Hi!

I saw something in Gothenburgs morning newspaper this morning that made me laugh. Well, I usually get a laugh or two out of the morning newspaper, but this was a bit unexpected. In order to make tram commuting more interesting, the city plan to have people tell local stories related to the next stop through the intercom… Well, recordings, not live people… Sounds silly, right?

The stories or anecdotes have been sent in by people from Gothenburg, and ranges from funny stories to heavier stuff. An example from the paper (GP link in Swedish) was a woman who told us about her conflicted relation with the stop at Sahlgrenska, a big hospital. Apparently, some of the stories are old anecdotes and memories about Gothenburg in the past, other stories will be funny one-liners, tips about interesting local spots and so on.

This wacky project is a part in the work to reduce segregation and get people to talk to each others. This is a very segregated city after all, and people from different parts usually don’t meet, even if they travel through the whole city to get to work…

And it may make it more interesting to go by tram through the city. You get to know more of it that way, and you get to know the people. I am sure it would start lots of discussions, which is always a good thing. Swedes are experts at ignoring each others after all.

I wonder if this could be a fun thing for other cities as well. If I went to London or Berlin, I would love to hear more about the city. And for that matter, in New York or Stockholm. If the messages are randomised, you would always learn something new.

I’m not sure if I think this is a good or bad thing, or even if it would become annoying after a while, but it is interesting.

Well, today’s is just a short one.

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi guys!

You know, we are quite focussed on environmental factors here at Commute Greener!. Or at least I am. I tend to block out other (not so) small factors like health and money. Yes, I am an environmental nerd:-). I guess it is my interest in science that does it. But lately, we have been discussing health benefits more and more at the office. This has always been a focus of Commute Greener!, but CO2 measurements and reductions has had a higher priority… But the health benefits really adds up! A short example: a 30 minutes bike commute equals 60 minutes exercise (to and from work). Do this some times per week and you have a good amount of exercise, probably loose weight and gain a lot of stamina, without going to the gym.

I found this blog through the bike commute tips blogs facebook page. Well worth a read. Apparently, the states in USA with highest obesity factor have the least zero emission commuters, and vise versa. Now, a blog post is not scientific data, and should always be taken with a grain of salt. But that post is based on the yearly Gallup health survey, and it paint a grim picture. People are getting heavier, and exercise less. Heart problem and high cholesterol are running rampart. Not exactly a good development. I won’t say anything about Europe or the rest of the world as I don’t have the corresponding numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the trend is somewhat the same. And I mean, look at this:

Something has to be done. This epidemic is related to travel and eating habits. These factors are not the only one of course, but they are the most obvious.  Loads of sugar and fat, hamburgers, fries, soft drinks, you name it. Add poor exercise habits to that, and a habit of driving everywhere, and you get this situation. The whole western world need to change attitude. I know, I sound like a broken gramophone now. Somehow, this get into every entry. But it is true. As stated above, taking the bike to work, or walk, is good for you. Even public transportation is better for the health then driving as the walk to the station adds up. This is a factor that is just as important as carbon emissions when talking about a greener commute.

And it is possible to change habits to a healthier commute. We can take an example from the real world. As I have written some weeks back, the city of Gothenburg have used Commute Greener!. On the departments that have done best, the amount of zero emission kilometres are high. Together the departments (or teams) have saved over a ton of CO2, and collected enough zero emission kilometres as a trip to Shanghai… And this in only ten weeks. A very good job indeed.

Well, that’s it for today. Give us a like at facebook, and follow us on twitter for news, interesting articles and comments on environmental issues.

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

To many, the commute is one of the most stressful times of the day. I have even found a scientific article that stated that the risk of heart problems increase if you are a car commuter. Sitting in line waiting for the traffic to start moving again is not only annoying and bad for the environment, it is time you could do other things.

But how? As mentioned in several earlier entries, driving is the only option for many people. Or so they think. Also as mentioned, an attitude change will have to happen sooner rather then later. In USA, bike commuting is a rare phenomenon. There is even a debate about if bike lanes will be fair to the drivers. In Europe bike commutes are more common. Denmark, Berlin, London; people are getting better at leaving the car at home. An North American example is New York; New Yorkers save loads of money since they have a good mass transit system. In big cities were driving is difficult and slow, what reason is there to drive other then biking not being safe? That is something that can be fixed with some adjustment to the regular roads.

IBM recently released a study using a Commute pain index. According to them, Beijing tops the list, while Stockholm is at the bottom. No surprise there. Beijing have a huge amount of people in a small space, and is well known for its crowded streets. And while Stockholm have quite few inhabitants, only about one million, it also have a great subway and bus system. It is also a good city to bike through. One interesting thing is that the the traffic in the streets began to thin out as the city implemented a congestation tax. This made more people choose to use public transportation, or even bike/walk to work. And people are quite satisfied with this, if I understand things right.

Maybe this is the way to go. Hit the drivers were it hurts, the wallet. Even if the price is low, it suddenly become reality that driving has a cost. And that make people think one more time.

Another interesting thing about the study is that most people stated that they would work/study more if they didn’t spend so much time stuck in traffic. So a car commute hurt your health AND affect the work and study results as well. In other words, public transportation, especially the kind with internet access could be a success, IF the same people just tried it. Of course, this mean that the transit must be fast, reliable, comfortable and safe. And that is were the government/cities come in. In many part of the world that kind of infrastructure don’t exist. Yet. I would also like to point out that when you choose the bike over the car, you will get in better shape, and have more stamina for work/studies.

I would like to end this by asking; why do we think the commute is such a pain? The answer varies, but “being stuck in traffic” comes high on the list. But do something about it then. Find other ways to commute!

By the way, be sure to give us a like on facebook, and to follow us on twitter.

I’m off!

Fredrik

Hi!

I’m both exiting and sceptical today… The whole “green” community on the Internet seems to be talking about the new Chinese commute option. Or I should say possible future option. It is a bus that should be able to take  1400 commuters, without disturbing the regular traffic. The “bus” is hollow, letting cars drive under it while it drive along rail or painted support lines. Now this is one heck of an idea. This hulking monster is supposed to run of electricity and solar power too, with minimal disturbance to regular traffic. It sounds to good to be true, right? Well, maybe, buses in Shanghai and several cities run of electricity so it may be possible. There are still some major logistic problems to sort out, even when all the engineering is done but the Chinese are resourceful.They may pull this one off.

The most exiting thing about this project, in my opinion, is that it may cut the car traffic by 30 %. That is a lot of CO2, which is even more important in a growing economy like China were more and more are getting a car. It is also an interesting example of looking outside the box, even if the basic idea isn’t new (if you are going to trust rumours and blog comments… I have never heard of it before). I have written several times about the importance of good options and infrastructure for commuters. Sometimes driving is the only option, but this monster may make it possible for massive amounts of people to choose to let the car rest. Options can lead to curiosity, and humans are curious by nature.

Another good thing with this project is that it have opened up debate on the internet. I am not much for spectacle, but this kind of thing draws so much attention that people may start to look at their own city, and their own options. That in turn may well lead to a political debate about alternative or better public transportation. That is of course speculation.

This kind of project can’t be easy to implement. Chinese cities have such a vast amount of commuters so this kind of solution make sense. Could a smaller version be used in the west? Would it be needed here? It is too soon to say, in my opinion. But this project is exciting.

/

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

CO2 is a huge problem. Well, that’s a no brainer. Transportation is a huge contributor of CO2, even if energy and industry, as well as our homes play big parts. One way to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation is alternate fuels. Oil will have to go. After all it is not an infinite resource. Ethanol, gas, and electricity powered vehicles are already on the market, and are getting more and more common. Ideally their fuel should all be produced in a climate smart way, but that is not always the case.

I admit that this is not my area of expertise (environmental management is more my cup of tea), but if electricity from a coal plant is used in an electric car, should it really be called clean? Can ethanol from grain grown in Brazil (example) and transported by ship (fueled by dirty high sulphur oil) to Europe or North America to be processed and then transported to gas stations be called clean? Considering that oil is also transported long distances for processing and distribution ethanol may still be a better alternative. And what about availability? Is there an infrastructure for ethanol developed in the region? What I am getting at is that the question of alternative fuels is way more complicated then just the CO2 emissions from a car with a petrol engine vs. an ethanol car. These are complicated questions, and I don’t have a good answer to them.  If ethanol is produced and used locally, for example coming rest products from wood industry (pulp/paper mills, saw mills etc.), it may be a good replacement in the future. And as far as emissions go, it is better then oil.

It is very interesting to follow the development of alternative fuels. I hope that in a (hopefully) not to distant future the norm will be alternative fuels, and that fossil fuels is in a clear minority on the roads.  Just look at fuel cells and biofuel from algae. While fuel cells are way to expensive right now, and genetic modification of algae is risky, expensive and in early stages of development, they may play a role in the future. One may even speculate if algae-fuel would be good as a carbon sink as the strains used use up lots of CO2 in their metabolism. The question is if it is worth the risk of genetic modified algae escaping into the oceans, and in a worst case scenario out-compete the regular species. And is the risk even there? Difficult ethical questions that the fuel industry will have to answer in the future.

The last “new” bio-fuel I would like to address is bio-gas, ie gas from sewage plants and similar facilities. Many buses and taxis in Sweden run on such gas, and it is a workable system, that even fit into the vision of a resource efficient society. I mean, even human excrements have their uses.

Next time you commute by bus, or take a cab, take a look at what fuel it run of. You may be surprised. Or not. Diesel is still one of the more common fuels for buses, but gas is getting more common, at least were there is infrastructure for it. Think and act for a positive climate change.

Well, that’s it. I’m off for today. You know the drill, follow us at facebook and twitter. And remember to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi guys! We’re back and ready to roll again.

You know, I have written a lot about attitudes. And today that will be the subject, but on a different level. Corporations are often getting flack for not caring about the environment. BP-oil is an obvious example but several others are accused all to often. Granted, sometimes it is correct. And a lot of greenwashing is going on. But many corporations are actually very aware that they are part of the problem, and are trying to be part of the solution as well. The world market now includes thousands of companies that have an ISO 14001 or EMAS certification (EU only). The Asian market is getting there as well.  ISO 14001 and EMAS  are standards for environmental managements, and the certification mean that the companies environmental management systems follow the international standard of ISO and EU. The certificate is granted by accredited audit firms to ensure that the certification process is unbiased. Thousands of companies get a certification every year, and the awareness and understanding of environmental problems are spreading.

But, you ask, is this not purely done for marketing and PR? Well, partly. It is always good to be seen as caring and responsible to the public. And communication of environmental work is actually a requirement in both standards. But it is also a way to become more effective, and can save money. For some companies, this is enough. Others do it mostly to do their part. But the point is that due to the unbiased audits, whatever reason you have for implementing a standard for environmental management, the environmental work will have a high lowest ambition. And that so many companies and corporations are getting certified shows a trend toward higher awareness.

Let’s make an example; Volvo Group has done many things for the environment. The three-way catalytic converter, several technical innovations, environmentally friendly server halls and environmental management systems are just some of it. And lets not forget Commute Greener! The latest achievement is a new facility in Shippensburg, North America. This is a good example of well thought out goals and plans for sustainability from an early point in the project. The factory is large, and built for sustainable production with good conditions for the employees. Recycling and Volvo Groups own emaballage system were implemented, as well as several other smaller environmentally friendly practises, and education for all the employees. To quote Chris Stone, director of industrial support and project in Shippensburg, in the press release; “For Volvo CE the most important aspect of environmental care is the promotion of eco-friendly practices – both at work and at home,”

During the build phase they even went so far as to plan for the Carpools, bike-racks and preferred parking for low emission vehicles that were implemented.

This is something more companies should take after. Planing for a more eco-friendly commute, and providing the means to take the bike or bus to work have the benefit of healthier employees and less environmental impact from the company. The small things count, and they add up. Recycling in the cafeteria, turning the light and computer off when leaving, taking the bus instead of the car one day/week are small changes, but when many people do it, the environmental impact can be reduced a lot.  And as long as the cost is low and the work efficiency doesn’t suffer, many directors and managers don’t mind doing some environmental work. Small changes go a long way. Like starting to Commute Greener!

That is it for today! Feel free to drop a line here or at facebook, and be sure to follow us on twitter.

I’m out

/Fredrik

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