​Eleven years ago, our family implemented solar to supplement household energy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Since then, we've found that using solar energy is cost-effective, simple and reliable, and a powerful way to combat climate change.

Switching to solar energy also has great potential for creating jobs. I want to share with you how many workers it took to “keep my light bulbs lit.” (Note: This list does not include those who made the solar panels, wiring, or "inverter."  --Solar generates DC electric; households typically use AC. An inverter changes the DC to AC.)

​

​​Initially, we dealt with a sales-engineer who inspected the property to make sure it had sufficient sun exposure. He then specified the bill of materials, drew up the sales contract, and scheduled installation.
​
Six installers erected the framework and installed the solar panels. Two electricians installed the inverter, ran the wiring from the array of panels, connected the converter to the electrical meter, and mounted meters that measured the kWh the system produced and the amount of carbon that was saved.

Our utility company, Metropolitan Edison (Met-Ed), provided a meter that can run backwards so that excess energy the panels produce can go to the grid. Because energy was going to the grid, the solar company I used created an LLC in our names as an electric generation company. The LLC gets funds via the Alternative Energy Credit (AEC). Electric utilities are required to purchase alternative energy. The energy we create with our system is sold in 1000 kWh increments to utilities.  The credit has ranged from 10 to 50 dollars per unit.

Finally, a township inspector checked the work at several stages. The maintenance-free galvanized steel support posts holding up the framework the panels are on are required to be a certain depth, and, with the panels on it, must withstand winds of 200 mph. The inspector also had to sign off on compliance with electrical codes. For this implementation, the inspector was especially helpful in that he offered excellent solutions to problems the installers encountered. For example, rock limited the depth of the posts. To compensate for this, he advised the installers to increase the number of posts. Problem solved. The inspector was the final worker involved with the system.

After setting everything up, using solar energy has been simple. On August 8, 2010, our system began generating electricity. Once a year we report the wattage the system generated to the company from whom we purchased the system. This is used to calculate the AEC and make sure the system is running efficiently. Other than that, there is no maintenance. Even the snow simply falls off it in the winter. After birds are done nesting under it, I trim any brush, weeds, or grass that grow there.

Some of the critics claim that solar is undependable. It only generates electricity when the sun is shining. That’s true. But solar energy can be stored in batteries like those produced by Tesla. When not generating power, I draw from the grid, paying for the energy I get from the grid.

​My experience has only been positive. What’s more, it has been productive.  As of March 25, 2021, the sun shining on our side yard has generated 122,838 kWh (Note: meter count flipped over 99999 much like a car’s odometer– there is a 1 in front of the 22838 in the photograph). That’s 122,838 kWhs I didn’t have to buy from our electric utility company. As important, or even more so, our system reduced our carbon-footprint by 209,872 lbs or 104 tons, 4 tons more than the 100-ton capacity coal car I unloaded at the Reading Railroad (see blog part 1 from April 25).

​​As system costs go down and panels become even more efficient, solar energy is becoming more and more desirable and practical. As a solution to global climate change, it has become essential. With governmental support at the federal (The Green New Deal) and state levels like Governor Wolf’s initiatives in Pennsylvania, solar energy has joined other forms of energy such as wind and tidal in the toolbox we have to counter climate change (Tidal energy is a renewable energy powered by the natural rise and fall of ocean tides and currents. Some of these technologies include turbines and paddles). 
With the critical challenge of climate change, we need to shine light on all the tools we can.

​The promotion of solar energy in homes is becoming more and more common. Pennsylvania’s government, for one, is stimulating the use of solar energy -- but is this a good idea? I think so.

Here are some points to consider based on personal observation and experience.

Solar is renewable. Unlike coal, there are no dangerous abandoned mines remaining once the mine is no longer profitable. With strip mining, mining companies remove whole mountain tops, scarring the land.

Solar technology generates little pollution. Most of the pollution is created during the manufacturing processes for the components of the system like the panels, wiring, and inverters. No environmental pollutants are caused by solar electricity generation. This is unlike coal or oil. These fossil fuels create massive amounts of pollution in several ways. The transport of these fuels to generating plants is one source. The burning of the fossil materials emits dangerous gases into the air. Simply observe the smokestacks at generating plants. Moreover, waste from the production of electricity such as ash in the case of coal-fired plants has to be disposed of in some way. It is toxic waste. Eventually, this waste works itself into the environment. Storms such as hurricanes and heavy rains flood the storage basins, breeching them. This causes massive environmental disasters. The toxic residue leeches into the water table or contaminates streams and rivers. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a total assessment of all the pollution fossil energy causes from start to finish. Reason and observation rightly conclude that minimizing the use of fossil energy such as coal will have many environmental benefits.

Solar energy produces jobs. Certainly, as solar is used and energy consumption becomes more efficient, jobs in the fossil fuel industries will decrease. But jobs in the fossil fuel industries have been dropping for a long time. After World War II, home heating in large part changed from coal to oil, gas, or electric. I recall as a young boy stoking the coal furnace in the basement and banking the fire at night. Although fun for a kid to do, it was dirty work and took time and skill. Coal was expensive, too. Mining, transport, storage at the coal dealers, and home delivery were all costly.
​
Railroad conversion of locomotives from coal to diesel fuel after World War II caused even more of a drop in demand. The poverty-stricken towns and hamlets in the Pennsylvania anthracite fields bear testimony to this conversion. The jobs in energy production transformed and moved. But the miners, paid as minimally as the mine owners could, were in many, many cases unable to afford to move or had lived for generations in the coal fields and simply couldn’t leave home. While unions, especially the United Mine Workers, helped miners with bread-and-butter issues, the unions had no control over the fall in demand or the increased use of massive power drills to excavate the coal. As it was, demand shifted to large-scale power plants. This, too, reduced the need for miners. Despite this, there is an abiding sense of identity of many people in the coal hills for the days of anthracite.

At the same time, new electrical devices and appliances in the post-war period stimulated demand for energy on the part of businesses and homes. Soft coal (bituminous) joined anthracite to fuel the steadily increasing consumer demand. But mining soft coal was much less labor intensive. Instead of shaft or underground mining, most of this coal was stripped off the mineral deposits by massive pieces of equipment. Centralized electrical generation, too, took fewer workers.

Coal-fired electric plants are hazardous, not just to the environment, but to workers as well. During a semester break, I worked in the Reading Railroad electrical powerplant. The plant supplied electrical power to the locomotive, car, track, and storage shops in Reading, PA. 

Coal is rated on cleanliness properties. Clean coal is coal that burns almost completely with little ash. It’s high in carbon content and low in shale, clay, and other non-combustible material. When the coal was clean, as measured in the railroad’s chemistry lab, it burned so well that there was little ash to shovel. 

When the coal wasn’t clean, it burned at lower temperatures and left “clinkers” that were large, hard, compacted chunks of semi-burned material. Removing these was back-breaking, even for a nineteen-year-old college student in good shape. In winter, coal froze in the coal cars. At 100 tons, the cars could be difficult to unload. Normally, doors at the bottom of the car are released and the coal tumbles onto a conveyor belt and then automatically feed into the furnace. When it’s very cold, however, the frozen coal has to be manually pried out of the car using heavy iron bars. Once that was done, it was back inside the powerplant to remove ashes. The cold/hot contrast damaged several of my teeth with thin fractures.

Working 16 hours a day for 28 straight days enabled me to earn enough money to pay more than a years’ tuition. I also learned powerful lessons. Solar has none of this drama.

As a kid, I sometimes played on a “Swinging Bridge” that crossed the railroad yard in Reading. The bridge linked Sixth Street with Eighth Street. Steam engines were still used in the 1950s as the fleet was gradually replaced with diesel locomotives. When a steam engine passed under the bridge, the engineer often opened the throttle to release a huge plume of smoke to coat kids like me with a layer of soot. The trick was to play chicken by waiting as long as possible before running to escape the blast. Great fun, but it was poor environmental practice that could lead to much parental displeasure.

​Solar can and will reduce unemployment. Solar components can be manufactured in areas of enduring unemployment. It’s not like coal where mining can only take place where there are accessible coal veins. Transporting and installing solar components offers yet more employment opportunities that range from low to high skilled. ​These opportunities will be considered in Part 2 of this post in the coming weeks.  --Don’t stay in the dark! 




​
​

With 2021, the nation turns a new page with respect to legislating solutions for the climate crisis. But as with any transition, there is a significant aspect of continuation in the process; indeed, the House of Representatives passed a bill in 2020 to create a complex, comprehensive national action plan to respond to the climate emergency. The 500 plus page plan, while recognizing the interdependence of factors, succeeds in breaking down a potential crisis solution into manageable segments across multiple areas of legislative action. Rather than diminishing the complexity of the problem, the plan provides a roadmap for actions to deal with it.

With the promotion of Senator Schumer to Senate Majority Leader, this plan no longer can be ignored or dismissed. Yet despite Democratic control of both houses and the presidency, we should expect stiff resistance from vested interests, especially the fossil fuel industry. Resistance not-withstanding, President Biden’s first day in office brought an executive order ending the XL pipeline, a leaky and dangerous means of transporting fossil fuels. Presidential executive authority, however, offers transient change, durable only until the next administration. That’s why Schumer’s placement is so very important. Legislation is so much more durable. Unlike executive orders that can be easily negated, legislation requires repeal which can be difficult to accomplish.

In mid-January 2021, Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-FL) presented a web-based information session on climate. She introduced the roadmap that the House Select Committee on Climate Change wrote in the Majority. Her goal for the session was to build acceptance for the idea of a comprehensive plan and secure participant support.  Details extracted from the report made the webinar fast paced but overly simplified. 

Having taught history for many years, I became one of those who espoused a more complex way of dealing with historical events. Events in history are outcomes of numerous factors that interact with each other – outcomes of convergence. In weather, a historic event like a hurricane depends on factors like barometric pressure, high altitude wind patterns, warm ocean waters, etc.  Missing any one of the contributing factors and a hurricane does not happen. Increasing or decreasing factors changes the direction, intensity, and/or duration of the storm. Change, then, can happen exponentially.  A “perfect storm” can be the result.

Dealing with climate change is to address the convergence of factors that are leading to a ‘perfect storm” of disastrous proportions. The Select Committee’s report reflects this interaction of factors. These factors are parsed in the report, but it must be kept in mind that it is the convergence of the factors that is so dangerous. The dangers of the climate crisis transcend geo-political and academic discipline boundaries. Fires in the Amazon, for instance, reduce CO2 conversion as the trees disappear. This in turn contributes to ocean warming and so on until climate change becomes a swirling vortex of change compounding change.

As a situation that is at once abstract and concrete, any bold response to climate change also will have to be both abstract and concrete: abstract in the ongoing science required to evaluate it, and concrete in the immediate, intermediate, and long-term actions required to address it.

It certainly is in keeping with the NAC mission to advocate for legislation to address the climate crisis. Each, in our own enlightened way, must do what we can because the actions we take can contribute to the long-term impacts.
​
I can give you a prime example of the crossing and intermixing of problems in this climate crisis. With climate change, weather is unstable.  In areas like Central America, runoff from fierce rainstorms and powerful hurricanes depletes soil nutrients. As a result, farmers must seek alternative ways to make a living; there is no other option than to migrate for survival. Emigration has a climate change component to it.  To solve one problem is to force resolution of other ones. 

​Over the next year, this blog will report on the status of legislation, presenting summaries of different components of bills as legislation moves through committees in both the House and Senate.  We can draw hope from the fact that, for the next two years, climate change legislation will be presented in both houses for an up or down vote. That’s a reality that has been missing for many years. May these pieces of legislation contribute to a convergence of actions that bring about the mitigation of climate change critical for survival. 

​You might think that with the intensification of forest fires in the western United States and the increasing number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes, the issue of climate change would dominate the political landscape. It’s not.  

Other serious issues like justice and equality, the stratification of American society, the cult of personality, the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and our world standing (or lack of it) are the focus of political crosstalk. While crucial issues, this failure to frankly and effectively confront the issue of climate change is dooming not just the United States but the entire globe to an unprecedented refugee disaster.
               
As climate change alters or destroys soil productivity in agrarian regions, those impacted have little choice but to leave where they are and move to a place that offers possible survival.  Concurrently, nations that might host the refugees until they have a chance to regroup, erect obstacles to migration instead.  Some of the obstacles are conceived to hold people in place where they are, a callous response to those facing a threat to their very existence. Other obstacles, like a wall, are quite literally built to prevent immigration.  In either case, the outcome is the same.
               
The very countries that contribute the most to climate change via carbon release and environmental disasters are the ones blocking the influx of desperate people most impacted by these same countries’ actions.  Clearly, the concepts of climate fairness and climate justice need to be added to our lexicon when speaking of the dire effects of climate change.
               
Rich industrialized countries are not made any safer because of their abusive treatment of climate refugees.  Instead, countries like the United States are continuing a “head in the sand” approach to climate change.  At some point, the realization will dawn on a sufficient number of citizens who will demand governmental actions to mitigate the effects of climate change. When this happens, a whole series of measures that already exist will be waiting. But there must be both the will and resources to mount an effective counteraction to climate change.
               
Until the electorate calls for its elected officials to enact and enforce legislation to counteract climate change, we will continue on the fast track to climate disasters the likes of which we are already seeing on the West Coast and Gulf Coast – with increasingly destructive storms and fires that will lay waste to our landscape.

About a month remains until the next general election. The simple act of voting in this election represents our opportunity to insert our voices into political discussions.  It is the first step toward significant remedies to offset the impacts of climate change.  Find out where candidates stand. Research, call or write their offices. Get involved. By voting on November 3rd, we can begin the journey toward change.

​Please remember that to do our part in fixing many of the problems before us, we must vote. Every vote counts.  So, whether casting a ballot by mail or in-person, we have an obligation to ensure that our concerns for the planet and those who live on the planet are known.

Today is a tranquil morning at the beach with a light breeze from the southwest. The sun is so bright reflecting off the water that I must squint without my sunglasses.  The wind powers a mere ripple of waves that break close to shore, giving rise to the soothing sound of the surf. There are beachcombers spaced appropriately for physical distancing during the coronavirus epidemic, a reminder of the hidden danger. Catbirds are chirping and gulls vocalizing as an airplane pulls a banner saying, “Care for each other – Mask and social distance.” A lifeguard silently moves the oars on his rowboat along the boundary between ocean and land. Powerboats speed by, disrupting the calmness with the sound of roaring engines. They quickly leave, returning the environment to a state of peace.  A few frustrated surfers patiently await a swell worth riding. There is nothing in the idyllic scene that suggests planet earth is in danger. It is easy to be lulled into complacency.
 
The ocean, however, is sounding alarms. Unseen from the vantage of the dunes, the ocean is being impacted by powerful forces of nature including humanity. Rising water temperatures forebode more and stronger storms. As recently as last week a storm generated serious damage as it moved up the east coast of the United States. These storms are becoming both more frequent and more intense as water temperature and levels rise in response to climate change. 
 
The elements stressing the oceans are complex. They are so complex that a blog entry fails to do it justice. Rather than considering climate change as a sequence of actions, it is more convergent in nature.  Picture a soccer ball. Each facet of the ball is impacted whenever any one facet is kicked.  For the layman in climate science, this is the most daunting challenge – showing how multiple conditions affect each other.
 
Fortunately, there are resources to assist with this story.  “The Ocean Foundation (TOF)” allows a layered approach.  Their web segment, “The Basics of Climate Change and the Ocean” is an excellent tutorial.  Each paragraph distills significant points from linked scholarly studies.  The guide is divided into the following section:

1. Introduction
2. The Basics of Climate Change and the Ocean
3. Coastal and Ocean Species Migration due to Climate Change
4. Hypoxia (Dead Zones)
5. The Effects of Warming Waters
6. Marine Biodiversity Loss due to Climate Change
7. The Effects of Climate Change on Coral Reefs
8. The Effects of Climate Change on the Arctic and Antarctic
9. Policy and Government Publications
10. Looking for More? (Additional Resources)

The common denominator for all of these is human interaction.  Because of this, it’s clear that behavioral changes will help mitigate the trauma that is now bit by bit destroying the oceans’ ability to perform their restorative actions such as serving as a “heat sink” or absorbing excess carbon dioxide. 
 
In the same way the sun clears away the morning fog, groups like “The Ocean Foundation” allow non-scientists to peel away the veil of issues that on a warm summer day on the beach are quite invisible.

To celebrate the 5th Anniversary of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis’s inspiring encyclical on the environment (and so much more), the Catholic Climate Covenant (CCC) took a unique approach.  CCC brought together an on-the-ground social justice organizer and three bishops engaged in the Climate issue to unpack some of what the Holy Father had to say about this most pressing issue of our time. 
 
For the author, the webinar’s strength was the presentation of several contexts for understanding the rich Catholic tradition of valuing the environment. 

A video recording of the virtual “Bishops’ Roundtable Conversation” is available here.  For an excellent, broader collection of climate change resources, visit https://catholicclimatecovenant.org/resources  Or, to view the Catholic Climate Covenant’s 12-minute video created to commemorate both the 50th anniversary of Earth Day and the 5th anniversary of Laudato Si’, click here.

​Others are marking the encyclical’s anniversary with calls to action. Interfaith Power and Light (IPL) has challenged faith communities to reduce their carbon footprints and then invites them to apply for a certificate that recognizes their work. The process to become a “Cool Congregation” is straight forward and results in a win for both the environment and the congregation.

The Cool Congregation website provides guidelines and an impressive list of previous certificate recipients from a variety of faith traditions.

There are varying levels of commitment and multiple tiers of accomplishment. The levels are based on the amount of CO2 reduction. Each one has detailed instructions in their guide, “Five Steps to Becoming A Cool Congregation.” To assist with CO2 measurement, the IPL provides a “Cool Calculator” that helps establish a baseline against which improvements can be measured. It really isn’t complicated and the payback in CO2 reduction is impressive. What’s more, most efforts result in cost savings for the communities. Best of all, the process will yield outcomes in line both with the spirit and letter of Laudato
Si’.  Praise be!

Returning to the May 20th online conversation, Marianne Comfort, justice coordinator for the Sisters of Mercy, brought questions to Archbishop Paul S. Coakley (Archdiocese of Oklahoma City), Bishop Robert Barron (Archdiocese of Los Angeles), and Bishop Robert W. McElroy (Diocese of San Diego). The discussion ran the gamut - from components as abstract as evolving philosophy and theology to concrete examples of efforts to address climate change. The conversation was rich and left a number of impressions.

Bishop Barron argued that, in the encyclical, Pope Francis challenges the concept of human mastery of nature, taking a post-modernist position. Bishop Barron sees Pope Francis, in this way, as critical of modernity, recognizing this aspect of it as dangerous. The Pope calls for a reduction of human subjectivity – as this anthropocentrism leads to a tendency to see nature solely as something to be used or controlled. Bishop Barron also reported a hopeful sign, noting that he has seen good integration of Laudato Si’ in the Catholic schools and parishes in Los Angeles. He expressed great appreciation for how quickly actions advocated for in the encyclical have taken place in his community. He recognizes these actions to be vital because we are called to be stewards of the earth.

​Bishop McElroy expressed his concern about the lack of urgency among the general public in dealing with climate change. He believes this stems from a basic failure to understand the fragility of all nature. He notes, however, that young people, on the whole, understand the themes of the encyclical and are taking action. Unfortunately, he does not see an appropriate response level from society, considering the speed of climate change. Despite this, Bishop McElroy remains hopeful, citing the work and energy of youth, scientists and religious organizations around the issue.

May the energy from these groups, from organizations like Catholic Climate Covenant and Interfaith Power and Light, and the challenge of the encyclical spark us all to take action to care for our common home. 

For teachers, excellent materials that are both informative and interesting are available at the Common Sense Education site. For more advanced study, two great options are the Weather Channel and the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. Both allow the reader to browse materials to find those that best address personal knowledge deficiencies. NOAA is particularly impressive in that the information, while very technical in many ways, is quite understandable. NOAA continues to publish climate data despite the current administration’s attempts to eliminate all government climate science websites.

​Some issues relating to climate change are self-evident. Others require deeper knowledge to make them understandable. While the impact of fossil fuels is apparent to many on an environmental level, fossil fuels also are the subject of scientific studies.  Exxon, a main producer of fossil fuels, recognized long ago that these fuels have significant impacts on climate change in the scientific and statistical sense.

The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We know inherently that this is dangerous.  Seeing smoke billowing out of massive electrical generation facilities blots out the sky.  We can literally see the particles being diffused into the atmosphere.

Carbon monoxide, while invisible, is one of the outputs of internal combustion engines.  The danger of this gas is so high that we have alarms to detect it in homes.  We are warned not to use gas powered generators indoors, and we are careful to make sure we don’t run the car in the garage as this can be fatal. If emissions from one car can have such a dire impact, it is quite reasonable and accurate to assume that automobiles idling in massive traffic jams are even more dangerous.

Fuels also can damage the environment and contribute to climate change in more subtle ways. There actually are “clean” and “dirty” coals. The distinction refers to the efficiency of the coal to burn.  Clean coal contains little shale, slate or other non-burnable minerals.  When it burns, clean coal leaves very little ash in the environment and its burning consistency enables precise coal flow into boiler systems. 
               
Also, byproducts of coal production and usage also are very harmful to the environment and ultimately serve as accelerants to climate change. In anthracite coal areas such as the coal regions of Pennsylvania, abandoned mines are an obvious source of danger. Gas can build up in them and, of course, without maintenance the mine shafts will collapse. During the 1930s, the federal government spent millions of dollars as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to close abandoned mines. In Centralia, Pennsylvania, an underground fire in abandoned mine shafts forced the permanent evacuation of the town.  Although it started many years ago, the fire continues to burn today.

​ Other byproducts include slag, the non-burning materials separated from the coal in the coal breaker. Slag dumped in the region reach mountainous proportions. Despite being an eyesore, the slag piles leech into waterways when it rains, destroying the water quality in rivers, streams, and lakes. At one point, coal dust choked the Schuylkill River at Reading until the Army Corps of Engineers dredged the river. However, a side effect of dredging is the release of heavy metals.  The dangers of coal can be much more far-reaching than the obvious ones.              

Dealing with coal and other fossil fuel power generation takes determination.  The initial goal is to reduce the carbon output and eventually reach a carbon neutral state. Carbon neutrality results when the carbon released into the atmosphere is offset by carbon removed from it. A combination of alternative energy sources including windmills [no, they don’t cause cancer, contrary to President Trump’s assertion], solar, and tidal.
 
Additionally, trees very effectively convert CO2 into oxygen. Some commercial companies have invented filtering equipment that is tremendously effective at removing CO2. Hybrid and electrical automobiles contribute to cleaner air as well. It is very clear that we know how to clean the air, but it is equally clear that the United States has not made the commitment to do so.

Young people following leaders like Greta Thunberg are generating traction for change. Indeed, one the Democratic candidates’ debates focused on climate change government actions to combat it.  Individual also are installing solar panels on their properties to help reduce the kilowatt hours they must purchase from electrical generating companies. Other advantages to this trend will be considered in a future post.

I hope that knowledge - self-evident and learned - coupled with activism will lead to a reduction in the human actions contributing to climate change.  If not, we face the existential threat of ending life on this planet.  But we are people of hope.   

  ​

​(photograph: 2013 Vatican creche) Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Cathedral, photograph by the author.

In the hustle and bustle of the Christmas season in preparation for the celebration of Christ’s birth, we can pause for a moment to reflect on how we can contribute to a “green” Christmas.

There are several levels to reflect upon. Pope Francis consistently urges his flock to tend to the issues of climate change and its impacts on all of creation. In his message to Mrs. Carolina Schmidt, Minister of Environment of Chile, President of the COP25, Twenty-Fifth Session of the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate, Pope Francis noted the lack of action. He noted  “how far words are from concrete action!” [emphasis in the original]  
 
While praising the spirit and activism of youth in addressing climate change, he issued a challenge to the present adult generation to become actively involved. We should not, he affirmed “place the burden on the next generations to take on the problems caused by the previous ones.” The top level, then, of reflection is global in nature.

​Slowing, stopping, or reversing climate change will take massive government action.

​Despite this fact, there are levels of reflection and action that individuals can take. Millions of small steps do add up. In addition, small steps that we can take remind us to stay engaged in the larger effort.
 
Here are some suggestions to “green” this Christmas season:

• Instead of buying a cut tree to decorate the house, consider purchasing a small one that can be replanted in the spring.

 

• LED lighting may be substituted for incandescent. The electrical demand is significantly lower.

 

• Instead of using wrapping paper, place gifts in reusable cloth bags. After Christmas, these bags may be used at the grocery store in place of plastic.  Indeed, my sister gave us nested grocery bags last year. We use them on every trip for groceries. We also use carryalls we get at conferences, etc.

 

• Try to plan the most energy efficient path when travelling to stores or when doing other errands. This reduces exhaust fumes and gas consumption.

 

• Consider purchasing gifts that don’t require travel of shipping. There are wonderful opportunities to donate to causes in the name of the recipient.

 

• Limit purchases to “Fair Trade” items that help communities that are already being impacted by climate change.
  
  

Please use the comments section to suggest other climate saving ideas for the holidays.
 
As Pope Francis admonished the leadership meeting in Madrid, it’s time for actions to take the place of words.  On this, he and I certainly see eye to eye.

We can and must, as individuals, engage in this environmental crisis. Our small steps can be meaningful. When you consider the possible aggregate of efforts, the results would be impressive.

This is not to suggest that purely individual efforts will stop the climate from changing. But, if millions of people take these and many other actions, their impact can be sizable. It also can buy us more time, a factor that is running out, until a globally comprehensive solution can be designed and implemented.

My last blog, on food production, featured Tatiana Schlossberg’s Inconspicuous Consumption: The Environmental Impact You Don’t Know You Have. I have brought her back for an encore focusing on a different section of her book – technology.  For Schlossberg, many things we do or make have environmental consequences.  They may not be obvious, but a reasonable person can intuit them.
 
In her section on technology and the Internet, Schlossberg notes that we surely know we are using electricity when we power up our computers. Yet, for our access to the Internet, electricity that supports our browsing powers server farms and other electrical resources. We use electrical power to run our modem, WIFI router, printer and other devices. Because these items are on all the time, we might tend to overlook their power consumption. Beyond our home, power also runs the servers we access. Another link in the chain is the electricity used to cool the server farm. In short, electrical usages for computing far exceeds what is in our immediate range of vision.

Our food choices, technology choices, life choices involve trade-offs; some are not yet known and many are only partially understood. If I learned anything from Tatiana Schlossberg's work, it is that much more research is needed. Viable and reasoned alternatives must be energetically investigated and widely disseminated.
 
Until then, concentrating efforts on reducing carbon-dioxide seems to have the best chance of success in countering climate change.  So, what do we do while we wait for answers to the larger questions and factors? We can reduce individual electric consumption:

• Turn off the power strip that powers the printer
• Substitute LED for filament light bulbs
• Reduce automobile usage by combining driving trips and carpooling
• Purchase vehicles with high mpg ratings or even go with an electric vehicle (although electric vehicles do not entirely eliminate our carbon footprint)
• Reduce plastic use – even simply substituting cloth bags at the grocery store for plastic ones is helpful

Individual acts, consciously performed, can serve as vital reminders of the danger presented by climate change.  Without individual efforts, it is unlikely that other institutions will find the motivation to act. Politicians respond to issues that reach critical mass within their constituencies.

Moreover, individual advocacy acts can influence our legislators and lead to the political will for movement on broader efforts to counter climate change.