Carbon Neutral GIS?

June 21st, 2007 · 44 Comments · GIS

OK, you have to just laugh at this blog. It seems like its been around for about a day, but I’m hoping we’ll see some more.

Carbon Neutral GIS

Tags:

44 responses so far ↓

1 greengo // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:01 am

ESRI could stand to get a little more “carbon neutral”. In today’s world, is it necessary to send me a cardboard box filled with 8lbs of “getting started” books? In fact, I’d be happy to download the software and read the “getting started” books in .pdf format.
2 J Wallis // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:29 am

I have done away with boxes. Each time I order -additional copies- from them I tell them to NOT ship a box, just issue me a license file.

Those “getting started” books are a waste of trees. I agree they should be on PDF. Heck, ESRI should go to an all electronic delivery model.

I guess the irony in all of this is ESRI is keeping the “plant a tree” lady from the keynote in business!
3 J Wallis // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:30 am

hey by they way…the “edit your comments five minutes after hitting submit”…..it DOESN’T work.
4 James Fee // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:49 am

It appears to be the security upgrade causing that. I’ll see what I can do….
5 KoS // Jun 22, 2007 at 7:03 am

Trees are a renewable resource. So what if we cut them down, we’ll plant more. Takes planning and far-sight.

This carbon-neutral and man-made global warming is a croc, but if it makes people feel better. Then so be it, so long as they don’t push it on others.

Too much time on people hands and not enough more important issues to deal with.

KoS
6 greengo // Jun 22, 2007 at 7:29 am

kos,

are you taking into account the energy that it takes to cut trees down, hull the trees to the paper mill, produce the cardboard, ship the end product, replant the trees, etc? sounds like you haven’t thought it through. guess your to busy thinking about the more important issues, huh?

on ESRI’s behalf the cardboard they use is recycled…but loading up shipping trucks and planes with something that can be downloaded is a waste, IMO.
7 Fantom Planet // Jun 22, 2007 at 7:54 am

I thought that Jack bought $150,000 worth of trees Monday? That’ should cover the cardboard. Shouldn’t it?
8 Guido From Boston // Jun 22, 2007 at 8:00 am

Best use of interns that I have seen yet… great site, thanks for sharing it James
9 KoS // Jun 22, 2007 at 10:12 am

Greengo….

And???? So, what. Sounds like alot of people were employed.

If you are so worried about carbon. Have you stopped breathing? Have you stopped going to the grocery store for food? Have you stopped turning on the tap for water? Do you buy bottle water? Do you still wear clothes? I could go on and on.

I can play that game too.

KoS
10 J Wallis // Jun 22, 2007 at 10:43 am

i’m pretty sure he is focusing on ESRI waste…I suppose his personal problems can be discussed in another thread.

The point is not to create a list that borders on the absurd, but to recognize that there are some easy fixes that can be done to bring ESRI into the modern world. Shelves upon shelves of media and getting started guides hearkens back to old ArcINFO days. Just because ESRI is the largest COM application* doesn’t mean they have to have the largest box of media, books, and other useless doodads.

* (this was stated by an ESRI rep in the Citrix workshop on Wednesday)
11 James Fee // Jun 22, 2007 at 10:52 am

I like manuals and those old ArcInfo manuals were about as great as you can get. People still swear by them after all these years.
12 J Wallis // Jun 22, 2007 at 11:27 am

people just have a propensity to touch things. I guess it is a sign of age.

I typically have a lot of map displays projected onto a wall talker surface. people will stare at it and make comments, sometimes even going up and marking on the board. At the end they will say “can you print me a map” And I say “why it is right there?” And they say, “yeah I want to put it on my wall and mark on it” And I respond “that’s what we are doing right now!”

Same thing with books. I see people get the PDF of a manual and print it out, or print out ArcGIS online help articles…..is touching paper an addiction?
13 Bill Thorp // Jun 22, 2007 at 1:13 pm

The UN says “the total fossil fuels used to make one desktop computer weigh over 240 kilograms.”

I’m with FantomPlanet, for environmentally friendly GIS we really ought to use “Paper + color pencils + imagination + unlimited airline tickets + a chicken + $15 + a spoon to poke badgers with.”
14 KoS // Jun 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I perfer paper vs digital. I find I pay more attention to what I’m reading or looking at on paper vs. digital.

Plus, if we ever have an EMR attack, whether man-made or natural(sun). I can still read my piece of paper just fine. Unlike those who have the document in a digital format.

Wallis, just because one still uses paper doesn’t mean they are cave-mans and not in the modern world. If ESRI wants to change too all digital, so be it. It’s their choice and I wouldn’t complain one way or another. Maybe they should offer the choice, pay alittle more for hardcopies vs. downloading digital copies.

If I remember right, we use more paper now in our office settings, than we used before the digital revolution.

And I wasn’t worried about greens personal life. I was using those examples to point out the futility of this idea of carbon neutrality. Walk the walk, not talk the talk. Too many people on that side of the arguement likes to point and complain about what others are doing. But in their own life and dealings they don’t have those same expectations.

KoS
15 deadplanets // Jun 22, 2007 at 5:02 pm

-Kos

Climate change problem “all a croc”? Any facts to back up your claim? Don’t make me get nasty and start posting links to all of the peer-reviewed science verifying the problem of global warming. I’m sure James wouldn’t be happy about that, but I’ll do it man, I’ll DO IT!
16 deadplanets // Jun 22, 2007 at 5:04 pm

-greengo

I totally agree with your statements regarding the inordinant amount of books, packing materials, boxes, advertisements, etc. that get shipped with every new release. I typically resign myself to spending half a work day breaking all of that crap down and throwing it in the recycling bin.
17 KoS // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Dead…..Did I say climate change is a croc? No, I didn’t. I said man-made global climate change is a croc, especially the way the doom-gloom crowd makes out to be.

If we were talking about man-made micro climate changes, I’m with you there, like the urban heat island effect.

Where I live now, there use to be glaciers, A long time ago, on the order of thousands of years. Also, there are places in the Alps where mines are accessible for first time since the last warming period.

Climate changes all the time. And we can’t do a thing about it. Talk to Mr. Sun, Mrs. Earth and the Universe about global climate change. We are along for the ride, currently.

I’ll admit we can influence slight deviations from the end results. The cooling or warming might be less or more than expect from mans influence. Regardless, the cooling or warming will happen no matter what we are doing currently. If the climate wants to cool or warm, it will.

If man could control the global climate. What would be the suitable climate setting? What we have now, 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago? I wonder if the Brits would like the Thames to freeze over in the winters so they could restart their ice festivals?

I’ll give you the global climate is warming, but man isn’t causing it. Frankly I much rather have a warming climate than a cooling climate.

And you can cite peer-review articles all you want, there are those on both sides of the argument. Just because it’s peer-reviewed, doesn’t mean it’s 100% correct. I’ve heard one too many stories about the peer-review process to be cynical enough. And frankly I don’t have the time to get into a linking rebuttal contest either.

Also we have scientists who are still questioning the science and what it all means. Which tells me, the debate isn’t settled. Unlike Gore and others who think it should be.

Disclaimer: future/undiscovered technology or a nuclear winter, for example. Then I wouldn’t/couldn’t agree with my opinion of mans control of the global climate.

KoS
18 Sean Gillies // Jun 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

KoS, you’re pretty far out there, man. Lemme know if you need more tinfoil, I could spare you a roll.
19 KoS // Jun 22, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Sean…..thanks man. Is it Cosco brand? All other brands makes my head hurt.

I make stove hats, like Lincolns. I then sit down, put on the hat and chant, four score and seven years ago, over and over. Gives me my zen moments.

I’ve always swam up stream. Doesn’t mean it’s the wrong direction.

Ok this scenario. The sun’s energy output dropped. Which it will some time. What would happen to the climate/temp? Decrease, right?

For argument sake, if CO2 is the driving force of mans control over the climate. If we produce more CO2. The decrease in temp not as much?

If we produce less pollution. Less particles in the atmosphere to reflect energy. The decrease in temp not as much?

Technology wise, if we could reproduce a machine which can make water out of air. A more massive machine than what is currently produced. We could suck tons and tons of water vapor out of the air. Which would even further cool the global temp.

It’s going to cool no matter what, in that scenario. But how much cooler or warmer than expect without influence from man? Is that kind/line of thought really out there.

KoS
20 Bill Thorp // Jun 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I have to agree with the idea that paper is a renewable resource. Nobody blinked that 240kg of fossil fuels are in their PC, and its probably eating coal while you read that PDF. Paper may arguably have a longer useful life than the PC.

I am one of those rare liberals who think hybrid car drivers are hapless suckers. Theres good info that the manufacturing costs and recycling of hybrids increases their overall environmental impact compared to a gas car.

As a general rule, the cheaper things are, the less resources that went into them, the more environmentally friendly they are. Paper, overall, is rather cheap compared to a PDF viewer.

So while I think KoS is a little crazy, I can’t help but think that uninformed well-wishing environmentalists are a little crazy too.
21 Cellulose // Jun 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

Just think… everytime ESRI sends you a new ArcGIS package, you can look like the ultra-environmentalist by recycling more than any of your coworkers.

Seriously though–a lot of the people I work with still demand printed manuals.

Plus–our IT staff yell at us if we actually USE the printers (which takes more resources to operate than an industrial printing press anyway). The bean counters ration our paper and toner. And, every version of Acrobat is incompatible with the next… not really a viable solution for me…

While I personally prefer the electronic media, it’s not a solution for everyone.

Heck–ESRI could ship them out free, when requested, and still save a ton on money and resources.
22 BurntPopcorn // Jun 25, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I just worked out a unilateral agreement to utilize the carbon credits of Brazil’s Dslala tribe going back to the 1970’s! Now my building, and the coal-belching local electric provider, are in the clear through the summer of 2023!
23 KoS // Jun 26, 2007 at 6:35 am

I think I found a possible soluition for both sides.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_emergingenvironment_technologies-1.html

KoS
24 deadplanets // Jun 27, 2007 at 10:09 am

~KoS

While I appreciate your tinfoil Stovepipe hat imagery, I still have to disagree with you. Sorry, but I tend to give more credibility to the international consensus of climatologists than to anonymous postings on James Fee’s ESRI blog… know what I mean? And a few dissenting papers from a tiny group of oil-industry-paid scientists doesn’t really hold water either. And while I share your skepticism of the peer-reviewed process, like it or not, it’s the best thing we have going for coming close to some rough approximation of “the truth”.
25 Chris C. // Jun 27, 2007 at 10:28 am

@ Kos

Interesting list:

Hydrogen fuelled cars will keep the car and gas companies happy if not the consumers, whatever happened to the electric car?

Using animal and vegetable products as sources of fuel is already having an impact on poorer nations who can’t afford the rising prices of such products as food never mind fuel.
26 Cellulose // Jun 27, 2007 at 11:09 am

Chris– got an extra $100K around?

http://www.teslamotors.com

You get a high powered sports car that’s more environmentally friendly than a Prius, has fewer consumables than gas vehicles, advanced battery tech and recycling, plus bragging rights as icing on the cake.

Oh yeah, and even in areas where power is mostly Coal, the environmental impact of coal per KwH is still lower than individual gas engines.
27 Chris C. // Jun 27, 2007 at 11:26 am

@ Cellulose:

That is one cool car and for advanced tech not that expensive, I can’t quite get the funds together (for a down payment ), but I’d queuing up for one if I could.

Let’s hope the big guns in the motor industry keep their hands off Tesla unless they really want electric to succeed.
28 KoS // Jun 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Deadplanet…..I understand your position. What I’m saying is my opinion based on viewing both sides. I don’t think I was being unfair or untruthful either. May be misguided according to some.

I would say, you may want to review the idea of “consensus”. Not all scientists agree on this matter. It’s not me saying it, look around and beyond the main stream news sources. You would be very surprised.

I’ll give two examples, out of many, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm. And http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
Granted it isn’t a peer reviewed article. It does quote scientists in their repective fields. If it’s true.

Also, do a review of the IPCC scientists and the process. It’s not quite what it’s portrayed to be.

I know, someone could counter this and that, so on and so forth. It is an example of others not agreeing with the “consensus”.

And btw, that is a such tired stereotype of people who don’t agree with the “consensus”, they all are paid off by big-oil. Some are, not all.

I would argue, those scientists who agree with the “consensus” are being paid-off by big govt. Almost everyone is paid off.

All I ask is think for yourself and do as much resarch as possible on your own. Come to your own conclusions, not reiterate others. Which seems to the case if the words consensus and paid off by big-oil is being used in this discussion.

One thing to leave you with. Is some of the data they use valid? http://www.surfacestations.org/

Chris C…..I wasn’t linking the entire list. Just the one with the electronic paper.

KoS
29 Cellulose // Jun 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm

@Chris

They’re supposed to becoming out with a luxury sedan version in a couple years,roughly equiv to a BMW 5-series… and then a consumer version a few years after.

Very exciting if they can survive. I’m still mourning the end of the EV1–15 year old technology, yet still a superior vehicle to these laughable hybrids they’re cramming down our throats.
30 KoS // Jun 27, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Chris….don’t forget the rising prices here in the US , especially from the rising price of corn.

This is nothing, at least yet. If Congress mandates power stations to use X% of biofuels to generate electricity. I can’t imagine how much higher the price of items will be. I think the new energy bill has the provision in it or they may add it, can’t remember off top of my head.

If we wanted to mandate 15% of the fuel we use in cars to be biofuels, like corn, sugar or soybeans. From one study I saw, it would take a farm about the size of Texas to supply that amount of fuel.

Along with that, probably alot of unintended problems. Look at Europe or was it just the UK? They have mandated a certain percentage of fuel/energy to be from biofuels. Right now, they mainly use palm seed from southeast Asia. In order to keep up with the demand they have to cut down more forests to increase palm seed production on the plantations. The same is happening in Brazil with sugar cane. They need more sugar cane for fuel, more trees cut down to make room for sugar cane.

In the short term, I think we need to go nuclear. Long term? Not sure yet. Along the way, of course, find ways to do more with less. So far, France and Switzerland are doing fine going nuclear. The Italians are sure happy they did, they don’t have to produce as much energy. They just buy it from those two.

KoS
31 Bill Thorp // Jun 27, 2007 at 7:32 pm

My impression is that the palm oil problem is actually quite a serious issue. And I can’t help but agree with KoS, its an issue caused by environmentalists who neglect a certain analysis.
32 Chris C. // Jun 28, 2007 at 6:02 am

@ Kos

Fair enough, although I wasn’t for bio-fuels quite the opposite, I’ll blow my green credentials by agreeing that nuclear is a good short term solution until renewable sources are in place.

Regardless of how we get our power, electric vehicles are a no-brainer.
33 KoS // Jun 28, 2007 at 6:46 am

Chris….sorry I wasn’t trying to imply you were. Thoughts were flowing out from the comment about rising prices due to crops being used for fuel/power.

Don’t worry about blowing your green credentials, there are a very few greens who believe in nuclear. IIRR, one of the former founders of Greenpeace has turned around and started supporting nuclear power.

Electric vehicles are fine, until they found out some untoward effect on the human driver and passengers.

KoS
34 Cellulose // Jun 28, 2007 at 8:10 am

Wait, did I read this correctly? Greenpeace has finally pulled its head out of their… er.. sand… and looked at some actual SCIENCE to understand nuclear is a viable alternative?

I do believe the end is near.
35 KoS // Jun 28, 2007 at 9:55 am

Greenpeace, the organization, hasn’t pulled their who know what out. A former founder has, iirr. I would emphasize the word, former.

A side thought. Putting money where one’s mouth is. Has anyone read the comparison between Gore’s main home in Nashville and Bush’s main home in Crawford? Who’s home is more environmental friendly? The guy who runs around expelling alot of CO2 or the guy people love to hate?

KoS
36 Steffen Macke // Jul 8, 2007 at 11:05 am

I first thought of this only as funny. But now my webhosting provider is switching to hydropower:

http://sdteffen.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-joke-my-other-blog-goes-carbon.html
37 KoS // Aug 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Had to revive this topic. Nobody answered the question and more importantly I found a gem of a article today.

Article about Bush vs Gores homes, a reprint from 2001 Chicago Tribune. And a related snope article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics//bush/house.asp

Here is the gem I found today. Poor mooses.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Also I’ll throw this one in too. Regardless who the messenger is( I know some people don’t like WND), read it and check out their references in the article.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

KoS
38 Cellulose // Aug 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Sounds like the message is that ecology is only for the rich as no “normal” person I know can afford either of those “eco-friendly” choices… Paying huge premiums to renewable energy or huge capital outlays to build eco-friendly homes–both are outside of my income bracket.

Global warming, militant eco-ism, Gore vs Bush is all just a way to distract us from the more pressing issue of pollution. Not since the days of Nixon has anyone really done anything to address that problem. Sad, when you think about it.

That gray and brown crap in the air when I drive over the hill isn’t naturally occuring–it’s caused by humans. The health and economic effects are quantifiable and extremely costly. I really don’t care if it’s related to/ignores/causes/doesn’t cause global warming. Pollution is a human-caused problem and a human-solvable problem.
39 KoS // Aug 21, 2007 at 6:36 pm

I agree Cell. Pollution vs global warming/climate change is two different beasts, whether cause and solution. I’m amazed by how many streams/rivers around my area are considered impaired or worst. And I see people swimming, boating, and fishing in them. Ugh!!

Here are two more articles. Your first paragraph made me think of them.

Eco-millionaires see boom times ahead

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSHI06327720070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=inDepthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Scientists hail ‘frozen smoke’ as material that will change world

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2284349.ece

KoS
40 KoS // Sep 4, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Cellouse and others who have an interest.

The Greenpeace guy I mentioned earlier. His name is, Dr. Patrick Moore.

He was on the Dennis Miller radio show today.

KoS
41 Cellulose // Sep 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Ah, I’ve seen/heard Dr Moore a number of times on TV and radio.

He really puts a sane face on much of the environmentalism/ecology/sustainable environments/etc (I don’t really consider them all the same, but they are often treated the same). Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone takes him seriously due to his time with Greenpeace.

To furthur damage his image, he has a knack for taking guest spots on B.S. shows like Miller or Penn & Teller’s B.S.
42 Cellulose // Sep 4, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Many of the researchers where I work use aerogel for decades and have even pioneered techniques for creating structured aerogel. It has some incredible scientific and industrial uses for improving structure, insulation, etc. The stuff is widely used for everything from fusion experiments to space probes.

It sounds like we might be getting close to mass-market use of the material. The article talked about aerogel insulated jackets actually being on the market at some point.

As soon as they come out with a cost-effective aerogel insulator for my home, I’ll be first in line to get it.
43 KoS // Sep 4, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Miller’s show isn’t half bad. Has a good mix to the show. Its much better than majority of those BS shows on the market.

KoS
44 Cellulose // Sep 4, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Don’t get me wrong… The guy is very funny (and I will pay a decent amount of $$ for his show tikets)… I just get a little worried when I hear mainstream politicians parroting his “ideas”.

But he puts on a face of sarcasm to cover up his crack-pot ideas (and no, most of them are not jokes). I’ve heard some pretty stupid ideas come out of that man’s mouth–when people point out his stupidity, he just acts like he was joking. Depending on the venue he’s playing at, the same idea is welcomed with laughter or applause. With the laugher, he laughs with the audience. With the applause, he follows up with another crack-pot idea. At one show in SF, he got a little pissed off at the audience because they were laughing a little too hard. I guess his ego couldn’t take it.

That all said… you are 100% right. His show is far better, interesting, and entertaining than most of those clowns on cable and radio “news”–oh and late night “entertainment” as well. Unlike the others, I will actually pay money to see Miller.