Get Energy Smart! NOW!

I regret not seeing Kate Sheppard’s excellent discussion at Mother Jones prior to writing Whole Foods’ CEO vs Whole Foods’ Values? and Whole Paycheck’s “Crazy Uncle”’s crazed global warming ignorance. Kate addresses the connection between Mackey’s statements/views, Whole Foods’ lobbying (or lack of it), and governmental action on environmental issues. As with The New Yorker article, the entire piece is worth reading. An extract:

But that doesn’t mean there’s no potential problem here for Whole Foods. The company, which pulls in $4 billion a year, does try to promote itself as a firm that cares about the environment. … their focus is on what customers can do to reduce their impact—including in one post an admonition to “vote with your dollars” by shopping at local and at socially-conscious businesses. … The company ranked among the biggest purchasers of green power last year, but neither the company nor its CEO has advocated for environmental policies in line with the views held by their customer base. Meanwhile, companies widely scorned by progressives have stepped up efforts to deal with climate change by both implementing sustainable practices and advocating for sound policy. … Whole Foods, despite its image, is not part of that coalition. And with Mackey its most visible officer, Whole Foods essentially can be counted as part of the corporate opposition to the pending legislation.

See also Media Matters’ Fact Check on Mackey.

Whole Foods’ CEO, John Mackey, has made news with a New Yorker profile quoting him promoting the rejection of climate change science. (See Whole Paycheck’s “Crazy Uncle”‘s crazed global warming ignorance.) When it came to his climate science ignorance, the article’s author commented

One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree.

Mackey’s ill-informed comments on climate science would, it seem, also be a rejection of Whole Foods’ Values for caring about our communities and our environment and Whole Foods’ Green Mission.

Wise moms everywhere remind us that actions speak louder than words. We can all talk about saving our planet but making those smart and sometimes challenging choices every day is what’s going to get the job done. We’ve been trying to make green choices since we opened our first store. We understand that companies can have a large impact on our environment.

After all, if the science on climate change were as shaky as Mackey asserts and the costs of action were so high, why would Whole Foods

• “stores [be] taking the initiative in many areas to reduce our impact on the earth and its resources”
• have made a “Palm Oil pledge” stating that “Whole Foods is committed to protecting rainforests, communities and our global climate.”
• care about “reduced reliance on fossil fuels”

Now, the Whole Foods’ Green Mission introduction ends:

The people who work here — from the CEO on down — are passionate about food, good health and the future of this little blue dot that we all call home.

It is hard to square Mackey’s crazy uncle-like embrace of the deluded and misrepresentative psuedo-sceptical war against [climate] science with being “passionate about … the future or this blue dot that we all call home.”

Either those “values” and that “mission” have substance or they don’t.

Unless Whole Foods’ words are simply greenwashing, it seems that, yet again, the Whole Foods PR department might be in for issuing a “sorry our CEO is an asshat” type of apology.

Update: As Brendan Demelle concludes at DeSmogBlog:

[The New Yorker] probes many of Mackey’s whacky views, and notes how the “right wing hippie” and “unrepentant foot-in-mouther” is as much a liability as an asset to the company he co-founded.  Mackey admits that many of Whole Foods’ 54,000 employees “occasionally” consider him to be “more like a crazy uncle” than his self-described title as their “daddy.”

As disturbing as those descriptions are, the “crazy uncle” one rings true.  Mackey is bizarrely candid, as evidenced by his admission to the Wall Street Journal last August that at Whole Foods, “We sell a bunch of junk.”

Climate change denial is a perfect example of the junk Mackey sells. 

Can we get a cleanup in Aisle 1 please?

Nick Paumgarten penned an excellent piece on Whole Foods’ CEO (and former Chairman of the Board) John Mackey in the 4 January 2010 New Yorker, Food Fighter: Does Whole Foods’ C.E.O. know what’s best for you?

John Mackey … sees himself as a “daddy” to his fifty-four thousand employees, who are known as “team members,” but they may occasionally consider him to be more like a crazy uncle.

Paumgarten’s revealing discussion of Mackey’s science reading provides a window on why they might see him as that “crazy uncle”.

[Read more →]

Today, a poll popped up:

How do you primarily heat your home / apartment?

This question gave me pause.

Sadly, for a self-proclaimed (and labeled by others) energy ‘geek’ and one who values feedback (systems) to enable better decisions/energy use patterns, I realized that I simply can’t answer this question.  The problem: multiple heating systems, with multiple changes over recent years, with difficulty in trying to figure out the relative share of heating provided by each system.

Within my household:

1. Natural gas furnace: An 80% efficiency furnace, with a bit better efficiency in impact due to variable fan system. (Couldn’t put in a 90+% gas furnace due to central location and difficulty of doing ducting for higher efficiency system.)
2. High efficiency (SEER-16+)  heat pump unit which, by the way, didn’t see an hour of cooling this past summer.
3. Radiant heating (in 1/5th of house) operating off solar hot water system and, if there isn’t enough hot water from the sun, a  natural gas hot water is the heat source.
4. High efficiency fireplace insert with about half the wood coming from trees / limbs cut down in the neighborhood rescued from being hauled away (and, well, even storm damage limbs, which are great for starting fires).
5. There is the small (high efficiency) heating element used in the basement office (when the rest of the house is set to go to 55 degrees during the day, unless there is a fire and/or lots of sun to support the radiant system).

My off the top of the head, hopefully in the ballpark of being right, answer as to the relative heating from various systems.  The 4th (the fireplace) probably covers in the range of 40-50% of total heating load; the 3rd perhaps 5-10%; the 5th likely 1% or so; and, the first two roughly split the remainder.

The difficulty in figuring out relative heat load bearing among these elements is complicated even further due to (near constant) change in the household system.

• The first and second were a combination replacement three years ago of an old (about 50% efficiency) gas furnace and an old (EER-7) air conditioning unit, in a “fossil-fuel system”, which is that the system chooses which is the most energy efficient way to heat based on outside temperature, switching from the HVAC to natural gas generally when the temperature falls below about 40 degrees Fahrenheit. (The controller enables me to change this, which provides an option for varying heating options based on the relative cost of natural gas vs electricity.)
• About 2 years ago, the radiant system became part of the heating system with a small (350 square foot) addition (that is well insulated compared to the rest of the 1958 house, with R-49 in the ceilings, R-19 in the walls, and R-13 below the radiant system).  It used to operate off an about 50% efficiency natural gas hot water heater.
• Just about a year ago, in January 2009, we added the high-efficiency fireplace insert.  In addition to really changing the household dynamic (with the living room the ‘favorite’ room when there is a crackling fire) and driving some real exercise (splitting wood into 1-2 lb pieces & assuring enough kindling), this picks up a serious portion of the heating load.  We probably have a fire burning in the range of 70 hours/week (generally not through the night and not every day) in winter, (maintaining the household fan at low level to move this air through the house). If it is above about 40 degrees, this takes up basically the house’s heating requirements and is partial heat otherwise. (In other words, if there is a fire, the HVAC unit rarely turns on.)
• Last summer, we added solar hot water to the house, replacing the natural gas hot water heater with a smaller and higher efficiency unit at the same time that is the backup to the 120 gallon solar hot water tank. The radiant system now operates first off the solar hot water tank, if there is enough in the tank, and then off the natural gas.  (Estimate: perhaps 50% of radiant load provided either directly or indirectly due to the solar hot water system.  Indirect: solar hot water tank warming water and lowering the natural gas required to heat water to 120 degrees F.)
• Later this month, the solar PV system that is going up on the roof will start to pick up some of the heating load.

Of course, when it comes to the calculation of what is the house’s heat source(s), lets add more problems.

• As noted above, the house fan runs with the fireplace but there is also a fan unit at the fireplace itself (to increase the heating from the fire), thus that is likely several kWh/day to support the fireplace.
• And, there have been multiple rounds/items in the leak sealing, insulation adding, new curtains (really making sitting by windows far more comfortable at night), and other heating-efficiency changes over the years.
• And, well, there is the nighttime 53 degrees where the heating is anthropogenic (our body heat with good blankets).

This is all going to a simple question as to “how do you primarily heat your house?” without getting to the question of what are the primary energy sources to heat the house. In my home, we heat with:

• Firewood. Difficult to calculate exact energy inputs, as every wood has a different heat content (and we burn a real mix of woods) and we don’t measure (in cords) the wood collected from downed limbs/such in the neighborhood.
• Electricity for the heat pump, the fans to move fireplace heat, the small office heater, and the pump for the radiant heating. “Primary” energy mix soon to be dominated by (or perhaps totally covered by) solar pv.
• Natural gas for both air heating and heating water for radiant system.
• Solar for about half (estimated) the radiant heating load and soon to be in range of 100% of annual electricity load.

While a feedback-valuing, statistics minded  ‘energy geek’, contemplating the confused (complicated) household heating system, we are unlikely to ever have a robust and fully accurate answer to that simple question: “How do you heat your house?”

[Read more →]

In the face of massively funded disinformation campaigns, with astroturf organizations like the “Americans Coalition for a Clean-Coal Economy (ACCCE), with Republican politician after politician aggressively misrepresenting information on the benefits of climate action, according to a recent AP/Stanford University poll, a plurality of Americans understands that action to mitigate catastrophic climate change will bring economic benefits.

The AP story opens,

More Americans believe steps taken to reduce global warming pollution will help the U.S. economy than say such measures will hurt it. It’s a sign the public is showing more faith in President Barack Obama’s economic arguments for limiting heat-trapping gases than in Republican claims that the actions would kill jobs.

The November AP/Stanford University poll showed:

• 46% of respondents saw action on climate change boosting the economy
• 40% saw climate climate mitigation action as likely to create jobs
• Less than one-third believed that climate mitigation efforts could hurt the economy.

[Read more →]

Global Warming … Peak Oil … Financial meltdown … these all threaten our future prospects, our ability to see a positive future reality for ourselves and descendents.

George Herbert Walker Bush lies at the core of a driving motivation in my life.

President Bush was facing a reelection battle against Bill Clinton, and so advisers persuaded him to attend the world environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, possibly the most optiistic moment in recent history. Before he went, however, he told a press conference that “the American way of life is not up for negotiation.” If that’s true, if we can’t imagine living any differently, then all else is mere commentary.

One thing that unites the progressive blogosphere is the drive to imagine a different life, a different world, a better one, a better path forward … and we all, in our own ways, fight to achieve those visions.

Twenty years ago, the first President Bush stated that “the American Way of Life is not up for negotiation”, showing an inability to imagine catastrophe from non-negotiation and an inability to see something better. Without imagination to see a better future and the power to achieve it, we will not progress out of catastrophe to prosperous sustainability.

A New Year’s Pledge: imagine that better path and fight to achieve it.

And, I imagine life differently and it energizes me to fight to Energize America.

[Read more →]

This is a guest post from BillInLaurelMD on the state of ice conditions in the Arctic.

This is the next in an occasional series of diaries on the state of Northern Hemisphere Arctic sea ice (and other topics as warranted), written in memory of Johnny Rook, who passed away in early 2009. He was the author of the Climaticide Chronicles.

December 26 we lost our snow cover after a week with at least 7″ on the ground. But the storm that plagued the Midwest and South Central U.S. pulled in mild air from the southeast into the Mid-Atlantic states; Christmas afternoon through Saturday noon featured rain and fog; the fog resulting from mild moist air in contact with cold snow pack. And that fog was quite the snoweater; as water vapor changes to water droplets, heat is released which rapidly increases the melt rate of the snowcover.

There have been many days recently featuring gloomy greyness with an active southern storm track resulting in greater than usual rainfall, snowfall, and cloud along the southern tier of the U.S. and up the Atlantic coast. This is common with moderate to strong El Niño events in these areas. The recent storm in the Midwest was not your typical El Niño pattern storm at all, however.

The story from the Arctic follows.

[Read more →]

This is a guest post from R L Miller looking at messaging against potential climate action in Congress …

Hidden among the hustle and bustle of Americans’ preparations for Christmas, with snowstorms disrupting travel (and giving climate confusers another opportunity to proclaim “its cold and snowing today, therefore global warming isn’t real), the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) released poll results showing strong public support for clean energy and action on climate change.

• Strikingly, 82 percent voters and 80 percent of Independents support the U.S. government increasing investment in clean energy sources.
• 67 percent of voters and 67 percent of Independents support the U.S. government limiting carbon pollution and other gases that may cause global warming.

According to this poll (pdf), more than two-thirds of registered voters understand that global warming is occurring while only 31 percent reject the data about global temperature changes in their mistaken belief that the climate is changing.  Sadly, the poll provides another data point about the glaring partisan divide when it comes to respect for and understanding of science:

• Over 90% of Democrats understand that global temperatures are warming, 8% don’t believe the science
• A strong majority of Independents (64%) understand the scientific conclusions while a third (32%) don’t believe the scientific community
• Sadly, a majority of Republicans (54%) fail to believe the National Academy of Sciences (among other scientific institutions) while  43% acknowledge the scientific conclusions about changing global temperatures

Of course, this is simply a question of the basic “is the globe warming” and doesn’t address public understanding of humanity’s role in driving current climate change.

A far larger majority supports government policies and actions to promote a clean energy future.

• 82% of voters (and 80% of Independents) support the U.S. government “increasing investment in clean energy sources.”
• 67% of voters (and 67% of Independents) support the U.S. government “limiting carbon pollution and other gases that may cause global warming.”
• 66% of voters (and 63% of Independents) support “signing an international treaty to commit to addressing global warming – as long as countries like China and India do as well.”

As for the last, 56% of voters say “the United States should take the lead and make meaningful reductions in its carbon emissions and other gases that may cause global warming, regardless of what other countries do.” (Note that just 23% of respondents rejected the concept of taking action to reduce carbon pollution.)

This poll also specifically tackled ClimateGate / Swifthack, finding that it “seems to have had little impact on voters’
view of global warming and their desire to limit carbon pollution” (even when they asked a quite aggressive and provocative question taken directly from self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” misrepresenting cherry-picking of the stolen emails).

[Read more →]

This is an expanded discussion, with some revisiting, of something written a week ago trying to step back and consider the Chinese approach to climate negotiations in Copenhagen and elsewhere. I have, since reading it, been “assured” that Copenhagen failure was China’s fault. That “assurance” and assessing of “blame”, in my opinion, glosses over the very weak hand President Obama had going into Copenhagen due to Senate failure to act on even a weak climate bill and what that might imply for Chinese approaches to climate negotiations. On the other hand, this discussion is not meant as a white-washing of roadblocks that the PRC delegation/leadership placed on the route toward a stronger COP15 final resolution.

That is, the Chinese climate agenda …

Many are reporting that the Chinese represented the most serious stumbling block inhibiting meaningful progress at COP15.

• Should we conclude “China at fault” for the world’s failures to move forward?
• Are the “Chinese” against action on climate change?
• Is the Chinese leadership simply a roadblock to progress?

These are important questions to understand and consider as we strive to determine paths forward toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future.

[Read more →]