Helping the planet by changing your light bulbs
Posted on | November 17, 2008 | No Comments
Time has past now when being an environmentalist meant spending more money. A quick look at the economy of a family can confirm quite the opposite. A clear example is in the choice of light bulbs. Simple calculations about your energy consumptions can help you verify how much money you could actually save by changing all light bulbs in your home from standard incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs. You need no living in the darkness. There are plenty of models available in the market, so you can make your perfect choice depending on whether it is for outdoor or indoor use, a table lamp or a pending lamp, white light or colored, or full-spectrum light which creates a daylight light, something we in Sweden value very much! You can check some examples of what is available using the very useful guide published by the Environmental Defense Fund .
I know, compact fluorescent light bulbs cost about 4 to 6 times more than a traditional bulb. However, they last much longer, and use lot less energy. When we did change all the bulbs in our home, we realize immediately what a big saving it was: our electric bill was in average about 10 € cheaper each month! That adds up to a full 120 € per year. Much more than we spent for changing our light bulbs! This is what economists call an asset. Not only we got the invested money back in almost no time, but we are earning 120 € for each year of use. If we consider a fair lifetime for light bulb of about 8/9 years, that is much more than any bank is giving you in interests for your savings.
Each case is different, depending on how big is your home, and how much daylight is available in the country you live. We obviously consume about 3 to 4 times more kilowatt/hour during the dark winter than during the long summer days. There are calculators in the internet that help you computing how much money you can save in your case. All you need to know is your average kilowatt hour consumed per year and the price you pay for kilowatt hour, which is normally written on your electric bill. Think that if you change one standard light bulb with one using about a quarter of Watt ( for instance you substitute all 100 Watt bulb with 25 Watt) you safe a three quarter of your money spent for using that light. It is very simple math. Of course you are not only saving money. You save on carbon dioxide emissions. So even if you are rich enough not to care about how much is your electric bill, you might still care about helping the planet.
Incidentally, it never hurts to switch off the light when you leave the room.
Tags: carbon dioxide > elettric bill > energy efficiency > light bulb > money savings
The Living Planet report 2008 (part II)
Posted on | November 11, 2008 | 2 Comments
The WWF estimates that we will soon need two planet Earths to be able to keep up with our demands on resources. This estimates are based on predictions on double annual carbon emission in 2050 made by the IPCC, as well as the increase in global population up to 9 billions, and the increase in need for food, forest and fisheries products. This is true under the assumptions that everything goes smoothly and nicely, e.g. there will be no loss in biocapacity due to freshwater loss, or no feedback loop that precipitate climate changes, and no damage by pollution. Many would agree that most of these assumptions can be regarded to as very optimistic. However, the best we can do, is to focus on the actions we can take to reduce the gap between the production and the consumption of resources. That is the gap between human footprint and available biocapacity.
From one side we need too much resources, simply because we are too many: less people, less consumption. On the other hand, biocapacity is determined by the size and the level of productivity of biologically productive area. This seems to suggest that all we need to do is to increase the productivity of the already available areas. This, however, may not be the most effective way, and there is a large risk that could backfire. Increased productivity, may require greater resources consumption and waste production. There is no one solution. We need to tackle the problem taking several different actions. Some of them will have an almost immediate impact, others may take a longer time before the positive effect will be evident.
The Climate Solution Model proposed by WWF aims at being able to produce the energy needed to meet the projected increase of demand in 2050, while reducing the carbon dioxide emission of 60 to 80%. The model proposed includes three different strategies: expansion of energy efficiency, growth in use of renewable energy, and expansion of carbon capture and storage. But if we consider the technological development that is likely to happen, we would probably be able to do much better than this. This simply means that progresses are technologically possible. There are however, three other factors that are absolutely necessary to be able to achieve this goal:
-
- Governments all over the world need to agree and take common actions on effective strategies
- Actions should be taken immediately, to avoid the risk of being trapped in the use of unsustainable technologies, that would require larger investments in the future
- The effort should be global. Every country has the responsibility to act according to its capacity.
A study of the average per person ecological footprint for different economical regions, has pointed out some interesting features. Comparing data available from 1961, we can see that high-income regions, accounting for about 15 % of world population, have increased their footprint per person by 76%, mainly due to increased carbon dioxide emissions. This correspond to 36% of the humanity total footprint.
On the other extreme, low-income regions have tripled the population, has decreased the biocapacity available by more than 67%, while decreasing the average per person footprint by 19%. Essentially more people share the same amount of resources.
The middle-income regions has doubled the population size, and increased the per person footprint by 21% since 1961. In 2005 the demand of this group account for 39% of the humanity’s total footprint.
Some of the solutions suggested by the WWF include transfer of technology from high-income countries to middle- and low-income countries, to avoid or limit the use of energy inefficient old technologies, which will be adopted for their industrial development. Since the majority of the population lives in cities, special care should be taken in planning and building infrastructure that take into account energy needs, and influence of cities on biocapacity. Reducing individual consumption by insulating buildings or designing cities where is better to walk than driving a car, encouraging the consumption of locally produced food, increasing the energy efficiency of private and commercial buildings, and integrating utilities so that the waste produced by one can be used as input by another. Reducing the population growth in development areas, which can be achieved by empowering women, allowing them an higher education which will turn into better economical and possible access to family planning facilities.
Last but not least global trade influence strongly humanity’s ecological footprint, having increased from about 8% in 1961, to more than 40% in 2005. Most countries do not produce enough resources and need to import them from other countries. The imported resources are either consumed in the country that has imported them or processed and re-exported to third countries, adding to the average Ecological Footprint.
Governments, private sector and civil society, we are all called to contribute to the effort to achieve this common goal. The good news is that it is still not too late: a sustainable world is possible.
The full Living Planet Report 2008 is available at the WWF web page.
Tags: biocapacity > climate change > ecological footprint > Ecology > ecosystem > food > forest > population growth > renewable energy > resources > trade
The Living Planet Report 2008 (part I)
Posted on | November 7, 2008 | 1 Comment
The Living Planet Report 2008, published last week by WWF, is both frightening and reassuring. If we want to keep this lifestyle, in 2030 we will need the resources provided by two planets like the Earth. This means that we are consuming resources at a faster rate than they can be replenished. Now, if I were told that to keep my lifestyle I will soon need to work 48 hours a day, I know I better start cutting on some expenses now, since my days are only 24-hour long, and sometimes, actually often, I wonder why they feel so much shorter. Since we do not have another planet, we obviously need to act now. This is not a matter of being into ecology or an environmentalist anymore, nor it is a question of whether is right or wrong to exploit the Earth resources as we do. It is a matter of survival, and honestly, of being smart or stupid. No one in his right mind can ignore this anymore! Luckily the report states that it is not too late to react. So let’s have a closer look at it.
The Living Planet Report 2008 uses three main indexes for defining the state of our planet:
- the Living Planet Index that describes the state of planet’s biodiversity. This is based on populations of different species, both globally and in bio-geographic area (temperate, tropical, etc.). This index has declined by about 30% since 1970, which means there are much less species around on the Earth.
- the Ecological Footprint that measures the extend of demands that human beings place om these ecosystems. This index measures the human footprint on Earth, which now exceeds by about 30% the ability of the planet to regenerate itself.
- Finally, the Water Footprint, measuring the demand of water resources. This index has been introduced given the fact that many geographical areas in the world alredy suffer from water shortages. This is likely to increase due to the effect of climate changes.
But why do we care if some species will disappear from Earth? Can’t we, human being, live in peace and stop worrying about Pandas and others of that kind? After all, extinction of species is not something we have introduced: think about dinosaurs! Well, here is why we need to think about it. It has to do once again with our own survival as specie. In fact, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) humanity depends on healthy ecosystems for his own survival. Ecosystems provide us with services, such as:
1. nutrient recycling, soil formation and primary production (supporting services)
2. production of food, freshwater, materials or fuels (provisioning services)
3. climate and food regulation, water purification, pollination and pest control (regulating services)
4. aesthetic, spiritual, educational and recreational services (cultural services)
If ecosystems are not healthy, they will simply not be able to provide us with the services that we need for our own survival. Since services 1,3 and 4 have no commercial use, because they do not have a market value, their decline will not affect the global or local economy. The market will naturally push toward exploiting resources and undermining ecosystems, in order to maximize the profits. Thus, we need to be proactive in protecting them.
So, what can be done? (read part II)
Tags: Earth > ecological footprint > ecosystem > human footprint > Living Planet Report > resources > water shortage