I don't really pay that much attention to the election, which is definitely a bad thing. So other than gagging at the video of Hildog (Hillary) crying, and listening to Obama's way too long speeches that I don't have the attention span for, I decided to check out some of their recent environmental stances.
A friend had originally told me that both candidates had avoided the topic of global warming and the environment, and that Hillary had only discussed the issue when confronted with an inquiry in public. I searched google news for Obama and Clinton environmental articles, but you have to search for global warming in order to find anything related. I found an article from the Baltimore Sun on Obama's recent speech at the University of Maryland. Maryland is a state that is dramatically feeling the effects of sea levels rising as islands and lands are slowly disappearing.
Obama is focusing on reducing emissions from greenhouse gases, and a staple point of this is putting caps on industry emissions and requiring all vehicles to have a MPG of at least 40. This, he proclaims, will cut our dependency on foreign oil drastically.
How feasible is this? By just looking at GMC's website, one of their largest SUVs, the Yukon, has recently been made into a hybrid. What are the changes? A maximum MPG of 17 is now 22 (on highways). With Americans and American car companies continuing to produce large vehicles, this seems to be a hard task.
Hildog lays out a plan that is much the same, focusing on emissions, green low-income housing, 50$ billion in research money, and increasing vehicle efficiency to 55(!) MPG by 2030. First of all, the 55 MPG seems drastic, and pretty far fetched as it could be 15 years after Hillary could be out of office. The research fund seems like a feasible plan, although I am not one to boast about my knowledge on government funding allocations. Probably the most appealing thing, and least likely to happen, on her list to me is the low-income green housing which she hopes to create jobs and spread environmental awareness with.
Still, I would be happy to see maybe 20% of the promises being made on the candidates list to actually happen. It is safe to say that my expectations are low, but I will choose the best of the worst.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Charlie Batch: "Steelers Rule, Patriots (aka youth crime and dropping out of high school) Suck!"
So here's how it went down:
T-Bone: "What's up bro, remember that sick touchdown pass you had to Quincy Morgan??"
Charlie Batch: "Dude I rule. Now grab some girls we are headed to Diesel VIP... bottle service."
thanks to the jerk wearing a giant jacket and taking up the bottom left corner.Well, actually, C Batch came to CMU to talk about his work in Homestead for the Batch Foundation which promotes after school activities and good grades, mostly through sports. I showed up, with one other person out of about 50, in my steelers jersey and terrible towel. He also answered a bunch of steeler questions, and had a bunch of good stories about the super bowl season, bettis, cowher...
My questions was "What is the biggest difference in playing for Cowher and Tomlin?" He kind of skirted around the answer and said Tomlin was just more reserved but had the same desire. The other great question, asked by Chris Watts was "How happy were the Steelers that the Patriots lost the Super Bowl?" This question was also not answered very directly, but he did confirm "I was happy."
My questions was "What is the biggest difference in playing for Cowher and Tomlin?" He kind of skirted around the answer and said Tomlin was just more reserved but had the same desire. The other great question, asked by Chris Watts was "How happy were the Steelers that the Patriots lost the Super Bowl?" This question was also not answered very directly, but he did confirm "I was happy."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Journal #7: Environmental Assessment of Used Oil Management
I was referred to a paper written by one of the professors I will likely be working for next year, Arpad Horvath. It was a detailed Life Cycle Analysis of used oil management in California. The study focused on the three major management methods of combustion, rerefining, and distilling. The limits of the LCA were placed on the end-of-life phase to concentrate on generated wastes and emissions.
Used oil has significantly higher amounts of heavy metals, sulfur, and total halogens when compared to crude oil. It is generated by the transportation, construction, and industrial sectors, where it is then processed through one of the management methods and used as fuel, lubrication, or in other materials production such as asphalt.
Combustion is the most common method of management (75% of used oil). Combustion creates the least amount of waste, but results in much higher emissions of heavy metals when compared to the other management methods. This is the most hazardous risk to human health, and is not nearly as evident in rerefining and distilling. Still, combustion is the cheapest, easiest way to manage used oil which is reflected by its popularity.
The authors then advise that the best option is to take measures to increase management in rerefining and distilling. Already, California is planning to double its rerefining operations. Incentives could be created to reward alternate management methods (other than combustion).
This journal entry was more of a summary of a technical study than an analysis, and allowed me to get a chance to dissect a very detailed report by myself. It gave a better understanding of what goes into a full LCA, and its many applications in environmental engineering.
Used oil has significantly higher amounts of heavy metals, sulfur, and total halogens when compared to crude oil. It is generated by the transportation, construction, and industrial sectors, where it is then processed through one of the management methods and used as fuel, lubrication, or in other materials production such as asphalt.
Combustion is the most common method of management (75% of used oil). Combustion creates the least amount of waste, but results in much higher emissions of heavy metals when compared to the other management methods. This is the most hazardous risk to human health, and is not nearly as evident in rerefining and distilling. Still, combustion is the cheapest, easiest way to manage used oil which is reflected by its popularity.
The authors then advise that the best option is to take measures to increase management in rerefining and distilling. Already, California is planning to double its rerefining operations. Incentives could be created to reward alternate management methods (other than combustion).
This journal entry was more of a summary of a technical study than an analysis, and allowed me to get a chance to dissect a very detailed report by myself. It gave a better understanding of what goes into a full LCA, and its many applications in environmental engineering.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Journal #6: Urban Farming
Since urban farming was a popular topic in class yesterday, I decided to look it up online. I had no real previous knowledge of urban farming except for communal gardens, but those are only meant as a space for those who don't have lawns or garden areas (apartments).
So the first hit on google was the wikipedia article, which had limited cited sources and was marked as biased. Still it presented a lot of the basic principles of urban farming that we talked about in class. Urban farming, it reads, is geared to increasing city food supplies, providing much need jobs, making the urban public more environmentally conscious, and reducing land usage (deforestation or habitat destruction for farm use).
The intentions are great and the goals seem simple enough but not obtainable on the level that the article describes. Impacting a whole city's food supply does not seem feasible with the land available within city limits. Families with yards seems like a possibility if they are very dedicated, but I don't see how this could branch out much more without decreasing park space. Just thinking of a place like New York City being able to significantly increase their food supplies based on urban farming seems very far fetched. Probably it's most realistic and beneficial aspect could be the environmental awareness it creates, and employing youth participation could be the biggest its biggest impact on the future.
I read one of the links at the bottom of the page that introduced "Skyfarming", where a farm, using hydroponic techonology, is grown vertically to reduce land usage. The hope is that someday someone generates the funding to create largescale vertical farm (a farm skyscraper). This type of farming can create clean energy, purify wastewater, create consistency in food supplies (eliminating dangerous "rogue" strains), and would be all-organic. Something this seems so futuristic that it can seem unbelievable, but appears that with real funding could achieve the goals of urban farming within the small amounts of land available in a city.
So the first hit on google was the wikipedia article, which had limited cited sources and was marked as biased. Still it presented a lot of the basic principles of urban farming that we talked about in class. Urban farming, it reads, is geared to increasing city food supplies, providing much need jobs, making the urban public more environmentally conscious, and reducing land usage (deforestation or habitat destruction for farm use).
The intentions are great and the goals seem simple enough but not obtainable on the level that the article describes. Impacting a whole city's food supply does not seem feasible with the land available within city limits. Families with yards seems like a possibility if they are very dedicated, but I don't see how this could branch out much more without decreasing park space. Just thinking of a place like New York City being able to significantly increase their food supplies based on urban farming seems very far fetched. Probably it's most realistic and beneficial aspect could be the environmental awareness it creates, and employing youth participation could be the biggest its biggest impact on the future.
I read one of the links at the bottom of the page that introduced "Skyfarming", where a farm, using hydroponic techonology, is grown vertically to reduce land usage. The hope is that someday someone generates the funding to create largescale vertical farm (a farm skyscraper). This type of farming can create clean energy, purify wastewater, create consistency in food supplies (eliminating dangerous "rogue" strains), and would be all-organic. Something this seems so futuristic that it can seem unbelievable, but appears that with real funding could achieve the goals of urban farming within the small amounts of land available in a city.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Journal #5: LEED Schools Program
So after learning a little more about LEED at the Focus the Nation lectures, I decided I should become way more acquainted with some of their practices. This was a goal of mine from the beginning of the semester as I was registered to take the Archie LEED course which was dropped a week before classes further reinforcing my distrust for their profession.
I checked the U.S. Green Buildings Council website and took a look at the only presentation I could get to work on my computer. It was a powerpoint on LEED certification in U.S. Schools. First I was unaware that schools were the greatest economic sector of the construction industry in 2007. However, most of the schools are built only to meet requirements and are subject to continual expensive maintenance practices. With about 20% of the population spending 6 hours a day in schools, it seems that much attention could be given to make the schools more accommodating.
So then they pitch the usual LEED buildings things of reducing waste, energy consumption, and making a more naturally comfortable environment. The effects on the building users are what I felt would be most different in schools than other LEED buildings. The presentation boasts that LEED schools have a 3% increase in user productivity and a 3% decrease in teacher turnover. I don't really feel that these will be the most beneficial effects. It would be interesting to see if there was a real decrease in high school dropouts in a school that was recently upgraded into meeting a lot of LEED standards. Also, I feel the greatest benefit would be the early environmental education that the LEED building would reinforce for students. At an early age kids could be fully aware of our environmental problems and what needs to be done to change things, and hopefully this could make an entire generation environmentally conscious from the start. This could trickle out to parents and communities easily, even though the change would be slow. This aspect goes along with my other post of how AASHTO is trying to educate the worker, not the manager. It is more important to educate on the seemingly lesser scale to really see an impact.
The LEED dudes also cite that meeting standards reduces costs by $100,000 a year on average. Although this is a great pitch, it might just result in government reduction of the education budget, which would be a tragedy. Still, I am glad to see the USGBC striving to see change in the schools.
I checked the U.S. Green Buildings Council website and took a look at the only presentation I could get to work on my computer. It was a powerpoint on LEED certification in U.S. Schools. First I was unaware that schools were the greatest economic sector of the construction industry in 2007. However, most of the schools are built only to meet requirements and are subject to continual expensive maintenance practices. With about 20% of the population spending 6 hours a day in schools, it seems that much attention could be given to make the schools more accommodating.
So then they pitch the usual LEED buildings things of reducing waste, energy consumption, and making a more naturally comfortable environment. The effects on the building users are what I felt would be most different in schools than other LEED buildings. The presentation boasts that LEED schools have a 3% increase in user productivity and a 3% decrease in teacher turnover. I don't really feel that these will be the most beneficial effects. It would be interesting to see if there was a real decrease in high school dropouts in a school that was recently upgraded into meeting a lot of LEED standards. Also, I feel the greatest benefit would be the early environmental education that the LEED building would reinforce for students. At an early age kids could be fully aware of our environmental problems and what needs to be done to change things, and hopefully this could make an entire generation environmentally conscious from the start. This could trickle out to parents and communities easily, even though the change would be slow. This aspect goes along with my other post of how AASHTO is trying to educate the worker, not the manager. It is more important to educate on the seemingly lesser scale to really see an impact.
The LEED dudes also cite that meeting standards reduces costs by $100,000 a year on average. Although this is a great pitch, it might just result in government reduction of the education budget, which would be a tragedy. Still, I am glad to see the USGBC striving to see change in the schools.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Really Dumb People
Overheard in squirrel hill brueggers:
Lady #1: "I should see some of the [Oscars] best picture nominees."
Lady #2: "Yeah, I really should see 'There Will Be Blood.'"
Lady #3: "No, no. I hated it! Too dark for me. I didn't really get it. But you know what was great? Juno!"
And then I threw my everything bagel at her face, high fived the cashier, and chugged a beer next door at silky's.
Lady #1: "I should see some of the [Oscars] best picture nominees."
Lady #2: "Yeah, I really should see 'There Will Be Blood.'"
Lady #3: "No, no. I hated it! Too dark for me. I didn't really get it. But you know what was great? Juno!"
And then I threw my everything bagel at her face, high fived the cashier, and chugged a beer next door at silky's.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Journal #4: Green Practices at CMU
I went to the 1:30 "Focus the Nation" lecture on LEED buildings and green practices on campus. The LEED presentation was interesting and the speaker (Azziz from Architecture) was entertaining, although he hadn't checked to see if his powerpoint would look ok on a pc, so things were a little screwy.
Going along with my last post, apparently a lot of the LEED certification deals with how the building is constructed and site maintenance. So that is another step, although I am sure that the center for intelligent design people will say it is not even close to what we should be doing. I have never been on any sort of enviro-friendly construction site, and hope that that changes soon so I can gain a better understanding.
The other half of the lecture was the head of the Green Practices on campus committee speaking about the unseen everyday practices that CMU implements. One of the listeners (an art student) was particular concerned with our current dining services waste. His point was that we are doing nothing to try and reduce waste at many of the campus dining services, and that a lot of the materials were unnecessary (polystyrene, paper, plastic...). His solutions were to think about having each student use their own dishes and be responsible for washing them, or to have them be washed at the end by dining serives, just that the same set was available for use again by the same student everytime.
Immediately I saw several (gigantic) flaws in this highly conceptual plan. The speaker was quick to point out that recently steps have been already made to reduce waste by students, as the cafeteria style Schatz has dishes and silverware that are washed and reused every meal. The speaker also pointed out that there is no way that a student having a single set or being responsible for washing could pass health codes.
I felt the student was not really choosing a solution that could really be pitched to a large body of users. I can't imagine the entire student body thinking that this was a better solution. Also, after our life cycle classes and paper vs. polystyrene readings, I think a strong case could be made that maybe the current food container use might not be that bad when looking at the entire life of the dishes vs. current containers. With the present dining system on campus it would be very hard to try and switch to dishes. Schatz is unique in that its location is optimal to have a cafeteria style without too much hassle in chasing down students that might walk off with dishes. The rest of the campus would be difficult to enforce such a system, the only other place I could see it working is in the Tepper eatery.
Maybe the entire dining system could use a complete makeover, as I never really liked the food as a freshman and was very anxious to get off of the meal plan. Then it could be possible to make a switch to dishes, but I don't think it would be economical without first looking at a total analysis of the possible cases.
Going along with my last post, apparently a lot of the LEED certification deals with how the building is constructed and site maintenance. So that is another step, although I am sure that the center for intelligent design people will say it is not even close to what we should be doing. I have never been on any sort of enviro-friendly construction site, and hope that that changes soon so I can gain a better understanding.
The other half of the lecture was the head of the Green Practices on campus committee speaking about the unseen everyday practices that CMU implements. One of the listeners (an art student) was particular concerned with our current dining services waste. His point was that we are doing nothing to try and reduce waste at many of the campus dining services, and that a lot of the materials were unnecessary (polystyrene, paper, plastic...). His solutions were to think about having each student use their own dishes and be responsible for washing them, or to have them be washed at the end by dining serives, just that the same set was available for use again by the same student everytime.
Immediately I saw several (gigantic) flaws in this highly conceptual plan. The speaker was quick to point out that recently steps have been already made to reduce waste by students, as the cafeteria style Schatz has dishes and silverware that are washed and reused every meal. The speaker also pointed out that there is no way that a student having a single set or being responsible for washing could pass health codes.
I felt the student was not really choosing a solution that could really be pitched to a large body of users. I can't imagine the entire student body thinking that this was a better solution. Also, after our life cycle classes and paper vs. polystyrene readings, I think a strong case could be made that maybe the current food container use might not be that bad when looking at the entire life of the dishes vs. current containers. With the present dining system on campus it would be very hard to try and switch to dishes. Schatz is unique in that its location is optimal to have a cafeteria style without too much hassle in chasing down students that might walk off with dishes. The rest of the campus would be difficult to enforce such a system, the only other place I could see it working is in the Tepper eatery.
Maybe the entire dining system could use a complete makeover, as I never really liked the food as a freshman and was very anxious to get off of the meal plan. Then it could be possible to make a switch to dishes, but I don't think it would be economical without first looking at a total analysis of the possible cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)