Welcome To Josh's Blog O' Thoughts: June 2007

Well aside from not actually driving, there is a very simple thing that can be done to maximize your fuel economy. A couple years ago, there was a study done to determine how much simple actions affected your gas mileage (lost the source sorry). The results were only a little surprising. The biggest factor was using moderate driving techniques. This means that you do NOT punch the accelerator when you leave a stop light or stop sign. And instead of gassing it all the way to the next stop and slamming on the breaks, you let up on the gas early and make a more gradual stop (your passengers will also thank you). This moderate style of driving can gain you upwards of 30% fuel economy if I remember correctly.

Other factors such as rolling windows down instead of using air conditioning only resulted in a negligible difference.

So the moral of the story is, if we would all just drive a little more even-keeled, we could all save a LOT of gas.

If you have a high-speed connection, check out this video. For those who don't have a high-speed connection, the video is for a hunting expedition company that takes boat trips to bow hunt fish. The fish they are hunting are literally jumping out of the water behind the boat. It's kind of a silly video, but the story of these fish is more serious than it seems.

It appears that they are Asian Carp, an invasive species. Originally, they were brought here to help clean the ponds of catfish farmers in Louisiana. But the flooding in the early 90's released a bunch of them into the Mississippi. Now they are making their way upstream, and are almost all the way to the great lakes. They crowd out other fish in the areas that they reside thus making it difficult for those fish to survive. If the Asian Carp hit the Great Lakes, major ecological changes could occur.

Has anyone else noticed that we have a knack for importing animals or bugs for a specific purpose and then they get out of control and destroy lots of good things? It seems like we'd learn from these mistakes.

This is a first for me. I always had heard that worms were very beneficial to the ground. For one, they help prevent the ground from getting too compact. They are like living aerators. Additionally, they are supposed to help in the decomposition of grass clippings and other biodegradable matter in the yard.

However, I found out today that many of the worms we now have in North American soils are not native species to this continent. These invasive species of worms were most likely brought here by European travelers that brought plants, and thus dirt, with them. At least in the Northern states, like Minnesota, there is no evidence that earthworms ever lived indigenously in the area.

So what's the big deal? It sounds like earthworms are good for the soil. The problem is primarily in the forested areas. Before worms, the leaves from the trees would decompose very slowly leaving a soft protective layer for small creatures and plants. Without that protective layer, we are seeing more erosion, and lower survival rates of saplings and some wildflowers.

I don't particularly like worms other than for fishing bait, but I've never thought that we should be without them completely. The article does mention some benefits of worms in more urban areas. The long and short of it is that the worms are bad for these forests but can be good for lawns and gardens. It's an interesting concept.

Back in the 1970's congress enacted a fuel economy standard which was meant to increase the efficiency of all new cars. The standard sets an average fuel economy for a manufacturer's entire model year fleet. So if the standard is set at 26 MPG, an automaker can offer a car at 16 MPG if they also offer one at 3 MPG. When the law was first enacted, it was to consistently increase over the following years until the average efficiency was doubled. This worked well, but the administrations in the 1980's did not renew the increases, and even rolled the standard back.

For this reason, the standard has not been raised in 20 years! Think where we could be today had this number continually increased! Obviously, the increases would have to be slower because the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. The closer something gets to optimum, the harder it is to get better. However, there have been significant technological changes in the past 20 years that could have been leveraged to help meet increasing standards. Yet we have not raised them.

It appears that a new bill in the Senate, would finally begin to increase this standard once again. The bill calls for a 40% increase to 35 MPG by the year 2020. I'm in favor of it, but I have my doubts if it will make it to law. Only time will tell.

I was thinking about this just the other day. With Global Warming causing the planet to heat up, is there any reason to think that this might decrease the strength of the Sun's rays? By decreased strength, I mean will it be more difficult to get sun burned.

It seems like it could be a possibility to me. By putting so much CO2 in the air that the heat is unable to escape, are we also increasing the thickness and density of the atmosphere so that less of the harmful UV rays can reach us?

That was just a thought I had, and I have not looked for evidence one way or the other. If you know the answer, let me know.

Since we are in the process of Building Our House, I have had a keen interest in mortgage rates as of late. When we first started this whole process, the rates in my area for a 30 year fixed mortgage were hovering around 5.625%. Recently, however, the rates are up to 6.25%. That's a substantial increase in the past 3 months. Knowing that the Federal Reserve Board did not raise rates at their last meeting, I thought back over the past three months to determine the culprit.

What has changed over the last three months? One major thing that I can think of is a major spike in gas prices. Could there possibly be a correlation between the two? As costs of gas goes up, the consumer price index (a major indicator of inflation) goes up as well. This is because gas and transportation costs are built in to a lot of products. When inflation goes up, financial institutions (usually in response to the Federal Reserve Board) raise rates which put strain on people's spending. By decreasing spending, inflation can be held in check or reversed. Sounds like gas and mortgage rates could be linked right?

I took a look at a graph of gas prices over the past 3 months and a graph of mortgage rates over the same time period. Low and behold, they go up in unison.

This may or may not be correlation. Or it may be a weak correlation. More study would be required to determine if the two are linked, but for my very basic examination, there appears that there could be something there.

It's been a few weeks since I posted an update on the process of building our new home. We finalized the plans a couple weeks ago and are now waiting for pricing to come back from the builder. We are told that this process takes about three weeks, so we should hopefully hear something yet this week. A friend of mine is also at the same stage in the build process, but they house they will be building is off a stock plan that the builder builds qutie often. With only minimal changes, they got a bid back in about two weeks. My guess is that a custom plan takes a little longer to bid as it is entirely new to the contractor and all the sub-contractors. I will report back when I have more.

That's the stance taken by some wealthy Americans like Douglas Tompkins. Tompkins has been buying lands in South American countries such as Chile and Argentina in an attempt to help preserve the environment. This is obviously a very unique way to try to help solve a global problem. There aren't that many people out there that can afford to do something like this. So far, Tompkins owns an amount of South American land roughly the same size as Rhohde Island.

While the plan seems to be a valiant effort to prevent mass deforestation in these areas, he definitely has his opponents. While he claims that he will turn the land over the government once the threats have gone away, many don't believe that he will actually vanquish control. Others fear the fact that he his taking control of some major natural resources.

I suppose I don't have any immediate concerns over this. On the surface, he does appear to be attempting to do good. I wouldn't mind owning a state-sized piece of pristine, untouched land. I think that would make for some really great vacations.

Today, the G8 leaders agreed that the world needs to attempt to cut the emissions of elements causing global warming. While it is no surprise that the European leaders agreed to this, the fact that President Bush was in attendance AND agreed to the plan. The basic plan is to reduce global emissions by 50% by the year 2050. This has yet to be finalized but it is promising news.

So, if they plan to have emissions in 2050 down to half of what they are in 2007, that means that they not only have to curb emissions increases, but also make massive reductions from what we currently have. I applaud thier enthusiasm, but I don't know if I can believe that we (the US) will actually carry through. I hope we do, but it has yet to be shown that we care about this issue.

Well I finally got a chance to watch An Inconvenient Truth. Sure, it was a little bit depressing thinking about all the bad we've done to the planet, but I have to say that it was a very well done documentary. I did find some of the parts with Gore speaking in the background, during the nature shots, to be pretty sappy. I almost would have preferred it if they would have just filmed his presentation. That was the real interesting part of the movie.

As you can tell by my previous blog entries, I am definitely FOR trying to help the environment and stop global warming. So for me, this DVD merely reaffirmed my belief that this is something we need to do. I hope for others that haven't yet cared, or who choose to be in denial about global warming, that this movie will change their minds.

There is VERY strong supporting evidence that shows that humans are a cause in the recent global warming trend. This evidence is displayed beautifully during An Inconvenient Truth. So why do some people still say that global warming is debatable? Simply because affirming that it is fact and that we are at least partially a cause is inconvenient for them. Is it more convenient to throw things away or to recycle? Throw away, but the most convenient option is not usually the best option.

It's unfortunate that this is viewed as just another political issue for Democrats and Republicans to fight over. This should not be political at all. This affects EVERYONE on the planet. This is not a political issue for me, so don't get the impression that I'm trying to trick you into some liberal conspiracy. In fact, I often have views that are "Republican". But I also have views considered to be "Democrat". Anyone who can't take the best of both worlds is a little delusional (I won’t name names).

We all need to do our part to help preserve what we have. If not for yourself, do it for you kids or grandkids. Start with simple things:

Watch An Inconvenient Truth. Doesn't matter who you are or you political affiliation. Watch it and learn about what is happening.

Recycle!! Lots of things are VERY easy to recycle. If you aren't recycling at all, you should start.

Switch to CFLs. CFLs are a great way to save energy use in your home’s lighting.

Use Energy Star Appliances. They reduce your energy consumption.

Make Noise About the Problem. Inform your family members of the issues. Don't force them to make the same choices as you, just bring to their attention the situation.

If we all do a little bit, it can help a great deal.