility)?  

At a minimum, for those drafting the white paper, staying informed on what the other related groups will be proposing will help eliminate redundancy and make sure we're not rejecting good opportunities for neighborhoods to take action. 

Thanks, 

Christine

Christine Hanna

Seattle Good Business Network 

chri...@seattlenetwork.org

(206) 629-2346 x2

Sign up for our email updates!

[ctbu...@comcast.net]

I too, would like to get off this list, but can't figure out how.  So  - please - whoever is in charge of the list, take my name off.  

thanks

Carol

[Gene W. Homicki]

All,

For those of you who are getting too much email from the list, or want to stop receiving email from the list altogether, you can manage your email preferences by:

1. Visit: http://seattleneighbors.org/

2. Log in to your Google account if prompted to

3. Clicking on "Edit my membership" on the right.

There are options to receive no email, or email a maximum once per day. Please try to change your own membership info first, but if you have problems, please feel free to email me directly at: g...@spiders.com and either remove you from the list, or switch you to the once per day digest (whichever you want). Even if you are removed, you'll have the option to catch up on what is going on at the site above.

For everyone else, before emailing please consider that every message you send to this list is going out to about 60 people. Also, if you are changing the topic in your message, please change the subject of the email message so we can more easily sort and filter through messages.

Lastly, as a reminder - even if you are leaving the list and have or have not filled out the survey - please vote for, or add, your ideas to the Ideal Scale site we have setup at:

http://seattleneighbors.ideascale.com/

This will help us narrow down the many ideas we've received for the White Paper, presentation and moving forward in the future!

Thanks!
Gene

--
Gene W. Homicki | g...@spiders.com | voice: +1.206.552.8488
Objective Consulting, Inc. | Technology with Integrity | http://www.spiders.com

[orna]

Derik,
I am no expert at all, but from the readings I have recently done (for
a class at Antioch) I can tell that you are correct in smelling
something very funny in that 8% figure for emissions from the
transportation sector.

Here are two links I found very helpful, to very enlightening blog
entries indicating more of a 62%-64% culpability on part of the
Seattle transportation sector, due to the fact that transportation,
unlike the rest of our energy needs, is not fueled from our hydro
sources. I recommend everyone check these links out, for a clear and
easy explanation.

http://hugeasscity.com/2009/12/21/seattles-transportation-carbon-footprint-can-electric-cars-save-us/

http://hugeasscity.com/2009/12/13/seattles-carbon-footprint-assessing-the-assessment/

(sorry I don't know to make these links live)

Orna.

On Aug 18, 1:45 am, Derik Andreoli <derikandre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Warning: "The length of this document guards it well against the risk of it
> being read" - Winston Churchill
>
> I've long thought that we humans rely far too heavily on our sense of
> sight, hence the saying "you gotta see it to believe it".
>
> I've also long thought that we should trust our other senses as well.  After
> all, just as often as we say "I saw it with my own two eyes" we say
> that things "just don't sound right", or that they have "left a bad taste"
> in our mouthes.
>
> Along these lines we often describe people
> as 'cold' and - as I learned today - ideas posted to 'ideascale' can
> be described as 'hot'.  But
> our senses don't stop there.  We also have visceral responses when things
> "just don't feel right", and colloquially we are instructed to "trust our
> gut" or our "sixth sense".
>
> And then there is our sense of smell.  Down in Texas, where I spent an
> unfortunate number of my teenage years, stories which exaggerated the truth
> were met with a reality check coded in the form of three short 'sniffs'
> indicating that a story "smelled funny".
>
> Now I don't consider myself to be great with numbers, but when I learned
> that transportation accounts for only 8% of Seattle's carbon emissions, my
> first instinct was to blurt out "show me the numbers" because that figure
> does not pass "my sniff test".
>
> Here we have Seattle, one of the worst

> <http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/traffic-congested-cities-lifestyle-r...>cities

> in the nation when it comes to traffic congestion, and one of the best
> (well, probably *the* best) cities when it comes to renewable electricity
> generation with City Light producing

> 89%<http://www.cityofseattle.net/light/FuelMix/>of its energy through

> hydroelectric generation.  In light of these two
> stats, if something about the 8% statistic doesn't smell funny to you, read
> on, and...
>
> Consider the information on the attached graphic which shows the generation
> of energy by source and consumption by sector.  At the national level, oil
> tops the list of energy sources, and 97% of transportation is fueled by
> oil-derived products (diesel, gasoline, bunker, jet fuel, etc.).  Of course,
> at 27.8% of total energy 'consumption', transportation ranks second behind
> electricity consumption which comes in first at 40.1%.
>
> We also see that at the national level 68% of electrical generation comes
> from coal (51%) and natural gas (17%), and coal emits far more carbon
> dioxide than oil and natural gas.  But here in Seattle we enjoy some
> distinct regional differentiation in electrical generation thanks to the jet
> stream, plate tectonics, and some hangers on from the last ice age.
>
> Perhaps a clue to what smells like a lowball estimate is to be found in the
> report's methodology (which I've not yet seen)?  Let me explain my suspicion
> by way of example.
>
> In 2004 I was the co-author of a cluster study sponsored by the Seattle
> Office of Economic Development.  Our task was to inventory opportunities and
> threats faced by the maritime industry cluster and to derive the economic
> impact of the cluster.  This cluster study was the first of its kind in
> Seattle, and it has been widely cited and emulated.  Personally, this study
> left a bad taste in my mouth, and my master's thesis grew out of a critique
> of my own study (I've always been way to critical of myself).  The gist of

> my argument is that the study was essentially worthless because t*he Seattle

> OED did not allow us to consider any maritime or maritime related firms

> outside the city boundary*.  It was as if the Seattle OED believed that the

> firms in Seattle that repair and paint tug boats (for instance) do not
> service tugs stationed at the Port of Tacoma or the Port of Everett!
>
> I suspect that this same type of restrictive methodology was applied by
> whoever it was that conducted the carbon emissions study.  Perhaps I'm
> wrong, but...
>
> I liken such an approach to rating the efficiency of a refrigerator by
> stabbing a thermometer into a slab of roast beef and observing (you gotta
> see it to believe it) how fast the temperature drops once power to the
> fridge is cut off.  Of course all that grew up with refrigerators in their
> homes would rightly call this test 'silly' because in our youths, we all
> heard our mothers yell "Close the door!" as we stood in front of an open
> fridge pouring milk (or Kool-Aid if you are lactose intolerant).
>

> We all know that *the energy from the fridge is lost through the interaction
> with the outside environment - through the opening of the door*.  The fridge

> is not a closed system.  Similarly, Seattle is not a closed system and
> Seattle's carbon footprint certainly does not terminate halfway across the
> I-90 or 520 bridges!
>
> I honestly don't know how the 8% statistic was derived, but it smells funny
> to me, and I simply don't trust it.  IMHO setting priorities according to
> this statistic without at least performing a technical review is unwise.
>
> That said, I suggest that we align our priorities with our gut instincts and
> view any carbon emissions study critically.  Among the questions that we
> need to ask: Does the study apply full carbon accounting?  If so, how?  If
> not, why, and what are the ramifications?
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Derik
>

>  Energy_Consumption_by_supply_and_demand_sector.png
> 253KViewDownload

[HTrim]

I like this idea and it seems like it would be appropriate for neighborhood
scale idea:

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15851771

Boulder uses car colors to discourage drivingDriven to Drive Less campaign
launches on Labor Day weekend
By Laura Snider Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 08/21/2010 10:57:13 PM MDT

Get involved
Driven to Drive Less will officially launch Sept. 4 at the Boulder Hometown
Creek Fair. But the campaign is looking for more sponsors and businesses
that want to involve their employees. Anyone who is interested should visit
driventodriveless.com or e-mail drivento...@gmail.com.
Got a blue car? The city of Boulder wants you to consider commuting sans car
on Mondays.

Red car? Take a break from driving on Wednesdays. White? Thursday is your
designated day of the week to leave your vehicle at home.

On Labor Day weekend, the city plans to launch a campaign to encourage
residents to "do their 14.3 percent" to cut down on the number of cars on
the road -- reducing air pollution, cutting carbon and road rage -- by
making a commitment to go car-free on the day of the week that's correlated
to your vehicle's color. Those that stick to their car-less commitments can
win prizes from the campaign's sponsors.

"We want to attract people to something other than driving for one day a
week or more in a fun easy way," said Cris Jones, a transportation planner
with the city's GO Boulder program.

Participation in the program -- called Driven to Drive Less -- will be
voluntary, and so is the day that participants choose to take a break from
being behind the wheel. (There's no penalty for red-car-owning participants
who commit to being car fee on the white-car day.)

The connection to car colors -- and the program's whimsical Web site,
driventodriveless.com -- is part of an intentional drive by the campaign's
designer, Sukle Advertising, to give a light-hearted feel to car-cutting
movement.

When the city, which is paying for the bulk of the program with a $105,000
Federal Congestion Mitigation and

Westbound traffic is backed up on U.S. 36 from the Davidson Mesa to the
Cherryvale Road bridge in May. In two weeks, the city of Boulder plans to
launch a campaign to encourage residents to reduce air pollution by making a
commitment to go car-free on the day of the week that s correlated to your
vehicle s color. ( PAUL AIKEN )Air Quality Program grant, put out a request
for proposals to run the Driven to Drive Less campaign, they got a lot of
applications from traditional transportation consulting firms. Those
proposals tended to be a little heavy on the wonky transportation jargon and
a little light on the catchy inspiration that might actually stick with
local drivers, Jones said.

So the city chose Denver-based Sukle Advertising, the firm responsible for
Denver Water's "Use Only What You Need" campaign, which included billboards
that read, "Grass is dumb. Water 2 minutes less. You're lawn won't notice,"
among other slogans.

"They were behind that campaign and everybody knows about it. It got people
thinking," Jones said. "They are really good at creating buzz around
changing behavior."

The idea for Driven to Drive Less is rooted in the one-less-car programs
that have existed for years in several large U.S. cities, such as Seattle
and Chicago. But unlike Boulder's concept, most of those programs ask people
to give up their cars for a month or even a year. In Seattle, the incentives
for people who "break up with their cars" by selling them and agreeing not
to buy a new one for a year include discounts to local car-sharing services
and vouchers for the public transportation system.

"This is a different approach to the same theory," Jones said of the Boulder
campaign. "Those programs have several hundred participants and we're
looking for several thousand. "

If 2,800 people participate in Driven to Drive Less, that effect will be
equal to taking 400 cars off the road, according to the city.

Jones said he didn't have information on the success of the one-less-car
programs operating in the United States, but he pointed out that many of the
programs have been around for years. The Seattle program is almost a decade
old.

Philip Winters, director of the Transportation Demand Management Program at
the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research,
said he's never heard of a strategy similar to the one Boulder's proposing.
But he is familiar with a number of existing programs that encourage people
to voluntarily not drive on "ozone action days," and those programs have
seen some results. Still, he said Boulder shouldn't expect to see "huge
shifts in travel behavior overnight."

"The overall effectiveness probably depends on the involvement of the
community and the availability of viable options such as transit service
from home to work," he said.

Other support structures that will likely help Driven to Drive Less thrive
include employers who are willing to let employees telecommute; the
existence of emergency-ride-home programs that prevent participants from
being stranded if, for example, a child gets sick; and an infrastructure
that allows for safe biking and walking.

One of the existing programs in the world that may be the most similar to
Boulder's Driven to Drive Less is based in Seoul, South Korea, where
residents are encouraged to register online and pledge to not drive on a
chosen day of the week. Participants are given an electronic tag to put on
their windshields that can track compliance.

Seoul's " No Driving Days" program began in 2001, but a study published last
year in the journal of the Transportation Research Board found that the
campaign had only reduced daily car use in the city by 1.3 percent.

Boulder will have a year to see how the campaign works until federal funding
runs out. If it's successful, the city hopes more local businesses will step
up to sponsor the program and keep it going.

Boulder resident Maggie Korey -- who works from home and can sometimes go
days without driving -- said Friday she didn't think a designated car-less
day of the week would work for her.

"I don't think I could do it," she said. "I'm not going to reschedule a
meeting or anything."

Matt Bonoma, who was sitting with Korey on the Pearl Street Mall, agreed.

"I think it a fun, interesting idea," Bonoma said. "But I don't know that it
would change my driving habits."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or
sni...@dailycamera.com.

Read more: Boulder uses car colors to discourage driving - Boulder Daily
Camera
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15851771#ixzz0xLlwsvLY
DailyCamera.com