I just saw this Dallas Morning News article about the the dilemma American Airlines (and I'm sure other airlines as well) is currently working through about whether to replace its old planes with newer more efficient models or hold out a few more years for the next generation of efficiency.
The upcoming Boeing 787 (and the Airbus competitor, the A350XWB) is "a smaller wide-body aircraft that uses improved engines and lighter-weight composite material to save fuel." However, there's not yet a production timetable, which means that airlines such as American are just kind of dragging their feet, but with the second-oldest fleet among the big U.S. domestic carriers, decisions will have to be made soon.
The get-it-now-or-wait-for-higher-efficiency-models question isn't limited to large companies. I've been struggling with the same question whenever I think about bigger-ticket items such as solar panels. I've heard that the technology will improve by leaps and bounds in the next half decade.
If I started using solar panels now, I would be supporting the industry and I would be able to turn some of that sunshine that I can see out my window right now into energy. But then in a few years I'd be stuck with a relatively inefficient system and if I upgraded, would be creating more waste, and complicated waste at that. What to do, what to do?
view the virtual ribbon around the earth at planetfesto.org
Showing posts with label true cost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label true cost. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
More true cost thinking
In an earlier post, I lamented the difficulty of accurately assessing the true environmental cost of most things, and how tricky that made choosing between options when faced with decisions such as paper or plastic, real or fake Christmas tree, new hybrid car or existing relatively-good mileage vehicle, organic or conventional mattress, and so on.
This week's New Yorker has a very interesting article taking on the challenges of that broad view. Big Foot (a reference to the carbon footprint), by Michael Specter, is available online, and worth a read.
He starts out looking at various companies' efforts to green up, dives into the heart of food miles, points out how carbon shouldn't be the only part of an environmental calculation, offers some surprising examples in which products imported from far away are lower impact than those produced closer by (for instance, wine from California versus from Bordeaux and roses from Holland versus Kenya), and explores the world of carbon emissions exchange markets. I haven't yet finished the article, but right now he's writing about how one of the most effective things we could possibly to is to slow or stop deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia.
It's a good read, and one that, three-quarters of the way through the article, I recommend highly. Now I'm off to finish reading.
This week's New Yorker has a very interesting article taking on the challenges of that broad view. Big Foot (a reference to the carbon footprint), by Michael Specter, is available online, and worth a read.
He starts out looking at various companies' efforts to green up, dives into the heart of food miles, points out how carbon shouldn't be the only part of an environmental calculation, offers some surprising examples in which products imported from far away are lower impact than those produced closer by (for instance, wine from California versus from Bordeaux and roses from Holland versus Kenya), and explores the world of carbon emissions exchange markets. I haven't yet finished the article, but right now he's writing about how one of the most effective things we could possibly to is to slow or stop deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia.
It's a good read, and one that, three-quarters of the way through the article, I recommend highly. Now I'm off to finish reading.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
How to calculate the true cost of things
I just read this New York Times article about weighing the true impact of shopping and eating habits. In short, it looks at the ways in which eating locally is and isn't the best option from an environmental standpoint.
It was not only an interesting read, but was in line with a series of questions that I've been having lately. The questions all boil down to something I might call true cost. Some true cost questions are easier to find answers to than others.
For instance, I found an answer to the real or fake Christmas tree question in about two seconds flat. But other true cost questions aren't so easy. For instance, we have a very large and old gravity furnace in our house. Our family efficiency expert Nathan has told me that replacing the furnace would make more of a difference than getting insulation, and just yesterday when we were getting the attic insulated (we needed to get insulation to meet Berkeley efficiency standards), the insulation guy told me that both in terms of cost and efficiency, a new heater would make a huge difference.
But is the impact of manufacturing a whole new heater and ducts, putting the old one in a landfill, and properly disposing of the asbestos-covered ductwork really less than just leaving the old one as it is for now? With all those independent concerns, it's a hard question to answer confidently. My guess is that it's a matter of timing. Say, at year 10 of a new heater, the true cost balances out or something like that.
Is there a true cost website? Or does anyone know of a service which will help you figure it out? I have the same question about mattresses, cars, and a number of other items.
It was not only an interesting read, but was in line with a series of questions that I've been having lately. The questions all boil down to something I might call true cost. Some true cost questions are easier to find answers to than others.
For instance, I found an answer to the real or fake Christmas tree question in about two seconds flat. But other true cost questions aren't so easy. For instance, we have a very large and old gravity furnace in our house. Our family efficiency expert Nathan has told me that replacing the furnace would make more of a difference than getting insulation, and just yesterday when we were getting the attic insulated (we needed to get insulation to meet Berkeley efficiency standards), the insulation guy told me that both in terms of cost and efficiency, a new heater would make a huge difference.
But is the impact of manufacturing a whole new heater and ducts, putting the old one in a landfill, and properly disposing of the asbestos-covered ductwork really less than just leaving the old one as it is for now? With all those independent concerns, it's a hard question to answer confidently. My guess is that it's a matter of timing. Say, at year 10 of a new heater, the true cost balances out or something like that.
Is there a true cost website? Or does anyone know of a service which will help you figure it out? I have the same question about mattresses, cars, and a number of other items.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
