Hi everybody!

Everyday on my way home, I see long lines of cars with a single person in them. They move at very slow speed, 10-20 km/h at most and are constantly starting and stopping. This is what makes the commute the worst part of the day for so many people. And I know you have been exposed to this as well.

While those drivers slowly crawl toward their homes, buses, trams and other means of public transportation drive by them in special lanes. The public transit is warmer, noisier and crowded, but also faster in this situation. But for some reason people still choose to commute by car.

Of course, I look at it from a North European point of view. Gothenburg have a good public transit system with special lanes for buses and for bicycles. Real time updates on when the bus/tram will arrive is a natural thing. It is easy to promote non car alternatives in those circumstances. But even in places with less developed transit systems it is often possible to switch to a bus commute.

Do you remember when I discussed commute chains?. Lets repeat the concept. If you calculate the time and cost of driving from point A to B, and then calculate the time and cost of taking the bus to the train station, hopping on to a train and so on, and compare those to to taking the bike to the train/bus station, you might be surprised to find that little time is lost, but time for work and/or relaxation and exercise is added. Sounds complicated? It only takes two minutes with Commute Greener!

One of the benefits of doing this kind of calculation is that it shows how much time is spent idly sitting in the car while waiting for the line to start moving. That is after all a huge source of stress, especially in cities with long commutes and vast amount of traffic. Perhaps it is possible to cycle to the bus station, and take a bus from there?

The bottom line is that something have to be done to reduce traffic jams during rush hour. Public transportation is one area with large potential for improvement, if only the politicians and city planers understand that more roads for more cars is like pouring gasoline on the fire. If more people used mass transit, and commute chains became a more common subject, we might even raise awareness about environmental, health and wealth benefits of a public commute.

Well, that’s all for today. Have a nice day, follow us on twitter and facebook, watch us on youtube and use the new facebookapp.

By the way, vacation time have started here in Sweden, so there will not be as many updates for a while. Have a nice summer everyone!

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi! I’m back!

I found a very interesting article about acid rain today. Do you remember when I wrote about NOx, and mentioned acid rain? This little problem, that have fallen from the spotlight have crawled its way up into the debate again.

Time to harp on drivers again! No, I’m kidding. But CO2 aside, transportation is a huge source of pollution. Particles, NOx, sulphur (mostly from ships) and runoff can do nasty things to our beloved environment. Acid rain is one of those things. It works like this:

Acid rain picture from Wikipedia Commons

In the 70′s and 80′s, sulphur was the main villain. Three-way-converters (a Volvo innovation by the way)  became more common in cars, and NOx from transportation was thought to be more or less a non-issue. (And that is why the picture don’t show it as a contributor, but the principle is the same.) Coal power plants got strict regulations on sulphur emissions, as did petrol manufacturers. So, problem solved, right?

Well, no. We still had the problem of fertilizers, one of the dirtiest but most important parts of the green revolution. And no, I don’t mean the wave of eco-friendliness that moves like a tsunami over the internet right now. I mean agriculture wave during the 50′s that is still in progress today… Fertilizer leak nitrogen via runoff from fields and through vaporising. And it is the biggest contributor to acid rain there is. This is old news, and lots are being done to change this.

The second biggest contributor to acidification used to be coal plants, but with the vast number of vehicles that are on the roads today it is no surprise that transportation have taken that place. Vehicles today are much cleaner and more effective than old ones, but there are a significantly higher number of cars and trucks on the roads today. You can see where I am going with that argument.

What is so bad about acid rain then? Well, excessive acidification damages plants, and may destroy sensitive limnic (freshwater) ecosystems. Acid lakes contain little life, and many types of trees can’t grow in acid soil. In urban areas acid rain damages concrete buildings and wither stonework. Take a look at an old statue that have been exposed to acid rain… not a pretty sight:

Damaged by acid rain

And as of late, the acidification of the oceans have become a focus in the environmental debate. I must admit that I don’t know enough to comment on this, but it does sound scary…

But what do we do about this problem? Well, I’m no scientist, and even if I was I wouldn’t have the answer. Many things play a part here, as in every subject of environmental science. However, we will have to stop our excessive driving. Telecommuting (ie working from home), public transportation, new infrastructure to let bike riders commute safely, etc will play a huge role in coming to terms with many problems. But it is not a total solution. There is no complete solution that I know of yet. Feel free to link to any research to prove me wrong, as I am always looking for things like that.

But once again, you who use Commute Greener!, and everyone that choose public transportation or zero emission alternatives are playing a part for a better environment. Not only are you helping the reduction of the worlds carbon emissions, you are helping the reduction of acidification (the result of acid rain) and many different things. You can feel proud of yourselves!

I hope you have found this interesting. I did! Remember to follow us on twitter and facebook and to Commute Greener!

I’m off for today

Fredrik

Teams Championship Formula 1 launched an ambitious program to reduce their carbon emissions. Measures applicable both on and off the track.

Formula 1 environment can sometimes mix. FOTA, the association of all the F1 teams, is to mandate Trucost, an organization dedicated to research and environmental analysis. This collaboration aims to reduce championship emissions of carbon dioxide significantly.

New measures should target the supply of raw materials and logistics organization. Contrary to popular belief, the activity of cars on the track only reject a small proportion of total CO ² rejected in a world championship. It would also introduce the use of engines more efficient in energy terms.

Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren boss and FOTA, said “it has been possible to reduce total rejections of CO ² in Formula 1.” The reduction target is 12.4% for next year. Less than the average target of Commute Greener! users

Hi everyone!

This Monday, I went of on a rant about transportation, campaigns and some other stuff. Today, I red an article at grist.org. It is about the rather pessimistic tone the environmental debate have taken in USA, were the “left” wing present ideas to solve environmental problems and the right wing shoots them down, in the name of the market. This is a very simplified picture of course. And I am sure it isn’t totally like this in USA.

But it does raise a couple of new questions that I have touched before. The government need to understand that the car isn’t sacred, and that mass transit actually is a good thing. The car isn’t sacred, as the Michael Linds article that the Grist article was based on seems to assume. It is true that rich countries have a higher density of cars, as people can afford them. Does that mean that public transportation isn’t an option in the future, especially in urban areas? And the reason many drive to work from the suburbs is 1) habit and 2) lack  of descent mass transit systems. So when new suburbs are built, make sure there are bus-lines! Trains may be expensive, but buses use the same infrastructure as the rest of the traffic. This is how it is done in Sweden, at least in cities that think ahead.

Michael Lind is right on one thing though… Asphalt may not be exciting, but new and low particle emitting asphalt is something to pay out for. It reduces wear and tear on the road, noise, particles and lowers fuel consumption, and thereby CO2 and NOx…
But the bottom line is that there have to be an attitude shift. I have said that before, haven’t I. Both from the politicians point of view and from the people. I am not talking about USA here, but in general. While the European governments are less conservative and are more keen on discussing CO2, there is still to much discussion and to little action. And climate denialists and traditionalists exist here to. The difference is that religion is less of an issue in the politic game in Europe and the climate model is the norm. I am not going to harp about religion being bad, because in itself there is nothing wrong with being religious. Hiding behind it or using the argument “god wants it” is a bit medieval though, right?

Ok, I got sidetracked again… Sorry. Attitude shifts… I really think that the conservative wing, regardless of continent view environmentalists as smug, self righteous, smug hippies. And there are many of them around. You know who you are! Many seems to hate cars, or even development. But is this how most people who work with environmental issues are. Is this how most interested persons out there are? Once again, to much focus is placed in the wrong places. Get serious and see opportunities instead of sticking the head in the sand. So much could be done for the environment if one started to look for opportunities. Wind and solar power and publit transportation are some of those opportunities. In Europe, they have expanded. Why haven’t they in North America? With the oil-spill, declining amount of fossil fuels, climate change, thinning glaciers and disturbed weather, it is time to open our eyes!

Well, I’m off. I have some statistics to finish. Have a nice one, and remember to follow us on facebook and twitter, and to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi!

It’s been a while since I wrote about environmental problems. Ranting is just more fun, especially at the end of the day. But while writing yesterday, I realised I have forgotten one of the more important but obscure environmental problems; VOC’s. This is why I love environmental issues; there are always more angles to look at, and more contributing factors.

Ok, what the heck is a VOC? Yep it’s another of those funny letter-codes that no one gets. VOC stands for Volatile Organic Compound. These compounds come from MANY sources. Natural VOC like turpentine come from pine trees while common anthropogenic sources are paint, fuel, printers (the ink) building material and combustions. This group of substances is as varied as a high school, and just as unruly. The VOC group include everything from carbon monoxide and turpentine to formaldehyde and pesticides. The only common ground is that they have a carbon base and mix with the air in gaseous form. Many VOCs are carcinogenic like benzene and carbon compounds are a part of the smog-build up chain. So we need to take it seriously, don’t you agree. Added to that most chemicals we use in day to day life and in industry emit VOCs during use and storage and we have a problem. Even dry products like impregnated wood and furniture release a steady stream of organic compounds.

VOC’s are an environmental problem, but mostly in an indoor environment. Malls and buildings with indoor parking spaces can have high levels of benzene. During my studies, some students tested benzene levels in one of Gothenburg’s largest malls with adsorbent tubes and air pumps. The levels were higher then it should have been as air got filtrated down from the garage on the third floor.

(Fun story from this survey; if I remember correctly, there were some very funny readings when the first tube was analysed… it turned out that a random junkie had decided to smoke under the equipment, and I’m not talking about tobacco here. I wish was there to see the students faces when they saw TBC on the analysis results).

Truth to be told, VOCs are unavoidable. When we drive, take the bus, ride a bike, or were clothes we contribute to the emissions of VOCs. But much is being done for cleaner air. One example is that PFOS (a substance used as fire retardant) is being phased out.Fire retardants in general are developed to release as little as possible now, but there have been a huge increase in flame-proof clothing, furniture and machinery…

By using public transportation we can reduce a number of environmental problems, but this is one we will never be totally free from. And most of them do no real harm to humans anyway. You need a high and long term exposure to benzene to get cancer, or develop other problems. Smog is another issue that need to be addressed, but it is more common to approach that issue from the NOx angle.

I hope you have found this interesting. If you want more information, check out US EPA, they have good information about VOC and a number of other subjects. And if you have questions, feel free to ask here or at facebook or twitter.

I’m off to lunch!

Fredrik

Hi!

Somehow, I survived the midsummer traffic. I’m amazed how smooth it went, despite rail repairs and hot weather.The train was even on schedule.

Anyway, I have been toying with some ideas lately. The commute is the least favourite part of the day for most people, yet one of the habits they are least inclined to change. Do we need a paradigm shift? Is this the politicians responsibility, or do the change have to come from the grass roots? And more importantly, why do people hate the commute?

Transportation is one of the largest contributors to environmental problems. CO2, NOx, particles, VOC’s (I haven’t written about them yet, right?), ozone and smog are no brainers, and many know about at least some of the problems.  Runoff from roads and chemicals from washing at the driveway are other important problems that are often forgotten. Considering all these issues, why do the society promote driving over every other mode of transportation?

Not that driving have to be a bad thing. It is after all a good way to travel long distances in a short time. There are many ways to reduce the environmental impact from driving, like eco driving, pumping up the tires and getting rid of roof boxes.

London, Shanghai, Copenhagen, Berlin, and many other cities all over the world is upgrading their public transportation system. Shanghai is buying electric buses, London is getting new double deckers. Bike lanes and a good environment is high on the agenda for the politicians. In North America it seems like public transportation is for the poor or for losers. I don’t want to offend anyone, but this is the impression I get. If you can afford it, you have to have a car.

I wonder if awareness campaigns like bike-to-work day, and all the nudist cyclist events actually does anything good. They reach people that are interested in the environment, but do they change any habits or actually raise awareness? I don’t know, but I doubt it. They raise a commotion, people look at those crazy hippies, and continue with their life like they always have. Names of the bigger forums is an issue in close relation to this. Take Treehugger for example, a site I absolutely love. That name is catchy, but I don’t think it impresses people not interested in the environment (or people that really love trees:-) )

What I’m getting at here is that there need to be a shift of focus from the top. Trying to scare people with climate change and standing over them with the whip is not the way to go, but there have to be campaigns aimed at regular people, based on actual traceable facts from a governmental standpoint. A real effort to get people to get out of the car and looking for other modes of transportation. At the same time, the grassroots have to understand that there are other ways to get around then driving. We all need look beyond our noses and realize that oil isn’t going to be an option in the future. And politicians and regular people alike must realize that saving our globe cost money. Environmental taxes ARE needed, as is stricter regulations like US EPA’s newest rules and Californians assembly bill 32. Deal with it.

Enough ranting for today. You know the drill, follow us on facebook, check out the new application, follow us on twitter, watch our videos at youtube and take a look at our flikr account.

I’m out of here

Fredrik

Hi! Today’s entry is a bit shorter then usual!

The whole of  Sweden celebrates midsummer this weekend. It is an old pagan holiday that have become one of our most important celebrations of all year. This is the Swedish holiday that has given us a reputation as crazy frog imitating weirdoes in the rest of the world. A reputation we are rather fond of actually. It is true, we do dress up in folk-costumes/traditional clothing (some do at least) and dance around huge maypoles while dancing like frogs. At least families with children.

With the holiday comes  huge increases in traffic, and the public transportation system fill up to the bursting point. This have a logical explanation; people are travelling to meet their friends and families. There are one additional explanation to; alcohol. “Don’t drink and drive” is a very common proverb in Sweden… Something other countries should take after. And midsummer is one of our national drinking holidays.

I myself will fight the crowds and try to get a train ticket on one of the more popular train commute lines. I’m really looking forward to that . It will be everything most car commuters believe public transportation to be. Hot, sweaty, loud and slow. Hooray for holiday traffic!

A good thing to have days like this, when the stress level is running high and you rush to get on the train/bus is real time information. Just knowing when the bus will come and being able to plan ahead eases some of the stress. Other cities around the world, particularly the bigger ones, have systems like this to. If you live in a city that don’t have one, ask your politicians for a system like this…

Enough said about that. Portable devices are always good too. There are a number of local apps for Iphone and Android, developed by local public transit companies. One app me and Magnus found interesting was Transporter.

It seems good, especially a day like this. Find an app that suits you, it might make your commute easier.

Well, I’m off to fight the crowds. You know the drill, follow us on facebook and twitter, watch our videos on youtube, use our new app and remember to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi!

The series on environmental problems is not over yet. After all, we have loads of the stuff, and I try to cover as much as possible. I have ranted a bit about climate and the climate debate, but let’s bring it down to a more personal level. After all, CO2 and the other pollutants are difficult to visualize.

I red an interesting article yesterday on SolveClimate.com. It was about visualization of the carbon dioxide footprint. When I was working with carbon emissions, I usually gave results in metrics. “You have released so and so many kilograms of carbon dioxide, and must save so and so much.”  Not the best way of presenting the issue. The way Commute Greener! does it is better, showing progress and giving some examples of what the CO2 savings really amounts to. But the concept of a “carbon dioxide blanket” or a carbon dioxide balloon is just wonderfully illustrative! And it is important, as most western countries have huge CO2 footprints.

So what is the different countries carbon dioxide footprints? Well, lets just say that the west have big feet… at least if you look at the footprint. USA have a staggering 20 tonnes/person/year, most European countries have about 10. Countries that work hard on energy efficiency and transportation efficiency have much lower per capita values, for example about 5-6 for France and Sweden (yep, I had to bring Sweden up as the good guys).

But what does this mean? USA will have to do a lot of CO2 savings to cut their emissions. Industry and transportation are big contributors, even though they are getting better with better technology. And USA is a huge trade nation, selling anything from grain to electronics and cars, so focusing on cutting emissions from transportation may be very important. But better, safe and affordable public transportation is needed, as well as safe bicycle lanes. An overall change of attitude is needed and possible, as shown in California and many other states.

Europe and the rest of the world need to do the same. We travel way to much, eat way to much imported food, have inefficient transportation and in rural areas a car is needed. The difference is that EU can move somewhat fast (in governmental terms, ie. there is a bit less political bickering) compared to other countries as the global warming problem is widely accepted by all politicians. Most leaders are very interested in the environment and some fight very passionate for quick changes based on science.

But enough politics. We all saw how it went at COP 15. We all have to pitch in after all. Changing commuting habits is one important part, at least in my opinion. So many could probably use sustainable transportation instead of driving to work. But that is not enough of course, even if it is a huge step in the right direction. Low energy lamps, or even LED save  money on the energy bill as well as save resources. Yes, low energy lamps contain mercury, which is an environmental toxin, but so does strip lights that we use both at home and in the office. Handle them with care and that isn’t a problem.  Try to buy near produced food, at least from the same country you live in. We are all sick of these kind of advise but the small efforts adds up and make it easier to get used to the change. We all have a responsibility to reduce our carbon dioxide footprints.

That’s it for today. As always, follow us on facebook and twitter.

I’ll end with a question today. Are there any topics you would like me to write about? Or feedback on Commute Greener! Feel free to drop a line here, on facebook or email us your opinions. You opinions are important to us!

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi everybody!

Changing habits can be really hard, right? Who haven’t promised to give up smoking, loose weight, drink less or start going to the gym. I know I have (well not smoking… that is one habit I just don’t get). The same is true with the commute. Most people seems to  complain about their commute. It is boring, take to much time, is straining and hundreds of other things. And most people seems to drive to work. And in Europe were bicycle is a common mode of transportation many promise to ride the bike to work during the summer. Many do it for a week and get tired of it.

Changing commuting habits is the same as changing any habits. You have to make a commitment, the family/co-workers need to be supportive etc. I would like to share a couple of tips on the way to changing habits.

1. ) One thing at a the time! This is usually were I fall. I always try to change to much to fast. Start small, like taking the bus/bicycle one day a week. Get used to that first.
2. ) Commitment! This is why some competition is good. It is easier to commit to something if you have others to compare yourself to. If you start to get sloppy with habitual changes, they will not succeed. We all know this, right? Write down your progress (easy with Commute Greener!), and set a fixed date to use alternative transportation (ie. every Friday or something like this) and stick to it.
3. ) Support! Get others to support you. It is easier to do things in a group. And much more fun. Get together in a group and ride the bus together, or share the car. Or, if everyone around you refuse, join an online community and discuss with other commuters. There are lots of websites for this out there. And the 100 % man Jan Arvidsson (as well as his colleagues) have shown what a bit of support can do for morale.
4. ) Support others! If other people try to change commuting habits, support them. Do unto others and so on.
5. ) Reward yourself! It is easy to just see the whip, and not the carrot when one commit to a change of habits. Don’t do this. Make it fun and interesting instead of difficult and boring. Buy a new book to read, and keep getting interesting reading material, get a new pair of walking shoes or other clothing. But make it feel like a real reward!
6. ) Track the results! Keep track of your results. Use Commute Greener! and all tools you can get your hands on. But be careful to monitor your progress carefully.

Oh, and don’t nag others about following your example. It is not polite, and have the opposite effect. Plus, there are many ways to go about it that is not as offensive. I wouldn’t even bring it up but I have encountered too many extremists in my day…

Well, I think this is all for the day. I have some other things to do today. Keep following us on facebook, twitter and remember to Commute Greener!

By the way, try our new app on facebook. It let you update your Commute Greener! status and progress to facebook. Think of the bragging rights

/

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi everyone!

It is time to talk about climate change again. And Science! YAY!

I know, I have gone on about climate change before. I’m not going to repeat myself (even if I am an expert at that). A dark shadow have lurked its way into the scientific climate “debate”. While “Climate Gate” wasn’t the start, it has gotten peoples attention. And now scientists are being verbally assaulted and threatened. In my opinion that is not acceptable. Not on any level.

I actually appreciate that climate deniers exist. If they didn’t, laymen wouldn’t be interested in climate science. Media wouldn’t be as interested either. Scientists would have no real reason explain their results in a somewhat simple way so ordinary people could understand, and even though the peer review system has always been very throughout, it will have to be extra tough now. And that leads to higher quality, at least in theory.

However, the deniers have their negative effects to. The “debate” of today holds very low standard, with name calling and other childish behaviour. This is a common on BOTH sides of the fence. Just choose a random environmental forum and take a look.

But to threaten climatic scientists? What is the point in that? What have they done wrong, other then doing their job? If anyone wants the climate change to not exist it is the climate scientists. And what do you really accomplish by threatening a climatologist?  It is not like the science will go away, or that the CO2 emissions will stop affecting the climate (oh yea, they don’t believe this is true… oh well). Violence and bullying have no place in serious discussions, or in a democracy. And come on, why is this behaviour not getting more attention in media? This is a serious issue.

Global warming is the best model of explanation of what is happening with our globe. A majority of the scientists agree. This does not make the climate change model 100%  true. Science doesn’t work that way after all.

If climate change is all a big fake (what a relief that would be) we may have gotten a better world with our technological and social changes anyway. If it does exist like a majority of the climate scientist’s studies say, do we have any choice but to act? Can we afford not to?

In the Swedish environmental law, there is a principle about being carefulness and risk minimizing. If there are any risk at all that something that may endanger the environment or people it must be minimized. The same applies here. Magnus posted an entry with a video about this a while ago. Take a look at it, it does have a point.

Video for: What is the worst thing that could happen?

That’s all for today folks. Drop a line, follow us on twitter and facebook, and as always: Commute Greener!

I’m off

Fredrik