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.

The Water Footprint

I. The Water Footprint

At a recent conference in Stockholm, Dutch engineer Arjen Hoekstra presented his idea of a water footprint. Similar to the carbon footprint concept, the water footprint attempts to quantify impact in terms of water use and pollution. Hoekstra's footprint accounts both for direct use of water as well as "virtual use" - water used to produce goods consumed. While the carbon footprint remains a bit ethereal, water quantities seem more tangible. Thus, the water footprints Hoekstra generated for some common products are astounding and troublesome - a cup of coffee requires 140 liters (almost 40 gallons) of water; 2,400 liters (~634 gallons) for a hamburger; and 10,000 liters (over 2,600 gallons) of water for a pair bluejeans.

As I have noted previously, assessing the real environmental impact of our activities, lives, or the goods we consume requires a comprehensive analysis, one that is not simply limited to carbon or water. However, I qualified that statement by saying that effective measures must be quantifiable and accessible and that concepts like the carbon footprint are one step in making that comprehensive analysis relatively quantifiable. The water footprint is another building block. Some weighty corporations and organizations - The UN, Nestle, Pepsi, the World Wildlife Federation - have bought into the concept. As its use becomes more widespread, the water footprint will permit a more in-depth environmental analysis of activities, products, and services.

The advent of the water footprint is also quite timely. Even if its unidimensional analysis in inherently limited, as I argued in regard to the carbon footprint, the water footprint will help to spotlight the current worldwide water use paradigm, for which "unsustainable" does no justice. Hoekstra contends that his virtual water quantification could help remedy this situation. Thinking in terms of virtual water - the amount of water consumed or polluted in producing particular goods - nations can quantify the water impact of their imports and exports.

Hoekstra's aim seems to be to eliminate agriculture in all arid (or otherwise unsuitable) regions of the world; he would rather see import and export trade offs, measured in terms of virtual water. However, his water footprint, by nature, does not account for other consequences of such a change - the effects on local, regional, and national economics; the environmental impact of then necessarily transporting crops and goods across the globe, just to name a few. Even with those shortcomings, the fact that such conversations are now on the table is encouraging. I do believe that, one day soon, Mother Earth will cast off the bounds of technical innovation that man believes have subdued her. The global community should anticipate and prepare for that series of events, rather than react as they occur.

II. Water in the U.S.

Thinking about water use and pollution, I also want to turn briefly to water in the U.S., a situation some have described as a crisis. On this site, I have specifically mentioned the battle over water supply to Atlanta, and while that particular scenario has made headlines in the past year, it is not unique. In a guest column to the Washington Post, Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona, says simply that the "U.S. water supply is running out." He cites several possible solutions - desalinization, reuse of municipal waste water, stringent conservation; he also recognizes that none of these on their own would solve our problems.

Glennon makes two general observations that I want to highlight. First, he characterizes the U.S. water "shortage" in terms of the water:population ratio. In addition to depleting ancient and slow-to-replenish aquifers, U.S. water demand grows as the populations continues to increase. Like many other environmental problems, water issues emanate from the simple concept of carrying capacity - an expression of the population that a particular habitat can sustain. As Glennon points out, there are several means by which to mitigate the U.S. water supply concerns - finding new sources (desalinization); reuse (i.e., reuse of wastewater); reducing use. But none of these represents a singular fix, and they each come with their own drawbacks. Without me saying anything else on this topic, you can all infer that the conversation becomes much more difficult and controversial from this point . . . .

The second of Glennon's points that I want to emphasize is the commoditization of water in the U.S., or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. Certainly, water rights are bought, sold, bartered for, and exchanged by municipalities, corporations, and private parties. But end users pay fees that essentially cover utility providers' operation costs. In other words, the water itself is free. Glennon likens increased water fees to surges in gasoline prices. During the last peak in gasoline prices, sales of fuel efficient cars spiked, public transportation ridership increased, and many people chose to drive less when possible. Glennon posits that increased fees for water usage would spur similar conservation efforts as individual users sought to save money. (This is a concept I have also advocated; see "The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply.")

The take-home point of this post is that water's place an environmental concern should not be overshadowed by other hot-button issues. This is true both in the U.S. and across the globe. As I usually do, I will remind all readers that each of us can do our part to chip away at these crisis situations by being conscious and thoughtful in our daily activities.

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.