Videoconferencing at the UW

At our informal faculty lunch this week, a few of us discussed meeting travel and some ideas on how to reduce it. Not surprisingly, one of the ideas was video conferencing. I did a little web surfing and found a recent article in Science that discusses the subject (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5847/36). (I usually read Science but somehow missed this article the first time around!) It’s worth a quick scan. If you have trouble accessing it for any reason, send me an email and I will send you a PDF version that I saved.

Earlier this week, I ran across a reference to the Access Grid (http://www.accessgrid.org/), which is also mentioned in the Science article. The Access Grid is supported by Argonne National Laboratory and currently has 233 nodes in 29 countries (see map on their web site). There are 3 in the state of Washington located at PNNL, WSU, and the Chemistry Department at the UW. Nodes can be fairly simple (laptop plus camera) or pretty extensive (room with microphones, flat panel screens, etc.). I checked with the person who is listed as the Chemistry Department contact and their node is (was) a laptop plus camera that they wheeled around. Chemistry has essentially discontinued that in favor of using the Odegaard Videoconference Studio (http://catalyst.washington.edu/learning_spaces/video_conferencing.html), which can run the Access Grid software (as well as other software) and has trained staff to help out.

I am going to try to visit the Videoconference Studio to see what it is like and how available it is in terms of scheduling. I would like to encourage us to look for opportunities to use this facility and figure out how well it works for small meetings. (The web page says that it can handle up to 16 people.) It may be a way for us to participate in meetings without having to get on an airplane.

Carbon offsets

Many of you may already know this but I just found out about it a couple of weeks ago. The Provost wants to create a new college, the College of the Environment. Our dept., ESS, Oceanography, and several other departments will likely be part of it. You can find a little bit more about it here: http://www.washington.edu/provost/coenv/index.html and also in the most recent Provost's Town Hall Meeting which you can watch here http://www.washington.edu/provost

The Provost wants to increase the awareness of all of the environmental research that is being conducted at the UW and grow the UW's leadership in this area. A statement from the above web page says: "We believe that this College will not only increase the University’s ability to conduct leading-edge research, but will facilitate proactive solution-driven work while simultaneously producing informed, environmentally conscious citizens and leaders."

This makes me wonder is the UW considering doing something similar to what those at ETH did? Does anyone know?

If you search the web for carbon offsets you'll find a lot. There are a number of companies selling them. The amount they charge varies widely for offsetting the same amount of carbon. There is no regulation of the companies in the US so who knows if they are really offsetting what you paid for. I think there is some regulation in countries that have signed the Kyoto protocol but I'm not sure. Also, places like ETH's myclimate.org only accept contibutions in swiss frans and euros which is currently suboptimal for those wanting to contribute in dollars and will likely continue to be for some time. It would great if UW had a web site to collect dollars from those wanting to offset their carbon emissions and have the students, faculty and staff actually do it and at the same time hopefully fund innovations into new and better ways of doing it.

I think UW already has a history of doing things like this, for example, this link says http://uwnews.org/uweek/uweekarticle.asp?articleID=22435 "the 15-year alliance between City Light and the UW has resulted in 350 conservation projects in 293 buildings, resulting in energy savings valued at $19 million." I don't know if UW on its own could offset everything contributors asked for and if they couldn't they need to turn enough money over to places such as myclimate.org to ensure its truly offsetted.

Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change

Halstead wrote:
    Nov. 20, 2007
Hi,

I've written earlier about distastefully arrogant CalTech profs.'Tis pleasant to report a good one, and a good talk yesterday by David Rutledge, the Chair of the division of engineering and applied science there.  Despite a list of honors longer than my arm .. one that impressed me most, an annual award given to one person only, had been given also to six of his students .. Rutledge spoke modestly, convincingly, and well.  His title: "Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change."

Hubbert, by the way, was a geophysicist at the Shell labs who in 1956 predicted finite oil reserves with a shorter horizon to exhaustion than had before been assumed.  Hubbert's "Peak"
refers to the top of a Gaussian curve of production vs time.
Some speculation is now current that we're close to that peak, globally, for oil.  Rutledge's talk was essentially an update and extension of Hubbert's arguments, including Coal.

Firstly, the material underlying this talk, including slides,
an Excel worksheet, and a video, are available on line at
http://rutledge.caltech.edu.  This is better than any precis I may write, so I'll be brief:

Rutledge convinced me that it is probable that our oil and coal reserves are less than any of 40 scenarios considered by the most current IPCC document, and that peak global emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere will most likely occur near 2020, not 2050 or later, as has been assumed.

This assertion is dramatic, it will certainly shake up the
debate, add pressure for the development of alternative energy sources, and .. here's the 'good' news .. act to diminish the upper estimates of climate change.  The worrisome news, in my opinion, is that it will support a premature push towards nuclear power.  [I hold that we should do cheaper things first.]

Some tid-bits from the talk.

1) France has closed its last coal mine.  Germany has only 9
mines presently operating, and plans to close two more in
2009 and 2010.

2) China has ~30,000 active coal mines [!], most small and
inefficient.  It employs ~3,000,000 miners [!], most in
terrible conditions.  [The US peak mine employment was
~300,000, in 1950.  We're now at about 30,000.]  The Tan-
Shan earthquake of 27 July, 1976, killed ~30,000 miners,
trapped underground.  Pollution from burning coal presently
kills ~1,000,000 people a year in China.

3) The amount of coal removed from England and Wales is
equivalent to scraping 6" off the surface of both and
throwing the spoil into the Atlantic ocean.  Coal mining
is not presently economical in Great Britain, but done
anyway, for complex reasons.

4) The US has larger coal reserves than China. Interestingly,much of these are in Montana, which has elected    not to exploit them.  Coal provides ~50% of current US electricity demand.

Do look at the web site.  Do follow the debate that will
certainly follow this provocative study.  And do think about
the consequences of a sooner but lesser maxima for ALL the
IPCC scenarios for CO2 emissions and climate change.

Solar Energy

I'd also like to draw attention to solar technology which may be undergoing some revolutionary advances. Nanosolar will be unveiling its version of photovoltaic technology that claims to bring down the cost of production (the limiting factor at this point) to 60cents per watt, with a markup that probably would make it on a par (for cost with oil) in many energy sectors. Their products will be on the market next year and will be limited by production speed. Adoption of this technology in the U.S. may be slower due to bureaucracy, particularly related to the incorporation of PV technology in the electric grid.

The other question is how effective solar technology would be in Seattle. I believe that 30% efficiency of photon energy conversion is about the best we can expect from solar panels. With combined low sun angles and clouds in Seattle, how much of Seattle could be powered by roof-top solar? We should be able to put together a climatology of radiation from the atg. roof records.

Here are a few articles that I've found regarding Nanosolar:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/30/10-questions-for-nanosolar-ceo-martin-roscheisen/

Another... Call for Action

Greg et al,

Absolutely, a gas tax would be far more effective than this (as you say) pretentious and symbolic effort. But are you willing to draft the legislation or go lobby for it in Olympia? This is something that we can do. No, it's not perfect. But the point is that it's a public way of recognizing that our actions are affecting the planet, of attempting to quantify this impact, and of taking responsibility.

And yes, Chris, many of us already do what we can to reduce our impact, so why not do it publicly?


Our actions can take many forms, and this discussion is hopefully a useful way for us to get to the point of taking action. Who's in? I am.

Kim

More responses - here's what the UW is doing

On Nov 19, 2007 10:25 AM, Marc <> wrote:

The UW decided on its own to purchase electricity that is from 100% renewable sources and has higher cost. See this
http://uwnews.org/uweek/uweekarticle.asp?articleID=22435
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/Green/greenPower/greenup.asp

Therefore it seems plausible the UW could on its own require that say carbon offsets be purchased if an airline provides them when a ticket is purchased. The cost would be spread over all the budgets that buy the tickets.

Short of that an individual faculty could buy the offsets themselves. The value of award travel from frequent flyer miles they receive from university paid trips exceeds the amount of the cost of the carbon offsets for those miles so technically they wouldn't be paying for it.

I think this is a good example to shame people into changing their habits. From
http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/TCI-offset-handout.htm
The average American is responsible for the emissions of about 20 tons of CO2 annually, the average European or Japanese for about half that. If you fly to Europe and back from the US, you’ll add about 3-4 tons to your (already large) carbon footprint. With one flight you will have
caused more emissions than 20 Bangladeshi will cause in a whole year. Unfortunately they are the ones who will lose their homes and livelihood once sea level rise inundates their low lying country.

I overheard a faculty once that said I need to get another trip in this year to make Premier status for next year. This does make one wonder how many trips are really necessary. It would be nice if some large conferences like AGU could be attended virtually. Some computer science
courses I took 10 years ago had 2-way video from UW to Microsoft in Redmond and Intel near Olympia so students didn't have to commute. It not perfect but its a shame more of this isn't being used.

Marc

More responses - here's how you can support changes in legislation

On Nov 19, 2007 10:13 AM, Sarah <> wrote:
All,

It can be argued that the most powerful things to do is to support organizations that *can* help draft the needed legislation, etc.

In the past, I have "offset" my air travel with donations to groups like myclimate.org. More recently, I've taken to making donations instead to groups like Climate Solutions (http://www.climatesolutions.org/) who really are making things happen at the state/regional/national level.

Yes, we should all strive to minimize our personal carbon emissions. But ultimately the solution will need to come from changes in policy that can only come about by electing the right people and supporting those on the ground who are pushing the big-picture solutions forward.

My 2 cents~
Sarah

Trouble really begins - Call for Action 2 and responses...

Here's a somewhat edited (for truth) version of the email thread from Kim...

For the record, I thought X said he'd draft an agreement. My bad.

Halstead and Rob Wood have some great comments about specifics (see previous post).
I would say that we need a task force to address these questions and
join in preparing a draft proposal. The TF should also put together a time
line, propose a flashy name for the effort, and consider spawning additional
tasks-forces to head up:
- a toolkit (co2 calculators, etc);
- a marketing strategy (ie ways to get the wider UW community involved); 
- things like bulletin boards and a website (walls of fame/shame) to keep track of emissions
and promises and to generally hold people accountable.

To address one query, the agreement could certainly have a clause about offsetting
your travel emissions. (Despite not owning a car, my personal and work trips are
killer in this category.) There are many ways this could happen, and I'd like to
hear everyone's suggestions. For those who cannot afford the $50 or more per flight,
perhaps they could volunteer with the Washington Trails Association
(http://wta.org/), EarthCorps (http://www.earthcorps.org), and the like.

These are my ideas and the thoughts of a few others below. Feel free to add your own.

Cheers,
Kim

On Nov 18, 2007 10:01 PM, Greg <> wrote:

Kim et al.,

I'm all for it, but in a tax-averse state like WA, where will the
revenue come from (presumably this policy would cover all state
employees)? I don't see how this can come out of the UW operating budget.

Actually, I would rather see something like a $5 per gallon tax on
gasoline. Although that wouldn't have all the symbolism and pretension
of "covering our carbon footprint," it would limit consumption and force
alternatives. If Olympia buys carbon offsets and our behavior doesn't
change, what's the point?

G

On Nov 18, 2007 11:06 PM, Chris <> wrote:

Dear Kim,

I already work really hard to minimize professional travel, which
is even so the biggest part of my greenhouse footprint. What I will do
is email my NSF program manager to see what it would take to
add greenhouse offsets for a professional trip as an allowable expense
to the grant (ultimately hopefully mandatory, but start small). Perhaps
the incentive is better if we pay personally, but the ethics aren't
correct (we often have little choice about going to meetings, and it is
funding groups that organize them and make PIs attend that really need
to rein themselves in).

Chris

Trouble begins - Call for Action 1 and responses...

Dear X:

So would you be willing to draft and sign a voluntary agreement to reduce
your personal and professional carbon footprint? The agreement could be to
reduce your footprint by X% a year, or to get it below a target amount.

If we the scientists aren't willing to stand up and do something about
global warming, why should the rest of the public? It seems fitting that
the faculty, staff and students in the atmospheric, earth, space and ocean
sciences lead the way for UW and beyond.

...says the alum. I'll sign too, and I'll take it to the wind industry in
Seattle.

Kim


Some responses:

From Rob ------------------------------------------------------

Some thoughts about details:

Can we offset these emissions with carbon credits?

Is it a reduction we are looking for, or just a commitment to emit less

than a certain amount?

Would it include UW travel (in which case, with my 50,000 miles last

year, I'd be in trouble)?

It should certainly include personal travel. I was feeling quite good

about not having a car, but that's almost completely offset by my one
personal trip to the UK (or to Mexico) per year. I now need to do
something more.

Just asking everyone to calculate their emissions would be a good start.

The online calculators are enlightening.

Regards

Rob



From Halstead ------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 18, 2007 4:06 PM, Halstead <>
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, kcomstock wrote:


So would you be willing to draft and sign a voluntary
agreement to reduce your personal and professional carbon
footprint? The agreement could be to reduce your footprint by
X% a year, or to get it below a target amount.


So. Let's talk about this, with explicit formulae
and better numbers. The devil's in the details.

1) My personal carbon footprint shall be calculated
how?

2) Offset costs would be what? Shall these be
computed on the gross, or on the net above average?

3) Personal, or family? Any age adjustment?

4) Can we sign conditionally upon some specified
percent of others signing too?

5) Anything I've forgotten?

Cheers,
Halstead

Responses to the Impetus

On Nov 17, 2007 12:43 PM, Robert <> wrote:
Dear Marcia,

Thanks very much for the information about the carbon compensation at
ETH, and for the links. I looked a little bit online at the
organizations recommended by the Tufts study, and was quite stunned by
what these show. Others may be well aware of this already, but I wasn't:

1. One economy return flight to DC is equivalent in carbon emissions to
driving a mid-sized car 100 miles per week for a year.

2. The true cost of compensating these emissions is of the order $50-100
depending upon the exact details of how the money is spent.

Given how much many of us are expected to travel in our professional
capacities it would make sense for a progressive institution like the
University of Washington to do something about contributing to this
compensation. I wonder if these emissions are being considered in the
UW's plans to reduce their carbon footprint. I couldn't find anything
definitive about this on the UW website.

Regards

Rob

______________________________________________________________

On Nov 17, 2007 2:12 PM, Justin <> wrote:
Rob:

Thanks for highlighting the most key points. These numbers gel very
closely with some back of the envelope calculations I did myself several
years ago with respect to air travel. I found that as a VERY rough rule
of thumb, the fuel use per person for air travel on a fair full typical
jet used for domestic travel (e.g. a 737) is approximately equal to the
fuel use of driving the same distance by yourself in a car that gets 30
mpg. The range of deviation across different size planes etc, passenger
loads etc is probably about that of the range across the current
spectrum of passenger cars.

Justin

___________________________________________________

On Nov 17, 2007 2:23 PM, Halstead <> wrote:

After awhile, cyclists' minds turn to trivia: estimating your
speed in parsecs/millenia, for example. I never checked it in
the sobriety of leisure, but remember one exercise that
convinced me that the cost of sugar to propel me a mile was
comparable to the cost of gasoline to propel my car that
same mile. Now, I wonder, how much I should charge for the
carbon emission. I'll work on it, next trip to the U.

Cheers,
Halstead

___________________________________________________


On Nov 18, 2007 4:26 AM, Chris <> wrote:
Dear Justin,

It's not quite so bad with modern jets, more like 60-80 person-miles
per gallon flying full (or putting two people in that economy car)
according to a Wikipedia fuel efficiency article and a web site from the
Air Transport Action Group. At least, airlines are improving the fuel
economy of planes while tightened CAFE standards for cars and light
trucks languish in Washington.

Chris

___________________________________________________


etc

Impetus: Message from Marcia

Starting from the beginning - a message was sent from Marcia to all_users on Nov 14.

Marcia wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> To All
> I have just returned from ETH, Zurich, where they have initiated two
> programs some of you may be interested in:
>
> 1. They 'compensate' all Carbon and aerosol emissions related to
> professional travel,
> using calculations by the organization MyClimate (see below).
> MyClimate was initiated and developed by graduate students at ETH and
> is one of four similar organizations receiving top grades in a recent
> Tufts University study. Lufthansa and Swiss Air routinely ask if you
> want to pay the extra bit to pay for the compensations.
> ETH pays the fees for all professional travel by its employees.
>
> To contact MyClimate: kathrin.dellantonio@myclimate.org or just go to
> http://www.myclimate.org.
>
> Maybe future conferences here could encourage voluntary participation
> in such a program.
>
> 2. A group at ETH developed the idea of the '2000 Watt' society
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Watt_society)
> which seems like an interesting benchmark to include in public
> presentations. (The hard part is converting the 'therms' from our
> energy bills to Watts.)
>
> Marcia