Dealing with THAT holiday issue . . .

As our first Christmas as parents approached this holiday season, my wife and I have been thinking about how we want to deal the Santa Claus issue.  The decision is a delicate one, thanks in no small part to the diversity of the popular options.  There are, of course, the two extremes.  On one hand is the full-on, red-clad, bearded Santa with a weight problem and a team of magic ruminants.  Despite his husky waistline, magic Santa finds his way down chimneys of all shapes and sizes but manages to never burn himself on the odd glowing ember that doubtless remains in some homes from a hearty Christmas Eve fire.  He also carries a bag big enough (and rides in a sleigh big enough) to hold gifts for each and every child in the world.  Well, for each "nice" child, anyway.  Despite some blatant logic gaps, this Santa Claus option has worked well enough for many people over the years.

The other extreme is, obviously, No Santa.  While this option lacks the logic problems and seeming implausibilities that plague Santa, it is far from clean and simple, for one primary reason.  No one wants his kid to be the one that pontificates to his first-grade class:

"Well, my Daddy says that Santa Claus is not real.  Moreover, my Daddy says that the concept of Santa Claus as portrayed particularly in the United States is both illogical and implausible.  Flying reindeer?  Come on, people!  Yes, we're only six, but are we idiots?  Squeezing that fat butt down a chimney?  Have you looked at how wide your chimney is?  Two words, three syllables - lo-gic gap."

I do not (and should not) have to say anymore for you to get the idea that while No Santa might technically be closer to absolute truth, its complication arises from contradiction of socially validated knowledge.

So neither Santa nor No Santa are the ideal option.  There is certainly a spectrum of compromise between the two as well as a host of new alternatives such as The Elf on the Shelf, which some friends have used with success.  I think, though, that ultimately I will formulate a response that takes the high road on the personal application of Santa principles to our child(ren).  The response would also give my kid the chance to show that he is not only aware of relevant political and social issues but also prematurely burdened by the problems plaguing global society.  The response begins with a simple yet powerful foundational assumption.

Santa finally lost the battle against exponential population growth.  I imagine this discussion going something like this:

"Look, son, the reason Santa can't visit our house has nothing to do with you.  I promise.  The explanation is simple.  Do you know what the global population is?  As of December 22, 2009, it was estimated to be 6,791,500,000.  And in 2006, almost 30% of that population was under the age of 15.  So, that's over 2 billion children that Santa has to visit . . .  

The Naughty List?  Does Santa even use that thing anymore?  I don't think so.  

No . . . no . . . look, that's 2 billion children to visit in one night.  And those are old statistics.  No magic reindeer, not even with extra rocket propulsion (see Elf), can cover that much air space in one night.  Christmas's long night due to its proximity to the winter solstice doesn't even help Santa that much anymore.  

What's that?  You ask if Santa doesn't use the Naughty List, how does he choose who to visit?  Hmmm, well, it's, you know, a variety of factors.  

Are they equally weighted or a balancing test?  It depends.  Why don't you ask your Mom.  All I know is that the overpopulation of the earth is causing dire problems beyond nutritive food shortages, water crises, over-exploitation of resources, and climate change.  

Yes, you can still write a letter to Santa and wish him luck with the population problem.  

And, yes, we can CC the President as well."

That foundation sets the stage for use of any number deciding factors that have absolutely nothing to do with a child's personal responsibility, such as:

(Aside: Are you starting to see what kind of grave you dig for yourself with this whole Santa business?)

Santa only visits children in countries that are taking affirmative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I thought about going with a "Santa only visits children who are actively reducing their carbon footprints" explanation, but that only creates another incarnation of the Naughty-Nice List, and that's not what I am looking for.  But putting the burden on national governments relieves the pressure of assigning a Naughty or Nice designation to your own child.

Its not unlike this Saturday Night Live Blue State Santa cartoon.  In this scenario, children suffer from the ignorance and poor judgment of their jurisdiction's voters.  Their own naughty behavior, if we would even call it that, has nothing to do with Santa's absenteeism.  There are a host of people for children to blame for Kris Kringle's truancy, aside from themselves, of course.  Government officials, voters, even parents are fair game.

Other versions of this Santa explanation could revolve around progressive health care schemes, transportation policy, etc.  The choices are endless, you can pick your favorite pet issue, and you can foster some socially conscious discussion around the Christmas dinner table.  Win-win-win.

Fortunately for me (and my son), he's not old enough this Christmas to require a Santa explanation.  That gives me another 11 months or so to iron out the wrinkles.  Or to come up with something better entirely.  One or the other.

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.

Reducing Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions Through Building Code Reform

As Edward Mazria explores in his piece, "Oh, those sexy building codes," the real key to both reducing energy consumption and dependent carbon emissions in the U.S. is tackling the problem in the small scale. Mazria demonstrates, with projected data, how the building code requirements of Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) would have a greater impact on carbon emissions than would building 100 nuclear power plants. The nuclear plants would reduce carbon emissions; however, those plants would merely serve as a replacement for other energy sources and not affect actual energy consumption.

On the other hand, Mazria's article reveals an opportunity to dramatically impact both energy consumption and carbon emissions. The built environment is in constant flux, and Mazria states that between now and 2050, 75% of the current built environment will have either been renovated or rebuilt. According to Mazria, assigning energy requirements to each of these projects will, in concert, reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions by close to 50% of current projections by 2050.

Mazria's article illustrates a point that I made in my initial post discussing the concept of sustainability. Effective change at a small scale is much simpler and much more accessible at this time than a top-down, heavy-handed regulation scheme. The key, of course, to that statement is quantity. Individual decision makers must be convinced of the benefits - economics, environmentalism, morality, publicity, self-satisfaction, etc. - of making a sustainability decision in order for the concerted effort to be effective. To mandate that decision, to some extent, is certainly one solution, as is offering tax breaks, energy rebates, mortgage benefits, or other incentives. Ideally, an individual would examine her role in and her effect on her community and make decisions that are as mutually beneficial as possible. But, if some mandatory encouragement is necessary to spur such thinking, I can live with that.