I have a three year-old Honda Accord that is about to come off of a lease. I have three options: Turn the car in, lease another on very favorable terms or buy the car, again on favorable terms (it’s very low mileage). All three probably cost me a similar amount. I either continue making a payment for a new car or for the existing one. Most leasees would go for the new car.

In the Marcc 2008 issue of Metropolis magazine (sorry no link that I can find) Roberta Gratz has an essay on the environmental impact of historical renovation as opposed to tearing down and building a new ‘greener’ building. She notes that:

” The greenest building is one that’s already built”

The struck me as being very relevant to two themes of this blog and my life these days: The hidden carbon cost of apparently environmentally-friendly products like organic produce (shipped how far to reach a wintry city like Rochester?) and the fact that when I buy something used I’m keeping its materials out of landfills and eliminating the need to make something new.

So I decide to buy the car I have already rather than buy a new one and thus add a carbon-intensive new motorized object to our collective environment. And while I have a dream to build a contemporary urban living space, I think I have to find a building and reuse it rather than build new. The ‘cost’ of tearing down and recycling or landfilling the building would far outweigh the advantages of ‘green’ new construction.

We cannot think about environmental issues the way we did in the past. Food that is grown without pesticides and fertilizers is great until you ship it a thousand miles to the consumer. That shipment just wiped out any advantages from an environmental perspective (the health advantages are also offset by the emissions associated with the travel). There is no free lunch for those who believe that they do right by buying this stuff.

Economically, with a recession upon us, the current administration’s solution is to hand out money and tell people to go forth and consume. This will allegedly stimulate the economy by increasing demand which in turn increases manufacturing. There’s only one problem with this: We live in a world that has fundamentally changed. If we all keep consuming at some point we turn all the raw materials of the planet into manmade objects. Not a pretty picture.

I saw a headline today that there are worldwide grain and food shortages because of American farmers growing corn for ethanol, a fuel most of us cannot use or afford if not subsidized by the government. The complexity of the idiocy behind this is mind-boggling.

The point here is that you cannot take a short term, simplistic approach to any purchasing decision these days. Do I buy a Prius to get an extra 20 MPG when that decision pushes a car somewhere into a landfill and adds another, albeit efficient, car into our global inventory? That’s the kind of question we have to ask ourselves in an environmentally damaged world.

Solar thermal power is generated by building a field of concave mirrors that focus the sun’s heat onto a liquid encased in pipes. The liquid is superheated and used to generate steam that powers turbines, generating electricity. In the south west, where open desert land and sunlight are plentiful, they are building these facilities as fast as they can. They are completely unrelated to conventional solar panels that convert light into electricity but are very costly to build.

“On sunny afternoons, those 10 plants would produce as much electricity as three nuclear reactors, but they can be built in as little as two years, compared with a decade or longer for a nuclear plant. Some of the new plants will feature systems that allow them to store heat and generate electricity for hours after sunset.”

NYTimes.com (link above)

New designs that focus the heat onto towers will work in less sunny areas. With a lot of discussion about starting to build new nuclear plants which are very efficient but create an unsustainable stream of radioactive waste, it’s important to understand that we have very clean alternatives. There are environmental impacts of building these large facilities on open land but they are nothing compared to the impact of any conventional energy source such as coal, gas or nuclear.

During a press conference last week Bush asked what he thought about economists’ predictions that we would see $4+ gas prices by early spring. He was surprised and said he had not heard that. This is frightening to say the least. The President of the United States, who started a war over oil that is estimated to cost us $5 trillion dollars before it is over, doesn’t know how much gas costs. I wonder if he knows what a burden this is for the average family- prices have tripled during his administration. And it’s not just gas. Heating oil and energy prices have skyrocketed.

Today oil passed the inflation-adjusted high reached during the Arab Oil Crisis of the late seventies and early eighties. World stock markets are in a tailspin. The House of Representatives have passed a bill ending $17 billion in handouts to oil companies (who made $146 billion in profits last year) and moving that money into alternative energy tax credits. These credits are critical to encouraging rapid development of sustainable energy alternatives that can help us end our oil addiction. Yet Republicans in the Senate are blocking this bill and the President is threatening a veto. This partisan block voting is destroying our economy in exchange for short term gain by an industry sector intimately associated with this Administration.

New Scientist reports on a breakthrough in LED lighting technology that solves two big issues: the quality of the light’s color balance and the efficiency of the units. Although the technology is several years from commercial application (watch how fast that accelerates if this really works), it is an important technological breakthrough as lighting accounts for 25% of the electrical use in the US.

Basically, a coating of nano crystals alters the color balance of the LEDs, creating a much more pleasing light. The same coating focuses the light much more efficiently, creating 300 lumens of output per watt of electricity used. How important is this? Here’s the comparable output of other light sources:

• Commercial white LEDs: 30 lumens
• Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFBs): 60 lumens
• Standard incandescent bulbs: 15 lumens (!)
• Nano-coated LEDs: 300 lumens

Five times more efficient than mercury polluting CFBs is a big improvement. I hope we see some serious money thrown at this technology.