We need three planets for everyone to live like the average European. In other words, if we continue on our current path two out of three people are going to die. In a world of more than six billion people, that is going to be an awful lot of pain.

Will you be one of those who has to die? Your wife? Children? Friends?

So instead of carrying on along a path that will eventually end in heartache, I am going to choose a more difficult way.

I am volunteering to die.

This requires more than resolve and determination – this requires action. It means I have to push against the tide, to take some steps along a less trodden path.

Even though this may appear to be a great self–sacrifice, this is about creating a new life. A new life which enables each of us to have access to clean air, clean water, and nutritious food while nurturing our home (our planet) instead of sucking it dry. It is about acknowledging that we can all live a great life by learning how to live with just one planet, by cutting off and putting to death that part of us which lives like there are three (or more) planets. That is what I am volunteering to do.

The "good life" that has been sold to us is one where we take no responsibility for its consequences. It is a life that consumes with indifference and wastes without thought. Living like that is like extending your mortgage loan more and more each month, eventually the money runs dry and the bank manager comes to collect on the debt by taking your home away. I would rather figure out how to keep my home.

The exciting thing is that this is not about saving the Riverine Rabbit (even though that is important, because we are all connected) – this is about creating better, happier and more fulfilling lives. It is about climbing off the work–spend–work hamster wheel and finding satisfaction beyond the consumption of stuff.

Even though the "good life" we have been sold may be an illusion, putting that to death is a slow, complicated and sometimes painful process. The sooner we can do it though, the sooner we will be able to live a new revitalised life.

"Just as obesity is best overcome by adopting a nutritious, varied, tasty diet and a healthier lifestyle, so too our global overconsumption will be solved by moving to different – but better, healthier and happier – ways of living." – A One Planet Future (worth a read)

Here are some ways to start right now.

Picture courtesty of the WWF One Planet Future campaign

My last post spawned an interesting discussion on how we should be focussing our energy saving efforts – should we be worrying about saving a few watts in one area, while there are other areas which are wasting kilowatts?

How we each approach this depends a lot on our personalities. Some people think big and need to see huge value resulting from their actions. Others find joy in fine tuning all the details and making sure that everything is just right.

I feel that the two go hand in hand. Each on its own lacks substance. If all you can see are the fine details it is difficult to work towards a bigger goal. If all you can see is the big goal, it is hard to see the small steps that need to be taken to achieve it. It is a bit like that saying: how do you eat and elephant? One bite at a time.

Setting big goals is important, and so is sweating the small stuff. We still come back to that question though: where should we focus our energy to have the largest impact?

There are two important areas to focus on,

1. The biggest point of pain, and,
2. The easiest thing we can do.

For businesses and home users the biggest point of pain is probably paying their electricity bill at the end of the month, which means that water heating (for homes) and HVAC (for business) are the things to focus on. The easiest thing that everyone can do is activate your computers' energy saving modes (it is really easy and costs nothing to do). Making one small change can start a process of discovery leading to further changes.

I am currently working on a warehouse floor application and one of the issues is power consumption. Power consumption affects how many units can be powered from a single power supply, and what type of cabling is used. When I made some measurements I found that the system was consuming way more energy while idle than I was happy with. The easiest (and in this case only) way to address that was to do some investigation into the power saving options of the microprocessor. I managed to cut the idle power consumption to 20% of what it was. In this case the amount of power saved per unit is not much (100mW) but the number of units is high. It helps me to increase the number of units I can drive, as well as saves a reasonable amount of energy overall. That small saving per unit will save around 350kWh/month in this application – the monthly energy consumption of my home.

So sweat the small stuff, and sweat the big stuff. Build momentum and keep moving forward.

To the engineers: what you do matters – keep making good choices.

Photo, courtesy of Mandy Goldberg, licensed under a Creative Commons license.

---

A quick guide to computer energy saving

1. Set your monitor/display to turn off after 15 minutes or less (don't use a screen saver).
2. Set your hard drives to turn off after 15 minutes or less.
3. Set your system to sleep after 30 minutes or less.
4. Choose "Minimal Power Management" as a power scheme in XP (this makes sure the processor can go into low power modes while it is not busy). In Vista make sure your "Minimum processor state" is set to a low value under the advanced power options and "Processor power management."
   

The Climate Savers Computing Initiative has a guide for minimising computer power in each operating system (see the list in the sidebar for your OS).

I think that it is worth trying to understand some of the reasons we are heading towards a food crisis.

The result of all of this deregulation meant that small producers lost access to the local market giving global market access to a few global producers. Three companies—Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge—control the vast majority of global grain trading, while Monsanto controls more than one-fifth of the global market in seeds. Consumers from Sioux City to Soweto are more and more dependent on fewer and fewer producers. By eliminating the breadth and diversity of the system, we’ve eliminated its ability to withstand shock or manipulation.

Perhaps the greatest evidence of the scale of deregulation of the world agricultural market is the liquidation of reliable grain reserves. Though we’ve impressively deregulated financial markets, the Federal Reserve and central bankers across the globe still maintain the ability to soften the spikes and plunges of our monetary system. Not so in food markets. For centuries grain reserves have been an essential component of functioning food systems. When prices are high grain reserves can be released on the market, bringing prices down. When prices are low, reserve systems buy up grain, bringing prices back up. In the last two decades, however, the U.S. and most other governments have let reserve systems wither, placing full faith in the free market to self-correct, and eliminating their last emergency response mechanism.

Read the full article on UrbanSprout. Also further reading.

I am no fan of biofuels (or bio–plastics), but I have been a little bit suspicious that all the fingers are being pointed at it as the main cause of the food crisis.

But, looking at this, this crisis is a much more complex and deadly beast. We have already seen the same thing playing out in South Africa in both our bread and diary industries.

Unlike money supply there is currently no way to normalise the fluctuations in food prices - so where to from here? What can we do to fend of this looming crisis?

Trevor Manuel has quite clearly indicated what he thinks is best - grow as much food as possible.

Manuel said food prices had broken out of a 150-year pricing band and shot up in relation to other living expenses. “I don’t think you are going to see a reduction in prices for some time, so whatever can be done to encourage people to plant on every piece of arable land would be a benefit to all,” he said.

I think a lot of people see that comment as a drive for subsistence farming. Yes, and no. In the face of rising food prices, producing food will be a profitable business, whether on a small or large scale. And that means that growing more food makes good business (and social) sense for South Africa.

On the other hand there is a strong case for backyard growing, as well as the conversion of water loving fields of grass to food producing gardens.

"Agriculture is becoming more and more suburban," says Roxanne Christensen, publisher of Spin-Farming LLC, a Philadelphia company started in 2005 that sells guides and holds seminars teaching a small-scale farming technique that involves selecting high-profit vegetables like kale, carrots and tomatoes to grow, and then quickly replacing crops to reap the most from plots smaller than an acre. "Land is very expensive in the country, so people are saying, 'why not just start growing in the backyard?' "

So maybe amongst all the turmoil there is a great opportunity. For some it may be a financial opportunity. For others (like me) it is an opportunity to have some fun (because growing stuff is cool) and contribute in a meaningful way to a number of issues facing us.

Will you be a victim or a hero of this crisis?

[2008/05/15 Update] Thanks to Pia for pointing out this article about the Western Cape making municipal land available for growing food.

Creating a culture of reuse

Reuse is the forgotten R of the three R's.

We currently have a materials chain that goes something like this: harvest resource, manufacture, distribute, use, dispose.

Recycling adds an extra step where things are collected during disposal and reintroduced into the manufacturing stage as raw materials. There are two things about recycling that need to be noted:

1. Many materials are unsuitable to be recycled into the same thing. Plastics are probably the best example. They are either used to supplement the virgin (new) feedstock, or made into entirely different products (e.g. PET from drinking bottles is recycled into clothes, insulation, credit cards, etc.)
2. Recycling often involves breaking down the product into something as close as possible to the original feedstock. This means that all the energy that went into it is lost. Glass is a good example.

Recycling uses far less energy than creating a product from raw virgin materials and it is very important that it occurs, but why do we destroy things that are in perfectly usable condition?

The things that I have read about reuse have all been focussed on reusing items in the home and giving or selling them to other people who can use them (which are both important).

I want to see industry take responsibility and start collecting items for reuse, rather than recycling (wherever possible). We have seen this happening our whole lives: glass soda bottles. Every time you took a glass soda bottle back to the store and had your deposit paid back you were putting a bottle into the reuse chain.

The reuse chain works like this: instead of disposing of something it is taken back to the distributor (the store it was bought from). When the manufacturer makes deliveries they also collect the items for reuse. At the factory the items are inspected and cleaned. Any items that are unsuitable for reuse are recycled, and the rest is reused.

This means far less energy is expended on recycling and manufacturing new items which could have been reused. The easiest thing to imagine this working with is glass bottles and jars of any type, but why not expand this to everything? Why not start designing reuse into our products?

There would be huge savings for manufacturers, as they would not need to keep buying new materials. The only costs are the collection and logistics, which are already in place for the distribution of the product.

Packaging is a great example. If packaging can be made durable enough to be reused multiple times then consumers could just keep returning that packaging until it reached the end of its life cycle.

It does require a rethink of how we design, package and distribute things, but the benefits would be great for everyone – both manufacturers and consumers.

Engage in the discussion

"As meaningless as changing a CFL may be, the people that change the CFL bulbs get engaged in the discussion – and that's important." – Colin Bevan, aka No Impact Man

There seem to be a lot of people who challenge individual action. I have often found that those same people shift responsibility.

I am sure you have heard it before:

• "What difference can I make? The government should..."
• "For every plastic bag you recycle, someone else throws ten away."
• "How does it help if I ride my bicycle to work while someone else drives their 4x4?"

The biggest difference that our small actions make is that they change what goes on inside of us. Let's look at my personal experience with recycling in Cape Town.

I decided that it was time to start recycling as much of our waste as possible. I already had a compost heap which was taking care of any organic waste. Now it was time to deal with plastics, cardboard, paper and the likes. After dutifully sorting my plastic waste I went to the Morning Star dump expecting to be able to deposit my various recyclables. Well, things did not turn out quite as I would have hoped. There just did not seem to be the facilities that were advertised.

Being me I sent off an email to find out what was supposed to be happening. After some emails back–and–forth it seemed like things should be better. So off I went for my second attempt at recycling. This time things were organised and clear. Everything went into the proper recycling bins. I was pleased.

Third visit...unfortunately it was exactly like the first. No recycling bins. Confusion. So back to square one with another email sent off.

So what is the point of my story? My action (recycling) has got me engaged with a problem within my community. It has me engaged in a conversation around the problems and challenges that we face. Suddenly I care about the quality of the dump in my area. That one small action has changed me.

So I encourage you to take action. Just choose something you care about and start doing something. It may or may not change the world, but it will change you.

Degradable plastic

I recently bought some apples and spotted an intriguing little logo on the back of the plastic packaging. I look carefully at just about all plastic packaging these days in an attempt to identify what type of plastic it is (and therefore how recyclable).

What I found was a bit different to what I was expecting. Below a little logo was a website reference, www.degradable.net. So, off to the website to find out what this was all about.

It turns out that these smart guys have developed a low cost additive for polyethylene and polypropylene which causes the plastic to break down into a biodegradable form (the long plastic chains break down into shorter chains which can then be accessed by micro organisms which break them down to carbon dioxide and water. You can read the full details on their site). Astrapak are the South African suppliers of these plastics. There are also some alternatives to the d₂w process which make use of light sensitive, or starch additives.

The great benefit of this is that plastics which are disposed degrade much faster (they can be set to degrade after 60 days or up to 6 years later). One of the issues that this technique creates is that it impacts on recycling. The degradable plastic can be recycled, but in their words, "..there are many different and complex permutations of both input feedstock and output materials which need to be individually considered," i.e. it's complicated. It seems like it is easier to create recycled material that is degradable, while creating non–degradable recycled products is trickier.

This seems like a big disadvantage, but according to the EIA only 5% of plastics produced in America are recycled (I am sure that figure is much lower for South Africa). That means that up to 95% of the plastic produced ends up in land fills, water ways and generally strewn around the country side. At least using degradable plastics means that they will have a smaller, and shorter impact on our environment.

I am sure that a lot of people would rather argue the case for bioplastics. Personally I have always been sceptical of the benefits of bioplastics (and biofuels), mainly due to the pressure they place on food prices. More recently there have been some studies revealing that biofuels may damage the environment more ^[1][2] than emissions due to conventional fuels (bioplastics come from the same process, and therefore have a similar impact). So bioplastics may not currently have all the benefits that they claim.

Degradable plastic is a great product due to its reduced impact on the environment, but we do need to examine how we use and dispose of plastics. The reality is that plastic feedstock (oil) is a limited resource ^[3] and we need to use it wisely. Biofuels and bioplastics may not be the panacea that many people have hoped for. Only a small percentage of plastics are recycled. Plastics that are recycled are typically used to make other products rather than replace the recycled product, which means virgin feedstock is constantly required.

The real long terms solution is to reduce the amount of plastic we use, as well as reuse it as much as possible, and to continue recycling when a product reaches the end of its lifetime. So, in my mind, the question is this: how do we create plastic products with longer lifetimes? That is what really needs to change.

References:
[1] "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change" by Timothy Searchinger, et al.
[2] More on the negative impacts of biofuels.
[3] According to Waste Watch,

"It is estimated that 4% of the world's annual oil production is used as a feedstock for plastics production and an additional 3-4% during manufacture."

Build a better way

I finally got around to watching "The Story of Stuff" and was absolutely blown away by the compelling and simple way that its message is presented. Spend 20 minutes of your time to watch this video (here, on the site, or download it)

It is really important that this message gets spread, as we all have a role to play in fixing what we have helped to create. As consumers we need to change how we purchase, as engineers we need to change how we create, as marketers we need to change the message that we spread.

There are some things we need to carefully consider. Take this comment from the brilliant Seth Godin,

"So I'm hoping that what you make is worthy. Marketing is a powerful tool especially when it associates a product with a desire and instinct we already have."

Does what we create help people to live a better happier life? Does it protect the precious world we live in? We have a great responsibility when we create, market and sell things – we need to make sure we carry that responsibility well.

And then the final line of the video,

"Remember that old way didn’t just happen by itself. It’s not like gravity that we just gotta live with. People created it. And we’re people too. So let’s create something new."

We have created the system that we currently have. Does the current system protect our world? Does it help us to be happier? I don't think so.

Even though some people may think "there is no other way" we have to remember this: we created this system, and we can create a new one. We can find a new way.

Further reading:
[1] Happiness versus consumption on No Impact Man
[2] Sustainable consumption's "double dividend" on No Impact Man
[3] Slower consumption by Dr Tim Cooper – Journal of Industrial Ecology (via No Impact Man)

Environeering

Engineering is about creating a better world.

We need passionate engineers working hard to create a cleaner and healthier world. We have to make sure that each decision we make – each product we produce – is helping us move towards that.

No, it is not easy. It is actually really difficult. It means forcing ourselves to reevaluate the "norms", to look at every decision we make in the light of the world around us. It means taking responsibility for our products, and fighting for what we believe in. It means constantly searching for better solutions.

I call it environeering: engineering for a better environment.

An environeer wants to change the world, and can. They live for energy savings, cleaner technology, recycling, water saving and much more. They are constantly seeking ways to create better products. They talk passionately about the world and how we impact on it. It is all about moving forward and embracing our passion for the world we live in. Most importantly, they care about people.

I want to get to know all the environeers out there. I want to talk to you, engage with you, and together work towards a happier, healthier life for everyone.

Let's start talking – contact me.

A better life — right now

I found out that today is Blog Action Day while reading through my feeds this morning — I've clearly been sleeping. So my small contribution for today is to try to amplify a simple and important message.

For a while I had been struggling with the whole message of global warming and climate change. The main reason was that the story was weak (in my opinion at least). Now what I mean by weak is that it was not changing enough lives — not creating enough action. I think Seth Godin managed to express the problem best.

The next step was figuring out the solution, which proved to be difficult. Thankfully I came across what I consider to be the best environmental blog I know of, No Impact Man, and in particular, this post.

"My point is that a big boost to the environmental cause might come with spending a little less time making people scared of a worse life and a little more time inspiring them towards a better one"

Let us each start working towards a better life right now. We need to realise that the impact of our lifestyle is an event which is taking place now. We have real and immediate problems that need to be addressed, from children suffering from asthma due to exhaust fumes, to the depletion of fish stocks off the West coast of South Africa.

Take action to make a better world for yourself — right now.

Bonus Links:

• The City of Cape Town (my home - thanks to my wife for the photo above) published the "Smart Living Handbook" which has some excellent info and ideas.
• Lawn care for the cheap and lazy (I use these techniques on my own lawn).
• Gardening with indigenous South African plants.
  

Technorati tags : environment

It's fill packaging, just better

I recently received some samples from Texas Instruments and was pleasantly surprised — actually blown away — by their fill packaging. Blown away by fill packaging? Let me explain...

Most of the fill packaging I have seen before normally involved polystyrene "chips" — basically plastic. What happens to those polystyrene chips normally? Well, expanded polystyrene is considered uneconomical to recycle^[1] (in South Africa at least^[2]) and ends up in landfills (or strewn around the countryside, waterways, etc.)

So I take out my samples and they are wrapped in paper — not just any paper, but a special expanded paper. Lucky for me, the manufacturer was smart enough to put their website onto the packaging: www.geami.com.

Go check it out. It is paper with little slits cut into it. The slits cause the paper to expand when removed from the roll. This is a really great way to avoid bubble wrap, polystyrene chips, and other plastic packaging. They have some videos and cost comparisons that are worth checking out. If TI is using them for the free samples they ship all over the world (and most likely everything that they ship), then that alone must imply that this packaging is a good and viable option.

Other than the direct advantages of the Geami packaging, it can also be transported in its unexpanded form, which reduces the toll that transportation has on the environment.

The beauty of this product is that it is a simple and elegant packaging solution that is easily recyclable and improves not just the environmental friendliness of the packaging, but ALSO reduces the cost. A great example of engineering simplicity.

---

There are some other alternatives to polystyrene which are similar, but made from biodegradable compounds. It is hard to compare these with polystyrene because I do not know enough about them, but there are a couple of questions that come to mind (if anyone can answer these for me, please do):

• How do these products compare on cost?
  
• What is the impact of bioplastics on food prices? (I believe this is a big issue with biofuels and bioplastics)
• How recyclable are they? (recycling is generally better than allowing them to degrade in landfills)
  

To me there is just no way that these bioplastics can compete with the Geami packaging in terms of environmental friendliness.

---

[1]From The Plastics Federation of South Africa (scroll to the part about "The Plastics Recyling Sequence" and find polystyrene),

"The polystyrene mostly seen is the white, very light, friable, expanded or foamed polystyrene (PS-E). Although this material is recyclable it has such a large volume to mass ratio that it is completely uneconomical to transport and recycle at present."

Also see polystyrene recycling on Isolite's website.

[2]Notice how expanded polystyrene products are absent from the list of recyclables for Cape Town, and on the non–recyclable side for Johannesburg.

Technorati tags : environment, recycling, waste, packaging, paper