Sustainable (sea)food

Food waste

New Scientist has an interesting article on the “Five eco-crimes we commit everyday.” Most are not very surprising, but the details are interesting, such as the fact that the western world wastes one third of its food!

Egregious as this waste is, the means used to produce and procure much of our food is more important. To this end, Slash Food has a brief post highlighting some better seafood choices including local award-winning business Aqua Australis.

Also released this past week, a study of food sustainability revealing that, surprise of surprises, the devil is in the details and “food miles” are an over-simplification.

Pilfered file follow-up

Japanese tea pot

There’s been a frenetic flurry of discussion on the web and in conservative news outlets about the British climate research center’s files which were stolen almost two weeks ago. However, we’d rather that not lend any more credence to the so-called “Climategate” and finding them is left as an exercise for the reader. We would like to follow-up with a few considered pieces on “What East Anglia’s E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change” and why the “Leaked emails won’t harm UN climate body.”

Vacuum Tube Solar Hot Water Comes to Cambridge

Bruce install

One of the first home improvements Rachel and I made when we purchased our condo here in Cambridge this spring was a solar hot water installation on our rooftop.

The system we had put in uses vacuum tubes, a newer, more efficient type of solar collector than the black box flat panels of old. As a writer covering energy and the environment in Cambridge and China, I’d spent the past three years tracing this new and exotic technology back to the factories and cities in China where they are surprisingly commonplace.

I first read about the tubes three years ago in a story in the Boston Globe. A family in Newbury, MA was using a massive installation to provide hot water and heat for their giant barn of a house.  A photo that went with the story showed their installation covered in frost on a cold winter day. Somehow, despite the cold, the tubes were still kicking out 120 to 160 degree water.

The secret behind vacuum tubes that allows them to work just as well in winter as summer is, just as their name suggests, a vacuum space. The diagram at the right shows how the tubes work. Sunlight passes through a clear outer glass tube and travels through an evacuated space or vacuum where all of the air has been sucked out.  The sunlight passes through this vacuum and then hits an inner black pipe that absorbs the sun’s rays converting the sunlight to heat. What’s key about all of this is that whereas light rays can pass through a vacuum space, heat can not. All of the heat is therefore trapped inside by this highly efficient, transparent insulator.


After I read the story in the Globe I found out that there are thousands of factories kicking out these tubes in China and roughly 1 in 10 Chinese people use them for their hot water.

Six months after first hearing of the tubes, I toured the R&D center of one of these factories in Beijing for a story I wrote for New Scientist.

The story also led me to Rizhao, a city on the coast between Beijing and Shanghai where 99 percent of residents get their hot water from the sun.  Here is a video I made from a rooftop of the city while talking with Rizhao’s mayor, Li Zhaoqian.

By the time we had a chance to buy a place of our own I was totally sold on the technology and couldn’t wait to put the tubes in on our own place.  Evacuated tubes are still hard to come by in the US, however, and most of the installers I spoke with insisted they were no better than the flat panel solar collectors that had been around since the 70s. The estimates I got for flat panel installations, however, were twice the size of what I figured I could get by with using vacuum tubes. Then I found Bruce, a contractor with New England Solar Hot Water, who, like his company’s name suggests, only does solar hot water installations. Bruce and his crew had been doing vacuum tube installs for years and were stoked to hear I’d actually toured some of the factories where they get their parts.


In mid June they installed the collectors shown on the right that heat all of our domestic hot water; the water we use for showers, laundry, and in our sinks. The system is backed up by natural gas but on a sunny day like today, its unlikely we’ll need it. At 9am, with an outside temp of 43 F,  our tubes are already a toasty 95 F and climbing.

Pilfered file fury

Sydney_GraphLast Thursday unknown individual(s) released 120 MB of files and correspondence from a climate research group in Britain. This has lead to a bit of fervor amongst rabid skeptics such as Hiding evidence of global cooling: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers. Never mind that last month the Associated Press reported that statisticians have rejected global cooling, or that the “incriminating files” are from a single laboratory among hundreds around the world.

The claim by those involved that selected documents were made public in order to support the skeptics views seems reasonable. Afterall, consider what an arbitrary selection of your own files and email might portray (probably pretty boring stuff about lunch plans, TPS reports, SPAM and the occasional forwarded joke) versus a set chosen by an enemy or jilted lover1. However, the leaked records may still prove to be damning, though not in the manner the hacker hoped, as they do provide evidence of slightly less than stellar sportsmanship.

For those interested, it seems you can download the files at WikiLeaks and search the plain text files at the skeptic-sponsored site East Anglia Mails.

1. “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” —Cardinal Richelieu

Frogs in a pot: Lessons from the BECC conference

frogImagine if I offered someone a 17% return on their investment, that would help to prevent catastrophic long-term environmental consequences and improve the comfort and value of their home. Now envision this person shrugging off this offer and spending their money instead on upgrading their car to a fancy SUV that immediately devalues over time. Would you call this action “rational”?

This was the crux of the Behavioral, Efficiency, and Climate Change conference I attended this week, that looked into the psychological motivations of human beings, exploring why they continually make poor choices and uncover the motivating factors to help people make better decisions. Opening keynote speaker, Dan Ariely author of Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions, is a behavioral economist who explores such questions as, “Do you know why we still have a headache after taking a five-cent aspirin, but why that same headache vanishes when the aspirin costs 50 cents?

In one poignant example, he shared his experience as a bomb victim in an Israeli hospital for 4 months. When he had to get his bandages removed the nurses wanted to rip them off quickly rather than a slow undressing. He argued for the latter, but they said that quick removal was the less painful option. This brought him down the road of behavioral psychology and through his own experiments with volunteers, using interesting pain inducing techniques, he found that people preferred slow prolonged pain rather than intense shorter experiences. He brought his evidence back to the nurses who cared for him and upon learning about his findings one nurse exclaimed: What about my pain of having to experience your screams or the pain of adopting something new?

The four day conference explored many of the questions of why people make irrational decisions, all the while we think of ourselves as unbiased and objective. Take climate change, despite the evidence that our collective impacts are surpassing the worst case scenarios predicted by the IPCC, support for Climate Change action is on a decline. This can be primarily explained by humans being hard wired to deal with immediate threats. Here are a couple of other interesting reasons on why we do not shift our behaviors to fight climate change:

  • Choices are habitual
  • Lifestyle change requires immediate sacrifices: time, money, and doing things differently than peers
  • People pursue risk seeking rather than risk avoidance activities
  • People believe we can adapt and that technology will save us
  • It is hard for us to understand or worry about intangible future consequences and we are always looking for an enemy– it is hard to believe it is us!
  • Wide range of measures make it difficult for people to adopt– Where do I start?

While many believe that the invisible hand of the market will save us, time and again this assertion has been proved wrong such as the recent collapse of ocean fisheries. Just last week, fishing nations agreed to a 30% decline in fishing yields, giving blue fin tuna a 60% chance of recovering in 15 years– tuna’s numbers have been decimated to 15% of their historical size.

Ultimately, some of the biggest findings from leading social scientists, economists, and industry experts revealed that humans are typically not moved by facts but by emotions. Our deeply held beliefs prevent us from integrating new, sometimes life saving information. I leave you with some exciting information provided by Hannah Choi Granade, lead author of the McKinsey report on “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy“. If our nation were to invest $520 billion dollars in upfront investments, we would capture $1.2 trillion dollars in energy savings– and that is without behavior changes. That would lead to a 23% decline in projected demand, saving enough electricity to power Russia and provide natural gas to Canada for a year.

Let’s hope our leadership comes through for Copenhagen and beyond!

Site notes

The site now supports rating of posts and comments, though only registered users can vote at this time. We’ve also switched to a slightly more modern and nicer login system. Lastly, I recently added a link to the Archives section of the right column, which you can use to visit a random post on the site. nothing ground-breaking, but it was simple to do and it can be a fun way to kill time whilst stumble upon interesting tidbits.

Please report any problems you encounter here. Thanks!

Sizing up the senatorial candidates

Ballot box dude
In case you had to work yesterday, and were unable to make the Environmental League of Massachusetts‘ Democratic Senate candidate forum1 at BU, we’ve managed to scrounge up some coverage of the debate. Although a live webcast was available, an archived stream does not seem to be however, NECN has a few minutes of video along with their summary. WBUR also has a brief, if blasé write-up, whereas the Globe’s article at Boston.com includes some colorful quotes.

The Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters—not to be confused with ELM above, but co-sponsors of yesterday’s debats—has compiled a set of resources which you may find useful in evaluating which candidate to vote for.

P.S. If you’re not yet registered to vote, applications must be postmarked today in order to vote in the primary; if you register as a member of a party holding one.

1. ELM is working to arrange a similar session with Republican candidates.

The Price of Nature

Money treeCould putting a price on nature lead to better cost-effective tracking of the impacts of global climate change? Pavan Sukhdev, a banker working with the United Nations Environment Program, says yes. Touching on the classic “Tragedy of the Commons,” Sukhdev argues that treating nature as any other market place good makes it easier to quantify and measure using cost-benefit analysis. “We cannot continue our stewardship of this planet if we keep looking at public benefits and public wealth as somehow subordinate to private wealth,” said Mr. Sukhdev. He goes on to comment that in the long run, taking action against the impacts of climate change now is much cheaper than acting later. In other words, saving what already exists today, for example biodiversity, is much more valuable than allowing it to go extinct. According to Mr. Sukhdev, his study could influence the creation of a cap-and-trade like system that might include trading water rights, forest credits, and biodiversity credits.

Roadblocks to Bridging the Energy Efficiency “Apathy Gap”, Part 2

In a previous post on this blog, I introduced the energy efficiency “Apathy Gap”. This follow-up describes the major roadblocks that stand in the way of bridging this gap.

Roadblocks on the Bridge

We need to bridge the Apathy Gap and we should start by clearing the major roadblocks: the reality that energy efficiency is not a social norm and the perception of energy efficiency as a “Big Brother” utility-backed priority. There are others, but these are particularly bad because they are fundamental obstacles to consumer recognition and internalization of energy efficiency priorities and because they can be broken down with the cost-effective digital media and social marketing strategies.

Energy efficiency is NOT a social norm

Consumers make decisions that align with social norms while home energy consumption largely exists in a vacuum. We don’t behave as if home energy is a scarce resource today because it has been delivered “cheap, reliable and plentiful” to us for generations. Obviously this needs to change if we are going to become a more energy efficient society.

Interestingly, academic research shows, and social marketing experience validates, that the most effective way to get consumers to change their behavior is to demonstrate that others like them already have. There are many ways to do this (see the “Big Brother” point below), but the most effective enable consumers to tell their own stories of becoming energy efficient on a real-time ongoing basis, ideally to a target audience that closely identifies with them, such as friends or self-selected peers, and already emulates them in other ways.

OPower (formerly Positive Energy) has taken another approach by analyzing utility company data and adding messaging to utility bills that compares customers to efficient neighbors. The company also gently prods customers to make no- and low-cost behavioral modifications to conform. The approach essentially transforms the utility bill into a teacher’s report card and well-meaning nudge, but I wonder how effectively it motivates consumers to deepen their commitment to energy efficiency, like by investing thousands of dollars in home performance renovations.

Perception of energy efficiency as a “Big Brother” utility-backed priority

In human communications, who is saying something is usually far more important than what is being said. Unfortunately, utility company brands are typically faceless, boring, and irrelevant. Decades of television advertising and direct mail campaigns in some states have trained those consumers to associate energy efficiency with utility companies. Consequently, consumers process conventional energy efficiency outreach as “the boring old utility company bugging me again.”

Instead of focusing on transforming their brands at this time of unprecedented concern over privacy and the environment, utility companies are taking on major reputation risks by treating their customers’ energy consumption data like it is proprietary, by pressuring their customers to conform to proprietary standards and by considering default control of in-home appliances and HVAC systems via smart grid technology.

All these strategies expose the already lackluster brands of most utility companies to significant reputational risk, principally in the form of customer backlash. Look no further than PG&E’s PR fiasco with its Bakersfield smart meter rollout. Utility companies need to learn to navigate today’s hyper-connected community networks if they aim to convince consumers to embrace smart meters and energy efficiency.

Alex Patriquin is a marketer, entrepreneur and energy efficiency advocate. Prior to founding his latest company, he worked for Compete.com, a digital marketing intelligence platform, as a market researcher for leading search and online media companies. His work at Compete was widely cited in media publications like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Wired.

Alex lives in Cambridge. He also blogs at DigitalVerdure, and can be found on Twitter.