The Waxman-Markey bill may not be the ideal solution, but its passing is a landmark event, and offers significant progress over the status quo. This energy/climate change/jobs bill passed the House hours ago by a narrow margin; it still needs to pass the Senate. Friday’s vote is historic, and deserves increased attention. If you are looking for a way to have a big personal impact on sustainability, consider learning and talking about this and other legislation that is aimed at leading society toward a path of sustainabilty and better quality of life for the long term.
I spent the last several days at the Second International Engineering Systems Symposium, a conference involving people from a wide variety of disciplines who are working to solve difficult problems using a holistic approach. Many issues we face today are remarkably complex, and if we take a narrow view when addressing them we could run into problems. While we need experts with deep knowledge in very specific topics, we also need people who can think about systems as a whole, and how parts of a system interact with each other (sometimes producing surprising results). Some topics discussed this week include energy, climate change, health care, education, design, and the economy. I could probably write daily posts for months about this conference and still have plenty of material left. I will highlight some themes, projects, and ideas over the course of several posts that I found inspiring or important (in no particular order of importance). Today I want to point your attention to a phenomenal project taking place on a few small islands in the North Atlantic.
MIT Portugal is collaborating with numerous partners to develop and implement new energy systems for islands in the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago. What a challenging and amazing opportunity! These islands are becoming, in effect, a laboratory for researchers studying technology, public policy, economic, and other aspects of a next-generation energy system. Instead of putting a laboratory in a University, they are putting the University in the laboratory. While the needs and resources of these islands are certainly unique, they are serving as a testbed and example for the rest of the world regarding renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a holistic approach to redesigning how a society creates and uses energy. You can learn more about the Green Islands Project here, here or here.
So what is so exciting about focusing on a complete island? Think about trying to do the same thing with a city in the middle of the U.S. It is tightly interconnected with other cities through roads, power lines, rivers, etc. Numerous interactions with the world outside the city would make research results more difficult to interpret. An island has limited interactions, so in some ways it is close to being a closed system. This makes it easier for researchers to make conclusions about the changes to the energy system and the influence of these changes on the rest of the island. This research may lead to a better fundamental understanding of the next generation of energy systems, along with the socio-technical complexities that exist because of the interface between energy, social, political, economic, and environmental systems.
Please welcome back Greg Kushmerek for another installment in his series on bicycle commuting. He contributes every second Wednesday, and you can read his previous posts here and here.
I’ve spent time so far discussing general issues that affect anyone considering using a bike for transportation. Today I want to think about issues of infrastructure development that support cycle commuting specifically.
Why cycle commuting? Most Americans commute by car, and increasingly those car trips are by solo drivers. Anyone familiar with rush hour traffic knows all of that stop and go is bad for gas mileage. In other words, we have plenty of people spending time creeping through traffic on a daily basis burning hydrocarbons when they could be on a bike instead. Put more commuters on a bike, and I think you’ll have a greater number of healthy (and less-stressed) people breathing cleaner air.
What helps support cycle commuters? If your bike commute is short, your interests include parking. When I lived and worked in The Netherlands, my company had two large bike racks right out front with overhead cover. Think about these attributes: these commuter bicycles were not relegated to the back corner behind a dumpster where vandals and thieves can prey in privacy during work hours. Access from the rack and the front door was just as quick as for any car in the lot, and a rainstorm, a daily guarantee, would not mean a wet seat awaited you for the ride home.
Don’t underestimate the need for a place to park. A friend of mine gave up his daily 3-mile cycle commute because the management company of his Kendall Square firm wouldn’t let him park his bike inside. It didn’t matter that there was space in his office and his company was OK with it; the lease said no and the bike had to go. There wasn’t any nice bike rack out front either. If he wanted to bike in, he faced leaving a theft magnet locked to a parking meter.
Just one mile away, anyone visiting the Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston’s Longwood medical center can park their bike for free at one of the many racks in the parking garage. Your bike is by the attendent collecting cash from car drivers exiting the garage and right next to the main door in to the facility. These racks are heavily used during the day: free parking, a protected space, easy access to the door. Many companies could provide the same at a minimum of cost. Convert a few spaces in a parking garage into bike racks. Put those racks in a decently trafficked area. The same happened when Boston Healthcare for the Homeless built a new facility at the Boston Medical Center. The parking structure was created with cyclists in mind. Bike in there, and you have a protected bike spot in a highly visible area. Many of the staff converted to cycle commuters so they wouldn’t have to park in overflow a half mile away.
Is crime a concern? Some companies have bike lockers where four people share the space, limiting the list of suspects if something goes awry. This is a feature people are even willing to pay for if the traffic density is high enough. I’ve heard of waiting lists to get into these kinds of setups.
My favorite idea along these lines is one I first saw pop up in Chicago: the McDonald’s Cycle Center, a secure bike parking center that provides indoor storage and a locker/shower facility for yourself. I’ve been inside: it’s clean and well-located. Bike in, change, and either walk to work in your nearby downtown office or hop the L and go. The center even offers an on-site bike mechanic — and any cycle commuter worth his or her salt knows where the bike shops are on the way into work and when they open. These types of places are perfect for existing high-density cities.
Do you think your city has enough density to support a facility like the McDonald’s Cycle Center? Has your employer ever considered converting car spaces to bike spaces in a garage? Have you asked?
A lot of people (including me) are talking about the need to innovate, the need to develop new technology and systems to help solve some pretty important problems right now. In addition to addressing energy and environmental issues, innovation is essential for economic growth and quality of life for society. There is actually recent evidence that a lull in innovation over the last ten years or so has contributed to the current economic crisis.
What can we do to help accelerate innovation? One obvious action is to boost R&D funding (both from government and private sources). We have had some recent boosts to U.S. research and education programs, and a recent Forbes article provided an interesting perspective on what needs to happen for that money to translate into innovation. Forbes pointed out that our current research and educational infrastructure is based on narrowly defined disciples of study, while innovation typically requires the synthesis of ideas from a variety of disciplines. Forbes suggests that we need scientists (and engineers I might add) who can think with both sides of the brain if we want to accelerate innovation (i.e., renaissance scientists and engineers). Forbes also points out that research grants often require very narrowly defined research results, and that we need to support more “flexibility and exploration” in research. We certainly need to endorse expanded curiosity-driven research (in addition to results-driven research) if we are to accelerate innovation, as well as move toward a more open research infrastructure where interdisciplinary collaboration is more commonplace. This would require a myriad of changes, including how research grants are awarded and managed, and improving the balance of funding sources (the share of results-focused industry grants has increased significantly over the years).
The Forbes article points out that some undergraduate programs allow the kind of curricular customization that aids both left and right brain development, but that we need graduate programs that also offer a ‘whole brain experience’. There are actually some vanguard graduate programs that cross disciplinary boundaries (and sides of the brain), recognizing that solving societies toughest problems requires integration of knowledge from many fields of study. Consider, for example, the interdisciplinary Design Science program at the University of Michigan. It breaks away from traditional disciplinary boundaries to address design as a standalone research topic, integrating diverse fields of study, such as engineering, business, and psychology. The Design Science website explains how this field of study differs from established science disciplines: “Traditional science studies the world as we found it; design science studies the world as we make it”.
One of the things I love most about design is getting to focus on an important problem, and integrating knowledge and resources from a variety of disciplines into a complete, creative solution. Design as a discipline really knows no boundaries. I’m glad to see that some are recognizing the importance of linking traditional science and engineering ‘left-brained’ expertise with other disciplines. We would not only benefit from scientists and engineers learning more about right-brained subjects, but by bringing people together from diverse disciplines to tackle tough design problems. Progress in innovation could achieve new heights by linking the skills of engineers with the complementary insights of others. We don’t just need renaissance scientists and engineers, but renaissance people. I hope interest in design expands, and a broader part of our society begins to contribute their ideas and expertise to creating the next generation of energy, transportation, and agricultural systems that will move us toward sustainability.
I read about a new movement recently that is bringing to light the effects of traditional (neoclassical) economics curriculum on sustainability (both economic and environmental). Toxic Textbooks points out that most introductory economics textbooks simplify market economics. One important aspect of market economies that is overlooked often is the cost of externalities, that is, the costs of an economic transaction that do not have a direct impact on the parties involved in the transaction.
What do externalities have to do with sustainability? A lot. Understanding externalities is phenomenally important. One of the main reasons we have pollution, disappearing forests, a warming planet, and rapidly depleting oil supplies is that consumers don’t have to pay for all the costs of what they consume. Some of these costs are subsidized (think tax breaks and security for oil companies), and other costs are imposed on others not involved directly in the transaction. What is the real cost of pollution, of using something that can’t be replaced, of climate change, or of importing oil from certain countries? The consumer is not paying for it; the price of their consumption is artificially low. This is an effect of The Tragedy of the Commons, the title of a seminal paper written by Garrett Hardin in 1968. Markets work well when the value of everything behind a product is considered. In many cases, products depend on resources that we do not pay for (non-marketed assets). The cost of products normally do not reflect the value of ‘ecological services‘ provided by the natural environment. These additional resources are the commons, and the tragedy occurs when the commons are exploited to fuel growth in an unsustainable way; the commons are degraded or destroyed as a consequence. Once we start paying the true cost of what we consume, then the market economy will move toward a sustainable state. (See this recent article by Robert Costanza for a great perspective on the role externalities are playing in our current economy).
The only way we are going to shift to new, sustainable ways of doing things on a large enough scale is to provide the right price signals. We don’t need higher taxes overall, just different taxes that help reflect the cost of using common resources, and encourage investment in the right technologies and businesses. Even if some folks don’t buy into global climate change, there are enough other solid reasons (economic, national security, etc.) to justify a change in price signals.
The concept of externalities may be lacking from today’s economic textbooks, which is a problem for sustainability. But would revising all our textbooks solve this issue completely? I believe it extends beyond the classroom. What about those who haven’t learned about economics from a textbook? Many Americans have a pretty good concept of supply and demand. They understand how economic forces push prices up during a shortage, or pull them down when there is a glut. But does conventional economic wisdom include the importance of externalities? I suspect that it doesn’t. If it did, then voters would more universally support gasoline tax hikes, carbon caps, and investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Many citizens do support these things, but fewer than we need. We need more people who understand and appreciate externalities. But how do we get there? Perhaps revised textbooks is a start. But what else can we do? What else is being done right now?
I usually write about better design of vehicles, renewable energy systems, or other engineered systems. We need to keep in mind the importance better design of other things. Here is a nice video I came across tonight that presents a vision for better urban design:
In engineering system design one must consider the interaction between all the subsystems. For example, in designing a car, the powertrain engineers need to work with the suspension designers to make sure the two systems work together well. Otherwise you could end up with great individual subsystems, but an unusable car. I view our plans for new transportation and energy systems in a similar way. There are a lot of interactions that we need to manage. Urban design is an issue that interconnects so many other aspects of life, and it deserves attention. We need to think about how our cities are laid out influences how people move, interact, and work. Better urban design and infrastructure could make transportation options viable that are not right now. For example, like cycling works in some situations right now (check out this bike move), but the right infrastructure (along with incentives, education, and availability of high-utility bicycles) could make it work for a large portion of our transportation needs.
One month has passed since Earth day 2009 (today is Design Impact’s one month anniversary). Many of us participated and made some changes on April 22nd. You may have been asked last month what you did to celebrate Earth Day. A better question might be to ask now what have you done since Earth Day. Have any of your changes stuck? You probably have heard some say that ‘every day should be earth day’, that sustainability should become a built-in way of life for each of us. Some even go so far as to say we should throw out Earth Day, which has become a ‘feel good token’. I’m not sure we should eliminate Earth Day, but after 40 years we need to move on to something that fosters bigger impact and faster progress. Our efforts should be continuous; perhaps Earth Day could become our date for annual review.
We need a more focused approach that goes beyond green choices one day per year, or even green daily choices year-round. We need to get familiar with the numbers that help us quantify and compare the impact our decisions make, and focus our efforts on things that will provide the most impact, particularly over the long term. As we learn more, it becomes clear that good individual choices can make a difference, but will not bring the large-scale change we need for our energy and agriculture systems. So instead of focusing all of our green efforts on whether we have unplugged our phone charger, or if we should skip beef for a day, let’s do as Joe Romm of Climate Progress advocates and ‘get political’. Let’s awaken the full power and creativity of our society and direct it toward changes that will lead to a sustainable future.
Perhaps the something we need is an ‘Earth Decade’. Have a look at the WE Campaign, which has issued a challenge to the U.S. to ‘commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years’. This is the kind of vision and plan we need—one that is on the the scale of other grand mobilizations or transitions (think WWII and the space race). In the words of Al Gore:
“our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises. We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. … If we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of “solutions summits” with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.”
I believe we can solve this. Let’s declare an Earth Decade. Let’s unify and get moving.
A recent NPR article covered the link between energy independence and national security. A group of retired generals has pointed out that ‘the way the United States uses energy is jeopardizing national security’ and is ‘challenging the U.S. government and all Americans to reduce energy consumption and look for alternative energy sources.’ In fact, the Pentagon is working to move to more fuel-efficient vehicles for both financial and geopolitical reasons.
In Thomas Friedman’s book, Hot Flat and Crowded, the links between our current energy system, national security, and human rights are discussed at length. Friedman describes a correlation he has observed between decreasing oil prices and improvements in human rights and innovation in oil-rich countries. In essence, he says that when governments in oil-rich nations can derive wealth from selling natural resources, then they don’t have to rely so much on innovation and real value creation. In contrast, when nations run out of oil (or if oil prices were to fall), they need to be more supportive of human rights and creativity to survive. He describes several examples that support this hypothesis, and makes a compelling argument that one of the most effective things Americans can do to improve our own nations security, as well as improve the lives of many others around the world, is to dramatically reduce demand for oil. So even if someone doesn’t support renewable energy development and energy efficiency improvements for environmental reasons (which are in the long term also economic and political reasons as well), then perhaps he or she would support these advancements because of their impact on national security and human rights.
I just had to share with you a great article from CNN: David MacKay, physics professor from Cambridge University, is urging us to actually look at the numbers when it comes to conserving energy. He explains that ’small actions will not deliver a solution’ to our energy problems, and that‘our failure to talk straight about the numbers is allowing people to persist in wishful thinking, inspired by inane sayings such as “every little bit helps.” ‘. As I discussed in Feeling Green, doing small things to conserve may help us feel better, and are important to pay some attention to, but in many cases have imperceptible impact. We certainly should do everything we can, but we need to keep things in perspective. If we actually look at the numbers, and get a feel for what a kilowatt-hour is, then we can think more critically and focus our efforts on activities that will make a big difference. For example, we need new energy production, energy distribution, transportation, and agricultural systems. Small actions are not going to remake these systems. We need to come together as a society and voice our desire to make these transitions happen. Important policy changes are being debated right now, and we need to urge our representatives to think long-term and instigate policies that will bring real change. We can amplify our voice by talking about these issues with others and sharing our insightful enthusiasm for the solutions. Perhaps we can inspire others to speak up as well.
Looking at the numbers behind issues allows us to make objective comparisons and leads us to more solid decisions. This is part of why I devote a lot of my writing to quantitative modeling and design issues. I try to show how look at things quantitatively (without diving into crazy math). I’m pretty much keeping it to simple algebra and arithmetic. My purpose in writing the more quantitative posts is not to train you to become an engineer, but to help you get a taste of what’s involved, and to understand a little about engineering design so you can see how it is linked to your own life, and to the future of our society. I’m striving to present quantitative posts in a way that is accessible. It’s a real challenge. I want to keep posts from getting too long, but I also want to make sure I explain things in enough detail. If you have ideas on how I can explain things more clearly, I welcome your feedback (you can email me or post a comment). I also aim to give enough context for the quantitative posts so that readers know why these topics are important, in hopes that some readers who might be put off by equations are willing to read and think about them. Let’s become informed about energy and sustainability issues, and do something with this knowledge.
A couple weeks ago I mentioned that May is National Bike Month. It turns out that May is also National EcoDriving Month, at least according to the EcoDriving Program of the Auto Alliance. Driving habits can have tremendous impact on fuel efficiency. Did you hear about the expert hypermilers who drove a stock Ford Fusion Hybrid almost 1500 miles on a single tank of gasoline late last month? You can check out more tips on squeezing the most out of your gasoline on Ecomodder. I especially like the advise they give that has nothing to do with how you drive a car, but on what you can do instead of driving (walk, ride a bike, drive fewer miles). These are all great ideas, but we would be hard pressed to see big gains through better driving habits without the right incentives. Economic incentives would magnify the impact of EcoDriving. Hypermiling became popular last summer when gasoline broke the $4/gallon threshold, but how many EcoDrivers do we have now with $2/gallon fuel? Stable, moderately high fuel prices would not only motivate better driving habits, but reduce total miles driven (by petroleum fueled vehicles), create a market for more efficient vehicles, and provide the impetus for more Americans to consider cycling as a viable transportation option. We would probably even see a lot more creative activity in creating bicycle designs that make cycling practical for more people in more situations; for example, accommodating cargo and passengers, providing weather protection, and utilizing electric assist when human power alone is not sufficient. For a good example of this, have a look at the new FedEx delivery vehicles in Paris.
Electric-assist delivery bicycles used by FedEx in Paris
May is already National Bike and EcoDriving month, perhaps we should just declare it National Sustainable Transportation month! We could promote sustainable transportation on many fronts: driving habits (hypermiling), vehicle choice (appropriate size vehicles, bicycles), vehicle design (electric/hybrid electric vehicles, practical bicycles), infrastructure design (advanced/adaptive traffic light timing, roundabouts), and transportation policy. In fact, the time between now and this fall is a great opportunity to get politically active and have an important influence on transportation reform. This fall several federal transportation programs are up for reauthorization by Congress. Let’s ensure our representatives understand that we do not support continuing the transportation system status quo. Reforms need to come sooner than later to provide a foundation for a vibrant economy and healthy ecosystems that provide invaluable services to humanity. Changes are being debated right now. If you want to make a big difference, more than switching to CFLs or buying a plug-in hybrid for yourself, please consider learning about these proposed changes and voice your support for a renewed transportation system that can serve our society sustainably.
