Use a Reel Mower!

It's summer time and so begins the lazy, hazy, crazy (and friggan humid) days of summer and the cacophony that is everyone in the neighborhood mowing their lawns. But I have a secret for you: real men and women use reel mowers. What exactly are reel mowers? Ask your father (or grandfather) and he'll tell you. They are, essentially, old-fashioned lawnmowers, or, in today's vernacular, eco-friendly lawnmowers. That pic to the left is my very own pride and joy. Now, why would anyone want to give up their loud, dangerous, expensive, polluting, waste-of-space power lawnmower these days? Here are three simple answers:

1. Save on gas. The average American spends anywhere from $100 to $200 a month (or more than eight percent of their income) on gasoline, and in this economy, you could probably use all the savings you can get. According to the EPA, lawnmowers are responsible for the same amount of emissions as 11 new cars and also 17 million gallons of fuel being spilled while Americans refuel their lawnmowers.

Gasoline prices remain high, and they've increased even higher thanks to the crisis in Iraq. And even if there were no crisis in Iraq, prices would still go up. As researcher Fereidun Fesharaki put it, "The future is one of an unstoppable force--demand--versus an immovable object--supply limitations."

2. Save the planet. Some good news: India has set an ambitious goal of planting 2 billion trees, and deforestation has fallen 70% in Brazil. Germany has set a record of generating 75% of its electricity from renewable energy. Texas, of all places, leads the nation in wind power generation. And, Kentucky, the state with the worst pollution in the nation, is beginning to cut its coal use.

But our planet is still in peril. Global warming has become so bad that rising sea levels in the Pacific have washed the remains of Japanese soldiers from World War II onto the island shores. And yet there are still Americans who offer the most bizarre responses. "Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?" is one question a congressman actually asked. Speaker Boehner simply said that he was "not qualified" to discuss the subject because he wasn't a scientist. (This is a common response among politicians, who conveniently happen to be experts on everything else.) Here's how one scientist responded to that answer: "What if we asked: 'Senator, do you advocate drinking toxic sludge?...would the response still be 'I don't know, I'm not a scientist'?" President Obama put it a bit better: "When President Kennedy...set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn't be worth it...but nobody ignored the science. I don't remember anybody saying that the moon wasn't there, or that is was made of cheese." (Incidentally, the EPA administrators of the Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush administrations support regulating CO2 emissions.)

And yet even John Podesta, one of Obama's senior advisers on climate, has warned that their efforts simply aren't enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Brad Plumer at Vox puts this succinctly and pessimistically: "The idea that the world can stay below two 2 degrees Celsius looks increasingly delusional."

While we're making progress, there is much, much more to be done. As Thomas Friedman wrote in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," cleaning up our planet is not supposed to be fun and easy. There is nothing easy about this. We are way beyond the point where we can just change our light bulbs and feel better about ourselves. Is mowing the lawn with a reel mower easy and convenient? Of course not. Tiny twigs constantly and annoyingly halt my mowing. Will it eliminate the problem? No, but it's one more step we can take to help.

3. Exercise It's no secret that America has a severe health crisis, with more than a third of American adults suffering from obesity. What better way to shed some pounds walking? Walking has numerous benefits, including aiding digestion, improving blood pressure and lowering the risk of coronary heart disease, serving as a slight antidepressant, and many more. As Hippocrates said, "walking is man's best medicine." And what better way to walk than while pushing a reel push mower?

But what's that? You don't want to walk with a push reel mower and instead stay seated on your nice, comfy ride mower? Well, I have some bad news for you: A recent study has found that too much sitting raises the risk of cancer. The study found that spending the majority of one's day sedentary--whether at an office, in a car, or in front of a TV--creates a 24 percent increase of getting colon cancer. It's even higher for uterine cancer--a 32 percent increase!

The reasons are obvious. Use a reel mower--you'll help save your wallet, the planet, and your life. Now you can't beat that.

Here's a decent video on reel mower maintenance:

Read More →

It's Time for Plan B

In my last two articles about the environment, I argued that there has been some promising news in the environmental front. Indeed there has. The United States has, shockingly, reduced its emissions by about 3 percent, on track to meet our goal of a 17 percent reduction (and faster than any other developed nation), thanks largely to the expanded use of natural gas (and the fall of oil and coal in the market), a huge investment from the federal government in green tax cuts and renewable energy, and higher fuel standards (and, unfortunately, the effects of the recession). Still, the bad news keeps coming: China has increased its CO2 emissions by about 3 percent, and globally, emissions and temperatures keep going up. It's unlikely that Congress will enact any kind of cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax. Plan A--assume that the public will understand the seriousness of the problem, governments will show some spine, businesses will act more responsibly, and that treaties will actually work--has failed. We need a Plan B. Here are three possible steps to at least consider:

1. Geoengineering

When President Lyndon Johnson was first presented with a report on the global warming problem, the authors didn't even consider reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the report called for spreading tiny particles across the ocean's surface to reflect sunlight. This is solar radiation management, an example of geoengineering. The most common example of SRM is cool roofing, painting roofs white to reflect the heat. This is vital because buildings are more than a third of American energy use. The Department of Energy has already begun implementing cools roofs to its buildings and other buildings across the country and it appears that both the Chinese and the Americans, the two worst polluters, are interested in geoengineering projects.

But to many scientists, geoengineering is at best a tool to use with carbon reduction, and at worst, a possibility of leading to unintended consequences. More controversial and less scientifically tested geoengineering projects include manipulating the Earth's environment through ocean iron fertilization, which could have enormous and devastating consequences. Consider how Matthews and Turner put it: "Given our current level of understanding of the climate system, it is likely that the result of at least some geoengineering efforts would follow previous ecological examples where increased human intervention has led to an overall increase in negative environmental consequences." That's why many proponents of the controversial measure argue that it should be used sparingly and alongside carbon emission reduction, not as a replacement of more serious action. Look at how one scientist put it: Given the total failure of the human race to tackle this problem with the urgency that the science has demanded, geoengineering seems to be inevitable.

2. Let the states lead the way

Unfortunately, our Congress is missing in action (how shocking). Instead of tackling this problem, they're making sure Meals on Wheels isn't funded. The President seems to be committed to the issue and is expected to announce even more actions, with plans to possibly include regulations of existing power plants, increase renewable energy, and improve energy efficiency. Unfortunately, he has been left at the alter by Congress. Fortunately, though, some states are taking action. The most obvious is California, which in 2006 passed a major environmental law to achieve a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. For those who argue that environmentalism will sink an economy, when Governor Jerry Brown (D) came into office, California had a $27 billion deficit and 12.4 percent unemployment. Thanks to his leadership, the state now has an $850 million surplus and a reduction in unemployment by three percent. While most other states don't have as nearly an aggressive approach as California does, at least other states are taking action. My state of Ohio, for example, has a law mandating that a quarter of our energy be from renewable sources by 2025. Most other states, even Texas, have these renewable portfolio standards. Hopefully the states will continue to lead, because our Congress is missing.    

(In some cases, it's the local communities who are taking the lead. My home town of Medina sorts through everything its residents throw away. The results: 60 percent of waste is recycled, as opposed to less than 10 percent for traditional curve pick-up methods.)

3. Ignore the dismissive, alarm the concerned 

We don't have an engaged public on the issue. The Yale Forestry and Environmental Studies reports that there are essentially six different types of Americans regarding opinions on climate policies: the alarmed, the concerned, the cautious, the disengaged, the doubtful, and the dismissive. I believe that the 15 percent of doubters' minds can be changed. However, the American media has given such a large audience to the 10 percent of Americans who are dismissive of the science, the folks who say ridiculous things like "it's only 70 degrees this week in June, so there can't be global warming." That portion of America is unreachable, and we should stop treating this like a classic "there's-two-sides-to-every-debate" argument. (And no, for the millionth time, there is no scientific disagreement about global warming.) While it's encouraging that the 12 percent of those who are alarmed are very much engaged in solving the problem, we need to figure out a way to alarm those who are concerned and those who are cautious, which together constitute slightly more than half of the public. Otherwise, while we may have won the argument regarding the science, we may never win the argument on aggressive action.

Read More →

Happy (Late) Earth Day

Happy (Late) Earth Day, everyone. As I've been teaching pre-medical students the bizarre language known as English and working to complete my Master's degree, I haven't had as much free time as I would like. So now, in honor of Earth Day, I would like to take a moment to write about one of my favorite topics: the environment. Here are five observations about the current state of things and some advice on what we can do to solve it:


1. Stop using plastic (or at least try to)! Plastic is a profound problem. But there's good news and bad news--the bad news is that contrary to what we all hope, about 90 percent of all plastic bottles are in fact not recycled; about four-fifths of all plastic bottles end up in the ocean and then into our stomachs (diapers go through a similar route). Instead of being recycled into new bottles, plastic bottles are more likely to be down-cylced. The good news is that we can live in a world without plastics. There are relatively simple ways to do so. You can of course buy a reusable steel bottle to avoid plastic bottles, and probably the easiest is to buy reusable shopping bags; go a step further and buy reusable produce bags. Another easy thing to do buying a juicer so you can make your own juice, including types not often found in grocery stores, like watermelon juice and cucumber juice. This is also healthier, as store-bought juice is either too sugary and/or devoid of fiber.   

2. Students need to be taught critically about the problem. Instead of boring students with a trivia-based approach in the classroom that they will likely not retain, students need to comprehend the bigger picture, that the status quo benefits those are contributing more to the problem (e.g. China, the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia) and destroying countries that contribute less (e.g. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Haiti). Bill Bigelow, a critical pedagogist, has written a curriculum described in his article "The Big One" (2009)  "Environmental justice movements," he wrote, "are beginning to imagine a future that is greener, more cooperative, more democratic, and less oriented toward profit, consumption, and economic growth." Students should be taught that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that it is selfish to be otherwise, and that they have the power to change things.

3. One party is greener than the other. Perhaps no finer example of this exists than the contrast between Democratic and Republican environmental policies. After the 1973-1974 oil embargo, some countries had effective responses. France, for example, established nuclear power as its main energy source (though, interestingly, America, because of its size, actually uses more nuclear power than France. Nevertheless, France powers almost eighty percent of its nation by cleaner nuclear power). Denmark, despite heavy gasoline and CO2 taxes, has had tremendous growth for decades but a fairly flat energy use increase. Under President Carter's administration, fuel standards for cars and trucks were raised (something President Obama has continued to do). How did President Reagan respond? By simply lowering the standards, from 27.5 miles per gallon to 26 miles per gallon. President Bush tried to reverse Clinton-era air conditioning regulations and by doing so would have wasted billions of dollars and 50 million metric tons of carbon, or about the equivalent of 34 million cars on the road. (A court reversed the administration's decision.) Republicans used to have a environmental legacy to be proud of; consider Teddy Roosevelt's national parks initiatives and Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA. But Reagan, the Bushes, and the Tea Party have tried to make sure that is reversed.

Thomas Friedman, in his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded," noted that after 9/11, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked if President George W. Bush believed the American people needed a lifestyle change to combat terrorism. His answer was "a big no." The President, he said, "believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." So instead of enacting what Friedman calls a "Patriot Tax" to combat mass murderers, the U.S. government gave us massive tax cuts, establishing enormous debt we are still struggling to pay off, and told us to go shopping.

(The current administration deserves praise for its green work, but more is needed.  The administration should be pressured until it adopts tough regulations for CO2 emissions for power plants.)

4. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. According to Friedman, we're not having a green revolution, we're having a green party. A green party is fun and easy to do. You just have to change your light bulbs and plant a tree and you can continue to mow your lawn, drive your car, eat all the meat you want, not pay any more taxes, and vote for the GOP. We're past the point where changing light bulbs can solve the problem. Consider a list of the more challenging steps needed (and Friedman claims these are the "easy" ones): replace 1,400 coal-powered plants with natural-gas powered ones, install carbon capture and sequestration at 800 plants, cut electricity by 25 percent. Consider that Indonesia and Brazil are just under China and the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions. Why? Because of all the deforestation. How many of us could live without paper?

People of the higher-income nations, particularly Americans, have not been asked to seriously sacrifice to solve this problem. Some ways could actually help us, like converting our dumb electric grids to smart ones, so people are encouraged to use electricity at hours of the day when the grids are under less pressure (instead of the current system where people are charged a flat rate no matter when they use electricity). Mowing your lawn the old-fashioned, eco-friendly way will not only save you money but also get you some exercise. Switching to a more plant-based diet will help lower methane emissions (which are far more harmful than all those hummers we hate so much) but could also help prevent doctors removing an artery from your leg to put in your heart when you are rushed for surgery. And despite my previous complaints against President Bush, his 2007 law (a law phasing out incandescent light bulbs and one which his modern contemporaries call socialism) is a step in the right direction, and changing your light bulbs can make a difference. But we need to work much, much harder.

5. Hypocrisy is humbling. Or rather, admitting you're a hypocrite is. I myself profit off of an oil-producing nation, and I use a massive amount of CO2 just to get here (and travel internationally for vacation). Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course it does. But I recycle and don't use plastic and compost and vote Democrat! But I need to change just like everyone else. I would rather be hypocritical about this issue than dumb, but hypocrisy is nothing to be proud of.  

Finally, remember that 99 is not 100, and you should help the planet because it's the right thing to do, not because it's sexy.


UPDATE: Here's the New Yorker's interesting articles on President Obama's environmental legacy and Al Gore.

Read More →