Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Green Heaven
I saw today where a friend had posted this video. While I do value the contribution the artist has made to society both in terms of a piece of artwork and as a statement to bring people to a greater awareness of the world in which we live, I'm not entirely sure it's something I can get behind as a viable transportation alternative. Of course there are unsustainable costs to our continuing to live in a car-centric culture, but likewise are there costs to living in a horse-centric culture. Simply our infrastructure from one to the other is not necessarily a good and green idea. I don't know what all of those costs are, mind you, but the post and the discussion it sparked have now got me interested. I thought I'd try and do a little research and comparison.
Upfront the base MSRP of a 2008 H2 is around $53K. I'm not at all sure what a decent horse would run (looking into it); whatever it is would not accurately reflect what the cost would be if everyone ditched their cars and started riding them. With such a rise in demand the price would go up as well. In addition to what it costs at the outset, there is the cost based on mileage - which, for cars, is not limited to the price of gas x miles per gallon. Maintenance and depreciation figure into the equation as well, and these "hidden costs" raise the dollar figure significantly, though offhand I don't know by how much. I remember someone did... a study... or something, that took everything into account. Have to see if I can find that again. I have no idea what the cost per mile for a horse would be, either, but that's also something I'm looking into.
As far as environmental impact is concerned, according to one study driving cars results in emissions of about 2 to 5 tons of CO2 each year, depending on vehicle model and fuel efficiency1. My assumption is that horses are more efficient than cars, but by how much remains to be seen. I know that with livestock production there are more hidden costs associated with things like land and resources required to grow feed, but not being a horse person I don't know how those would apply. Also, waste would be an issue. As far as the "poop-poop-a-do" is concerned, at least it's biodegradable and could maybe even be used as fertilizer. (Except... how much poop can a horse poop? How many people are there who drive cars, and how high would that pile of poop reach when it's all added up? Would it be less or more than we actually need? Cause if it's more, then it kinda defeats the purpose and becomes more of a waste than a resource.) Although horses would not be putting out CO2, they and/or their waste would, I think, release other not-so-nice like methane and nitrous oxide. I hear tell those are even worse in way of their greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Fifty times worse, in the case of methane. Which brings up the question: do manatees emit methane? Cause if they do, manatee farts are destroying the planet. Kill the manatees, save the Earth!
In the midst of this research, I found a few fun facts:
~Apparently there is a tax break that applies to purchasing giant gas-guzzling behemoths. It wasn't originally meant to favor large vehicles over smaller and more efficient models, but with the letter of the law that's how it works out these days. Ew.
~It's more environmentally friendly to live meat-free than it is to live car-free. While looking for research on what would happen if the world rode horses I came across an interesting article on being a Prius-driving vegan vs. a meat-eating cyclist. It's not a very large difference, only about half a ton of carbon dioxide in favor of vegans, but still it's a surprising and not exactly pleasant thing to learn. I LIKE meat. But it would seem the best of us would be a vegan cyclist... though I don't know that I'm ready to take that step just yet. Another thing to keep in mind.
1. Am I going to have to start citing sources for blog posts? This is not something I had ever contemplated... In this instance the study in question is by , and is based on driving about 8,300 miles annually. I haven't actually read the study itself; the numbers I give were pulled from an article I found on it.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Green Heaven
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The "animals output of CO2 and methane is killing the environment" is a red herring. The planet used to have vast herds of bison, caribou, wild cattle, etc., etc., etc., etc. and somehow didn't explode in flames.
Do they emit? Yep. But it's a closed loop. They emit, plant life takes it out of the atmosphere, and the animals eat the plants. Just a loop. No *net* effect.
Fossil fuels aren't part of that short term loop. They're millions of years of sequestered C02 being vented into the atmosphere in a geological instant. Thus the atmosphere's doubling of CO2 during humanity's relatively recent history (deforestation being part of that--it's not getting to close the loop, the forests don't grow back; we're farming on it). At current rates, we'll triple it...
Animal farts aren't going to kill us.
But the methane leaking from the seafloor clathrates and thawing permafrost could blow the lid off the picture--we're dancing the edge of that volcano. Once that starts to go in a big way, we'll be past the point where shutting off the use of fossil fuels could stop it; we'll have passed the tipping point.
I wouldn't call it a red herring... That was more of an attempt at levity. Taking all of this stuff seriously all the time is, quite frankly, scary as all get out. At current trends the tipping point is something we'll surely shortly reach, and there are some arguments that in fact we already HAVE, which is pretty depressing. I don't really think manatee farts will lead to our destruction. It's not like there are all that many manatees left anyway, so... not a big concern.
Post a Comment