New words are constantly being invented, but this one caught my attention, "carborexic" and its corollary, "carborexia."
Carborexics are folks whose drive to cut their carbon footprint is obsessive-compulsive.
The New York Times had a piece by Joanne Kaufman on its SundayStyles section on Oct. 19 on carborexics. Featured in it is a Los Angeles area man who occasionally urinates on his lawn to save a toilet flush. When I read that, I had to laugh out loud.
I have touches of OCD in me, but it's hard for me to imagine myself doing something like that. But I will cop to feeling guilty about not using cloth bags for carrying my groceries. I ask for paper bags and use those to hold trash in the kitchen. It's an idea my husband started, and it's worked out quite well. We rarely ever buy plastic garbage bags.
You can no longer access the New York Times piece online for free, but plenty of bloggers have commented on it since its publication. A quick search on Google yields more than 700 results with the word carborexic in it.
The Telegraph has an opinion piece deriding the condition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/23/do2303.xml
The NYT SundayStyles section on any given week is filled with fluffy fun features spotlighting social phenomena, and some would argue bogus trends, backed with nothing more than colorful anecdotes. A Slate columnist recently poked fun at a New York Times Styles piece about a growing number of guys who have cats as pets. http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=read&id=2201764
Nevertheless, I think there is some truth to the idea that carborexia exists among the super environmentally conscious.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
High speed rail -- only in my dreams
The California High-Speed Rail Authority http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ , the government agency behind Proposition 1A on the Nov. 4 ballot, has a slick multimedia campaign on its website promoting the ballot measure.
For those who don't know, the proposition asks voters to authorize the state to borrow $9.95 billion to fund the partial cost of a high-speed rail system to connect Northern and Southern California. The trains on the system, proponents say, will reach 225 mph.
The rail authority's website has a six-minute video http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx touting high-speed rail systems from around the world. There is a nifty feature http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm that simulates trips. You can click on a starting point _ let's say San Francisco and an ending point _ let's say San Diego _ and it will tell you how long the trip would take and how much it would cost.
San Francisco to San Diego would take 3 hours and 56 minutes and cost $70, so the website says. Sounds good. Maybe too good to be true.
I like the idea of hopping on a bullet train, instead of catching a flight, to visit my folks in the Bay Area, but I have a lot of misgivings about Prop 1A.
Here are my concerns:
1) According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan source, the $9.95 billion would have to be repaid over 30 years at an average cost of $647 million a year. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx
2) The $9.95 billion is just the down payment. Building the entire system is estimated to cost $45 billion. That figure in all likelihood will grow, given the tendency of large-scale public works projects to exceed cost estimates.
3) Let's say that the system gets built. Maintaining it and running it can cost more than $1 billion a year.
4) In the age of terrorism, how can a rail system that has hundreds of miles of tracks be secured?
As it is California is broke. I can't see the state taking on billions more in debt. Voters also have to ask themselves this question: can the money be better spent on other investments?
How about funding more or better incentives for homeowners and businesses to install solar panels on their roofs? How about funding infrastructure to pipe recycled water to golf courses, parks and other places. How about using the money to improve local transit? Most everyday driving is short-distance travel within a city.
There is no guarantee that if you build it, Californians will use it. You know how much we love our cars.
For those who don't know, the proposition asks voters to authorize the state to borrow $9.95 billion to fund the partial cost of a high-speed rail system to connect Northern and Southern California. The trains on the system, proponents say, will reach 225 mph.
The rail authority's website has a six-minute video http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx touting high-speed rail systems from around the world. There is a nifty feature http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm that simulates trips. You can click on a starting point _ let's say San Francisco and an ending point _ let's say San Diego _ and it will tell you how long the trip would take and how much it would cost.
San Francisco to San Diego would take 3 hours and 56 minutes and cost $70, so the website says. Sounds good. Maybe too good to be true.
I like the idea of hopping on a bullet train, instead of catching a flight, to visit my folks in the Bay Area, but I have a lot of misgivings about Prop 1A.
Here are my concerns:
1) According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan source, the $9.95 billion would have to be repaid over 30 years at an average cost of $647 million a year. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx
2) The $9.95 billion is just the down payment. Building the entire system is estimated to cost $45 billion. That figure in all likelihood will grow, given the tendency of large-scale public works projects to exceed cost estimates.
3) Let's say that the system gets built. Maintaining it and running it can cost more than $1 billion a year.
4) In the age of terrorism, how can a rail system that has hundreds of miles of tracks be secured?
As it is California is broke. I can't see the state taking on billions more in debt. Voters also have to ask themselves this question: can the money be better spent on other investments?
How about funding more or better incentives for homeowners and businesses to install solar panels on their roofs? How about funding infrastructure to pipe recycled water to golf courses, parks and other places. How about using the money to improve local transit? Most everyday driving is short-distance travel within a city.
There is no guarantee that if you build it, Californians will use it. You know how much we love our cars.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Solar Home Tour
This past weekend, my husband and I took advantage of the Solar Home Tour organized by the California Center for Sustainable Energy http://www.energycenter.org/
If you are planning to install solar, you couldn't ask for a better introduction to the topic.
We visited two homes: one in Bay Park and one in La Jolla. At the La Jolla home staffed by Akeena Solar, we basically got a sales pitch.
The Bay Park homeowners were much more helpful. They even provided food _ cookies, brownies and grilled shrimp. They have 18 Kyocera panels on their roof, installed about five years ago. They also have a Butler solar water heating system, which is designed by a local family. http://www.butlersunsolutions.com/
Unlike most solar water heating systems, theirs does not require a tank on the roof. A plus, given California's history of earthquakes. Instead, the water tank sits in their garage, and it's connected to a radiator and a gallon of anti-freeze on the roof. As of 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, the thermometer read 210 degrees.
Their investment was around $30,000, but that cost was offset by federal tax credits and state rebates. So their out of pocket costs were around 10 grand.
The homeowners told us that their electric bills have been very low. Last year, they paid $125. They get credit for all the surplus electricity they generate, but at the end of the year, if you don't use it all, it's gone.
We visited two homes: one in Bay Park and one in La Jolla. At the La Jolla home staffed by Akeena Solar, we basically got a sales pitch.
The Bay Park homeowners were much more helpful. They even provided food _ cookies, brownies and grilled shrimp. They have 18 Kyocera panels on their roof, installed about five years ago. They also have a Butler solar water heating system, which is designed by a local family. http://www.butlersunsolutions.com/
Unlike most solar water heating systems, theirs does not require a tank on the roof. A plus, given California's history of earthquakes. Instead, the water tank sits in their garage, and it's connected to a radiator and a gallon of anti-freeze on the roof. As of 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, the thermometer read 210 degrees.
Their investment was around $30,000, but that cost was offset by federal tax credits and state rebates. So their out of pocket costs were around 10 grand.
The homeowners told us that their electric bills have been very low. Last year, they paid $125. They get credit for all the surplus electricity they generate, but at the end of the year, if you don't use it all, it's gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
