I'm dreaming of a green Christmas

The New York Times renewed an old debate over the weekend, citing a recent study that examined whether it is more environmentally friendly to have a real Christmas tree or a fake Christmas tree.

Sales of fake trees are expected to approach 13 million this year, a record, as quality improves and they get more convenient, with features like built-in lights and easy collapsibility. All told, well over 50 million artificial Christmas trees will grace living rooms and dens this season, according to the industry’s main trade group, compared to about 30 million real trees.

Kim Jones, who was shopping for a tree at a Target store in Brooklyn this week, was convinced that she was doing the planet a favor by buying a $200 fake balsam fir made in China instead of buying a carbon-sipping pine that had been cut down for one season’s revelry.

“I’m very environmentally conscious,” Ms. Jones said. “I’ll keep it for 10 years, and that’s 10 trees that won’t be cut down.”

But Ms. Jones and the millions of others buying fake trees might not be doing the environment any favors.

In the most definitive study of the perennial real vs. fake question, an environmental consulting firm in Montreal found that an artificial tree would have to be reused for more than 20 years to be greener than buying a fresh-cut tree annually. The calculations included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts.

“The natural tree is a better option,” said Jean-Sebastien Trudel, founder of the firm, Ellipsos, that released the independent study last year.

Ironic, isn't it?

As usual, I think this is indicative of a broader issue. "Sustainability" has become a common buzzword lately, but it's unclear exactly what that means. Ambiguity is everywhere, and consumers and businesses are often unwilling or unable to consider all of the impacts of their choices.

One striking example is the Toyota Prius, an enduring symbol of sustainable energy usage which, because of the environmental costs of producing and disposing of its battery, is not nearly as "green" as one might think. One study even indicated that the Prius might perversely be more damaging to the environment than the Hummer, that great symbol of energy waste and excess.

Even compact fluorescent light bulbs, which are an absolute slam dunk in terms of energy usage (and materials used because of their long lives) present a huge problem in terms of disposal, because of the small amounts of toxic mercury used in the bulbs.

Furthermore, the recent push towards using ethanol instead of petroleum led to huge spikes in the price of corn, which increased food costs for everyone. How "sustainable" is any policy that makes it more difficult or expensive for the affected individuals to eat?

In the best case, this ambiguity will mean decades of confusion for consumers, governments, and businesses as they try to determine the second- and third-level impacts of their actions and policies. In the worst case, unscrupulous companies could add to the problem by taking advantage of consumers' lack of scientific knowledge to specifically portray a product as environmentally-friendly or "sustainable", when in fact is not.

I'll always remember one particular "sustainability drive" when I was in business school, where well-meaning students and administrators posted large sheets of paper throughout the halls of the school soliciting other students' "ideas for sustainability". The brainstorm was of course a "raise awareness" event whose organizers' hearts were in the right place, but I couldn't help but take out a pen and write "maybe don't waste reams of paper when trying to raise awareness of sustainability".

Sure, I was being a jerk, but I think that instance simply shows the manner and extent to which even well-intentioned companies and individuals can inadvertently cause as much or more harm than they prevent. Don't just assume that something that is portrayed as "green" or "sustainable" actually is; to the extent possible, do your own research and determine for yourself what the ultimate impact is or might be. Relying on other people to tell us what's best is, in essence, unsustainable.


[New York Times]

Solar roads

Sustainability and energy independence have become increasingly prominent buzzwords over the past decade, especially in the face of ever-rising geopolitical concerns. While much of the buzz is unfortunately hollow rhetoric, I'm intrigued by some of the more creative options that have been devised and proposed. These two articles, especially when put together, definitely piqued my interest.

A revolutionary idea that converts existing roadways into a national solar power grid is up for a major cash prize.

Scott Brusaw...is working on a project to encapsulate solar panels in high-strength glass capable of standing up to thousands of cars and trucks passing by each day. He estimates that a single parking lot paved with solar panels — even one where cars are parked — could power the big box store it serves, and a cul-de-sac paved with solar panels could take an entire subdivision off the grid even on a cloudy day.

Eventually, LEDs built into the tops of solar panels placed on highways could move lanes around, create crosswalks, display speed limits and even detect and warn drivers about road hazards like stopped traffic and crossing wildlife. Best of all, the panels could be laid down over existing asphalt.

You can find out more about Scott's idea here. I'm not sure what the long-term viability and scalability of this project might be--especially given the budget constraints of our federal and local governments who manage our highways--but it's at the very least an example of a creative solution to a long-standing problem.

I know there are powerful interests aligned against this type of concept, but it's exactly the kind of thing that our government should be putting resources behind. Instead, they seem more often to be acting to preserve the status quo, one that I would argue is fairly badly broken. Hopefully these kinds of proposals and projects gain traction and lead us to a better place over the next century.

Note: I didn't have a chance here to mention it, but this concept is pretty cool too.

[Wired.com]