We all need to take personal responsibility for our own impact and look to ways to minimize our ecological footprint. Most all of us Recycle things we use,Reduce the amount of resources we use, and we Reuse whatever we can. I'd like to introduce the fourth "R" , Replace. We can also replace coal and oil-based energy with cleaner, renewable alternatives.
Replace is the concept that we can choose some of the energy resources that we use. Currently 55% of the energy generated in the U.S. comes from coal, followed by nuclear (22.5%), natural gas (10%), hydropower (9.8%), and petroleum (2%). Geothermal accounts for .2% and solar, wind, and biomass combined account for .1%. I don't think we can totally abandon our need for non-renewable energy but we can reduce our consumption of it and replace it with renewable alternatives. The only way renewable energy can become viable is if we invest in the technology and/or envelope that technology into our everyday lives.
We are getting pretty good at the 3 "Rs": reduce, reuse, and recycle. I think we can do better at reducing our energy consumption. And I think we can do more to practice Replace. Some of us have installed solar panels, drive hybrid vehicles, or have tapped into hydropower or wind energy on our property. Another strategy we can do is to make investments in renewable energy. Whether its cool tags or green tags or something else, go online and see what is available.
As I observe Earth Day this year, I'm aware that everyday is Earth Day and that I am responsible for my own ecological footprint. I know I can do better and I'll do something about it.
The Fourth "R"
By sara315 - Posted on April 3rd, 2007
Tagged: Environment
• Better future
Agreed-
Great Blog. . .I have written many blogs about global warming. Maybe we can add another "R"; REFUSE! refuse to be lazy and alter ours lives JUST A LITTLE for the better!
People could do so much better on all four, especially recycling. I don't know many people at all that recycle.
People could do so much better on all four, especially recycling. I don't know many people at all that recycle.
I think Berkeley's recycling habits more than compensate for many who don't.
That's great and all and while I completly agree that things need to be done to help our enviornment, renewable resources are not as easy as they may seem. Every renewable resource we know how to use is too costly and not efficient enough to be worth while. Think about it, we've known how to use hydropower and solarpower for decades. If it was a viable alternative, it would be used more widely by now. The problem is the various costs and downsides to these resources.
Hydropower requires Dams and Turbines as well as expensive generators and various other equipment. I am currently doing research on hydropower and while it is the most efficient source of alternative energy (efficient meaning the most input energy is saved to be converted to usable output energy), there is a huge amount of money and enviornmental costs that go into it. Dams are multi-million/billion dollar projects and they require the destruction of towns and forestry and a vast amount of wildlife to be built.
Solar power is extremely inefficient and costs more than it's worth. The amount of solar panels required to provide enough power to run a house costs around $200,000 (add that to your mortgage). Solar panels are not currently able to capture nearly the amount of energy the sun can put into them and much of the energy that is captured is lost in converting to battery power. The cost of paying for electricity for a year ends up being much cheaper than putting solar panels on your house and the only way it is worth it is somewhere around 10 years down the road (assuming nothing goes wrong and the panels don't need repaired). And with the number of people who don't even stay at one house for that long, it's a high price for an investment that only pays off for the new residents.
Wind power is pretty much the same deal. It only works where there is wind and it still requires expensive turbine and generator equipment. Not to mention it's not very aesthetically appealing unless you're in the midwest with plenty of land. (Try putting up wind turbines at every house on the block and America would look like it was about to take off - just a joke).
Seriously though, these types of renewable energy are great and they are definitly worth researching and developing more, but currently their just not good enough for widespread use. They work mainly for big companies that can make the investments or where there aren't any other options (i.e. using solar panels to power sattalites in space is the only real method we can use). Until these methods are improved or something better comes out, we're going to have to settle for working hard to develop improvements and doing the little things that help our enviornemt (hence the original three "R's")
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Yes, solar panels are currently inefficient, but if enough rich yuppies buy in for the ones that are of highest efficiency (about 30%, though currently only up to about 20% efficiency is available to consumers), companies will have more incentive to pursue solar energy. Hopland's SolFest sells and promotes both the more affordable less efficient panels (~7%) and the more expensive Whole Foods types.
And have you heard about the latest plan (I didn't follow up to see whether it's still on the table or was negated) to plant a bunch of wind turbines off the coast of Massachusetts?
There's always nuclear energy (see France), as long as it isn't a plutonium reactor.
>"renewable resources are not as easy as they may seem. Every renewable resource we know how to use is too costly and not efficient enough to be worth while. Think about it, we've known how to use hydropower and solarpower for decades. If it was a viable alternative, it would be used more widely by now. The problem is the various costs and downsides to these resources."
um, no the problem is the greedy aristocrats and government in power that see oil as too much of an investment and source of wealth for themselves to give up and let go.
renewable resources are easier on our pocketbook than anything else....youre missing the point....just like the government wants you to. the only reason the green way is so costly right now is because theres no market for it yet...not because its more expensive....once we make a market for it and give into green instead of sucking up oil like Bush wants us to, then there will be a viable consumer market for green business, competition will set in and price will go down.
I agree that all four need work!
Visit my BLOG> http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jodi41086
My point is, none of it is good enough yet. If we can improve them that is great. But a bunch of "rich yuppies" and huge corporations as well are already putting millions of dollars into alternative sources of energy and trying to help the enviornment. With enviornmentalism being such a big issue in politics today, big buisnesses and high profile people can't afford not to be concerning themselves with enviornmentalism. It just comes down to the fact that people are already trying to do these things, they just need better developments and more people researching and putting money into research. Even still it's just much more expensive and much more complex than people think. How much wildlife and forestry would be cut down to line the coast of Massachusettes with wind turbines?
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Oh, it would be off the coast; like, in the ocean.
But that has environmental concerns, too. Where ever will the people of New England get their lobster? Maine? Bah!
I agree with you 100%
I agree that people need to follow the ideas of reusing, recycling, and reducing. Yet when we recycle something, how do we know its being recycled? Whos to say, the person accepting old batteries isn't then driving out to the ocean and dumping them. There's been occasions of this I've read about, and if I hear of another I can quote I will send it to you. Even though we as individuals can make a difference by following the R's, who's stopping others from doing it more? I might limit my carbon footprint, but whos to say 2 others won't take my place and make 4 times as much waste? How can we combat this? Thats what I want to know more about. What can we do about the community?
i agree with you that everybody should be recycling and reusing many things, but i have issues with some things.
i don't understand why people think hybrid cars are saving our environment when they take just as much energy, if not more, than a regular car. sure you save some on gas but the energy required to use/charge the battery is a lot.
the only real alternative energy that can be used widespread today is nuclear energy, but that creates nuclear waste. until scientists learn how to use FUSION reactions to create more energy than it actually takes to create the fusion reaction, we cannot have a feasable alternative energy without a harmful byproduct.
now as boldfaith said, environmentalism is a huge part of politics, especially for democrats. politicians have shoved a bunch of crap down our throats saying that we cause global warming blablabla. once this "man made global warming" crap got into politics, politicians have proved that its just a load of garbage and used to make money (not just the U.S.). get a load of this
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.
now how does this tax combined with a fleet of helicopters that sense grills cut down emissions? I wonder how many grams of CO2 are emitted from a helicopter every minute.
this is close to what gore and other people are trying to get. they want a carbon tax.
ok i've realized ive gone off a majorly controversial tanget so let me get back to my point.
we cannot change the type of energy we use. we have to wait for the scientists to figure out this stuff(which they are pretty close to doing) until anything can really be done.
oh and another thing, CO2 does not cause global warming, the climate is controlled by the sun. you know, the thing that keeps us warm in the summer.
>"i don't understand why people think hybrid cars are saving our environment when they take just as much energy, if not more, than a regular car. sure you save some on gas but the energy required to use/charge the battery is a lot."
a hybrid car cuts our reliance on oil...and if we were using green power to charge the battery like we should be, then it WOULD help the environment and the amount of battery power needed would not matter.
>"we cannot change the type of energy we use. we have to wait for the scientists to figure out this stuff(which they are pretty close to doing) until anything can really be done."
theyve figured out a lot, we are ready....gov just wont let us implement it....and any time someone comes close to or succeeding at implementing it, the gov knocks out their funding and knocks it out. just as with the electric car.
>"the climate is controlled by the sun"
lol.
yea your right, scientists do know how to get power from fusion, but it takes more energy to get the fusion reaction than the power you get out of it therefore making it useless.
you have a valid point with the hybrid car.
i am not going waiste my time trying to explain how climate is controlled by the sun since "lol" seems to me like you think it's just a huge joke and you will not accept anything other than a man made global warming theory.
climate isnt controlled by the sun...its controlled mainly by the current of the oceans (as far as weather patterns) and moisture (in both the soil and the air) as well as geopraphical factors (elevation, slope facings...etc). cold fronts and warms fronts (a huge factor in weather patterns) have very very little to do with the sun.
this was all known fact before the global warming debate came into the picture...thats the only reason i laughed.
all of the things you mentioned is what contributes to the difference in climate between different regions. im talking about the global climate.
its the climate of different regions that controls the climate of the entire planet.....weather moves and climate changes BASED on the variances of climate in different regions.
its all one big circle :)
skiny, those same scientists you are depending on to "figure this stuff out" are also in almost COMPLETE agreement that global climate change is caused by human activity. maybe some actual research into climate change will open your eyes a bit.
in the mean time, let me point out that global climate change had been speculated for DECADES until monumental evidence gathered by climate science experts indicated that what they worried may be happening was indeed actually happening. check out the IPCC reports. over 2000 scientists AROUND the world contributed to the document. not just american. and not politicians. these are scientists. their entire careers and lives are dedicated to studying everything about our planet. not to manipulate information and people. believe what you want. but i would rather believe a scientist than the giant corporate-puppets in DC.
i have done a lot of research. the ipcc is a bunch of garbage and that report you are talking about with the 2000 scientists. many of those 2000 people left the ipcc or said they did not want to be noted as one of the scientists on it. even after that, the ipcc still put their names on it. and dont say politics was not involved because the ipcc is run by the UN if im not mistaken, which would make it entirely political.
and please dont say that scientists around the world are almost in complete agreement, because that is never the case with anything. the only reason why is may seem like it is because if you feel like doing research that will try to prove man has nothing to do with climate change, good luck getting any grant money or federal aid. the government spends millions of dollars so scientists can research a conection between the 2, not the other way around. many scientists and regular politicians that realize we have nothing to do with it get death threats all the time as well just because of their belief.
i know what kind of global climate change speculation you were talking about tho. in the late 60s early 70s many scientists were predicting a new ice age. but that of course turned out to be a load of crap.
Agreed, the IPCC report is as much bull as the DC pundits would have you believe, mostly because there are many more than 2000 scientists in the world, who study this very topic. Nova did a great show debating global warming, as did NPR, and most concluded that global warming would be inevitable regardless of whether humans or some other species dominated the earth--Humans are just producing those effects more rapidly. Nova also presented a complementary theory that the sun is cooling, which is true but will probably have no bearing on Earth's global warming problem any time in the next several billion years.
Nevertheless, I still turn out lights when I'm not using them, and I reuse the paper bags at the grocery store. I give my recycling to my neighbor, who cashes in on the CRV to support a program that trains dogs to sense when extremely diabetic people have dangerously low blood sugar.
Basically-- yeah, be concerned about your ecological footprint as a matter of sensibility and consideration for others (and expense), but don't blame our government for everything that goes awry, because the information is available. Yeah, they may be kind of shady sometimes when they present misleading statistics as categorical fact, but if it's so commonly known, why don't we either try doing something about it or simply trust other sources of information?
It's about distribution of energy.
Sure, hybrid cars use electricity to make up for what they lack in gas power, and yes, that probably equals the same energy usage.
In the great global warming debate, I don't think anyone's addressing reduced usage of power; just about getting that power from more sustainable sources.
I dont care what anyone says, if they want to run this planet into the ground, then so be it :) yay for green and props for you! you speak the truth....not ignorance....so keep speaking!
peace2u!~~kt
I agree with your message, however, where did you come up with those percentages? I noticed that you didn't cite anything, so I'm assuming you came up with them yourself.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!