Transportation Technology Awareness

On the same day the Missouri legislature debates funding a gap in St. Louis transit agency Metro’s budget, I had the opportunity to hop on my soapbox for a bit during a business lunch. We were talking about housing, but the conversation meandered – as it does so often these days – to the economy. A less logical jump was somehow made to hybrid vehicles, where it stayed for a bit.

One of the guests at lunch mentioned he’d recently driven a hybrid (Prius) for the first time, and while he found the car novel, he would never purchase one. His stated reason was that it is too small. But elements of his comments, along with those of the other people at lunch, showed the lack of awareness among even people of higher education and higher means about transportation technology.

I carry the burden and relief associated with being motivated by issues green, and specifically those surrounding transit. As a society addicted to personal mobility, we constantly struggle between funding public transit and subsidizing our addiction to combustion engines through the construction and reconstruction of poor quality roads and car-oriented development, not to mention the billions handed out to oil companies. After the man’s comment, I made sure to point out that my wife and I own a Ford Escape Hybrid and that we loved it.

At that point I began to talk about a speech Robert F. Kennedy made recently in St. Louis, which my wife and I attended. While the event covered all sorts of environmental topics, a good amount of time was spent on personal mobility and the efforts of Better Place, a company currently working to convert Israel into an electric car country. I also brought up Tesla Motors and discussed the technology of electric cars. People seemed genuinely interested and asked questions, but they were never truly engaged. This may have something to do with my inability to capture an audience but I’ve tested that skill repeatedly to better results. I’m fairly certain the issue was the subject at hand.

What’s frightening is the lack of enthusiasm among people who have the means to make a difference. The general feeling after the discussion seemed to be one of, “well that was interesting, back to reality”. But people, this is reality. How do we get people to learn about electric cars, which undoubtedly are the future of personal mobility? Similarly, how do we get people to learn about other environmental issues that effect them so dramatically, but often so indirectly?

If you have an answer, please tell me. You can have all the credit, and all the resources I can spare to help spread the word.

Tesla / St. Louis

There is no formal association between St. Louis and Tesla Motors . . . yet. Tesla is the maker of two all-electric vehicles, one already on the streets – the Roadster – and one under production – the Model S. The Roadster will set you back around $100,000 but it is one mean beast. The Model S, set to cost under $60,000, is a more practical sedan. $60,000 is not affordable by any stretch of the imagination but it is in line with the costs of equivalent luxury automobiles.

What’s the point of this discussion? I want Tesla to open a showroom in St. Louis. I know, this sounds like a pipe dream given the company only plans to sell 20,000 to 25,000 units worldwide. To date, Tesla has opened showrooms in Los Angeles and Menlo Park, California. The company plans to open other showrooms in Chicago, Manhattan, Miami and Seattle. Other possibilities include Washington D.C., and Munich, Germany. After they finish opening locations in the top U.S. markets, I want their secondary expansion to start in St. Louis.

I’ve spoke with representatives from the company and they do plan on expanding further as delivery of the Model S approaches. Why? Basic maintenance and servicing for one. Also, most electric cars, including Tesla’s models, will include easily replaceable batteries (though they’ll weigh hundreds of pounds). Most electric cars will be sold with short-range batteries, as higher capacity batteries drastically increase costs and aren’t used for their full potential the majority of the time. The base Model S will come with a 160-mile range battery, but the company will also offer 230 and 300-mile batteries. If someone buys the car to commute to work, why should he pay tens of thousands of dollars extra for a long-range battery? Most likely, he wouldn’t. Proponents of electric cars envision a scenario in which an owner would take his car to service station to have his batter temporarily replaced for a longer car trip. To make this scenario a reality, more sales/service locations will be needed than just those on the coasts and one in Chicago. Got it? Good.

So, stay tuned for more updates as I campaign to get enough Tesla’s sold in St. Louis to get a showroom here as well!

Say “No” to Nukes

I really, really, really hope this:

“AmerenUE CEO Tom Voss said the company is suspending its efforts to build a second nuclear plant in Missouri because of the failure of legislation it was pushing in the General Assembly,”

is true. And by true, I mean that I hope this is a long term decision. So long in fact, that solar and wind energy have supplanted the dirty “nastinest” that currently powers America. Down with nuclear, down with coal!

There’s some chatter that Ameren is just regrouping and will be on the attack again. I trust the good guys will snuff out any efforts before they gain momentum. For those of you who haven’t been following this issue, the main point of contention hasn’t been nuclear power as the source of new energy in Missouri, but how the consumers would be affected by the construction of a new nuclear plant. In summary:

“At a news conference at Ameren’s St. Louis headquarters this morning, Voss said he had asked lawmakers to withdraw from consideration the bill the company had been pushing to repeal the state’s construction work in progress law. If passed, the bill would have allowed the utility to charge consumers for some costs of the proposed $6 billion-plus facility before it were up and running. Critics, including consumer groups and large industrial companies, said the bill would have led to huge price hikes and would have gutted the consumer protections available to the Public Service Commission.”

It’s the construction work in progress law, commonly known as CWIP, that’s the issue. AmerenUE embarked on a pretty expensive public relations campaign to convince the public that they wouldn’t get royally screwed by the company’s endeavor. Fortunately, for once, most of our elected officials weren’t fooled.

What’s next, clean coal?! Ha.

Blowing Away The Need For Coal

On Monday, a day the winds blew fiercely in St. Louis, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, “The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility. It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.”

Could you ever imagine a statement so progressive and bold coming from the Bush Administration? Hell no. A country without coal? Could it really happen? Probably not in the short term but it’s nice to dream.

In an article published yesterday:

Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now operating in the United States, according to the Energy Department.

Five times people! A renewable energy future for this country and the rest of the world looks more likely every day. Combined with wave generation technology, solar farms and the continued development of more efficient technologies for appliances, automobiles, lighting, etc . . . we could be free of our dependence on oil and coal and all other polluting, environmentally unfriendly sources of energy forever.

Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, which wants to build a wind farm off Cape Cod, Mass., estimates it would take hundreds of thousands of windmills. The average wind turbine today generates 2 to 5 megawatts per unit, he said.

“It would take a number of years to build out, but we’ve got to get going in this country with the first few projects,” he said.

No one said the task would be easy, and coal companies are critiquing the idea as expected. But, as Rodgers mentions, we have to start somewhere. And just because the average wind turbine today generates 2 to 5 megawatts, who’s to say the turbines of tomorrow won’t be able to do twice that?

Of Two Faiths, Gay and Armed

Quick post today. I read an article about the defrocking of a minister that I thought needed to be shared. And now it has been! The piece is about a Episcopal minister becoming a Muslim while holding on to her Christianity. Fascinating stuff. If we can get everyone to accept all the theories we’d see how crazy each one actually is on its own. Then we could make some progress, like Iowa did today backing gay marriage. If only we could stop people from being so damn trigger happy. The irony of people getting gunned down while taking a test to become citizens of a developed country with one of the most liberal gun laws should not be lost on you. Have a good weekend.

Crabby Crabs

Very hard to be inside today. The weather is gorgeous and I really want to be done working. Unfortunately this is not going to happen for a bit so I thought I’d write a quick post before diving back into what I have to finish this afternoon. While perusing the “Internets” a while ago I ran across an article discussing a surprising find – crabs feel pain. The piece begins:

A favored method of preparing fresh crabs is to simply boil them alive. A longstanding related question: Do they feel pain?

Yes, researchers now say. Not only do crabs suffer pain, a new study found, but they retain a memory of it (assuming they aren’t already dead on your dinner plate). The scientists say its time for new laws to consider the suffering of all crustaceans.

Duh. What I fail to comprehend is the lack of compassion in people. If you think animals are part of the food chain, fine, we will just have to agree to disagree. But, if you think animals should turn into meals in the most efficient way possible, regardless of the suffering they experience, we will just have to agree that I can punch you in the throat. Why civil societies don’t do more to humanely murder animals for food completely befuddles me. There’s

Bob Elwood of Queen’s University Belfast in the UK says in the article:

“Millions of crustacean are caught or reared in aquaculture for the food industry,” he said. “There is no protection for these animals (with the possible exception of certain states in Australia) as the presumption is that they cannot experience pain. With vertebrates we are asked to err on the side of caution and I believe this is the approach to take with these crustaceans.”

All kinds of animals experience pain. It was clear before and its more clear with the publication of this study. Please think about this the next time you sit down to eat. Even if you’re a carnivore, supporting the efforts of organizations like PETA can help make humans more responsible carnivores, whether it be in light of the environment or in light of suffering. If a couple people are converted to vegetarianism, all the better for you and the earth.

Red Meat Bad

In shocking news, a recent study proved yet again that all kinds of red meat are bad, and in so many ways. The study gained quite a bit of attention on the Internet and is summarized nicely in one fabulously named article, titled, “Red meat raises risk of all kinds of death – study“. All kinds of death! All kinds! That’s darkly funny, no?

The article starts with three summary points:

  • Heaviest meat-eaters die sooner
  • Effect is independent of smoking, other diet factors
  • Farming animals for meat hurts environment

I’ve written posts of this nature before, but these points require repeating to sink in. Something needs to be read seven times before its remembered, or so they say. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad.

Of course the meat industry called the study flawed, but that was as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow. Remember when we believed the cigarette companies? Just give it time. Not only does meat have negative health effects (read: cancer) it is also damaging to the environment.

Many studies have shown that people who eat less meat are healthier in many ways, and Sinha’s team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat.

The U.S. government now recommends a “plant-based diet” that stresses fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Barry Popkin, an expert in nutrition and economics at the University of North Carolina, said the study was unusually thorough and careful.

Eating less meat has other benefits, he said, and governments should start promoting this. For instance, farming animals for meat causes greenhouse gas emissions that warm the atmosphere and uses fresh water in excess, he said.

“I was pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock,” Popkin said in a telephone interview.

“I didn’t expect it to be more than cars.”

More than cars people, more than cars. Another article quoted a man who said he wasn’t necessarily advocating vegetarianism, which of course I do, but that meat should be taking a back seat to fruits and vegetables. The only way to move toward a meat-free society, and thus one with healthier people and a healthier environment, is to take baby steps. Make meat only part of one meal a day and make sure it’s not the biggest thing on the plate.

Tailor Your Wardrobe

My tailor and I have philosophical differences about two-way zippers. I don’t even know if that’s their technical name but you know what I’m talking about, right? Zippers with two thing-a-ma-bobbies on ‘em so you can zip the coat closed with the top ’ma-bobbie and then open it from the bottom with the bottom ‘ma-bobbie. Great for sitting.

Why would a tailor, a veritable master of the use of fabrics, not like two-way zippers? Perhaps he’s a purist, or even a Luddite, and thinks even a single zipper is an abomination. The zipper led to the gear and the gear led to the automobile! Clothes should be tied on god damn it!

For the record, my tailor is a soft-spoken gentlemen who owns a shop in the Benton Park West neighborhood of St. Louis. I’ve only used him twice, so please don’t think he stitches custom-made clothing for me. I had the aforementioned two-way zipper put onto a fleece whose original zipper had bit it and had a pair of way-too-long jeans hemmed that I got for five freakin’ dollars from Old Navy. He did a great job on both.

I own too many clothes and tend to replace things more frequently than I should. I’m also fairly certain these clothes reproduce on their own but no one will buy that theory. I wonder if I covered each item in a dry cleaner style plastic wrap these would act as clothing condoms. So . . . when I decided to repair my fleece instead of just buying a new one, I felt a small bit of pride. The tailor charged almost what a new fleece would have cost – this one was of the Target variety – but there was nothing wrong with it besides the zipper issue.

What’s the point of this rambling? As I’ve mentioned before, I receive The Green Life newsletter from Sierra Club. In a recent series of posts the newsletter has focused on greening one’s wardrobe. The manufacture and distribution of clothing not a very green process. First of all, most of it is made overseas and needs to be shipped to the U.S. Second, the materials used are generally not very sustainable. The implications of putting people in developing nations out of work is a topic for another post. Admittedly, in the most simplistic way, I’m prioritizing environmental sustainability over social sustainability.

So, what should you do to green your wardrobe? Two things: buy vintage and take note of materials. The first idea is not a new one. Resale shops are becoming more common every day and they offer all styles and qualities of clothing. Frequent them and you’ll be surprised. I’m going to make a more concerted effort to preserve the clothing I have and buy “new” clothing in a more sustainable way. The second idea requires a little education, the bulk of which I’ll leave to the Sierra Club:

Buying used is greener, but if you do buy new clothes, at least make sure they’re made of sustainable material. Bamboo and hemp (much more comfy than they sound) are planet-friendly because both plants quickly regenerate and are easily grown without pesticides (hemp’s downside is that it must be imported since it’s illegal to grow in the U.S.). Organic cotton is another decent option; though cotton is a water-intensive crop, the organic variety at least forgoes the polluting chemicals. There have been developments in fabrics made of recycled stuff, including plastic bottles (Revenge Is is super soft) and other fibers (try Gramicci). Buying clothes from companies that donate to environmental charities and manufacturers that offset are other ways to vote green with your wallet. What to avoid? Synthetic fibers (polyester, vinyl, nylon), animal products (leather, suede), and cellulose materials (rayon). For more, check out Lucky‘s April issue.

Make note of the what to avoid list. Each material on this list is terrible in a different way; some require oil and some are produced through very violent and terribly resource-heavy processes. I would add wool to this list as well. Most of it is sourced in a way that’s worse than leather and suede, as sheep are filled with drugs to over produce wool and are repeatedly subject to misery and torture as opposed to just dying once for the sake of a pair of shoes or a purse. I’m guilty of owning some of these synthetic fabrics but am doing my best to replace them – when necessary – with more sustainably made clothing. I hope you do the same.

Up In The Air

Katie and I spent Tuesday on set as extras in the upcoming George Clooney movie, Up In The Air. I can’t say much about the movie itself given we signed confidentiality agreements but I will say the scene we were in takes place at a conference where Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, is giving a speech. That’s all I can offer regarding the film’s content. Sorry.

Movie making is tedious, terribly tedious. We arrived a little after 8am to check in, dressed as conference-goers. We were among 400 others, all playing the same part. The check-in process was well organized but still took hours. Our hair, faces and clothes were checked, and if something didn’t fit the bill, crew were available to help us become camera-ready. We were herded into a conference room packed with tables and chairs, a room we shared with the cast and crew. This is where everyone took breaks and ate. Production assistants periodically came in giving us updates on when we’d be needed and called on a few people who’d been selected for additional scenes. We were given instructions on what to do and how to do it in pieces, but our jobs were pretty easy – sit in a room while Clooney/Bingham delivered his lines.

Two dozen. That’s at least how many takes there were for a scene maybe two minutes long. Different camera angles were tried. Some of the takes included the entire scene while others just focused on Clooney’s character or just on the audience – us. The entire ordeal was impressive. A hundred crew, all focusing on different nuances of the production. Some were involved directly with the shooting while others took care of things behind the scenes. It took hours. We even broke for lunch in the middle, around 2pm.

Most of our time was spent waiting. I almost finished The White Tiger and answered emails for work and pleasure during our down time. We met a bunch of interesting people. Some were nice, some were annoying.

Clooney seemed nice enough. He’s a much smaller man than I thought. He walked right by me when we were lined up for lunch and he’s probably one to two inches shorter than me, so 5′ 10” tops. Can’t weigh more than a buck seventy either. Of course he was impeccably put together and very unassuming. In between takes he joked with the audience but was on his game whenever Jason Reitman yelled, “Action!” He “ate” with the crew, who ate with us. While the extras and the cast and crew were separated by sections, we were in the same conference room for lunch and everyone was fully visible to each other. I put ate in quotes because I’m not sure I ever saw him actually eat anything.

I’m not sure if we’ll make it into the final cut but I’m glad we went.  That being said, I’m not sure I’d do the whole extra thing again. Learning about the production of the film, and being a part of it was very interesting. But, I’m not a hurry up and wait kind of guy and I despise waiting and standing in lines. Maybe I’d try it again if the scene were smaller. There’s a lot of repetition, a lot of waiting, a lot of repetition . . . Our scene being easy also made it a bit boring, from the extras’ perspective at least.

I’m very happy St. Louis is attracting big budget film production. Thank you Missouri Film Production Tax Credit. This movie is the first by a major studio in decades to film the majority of its scenes in STL. But, I wrote some 15 months ago in a piece called Acting A Fool that movie production is horribly unsustainable and abusive to the environment. Clooney even got some props in that piece. Of course it was in reference to him mating with Al Gore but props is props. Here’s to more movies being filmed in my hometown, I just hope the productions become more sustainable.

Smoke-Free St. Louis: Letter to the Editor

I sent the following letter to the editor to all the major local publications this morning:

To the editor,

A recent study by the City of Houston, Texas examined the effects of its smoke-free bar and restaurant law and found the ordinance did not have a negative impact on business.

As St. Louis debates the merits of becoming smoke-free, false fears of economic loss seem to plague progress. The only unbiased, accurate means to measure economic impact is to compare sales tax receipts for years before the smoke-free law, with all quarters after the law is enacted. Houston, along with hundreds of other communities, has conducted these studies and they all show the same thing – no adverse impact on business.

St. Louis and its leaders have fallen victim to predictions of economic doom and that’s a shame. This myth originated with the tobacco industry and its public relations firms in the 1980s. David Laufer of Philip Morris said it best in 1994, “The economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn’t surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came true.”

Despite the fact that these declines have never come to pass in any community in the country, the opposition has not stopped trying to use this myth to divert attention away from the health-basis of smoke-free air laws.


Let’s try to keep our eye on the ball, St. Louis. For those few who didn’t know it already, the U.S. Surgeon General, numerous scientists and doctors have confirmed that secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease and serious lung problems. It’s a no brainer to protect all patrons and employees from the carcinogenic smoke that lurks in St. Louis bars and restaurants.


Sincerely,


Vihar Sheth

St. Louis City Resident

I haven’t been involved in the Smoke-Free St. Louis effort to the extent I would have liked but every little bit counts, right? Hopefully at least one of the publications will pick this up. I can feel the momentum building for a regionwide smoke-free law. If you would like to see St. Louis become smoke-free, send your own letter!