Keeping up with the Joneses is a saying that originated in a comic from the early 1900′s, or at least that’s what Wikipedia would have me believe (just confirmed by Toonopedia). The Joneses are the unseen neighbors in the comic and are often referred to with some degree of envy by the strip’s main characters. While those characters and the strip in which they lived faded out of existence, the title remained as a popular saying, a saying which captured the motivation behind much of our consumption-minded culture.

Luxury, size and cost are all purchasing choices designed to help us “keep up with the Joneses.” We are trained to feel that we need a house, car and clothes consummate with the position we have achieved professionally or socially. Unfortunately, for most things, particularly houses, what we need always seems to be bigger and less practical. Prestige measured by the square foot.

Aside from the problems most Americans find themselves in financially after spending a few years chasing the illusive Joneses, the tendency for prosperity to be represented by size also isn’t exactly helping the old planet. We add rooms to houses that are already twice as large as we need. We base buying decisions on square-footage because that is what everyone will ask about at our first party (How many square feet you workin’ with here Bob?). McMansions are multiplying like huge, ungainly, under-insulated rabbits and all this means more energy, more furniture, more . . . everything.

We need to consume less, but as long as the Joneses are out there ahead of us, flaunting all that big stuff, that kind of change is difficult to make. As a culture we are so trained to measure ourselves against those around us that we will use any scale available. The most ready scale, to date, has been size, but perhaps that could change.

If it is going to change it has to change with the Joneses. It has to change with those who everyone is trying to stack up against. If a shift can be made in the thinking of the privileged, adjusting the way in which they broadcast their position, then we might see a change in the way everyone struts their stuff. Horse-power could be replaced with gas mileage. R-values (insulation) could be the new square footage. Solar panels instead of swimming pools, ten speeds instead of hummers, subtractions instead of additions . . . who knows.

According to the New York Times, this shift might be happening in housing. With the advent of modern design and the rising concern over global warming (even among the most impenetrable minds), green houses have become more attractive. Environmentally sound housing is no longer solely the province of patchouli scented hippies. Interesting architecture and the socially conscious appeal of a small carbon footprint open this type of houses to a broader audience with a sense of style to go along with their sense of responsibility.

Conspicuous non-consumption, as the Times article refers to it, may be hard for those used to losing their spouse and children somewhere in their 15,000 square foot castle, but it only takes a few adopters to begin the trickle down (no not Reaganomics style) of change. While there may be plenty of us who have cast off our need to chase the Joneses, the majority are still affected (if only unconsciously) by this race. A change in the measuring stick is key to a societal shift.

So instead of chasing the Joneses, let’s set out to change them. Design for style and efficiency. Make green cool and aim for a new demographic. And, if anyone from the Jones Family is listening, be sure to brag about your tankless water heater, the number of miles you bike and the efficiency of your windows at the next swanky party you attend. I am all for grass roots, but it helps to have a little assistance from the top of the mountain sometimes.

Nic Darling is not a Jones.

It has been hot in Philly. Not the kind of hot where you slip on some shorts and sandals and make your way into the long absent sun after a cold, cloudy winter (love that kind of hot). No, this is the kind of hot where you stay as still as possible for fear of bursting into a terminal sweat. It is the kind of hot that feels like a damp, grizzly bear, fresh from some kind of long, sweaty, ursine 10k, is hugging you tightly for 24 hours a day. It is the kind of thick, wet hot that makes a walk to the store feel like 20 breaststroke laps in a bowl of steaming gravy.

Sure, some of you Southerners will claim that I don’t know hot, but I’ve been down South, and at least there you get an afternoon rain, a torrential cooling. Or, if you are reporting in from the desert, at least your heat is dry. Sure, it may be a cliche’ but dry heat is more comfortable. The air in Philly feels like rain that has boiled just before it hit the ground. It feels like a neck deep swamp.

But, I am not here to brag about Philly’s extremes of discomfort. This post is not meant to be a competitive statement. I am simply hoping to frame a question in the appropriate sticky, stinky, sweaty context.

This heat, similar (I imagine) to being inside a beached whale in Death Valley, leads Philadelphians to that predictable technological response . . . air conditioning. The hum of AC units becomes a part of the summer sound-scape, blending perfectly with the constant whining of those caught outside and the gentle sizzle of pigeons cooking on the blacktop. The light drizzle from thousands of window units falls gently on the pedestrians in the streets, and each store front doorway blasts welcoming cold on passerbys. Interior climate control is the sweet breath of modern civilization, but at what cost?

Air conditioning is definitely a significant sucker of electricity and it seems to be used with a kind of reckless abandon. It flows out open doors and windows. It runs 24 hours a day. Despite the increasingly prohibitive cost, nearly everyone seems to use it and use it and use it. Is this caused by  a loss of climate acclimation? Have we forgotten how to exist in the heat? Is it made worse by a lack of alternatives? How did we stay cool before AC and what will we do when the environmental cost of its use becomes too heavy to pay?

Chad is working on some alternatives for the 100k house, and I thought we would try to get a discussion started here as well. How much energy do we waste conditioning our air? What are the alternatives to AC? Is it possible to survive in Philly (or elsewhere) without it? If so, is it possible to be comfortable?

Talk it up in the comments.

Nic Darling actually enjoys this hot, stick weather. He is obviously a witch and will be burned accordingly.

Well, we’ve talked about high gas prices, but it seems that the ceiling may be a bit higher than we thought. Based on the projections for crude prices, some are suspecting a potential rise to $6 or even $7 a gallon. We could see prices at the pump this high in the next 12-24 months.

Again, I am torn between my feeling that high gas costs will force a positive, increased focus on efficiency and conservation while I worry for families that are already struggling to get to and from work. We are trapped in the lifestyles and living situations that cheap fuel created and no one will suffer the consequences of a shift more than the lower middle class workers.

How can we reap the benefits of higher fuel costs (more bikes, more public transit, more efficient cars) without destroying overburdened families? Can our infrastructure adapt to a decrease in driving? Will our economy collapse without the cheap fuel on which it was built?

If you have a solution or questions of your own, use the comments. That’s what they are there for.

Nic Darling is a great believer in the power of failure.

The arguments over climate change and the action it demands include scientific and economic considerations. What are the potential effects of ongoing warming, and what is the cost of slowing that rise in temperature? Will the relative cost later be less than the cost now? Do we have time to wait? Does the environmental benefit of decreased consumption outweigh the economic impact?

Throughout these questions are complex ethical considerations about the value of human life, sacrifice and the distribution of wealth. So, break out your ethical calculators and follow the logic of John Broome (you know, the moral philosopher) as he walks us through the ethics of climate change.

Well, he actually only walks us through some of the ethics of climate change, but it is a useful beginning toward thinking about this argument in academic rather than emotional terms. Now, instead of saying “think of the poor children”, you will be able to say, “you need to readjust your understanding of the discount rate”. What is the discount rate? Read and find out.

Thanks to Goose for pointing this article out.

Nic Darling is currently only half a marketer and writer. The other half is actively engaged in dealing with seasonal allergies.

Chicken Little may be a crazed, hyper-reactive, fear monger, but occasionally that bump on the head actually is a piece of the sky. Unfortunately, a history of apocalyptic prophets have made her voice difficult to hear. Doom sayers have been calling our attention to impending catastrophe since the beginning of time. I remember being mortally afraid that killer bees were going to swarm through the United Sates, killing everything in their path. It was on all the TV shows. It was terrifying, but it never happened. Remember Y2K? Now what are we supposed to do with all this bottled water and canned goods. There are many other examples just like the bees and the computer bug, disasters that never happened, wolves that didn’t turn up.

These constant warnings of the world’s end have installed a good degree of skepticism in most of us. We may believe in the importance of an issue. We may see the point in flu vaccine research and a telescopic search for earth killing asteroids, but we aren’t anticipating judgment day just yet. We understand there are vital issues facing us, but we really aren’t sure they are that vital.

Global warming and climate change fall in this category. Anyone with even a tiny bit of intellect understands that the world is heating up and that we might just have something to do with it. The vast majority of us think this is a pretty big deal and are willing to go out of our way to do something about it. Many of us even feel that it is the most important issue on the table. However, when some crazy comes around talking about feedback loops and tipping points, flooding, famine and the end of the world as we know it, we start to hear the Chicken Little cluck we have learned to block out. Yes, it’s bad, but come on, its not that bad. Something is falling, but it isn’t they sky you stupid chicken.

Well, it turns out that the role of the chicken is currently being played by the chief climatologist at NASA. That’s right you starry-eyed green geeks, James Hansen. According to the LA Times, Hansen just released a particularly “panicky poultry” scientific paper in which he lays out some pretty dire portents. Check out this little tidbit:

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.

Wow, now that is some hard core rhetoric for a scientific paper. I mean, you have to keep in mind, this isn’t some hermit, climate nut named Rainbow who has been measuring the temperature of the glacial lake next to his secluded cabin and recording the results in homemade walnut ink on the walls (not that I have anything but the highest respect for Rainbow’s work). This is the head climatologist for NASA. This is a guy with a big budget and a lot to lose by being over the top.

According to the folks over at www.350.org, we have hit a new carbon high at 387 ppm. This is the highest levels the earth has seen in 650,000 years and unlike most records, it is not one of which we should be particularly proud. In fact, if NASA’s top man on the issue is right, it could be a sign that we are soon to have some serious stratosphere raining down on our heads.

So, what do you think? Is the sky falling? Are we actually toying with some serious consequences or is the boy crying wolf? Is this real or just some more clucking from the frightened chicken? I, for one, am thinking about dusting off my Y2K bunker and christening it something more appropriate like The Basement of the Greenhouse. Use the comments to tell me why I’m over reacting.

Nic Darling is more afraid of bees than they are of him.

According to a New York Times article from a few days ago, record numbers of people are leaving the cars in the driveway and taking to public transit. Across the country, buses and trains are filling as commuters shun their own vehicles. High (for this country) gas prices have made workers think twice about filling up and driving themselves to office.

Many people can be heard lamenting the high cost of fuel, but I wonder . . . might this not be a good thing? What other wonders might high fuel costs lead to? Carpooling? Increased fuel efficiency?   Decreased air travel? More conservation around the home?

Sure, public transit is subject to the same debilitating cost concerns as other forms of travel, and food transport adds to the price tag of milk, eggs and bread. But, stay with me, what if we raised the price of gas even more? What if we taxed that liquid pollution up to 5, 6, 7 dollars a gallon and used that money to subsidize necessary and helpful fuel uses? Would things get better or worse?

Our current energy use is unsustainable, no matter what magical new fuel is supposedly on the horizon. Yet, as we have seen, if gas is cheap, we will use it. We will use it and use it and use it. Perhaps the only way to curb our insatiable appetite is to price us out of the market. What do you think?

Nic Darling is fighting a sinus infection and may not be as beautifully articulate as usual.

Provocative title I know but . . .

We spoke before about cheap energy and the ways in which we have formed our society around it, made it an integral part of the way we live. Our ability to extract energy from fossil fuels with relative ease and, for many years, with little worry over environmental consequences led to the production of a culture which accepts the availability of such energy as the norm. The way way we live, work and play is completely tied to affordable energy. So, with the dawning realization that fossil fuel energy production is hurting our planet and that it’s availability as a resource is limited, we have begun searching desperately for replacements.

Unfortunately, our energy usage is so massive that no replacement or group of replacements stands a chance of feeding our appetite. Even as our ability to produce energy from renewable sources grows, so does our demand for more. Our ability to replace fossil fuels with non-polluting energy sources is so far distant that it’s almost depressing. For a sobering dose of realism, check out CNet’s Green Technology Blog. Their recent overview of the energy situation illustrates this point better than I could do here.



Now, everyone speaks of conservation as an important part of any energy plan, but in truth it should be the whole of any energy plan that hopes to decrease fossil fuel usage in the foreseeable future. We cannot continue to use energy at the rate we currently do and expect to free ourselves from fossil fuels. To see any increase in the tiny slice of the pie renewable energy sources represent (see above graph), we have to considerably shrink the pie.

Renewable resources, however important they may be, do not seem to be the answer to our energy problems. Only conservation, using less energy, will provide the environmental and national security benefits of decreased fossil fuel usage. This should be the driving force of energy policies and the backbone of political movement. Unfortunately, it is a lot harder to tell people to use less than it is to say, “keep buying SUVs . . . cheaper, safer, renewable fuel is on the way.” Wind and solar energy ideas are much “cooler” than arguments about mileage and better insulation. Fuel cells beat the hell out of walking.

As long as renewable energy maintains its illusory promise of a solution, conservation will be a hard to promote. With solar, wind and geothermal energy around the corner, why do I need to find a way to do without air conditioning? If alternative fuels hold so much promise, what does the size of my car matter? While work on renewable fuels is important and deserves funding, a realistic view of their contribution needs to be maintained and promoted. Conservation must be championed as it is the only way to change course.

Argue with me. Tell me I’m wrong. Agree with me. Do it in the comments.

Nic Darling is a Philadelphia writer and talker . . . mostly a talker. Really, he just won’t shut up.

Michael Pollan’s article, “Why Bother?”, in the New York Times Green Issue is ostensibly about growing a garden, but there are larger issues looming in the shadows of that leafy produce. In exhorting the reader to plant and grow their own food he leads us through ideas of community, the possibility of viral change, the problems of specialization and the “cheap energy mind.”

Much of Michael’s discussion orbits the phenomenon of cheap energy, the advent of which allowed our specialization (I type about food, he grows food, she delivers food) and trancendence of community (who needs neighbors when you have DVR?). The mentality created by this cheap energy hamstrings our attempts at personal responsibility and drives our energy policy toward replacement rather than substantial lifestyle change.

Michael’s suggestion to grow a garden seems trivial in the face of this high-minded historical discussion and one is led to wonder, as the title of the piece suggests, “Why Bother?” With such engrained resistance and seemingly insourmountable global apathy, how will growing a garden be anything more than a symbolic guesture?

Well, I’ll let Michael tell you. Give it a read.

Nic Darling is well-disposed to postgreen and its proprieter. He is also well-disposed to beer, puppies and disc golf.  Quite the company you keep postgreen.

A quick note to wish everyone a happy Earth Day. Here are a few Earth Day posts from some of my favorite green bloggers:

Earth Day 2008, This is How We Do It – Jetson Green

What Are You Doing on Earth Day? – Inhabitat

OK, there weren’t as many Earth Day posts out there as I had thought.

Apparently I missed out on Blog Action Day last month. Check it out for some good posts related to impacting the environment from some of the most popular blogs on the net.

Since I missed it I will share one of the posts that I really liked from one of the blogs I monitor – Future House Now. John Commoner is the author of a great post for the blog action day about the current green movement and what it means to him and what he blogs about. What I like about the post is it is a very down to earth viewpoint that is straightforward and rarely heard from many of the “green blogs” and proponents of green on the web. Without giving more of my thoughts on it, check it out for yourself and see what you think about it. If you have time scroll through the rest of the blog as John has some great posts on the future of modern housing.