Every so often it is worth calling out and reminding oneself where it is worthwhile to go to get good thinking and information on energy and climate issues.
Here are a few such top-notch sites to spend time with:
Joe Romm, Climate Progress, will never fail to inflame your passion — very knowledgeable perspective delivered with wit in a (politely put) quite blunt manner. Combination of ‘news’ and analysis.
Grist is a great “group” site, combination of paid reporters (see David Roberts) and posts from top-notch experts.
The Wonkroom provides a progressive focus on policy-related news, with Brad Johnson‘s reporting re climate issues very much worth paying attention to.
Real Climate is the critical site for peer review-quality work on energy and climate issues. In addition to their high-quality debunking work re climate change deniers, they often serve as an excellent ‘translation’ service between the scientific community and broader audiences.
Earth2Tech is a fun stop through site. Often with good analytical pieces, but with plenty of ‘blurbs’ that can bring to your attention items of (potential) interest.
The Oil Drum is, of course, a ‘must-pay attention to’ site those concerned about energy issues. Top-flight analytical pieces combined with knowledgeable and impassioned readers.
Solve Climate‘s excellent work, under the direction of David Sassoon, could be described as “the site for journalists to check out before writing an energy/environmental piece”. They bring energy/climate/science issues out in a way that many journalists find invaluable. Often have breaking ‘investigative’ pieces on critical issues (like their recent work on HFCs).
The Campaign for America’s Future blog has really stepped in recent months, with a collection of bloggers, who are highlighting issues related to green manufacturing and the linking of industrial policy with building a cleaner economy. (Check out Natasha Chart‘s work.)
Ahh … Inhabitat … when you need inspiring looks at actual and potential steps forward in our built environment, this is not a bad place to check in.
It’s Getting Hot in Here, the voice of the Youth Climate Movement, is honestly uneven — which is what should be expected from any real group site On the other hand, they often feature voices and focus on items that don’t seem to find a home elsewhere on the web and have had plenty of stories that merit greater attention.
DeSmogBlog is De Place to get De Scoop on DeNiers.
Josh Nelson has an endless stream of great material at Enviroknow. And, well, HuffingtonPost Green has an endless stream, mainly from top-notch people
DC Action Factory provides you first-hand reporting of climate activism from the Halls of Congress and the alleys of DC (don’t know which is dirtier …).
November 10th, 2009 · Comments Off on Guardian asserts conspiracy to hide the Peak
The global economy’s life-blood (even if it has been on life support) truly doesn’t flow through the CAC 40 or Wall Street, but is pumped from the ground and into our chemical plants, manufacturing processes, and transportation. We should, as a global society, be working to “keep the grease in the ground” for a variety of reasons, but this is a necessary process of weaning off dependency, not a reckless nose-dive of suddenly going cold Turkey.
One of the nightmarish realities that we should face is how resource limitations intersect. Our carbon cycle limitations (e.g., Global Warming, Acidification of the Oceans) could partially be reduced when we hit the wall of oil limits, Peak Oil. When it comes to these, rather than hitting walls and dealing with crises (massive crises), we (as individuals, nations, global economy) would be much better off if we make reasoned and thoughtful plans of action based on sound knowledge to reduce our abuse of the resource and move toward sustainable resource use before we hit walls and suffer calamitious consequences.
When it comes to Peak Oil, the general political discussion is not nearly as intense or broad, even as ‘experts’ debate over what might really be happening. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has long been toward the upper side of optimism about Peak Oil, having numbers about likely “Peak” production seeming to match likely demand growth rather than production possibilities. When it came to the 2007 World Energy Outlook,
what a magnificent resource — a tremendous amount of data that anyone interested in energy issues will be citing.
Their rearward look — what’s happened already — invaluable.
Their forward look — what will happen — would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
Optimistic estimates from authoritative institutions enable planners (business, government, etc …) to push solutions to the right, as those estimates ‘prove’ that there really isn’t a serious problem that requires near-term addressing.
The globe uses, roughly, 80 million barrels of day (mbd) of oil which is over 90 percent of global production capacity. Earlier this decade, IEA asserted that production capacity would grow to about 130 mbd with demand growing to about 125 mbd. See, no problem.
Last year, IEA changed this to a peak production of about 105-110 mbd. Hmmm … okay. Real problem, but still some breathing space. We need to slow growth of demand, but not crisis.
However, others focused on this issue have questioned whether the 84 mbd range represents just about the peak level of production capacity. Even more importantly, Peak Oil highlights that there is roughly a mountain to describe the oil production path: once you’ve climbed to the peak of production, you will inexorable face a decline — and you (as individual, community, nation, globe) will be far (FAR) better off if your demand curve trajectory is a more rapid decline than production potential rather than assuming continued growing ability to produce (and therefore burn) more and more oil.
Whether for climate change or Peak Oil, good information enables to better decision-making. We know that, when it comes to climate change, there are cabals recklessly endangering humanity by seeking to confuse the debate and hinder progress forward.
Today, the Guardian reported about potential efforts to distort the discussion about Peak Oil in what might be termed ‘reckless endangerment of global economic prosperity’. (Note that this risk from getting Peak Oil wrong is even greater than the disasters caused by the financial improprieties and insanities behind our current woes.) Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower reports that a “top EIA official” is asserting that there have been deliberate inflation of oil production estimates
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
“The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.”
What is driving the effort to distort what the IEA internal experts think? Concerns over near term term market fluctuations trump the necessity for good information to plan for tomorrow.
“Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. “
Now, what is “American” in terms of influencing IEA? Is this, likely, still from Bush Administration policies and appointees? Likely. But, the Guardian article does not provide a conclusive case that American governemntal pressure has been driving IEA’s extreme optimism as to the global peak oil production potential.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad.”
The IEA has consistently been on the high side of estimates as to peak oil production potential. And, as “the” authoritative global source for energy information, these estimates have enabled planners to push off focusing on oil dependency challenges and the need for ever more efficient resource use because ‘there will always be more tomorrow’ according to the IEA.
There have been, for a long time, real reasons to question IEA. The Guardian article, however, raises the question: has there been a conspiracy (driven by America or otherwise) to inflate IEA numbers and thus distort the global conversation about our energy challenges?
I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children. …
I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.
Representative Cao spoke to and, more importantly, listened to his constituents and absorbed what he said. And, his vote reflected that.
Across the nation, the vast majority of people support the creation of a public option and for stronger oversight of the (abusive) health “insurance” industry. Yet, Ahn Cao was the sole House Republican willing to vote his constituent’s interests.
It is worth recalling that Ahn Cao is something of hero to Republican Party leadership. Minority leader John Boehner put out a memo last year entitled The Future is Cao.
The Cao victory is a symbol of our future. In the two years ahead, House Republicans will demonstrate our commitment to reform by holding ourselves to the highest possible ethical standard – and, with new faces like Joseph Cao and John Fleming and the rest of the incoming GOP freshman class in our ranks, by presenting principled, superior solutions to the challenges facing our country.
Actually, a paragraph above almost certainly has an error. “Cao is something of a hero” is no longer true, it should read “he was” …
Cao’s vote for HCR broke the unanimous wall of opposition (as some are, accurately, referring to it: RepublicaNOism or the belief system of simply saying no and hoping for America’s failure to regain political power). Voting for citizen and national interests over political partisanship is simply unacceptable to today’s Republican Party ethos.
Cao looked at evidence, listened to his constituents, and made a judgment about what was the better option moving forward based on his reality-based decision process.
Let’s face facts, neither the Health Care Reform bill passed yesterday or the ACES Act are what they should be. Neither are as effective as they could (should be) in structure or likely outcome, neither fully embraces the opportunities that sensible action could create, neither is what we need. But, both at least represents steps forward in the national conversation that could create an improved situation for America and Americans toward a stronger, more cost effective, and more sensible society in the future.
We can hope that these conversations and solutions can find a bipartisan space. More important than bipartisanship should be sensible policy and good solutions.
Sadly, before we even get near what is possible and worthwhile, even such half-hearted measures and weakened-down efforts toward strengthening America are anathema to doctrinaire RepublicaNOism.
“Our region has typically provided a haven for some of the worst polluters in the country, and has paid a steep price,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Texas Director for Public Citizen. “I believe the appointment of Dr. Al Armendariz signifies a new direction for Region 6.”
If the reporting is accurate, this could be a real step forward for the region. [Read more →]
Comments Off on Obama Administration To Send Texas Hope of a Breath of Fresh Air?Tags:Obama Administration
Today, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke at the Lowy Institute. Entitled Check Against Delivery, this is one of the strongest statements seen from a Head of Government of a ‘developed’ nation on climate change and, more specifically, contains very strong denunciation of those deniers and delayers and self-proclaimed “skeptics” who are obstructing movement to mitigate climate change in Australia … and, even more so, the United States.
The full speech is after the fold and is highly (HIGHLY) recommended reading. This is one of those cases where each read drives one to differing ideas as to which part to quote, which item merits the most attention.
But, as is sometimes best, let us start with the end and what might be termed as a beginning toward strong governmental confrontation of those so ready to mislead and deceive:
My message to the climate change skeptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this:
You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.
That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy.
Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet – stop gambling with our future.
You’ve got to know when to fold ’em – and for the skeptics, that time has come.
The Government I lead will act.
Rudd has chosen a quite direct challenge to those fighting against action, ready and willing to disseminate falsehoods and deception in their efforts to guard their current fiscal and other interests even at the cost of creating grave risks for all humanity.
The Prime Minister lays down a very “stark choice”:
When you strip away all the political rhetoric, all the political excuses, there are two stark choices – action or inaction. The resolve of the Australian Government is clear – we choose action, and we do so because Australia’s fundamental economic and environmental interests lie in action.
Action now. Not action delayed.
To achieve that “action now” faces a serious challenge:
The challenge we face, and others around the world face, is to build momentum and overcome domestic political constraints.
The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.
They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.
They are a “constitute a powerful global force for inaction” and Rudd directly identifies where these minorities reside:
they are particularly entrenched in a range of conservative parties around the world.
Rudd calls out deniers and delayers by name. And, he didn’t hesitate to point to Americans, prominent leaders of the Republican Party, who are continuing to distort debate.
Climate sceptics are also a powerful political lobby in the United States.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel said on 6 March 2009: “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner said on April 19 2009: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.”
Republican Congressman John Shimkus said on 25 March 2009: “If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?”
These people, Rudd says, “happily play with our children’s future.”
The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care. The vested interests at work are simply too great.
Those interests are too great to ignore, to stand idly by and allow them to deceive and inhibit action through their deceit.
Kevin Rudd has directly challenged these deceivers in a powerful speech (below the fold) that merits reading in entirety.
And, it is a speech that merits echoing and repeating from political and other leaders around the world.
My father-in-law has brain cancer. He is a good man. He is the type whose hands are (sadly too often) filled at the end of a stroll with trash he picked up on the way. He has helped others in need, whether friends (doing all too many renovation and repair projects) to strangers (a pencil portrait of my better 95+% as a child was someone-without-money’s payment for extensive dental work). He is a good man. And, the prognosis isn’t great.
Not surprisingly, my better 95+%, my mother-in-law, my other in-laws, their friends are not especially joyous about facing this.
Yet, they face it with a sort of calm that is rarely seem in America when a family faces a major medical crisis. To date, there has not been one iota of discussion about financial challenges. There is no stress of looking at check-book balances, no fearful whispers about mounting medical bills, no distress over potential financial bankruptcy, no extended phone calls with insurers battling to get a test covered or to see whether a physician in system. In fact, the only discussions of money have been comments about how ridiculously low the bills are and why it really isn’t worth the time to seek reimbursement for supplementary insurance programs.
In this stressful time, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law are absoutely free of financial tensions from medical costs.
Sadly, perhaps, for my children’s future wealth, this isn’t due to great family wealth. (They are solidly middle class.) Nor do they they unlock the key to some super-secret executive-based insurance program.
The reason for calm is simple: my father-in-law is French.
It isn’t because that French people are inherently calm and reasonable people, shy and reticent to get into an argument. (Sigh, actually the reverse. Here’s a good cheat sheet to prepare for an argument.)
No, the absence of fiscal tension results from basic public policy: universal coverage.
As with all French residents, my in-laws have health-insurance. When necessary, they simply go to get taken care of. In this public-private system, they have costs to bear (such as that 20 Euro charge for visiting a doctor) for treatment but those costs will not overwhelm a family’s budget.
The French provide for universal coverage at a per capita cost far lower than America’s spotty and unequal medical system.
And, the French have much better health care results.
Considering my father-in-law’s situation has made me wonder: is one reason for those better results the lower tension due to the universal coverage?
Does universal coverage make it easier for my father-in-law and other ill people to focus their energy on getting better rather than pouring over (if Americans lucky enough to have it) health insurance paperwork?
Does the universal coverage and lack of financial pressure make it easier for my mother-in-law to focus on her husband’s health? And, does the near absence of insurance paperwork and bureaucracy make it less likely that she, herself, might get sick?
My blogging focus is on energy and environmental issues. Within that, I am intrigued (and frustrated) by our failures to analyze adequately costs and benefits. And, I am always searching for those win-win-win-win solution paths that address the complexity of the real world, identifying interactions and building on them. It seems that the ‘tension relief’ factor of (single payer, please…) universal coverage is absent from the US discussion. Tension Relief is, however, a factor worthy of note and consideration.
As a note, this is not a call for sympathy about my father-in-law. I hope, for his grandchildren, that he beats medical odds for a long time to come. When he does die, whether soon or many years from now, the world will be a lesser place. As written above, he is a good man who makes the world better through his actions. But, by his own words, he has had a good, long, and full life. He has seen all his children succeed beyond his dreams, he has seen them all married, and had the chance to play with his grandchildren. And, he lives in a system that allows him to face his medical challenges without fear for his, his wife’s, or his children’s financial futures.
November 4th, 2009 · Comments Off on Newsweek moves from green rankings to cashing in Green
What a difference a few weeks makes.
September 23-24, Newsweek was the “media partner” for the Council on Competitiveness’ National Energy Summit, mainly dominated by business leaders focused on developing meaningful responses and policies to tackle climate change. That session was a coming out, of sorts, for Newsweek‘s green business rankings, which purported to be the first comprehensive look at America’s top 500 Corporations and their environmental policies. This Summit had speakers like Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren, and many others providing meaningful and valuable perspective on what we can (and should) do to mitigate climate change. (There were, of course, also some fossil fools there.) Writ large, it was a powerful event of business and other leaders learning from each other about possibilities and necessities.
And, Newsweek provided many of the moderators (even if they were often seeming to shill for anti climate mitigation perspectives in their questions and comments) while handing out copies of their Green Rankings.
Now we see that Green Newsweek perhaps should be ranking itself low on that in the rankings as it cashes in some green as Newsweek is partnering this time with the American Petroleum Institute for an “Executive Forum” on “Climate and Energy Policy”. API is publishing full page ads in the Washington Post arguing against climate legislation with truthiness-laden assertions about energy prices.
API has been a key opponent of serious efforts to address climate change, spending over $3 million lobbying on the Waxman-Markey climate change bill this year. This summer, Gerard sent a memo to API member groups that laid out a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as ordinary citizens urged Congress to oppose global warming legislation. Newsweek itself covered that news, as an example of “how astroturfing is taking over local activism.”
TPM further notes, however, that Newsweek has a record of “going soft” on the oil industry, both in articles and in previous partnering for special forums.
In September, Newsweek ran a story by Newsweek International editor Rana Foroohar entitled “Big Oil Goes Green For Real,” which infuriated environmentalists by asserting that oil industry investments in alternative energy were no longer just green-washing, but rather were “the real deal.”
Well, looking at the upcoming “Newsweek Executive Forum”, should we wonder what “the real deal” really is? [Read more →]
Comments Off on Newsweek moves from green rankings to cashing in GreenTags:Energy
First, let’s face facts: does anyone think that James Inhofe is leading this Republican rebellion with an intent of serious engagement on moving forward with climate change mitigation legislation with better analysis in hand? Once you’ve finished laughing, we can move forward. Thus, the fact that the EPA provided simply a meta analysis of Kerry-Boxer, based on work on Waxman-Markey, has little real relevance to decision-making and the situation at hand.
Second, let us state a fact: The Republicans are absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time when it comes to EPA analysis of climate legislation. They are right that the EPA analysis has serious flaws. But, they are absolutely wrong about what those flaws are and what should be done about it. Voinovich makes much noise about the imagined costs of acting to mitigate climate change but doesn’t begin to address the issue of the costs of inaction nor does he spend any time discussing the quite significant benefits (from improved health to improved productivity to improved student performance to …) that will come from taking serious action.
EPA did perform an analysis of the Waxman bill, but a detailed look at EPA’s work, reveals the use of assumptions, which, in some cases, defy practical and technological realities. … In addition, major provisions of the bill weren’t modeled at all, including various mandates and requirements that will diminish the effectiveness of the trading system and increase overall program costs…. EPA’s modeling is only as good as the assumptions built into it. Unrealistic assumptions about technology and offset availability and the lack of a comprehensive analysis of the entire legislative proposal greatly limit our understanding of the potential costs of the program.
Senator Voinovich actually has had a hold on an appointment to the EPA, demanding that the EPA do an analysis of climate legislation to his satisfaction or else he will continue the hold.
While the hold is a sad example of a problem in our legislative process, Voinovich is absolutely write that EPA’s analysis is flawed … but for absolutely the wrong reasons.
As per the words above, Voinovich doesn’t cease to speak of the failure of the analysis to examine adequately “potential costs”, he never (ever) raises the issue of potential costs of inaction and the potential (no, the real) benefits of action.
And, well, there is the real challenge that these analyses focus on “gross domestic product”, which is truly an inadequate measure of a society’s health and strength. For example, an oil spill will actually increase GDP (at least in the near term) due to the clean-up activities. Fossil-fuel pollution actually boosts (at least near and mid term) GDP due to the health care costs of treating asthma, mercury poisoning, cancers, and other resulting illnesses from that pollution. Thus, there is a fundamental question: do these analyses provide a meaningful window on societal strength and well-being?
Thus, James Inhofe, George Voinovich, and other Republican Senators staging their theater event today are absolutely right: the EPA (and CBO and …) analysis of climate legislation is inadequate. More importantly, Inhofe, Voinovich, and others are absolutely wrong as to why. Rather than failing to examine the true costs of action, these analytical organizations are failing to provide a robust window as to the much higher true costs of inaction and the much higher true benefits of action.
November 2nd, 2009 · Comments Off on “Technology is not going to solve our environmental problems”
This is a guest post from DCoronata who argues that it was written in haste … yet that haste produced something worth considering.
Technology is not going to solve our environmental problems.
Yes we’ve made dramatic improvements in feeding the world, with current crop yields much higher than in previous generations. But the environmental degradation and the overuse of fossil fuels has created a false panacea whereby we’ve thought that we can solve all of our problems with more technology, rather than using sustainable practices and more intelligent utilization of existing resources.
And for my main argument, I’ll talk about worldwide fishery depletion.
The biggest technological innovations in aquaculture and fishing has in the last half century led to a near total breakdown of all saltwater fisheries worldwide. Rather than enhance stocks and provide for greater resource management, it has led to the exact opposite.
Technology hasn’t made life easier for the fish, it has made life easier for the fisherman. Mile long seine nets, city-sized drag lines, sonar fish-finders and commercial harvesting boats the size of the Titanic have reduced our stocks to the point where many are approaching total collapse. This creates a cascade effect, where people who have invested huge sums of money in infrastructure to harvest the more expensive table fish now find themselves with rusting boats, crews that spend more time unemployed than active, and banks anxiously awaiting mortgage payments. So they go “downstream”, choosing to catch fish that were previously considered bait, to sell as cat and dog food.
Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.
Humanity has treated natural resources as boundless. And, we are facing the reality of limits. Peak Oil. The ‘end of frontier’. Global Warming. And, that most endless of resources, the freshwater that falls from the sky, water is not boundless.
One of Rome’s great contributions to humanity, the toilet has not truly gone a long way in the past several thousands of years. While ever-fancier options abound, the truth remains that, amid all of our uses of fresh water, one of the more wasteful is the use of perfectly good drinking water for flushing away our bodily wastes. There are a number of paths to cut into this, from the aggressive (from changed behavior (“if its yellow, let it mellow“) to using saw dust and an old bucket for a toilet) to introducing technology that has a shocking impact on some people’s sensibilities (waterless urinals or combining sinks with toilets) to the moderate and more socially acceptable replacing of an inefficient toilet with a more efficient new one. Thus, for quite literally millenia, humanity has long searched for that perfect flushing away of the detritus of our meals.
And, the search has a reason. Toilets represent just about 10 percent of the average household water use and in the range of 30 percent of the indoor use. The average person uses about 18 gallons, per day, day-in, day-out, for flushing toilets. That adds up — to some 6 billion gallons per day in the US alone. And, remember, that water has been cleaned and transported to the home to then be flushed. And, there are systems-of-systems implications: realize that, for example, about 20 percents of California’s electricity goes to cleaning and transporting water.
The very first rule: reduce. Every gallon less used means less electricity, less demands on the system, less impact on the environment …
For a number of years, I’ve noted double button toilets on trips. While not solving the issue of using drinking water for flushing toilets, they offer a quick path for providing a more responsible choice to that waste elimination. Sigh … I’d already changed my old 4 gallon toilets for 1.6 gallon ones and wasn’t about to go and spend $600 or so on installing toilets with the double-flush feature. Well, Brondell came around and introduced a product to scratch my itch for more responsible flushing. The Perfect Flush is a double-flush system that can be back fitted on nearly every home toilet out there. (If you have a flapperless/pressure assist toilet, the Perfect Flush isn’t for you.)
It took about 40 minutes, from reading the package to first ‘trail’ use, to transform the main 1.6 gallon toilet into a double-flush toilet. After a few uses, with some playing around, the ‘half-flush’ button delivers about 35% of normal flush and cleans out that ‘mellowing yellow’ while the ‘full flush’ handles more serious loads. The handle on the side of the toilet is now ‘decorative’, with the buttons on the top of the tank now controlling the flush. And, the majority of the time, the ‘half-flush’ is getting hit.
As with a “Prius” or solar panels or having an urban farm, the Perfect Flush satisfies on multiple levels. The button provides a conscious choice as to one’s water use and a reminder that we, each, can affect the total use of resources via even the smaller of actions and choices. It is
a tool for conversation and teaching the kids that options exist to more responsibly use resources. And, in our household, we’ve installed the Perfect Flush in the toilet which guests are most likely to use. We have yet to have a visitor come down saying “how do you flush the toilet” but have had several ask “That’s great. … How much water does it save … Where did you get it?”
For about $94, the Perfect Flush [UPDATE — recommended retail price reduced to $79] provides a quick path to cutting toilet bowl water usage. Reportedly, 9 of 10 toilet ‘calls’ don’t require a full flush. Assuming a 50% reduction in your tank, installing a Perfect Flush offers a quick path to cut toilet water use by 45 percent. Installed nationwide, that translates to about a 15% cut in indoor water use and 5% in total water use.
To be honest, with efficient toilets in place and relatively inexpensive water bills, the fiscal return-on-investment for installing The Perfect Flush can be a hard case to make. (It looks to be, in my situation, with a highly efficient water household already, something like a 10 year payback. To make an assumption, this toilet is used perhaps 60 times per week (with family plus visitors) or about 3000 times per year. That translates to about 2500 gallons less / year or roughly $9 in savings at the local $3.69 per 1000 gallons.) On the other hand, if you have older toilets and/or higher rates, The Perfect Flush offers an interesting option for introducing some degree of water efficiency at a relatively low cost, with a faster payback, compared to replacing old toilets. And, in that case, there is not the waste issue of sending those old toilets to the dump.
And, there are other situations where this might make more sense.
If you’re a renter (especially one paying utility bills) and the rental property has old toilets, you can install The Perfect Flush, cut down significantly on water use from the get go, and take it with you when you move on to your next property.
If you have a high traffic toilet (that shared family toilet; an office toilet; a public toilet; …), then The Perfect Flush might be a fast path for real reductions in water use. (Whether with an old, inefficient toilet or a new efficient one.)
Over all, The Perfect Flush is a nice addition to the comfortable home abode. For me, an Energy COOL gadget lover, this is a ‘fun’ toy. And, while it doesn’t necessarily make perfect sense for my household on financial terms (e.g., not perfect cents), it is easy to see that it could make sense for many others as a tool to cut costs and to help make a drop in America’s water problems.
Disclosure: At request, Brondell provided a Perfect Flush for review purposes.
the ACES Act are what they should be. Neither are as effective as they could (should be) in structure or likely outcome, neither fully embraces the opportunities that sensible action could create, neither is what we need. But, both at least represents steps forward in the national conversation that could create an improved situation for America and Americans toward a stronger, more cost effective, and more sensible society in the future.
(sadly too often) filled at the end of a stroll with trash he picked up on the way. He has helped others in need, whether friends (doing all too many renovation and repair projects) to strangers (a pencil portrait of my better 95+% as a child was someone-without-money’s payment for extensive dental work). He is a good man. And, the prognosis isn’t great.
almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly 
One of Rome’s great contributions to humanity, the toilet has not truly gone a long way in the past several thousands of years. While ever-fancier options abound, the truth remains that, amid all of our uses of fresh water, one of the more wasteful is the 