So Microsoft started running new "connector" buses for people who commute. Now instead of crawling through traffic (although I did enjoy listening to music and audiobooks) I can get on a bus a 10 minute walk from my office, sit in relative comfort with wifi and a power outlet at every seat, and work or play my way along the road. From this morning's test ride it looks like it will take about 15 mins longer door-to-door than driving myself would. I'm thinking at this point that the gas savings and time savings (about 90 mins/day) will be more than adequate to make it worthwhile. The best part of it all...the bus is 100% free...paid for by Microsoft in their effort to keep their employees happy and the trees green. So thank you Microsoft...and thank you Google for doing it first (in San Francisco)!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nice. Cleveland has a rapid train system that I've been wanting to take to work for a while. I'm just too lazy to get there early.
I am doing my part to save the planet by stacking all my veggies in the cart rather than put each specie in a separate little plastic bag.
I also walk/take public transit to work instead of driving my car...oh wait...I don't have a car...
We're saving the earth too!!! I have been riding my bike to school for the last three months. It's four miles round trip. I have clocked over 150 miles since I started riding.
Astyn quickly discovered that trying to drive to work wasn't going to work--no parking--and amazingly, it's actually FASTER for her to take the bus. How many times in your life will the bus stop be in front of your door and right in front of your workplace? Not many! So we're taking advantage.
We also recycle all our paper and plastic bottles. We have done this since we were married.
However, I did note that reducing approx. 150 miles in car driving equates to about 6-7 gallons of gas. In other words, three months of riding has saved us $20 in gas. A grand total of $6.66 per month. As you can see, the economic incentive in and of itself is poor.
No matter where I look, the argument to save the planet cannot be made on economic grounds. It cannot be done efficiently in a market setting. In the short run, "green life" will usually cost more and be more inefficient. This is the chronic problem with solar energy--the energy transfer is too inefficient to make it economically feasible. Since most decisions made in a competitive market are based on short-run efficiency, I am so far unconvinced that there is a market solution that will incentivize large scale green efforts--even though I would really like to be convinced that there is one.
Instead, the argument to "go green" is made on more moral (it's the responsible thing to do) or social (anyone remember "LiveEarth") grounds. Or in my case of riding my bike, I ride because it's good exercise, which I wouldn't get otherwise. The point is that economic market-based arguments, so far, do not seem to nod in favor of earth-friendly policies. Does anyone know what form of energy is powering the massive economic growth in China, with a population more than three times the U.S.? I have read that it is mostly coal--because it is cheap, and incidentally also one of the "dirtiest" forms of energy for the atmosphere. This lack of market-based green incentives also contributes to the reason why I think Carbon Credits, i.e. "Let's-apply-outsourcing-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions" are a joke. They are an attempt to fool mother nature with accounting tricks, not real efforts to reduce emissions.
In the interest of disclosure, I must say that ironically in our case here in Gainesville, because we live so close to campus, I can actually get to school faster on my bike and Astyn can get to work faster on the bus. In our case, which I would guess is a rarity, it actually is more efficient for us to "go green," which is why we do it. However, we did neither of these things when we lived only another 1/2 mile further from campus in a different apartment complex that was not as convenient to the bus route.
So, even though, now after moving from our old apartment, we have an efficiency advantage to go green, I doubt this is the case for most Americans in most cities. It is more inefficient for them to alter their lives in earth friendly ways. Since there is not a market-based, economic motivation, earth-friendly arguments are made on moral or social grounds.
If economic motivations don't (and for the foreseeable future won't) work, how will moral and social motivations work? Is there any other way to promote Earth-friendly living? Will they have sufficient motivating force to get enough of a critical mass involved? How many would be needed for a critical mass?
I don't have answers. I have guesses. I wish they were more optimistic. 1) Moral and social convincing to go green is slow and inefficient. It must deal with a current (and perhaps, but hopefully not, permanent) economic disadvantage. Appeals must be made to the heart and mind, and that has to be done one person at a time. I don't use "slow and inefficient" in a derogatory sense, as is often the case when these terms are used. I just mean that it can't be done quickly and in masses. 2) Even though it is slow and inefficient to convince people to be more earth-conscious on moral and social grounds (something a "LiveEarth" concert alone will not achieve), once you have connected with them in a meaningful way, they tend to be more attuned and dedicated to the cause then they would be if pure economic incentive were the motivator. If you're economically motivated, your only loyalty is to the lowest price. 3) Because of (1) and (2), I think that we will have a large collective of dedicated individuals who will try in many ways to be more earth-conscious, but this will fall short of the critical mass needed to make a major impact.
At this point I'll disclose that I did watch "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore about a month ago. I thought he made a pretty good presentation about the presence of global warming. I now understand why he spent the other half of the movie chronicling his personal journey--as he explained in the end, he said he had made this presentation over 1,000 times in a 1,000 different cities because he had to convince the people one by one--chronicling this journey in the movie was a cinematographic method used to drive this point home subtly and forcefully at the same time.
Having said that, I still stand with my predictions (1) slow and inefficient arguments, (2) dedicated once convinced, and (3) falling short of a critical mass, that I made above.
My hopes would be these: first and foremost, that it can become more economically efficient to go green--that some market power can augment moral and social convincing. I want to believe that we can come up with the means make cleaner electricity more cheaply than dirty electricity. There has to be a way. Second, I hope that the viral and exponential power of social networks combined with word-of-mouth advertising can work together to get individual earth-friendly living beyond the boundaries of a dedicated, but limited, collective and move it closer to that critical mass needed to make a major impact.
I see a couple of parallels with the manner in which we spread the Gospel. We spread the gospel to people one at a time. We officiate the ordinances one at a time. We convince hearts and minds one at a time. The process can be slow. It can be "inefficient." Once convinced, or we could say converted, people are more dedicated than they would be if economics were their motivator. We currently have a small, but dedicated collective of individuals, compared to world wide populations, who move forward in the Gospel cause. (1 Ne. 14:12 "And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.")
I don't know if I drew these parallels for any particular reason, other than I see the parallels and I wrote them. I don't think I am trying to make predictions about the growth of the Church either.
Frankly, I don't know why I wrote all of this in the first place. I just sat down to make a comment and then I just kept on typing. I am now apologizing to anyone who has read this non-proofread, semi-stream-of-consciousness writing. (But hey, I've been composing this whole thing in a little 2x2 plain text blog comment window where I can only see maybe two sentences at a time.) For anyone that reads this, please feel free to correct me, shred my weak arguments, tear my thought apart and hand it back to me in pieces, etc. Sorry Jesse that your blog has to hold this comment. But on the other hand, maybe I should give you props for sparking such a discussion. However, the whether the content of my discussion is worth anything... that is an open question.
Holy Cow. I just looked back at the comment I left on this blog and I think that has to be the longest comment ever made. I think that just got out of hand. I must have violated every blogging comment code of conduct rule that ever there was (if there ever were any). Again, my apologies.
Post a Comment