“Beer is now cheaper than gas,” the sign outside the local pizza place reminded me during lunch. If you own a car, it probably hasn’t escaped your notice that gas prices have been ticking steadily upwards at an alarming rate. The nationwide average is now $3.61, a 55 cent increase from last year.

And according to research from Florida State University, it’s giving Americans a serious case of the blues. “Employees were simply unable to detach themselves from the stress caused by escalating gas prices as they walked through the doors at work,” said researcher Wayne Hochwarter.

Surveying 800 people across the Southeastern US, Horchwarter found:

52 percent have reconsidered taking vacations or other recreational activities;

45 percent have had to cut back on debt-reduction payments, such as credit card payments;

Nearly 30 percent considered the consequences of going without basics including food, clothing and medicine;

45 percent report that the escalating gas prices have “caused them to fall behind financially”;

39 percent agreed with the statement “Gas prices have decreased my standard of living”; and

About 33 percent - or one in three - said they would quit their job for a comparable one nearer to home.

I’m fortunate that I live where I can ride my bike and take public transportation almost everywhere I need to go. As it is, I’m not likely to plan trips out of town, and I’m anxious to share rides with people if I have to get into my car. But would I choose gas over food or medicine? The fact that these decisions are being considered sounds like that critical point we’ve heard so much about - when individual Americans take steps to cut back on fossil fuels.

But what are these steps, and how realistic are they? Even if people are willing to take a job closer to home, they may not be able to find one. And if they’re already sacrificing to deal with gas prices, they’re probably not going to go out and buy a new Prius.

MIT has new study looking at what it will take to cut consumer fuel use. The biggest step, it says, is changing consumer expectations: For those who are buying new cars, they’re not going to get faster, sexier improvements - they’re going to get improvements in fuel efficiency. It reminds me of a similar study from MIT (they must be really into this kind of thing), which asked what it will take for people to buy greener cars. The author, Jeroen Struben, told me that it would take a huge mobilization (no pun intended) of the auto industry and policy makers, to get alternative fuel vehicles accepted by consumers. Again, no pun intended, but it seems that there are many, many roadblocks to making fuel efficiency commonplace. Maybe that $4 gallon gas will change all the rules. But we said that about $3 gas, didn’t we?

According to a new study from the University of Chicago, Americans grow happier as they grow older.

So that’s good news for people who are aging - which is, you know, all of us. But at the same time, I can’t help but be skeptical. How does this study hold up against cliches which are deeply entrenched in our society? For example: your college, or high school, or corresponding youthful years are the best years of your life; old people are either crotchety or curmudgeonly; and of course, the whole thing with being “Over the Hill.”

The study relies on data from General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, which has been asking questions about contentment since 1972. The question I would ask would be, how likely are you to be honest about your personal contentment? It seems to me that asking about happiness is a bit like asking about weight - and far less measurable. You can’t get happiness on the scale.

The author also found that white people are happier than black people, men are not as happy as women, and that baby boomers come in last in the happiness race between generations.

Speaking from experience, I have gotten happier as I’ve gotten older. But I’ve always expected that this curve will level off at some point, and not soar me to some mind-blowing of peak happiness in my 70s. And it wouldn’t surprise me if men and black people are more honest about their life contentment than white women. As far as the baby boomers go, if this lack of happiness keeps up, we’re going to have a whole lot of curmudgeons filling up the retirement communities in a few years.

But somehow I doubt that. So what do you think? Have you gotten happier?

It must be tough to be the IPCC report. As the definitive climate assessment report, you were labored over for years, slowly and painfully unveiled, and then called “bad news.” Sure, it was a high point when you won the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, but now it’s being said that you’re “overly optimistic.”

That’s the word from a new study published today in the journal Nature. The authors say that reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide is going to be a lot harder than the IPCC report would lead us to believe. The study, titled “Dangerous Assumptions,” criticizes the panel’s scenarios for assuming that the majority of the carbon removed from the energy supply will occur “spontaneously” - that is, through the natural innovation of technology. For example, some entrepreneur will come up with an incredible new water turbine, or a venture capitalist will offer a reward for new solar technology, or research labs will finally come up with a startlingly easy and effective alternative energy source.

But the authors of “Dangerous Assumptions” look at the situation with a slightly different lens. They calculate the need for carbon reduction based on our current fossil fuel technology. As they see it, the appetite for energy is growing, especially in Asia, and we’re still fueling our growth on gas and coal, with widespread adoption of alternative energy way off on the horizon. They call it the “frozen technology” scenario - and they say it provides a clearer view of the carbon-neutral challenge.

True, budgets for research and development for alternative energy are notoriously low in relation to the need, and climate policies are nowhere near as progressive as they should be. The present situation is not looking up. But I’m reminded of Ray Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns - that’s the idea that once the base of technology has been developed, it grows exponentially every year. Kurzweil told me, “People who express pessimism… are ignoring exponential progressions. They just don’t see it, they’re oblivious. If you have a realistic view of the exponential growth, you would be optimistic.”

That is to say, we’re safe to make a few assumptions about progress into the future. But the one assumption that is truly unrealistic is that technology will ever “freeze.” I mean, at least that’s not what’s happening with our climate, and both the authors of the IPCC and “Dangerous Assumptions” would say that’s beyond the stage of assumption.

We knew it would come to this: The world would not be enough for Doritos tortilla chips. They are now searching for extraterrestrial consumers with a TV ad that will be broadcast into space.

Doritos has done the market research, and they’ve decided that the system 47 UMa, only 42 light years away, has a good chance containing planets that may support the kind of terrestrial life forms that crave the tangy crunch of Doritos.

Given that scientists have yet to find life outside our solar system, the idea that life “out there” would be able to eat chips and would be receptive to snack marketing strikes me as a bit presumptive. But no matter. There are plenty of geeks here on Earth who think this is cool. But how exactly do you advertise in space? (more…)

* A large majority of New Yorkers are convinced that global warming is happening (78%), and of that number, 82 percent believe that global warming is caused mainly by human activities or caused equally by humans and natural changes.

* A majority of New Yorkers (60%) say they are personally worried about global warming. Further, 22 percent believe that global warming is already having dangerous impacts on the city while an additional 30 percent believe dangerous impacts are imminent within the next 10 years.

* Large majorities of New Yorkers believe that global warming will cause more heat waves (85%); energy blackouts (79%); worse storms, hurricanes and tornadoes (79%); increased rates of disease (72%); and flooding of subways, tunnels and airports (70%).

* Finally, a majority (69%) say it is likely that parts of New York City will need to be abandoned due to rising sea levels over the next 50 years.

The survey also found that New Yorkers would be willing to pay more to get their energy from renewable sources, and to make buildings more energy-efficient.

I’m not sure if this survey shows that New Yorkers are either more aware, or more anxious, about threats to their city. It’s surprising that a majority thinks some of New York will be inhabitable in 50 years, during an age when science thinks it can engineer its way through anything.

How do you think people in your city, or town, feel about global warming? Do they think it’s real? Do they think it will affect them, personally?

Source: The Earth Institute at Columbia University

The mayor of London this month announced his plan to put 6,000 bicycles for hire on the streets - and create a “cycling and walking transformation in London.”

The plan follows on the heels of Paris’ success with “Velib” (a play on “velo” - bicycle, and “liberte” - freedom), which introduced over 10,000 bikes to the streets of Paris last summer. Both programs include automated docking stations every 300 feet or so (Paris has 750), so it’s likely that renting a bicycle will be easier than getting to the subway or bus stop. Plus, the programs are super cheap - a day’s worth of cycling in Paris costs 1 euro, and a full year is only 28 euros. And apparently, the bikes are nearly impossible to steal.

The benefits - where to start? London says its program will save 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Bike-loving cities become friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists, and tourists. Building exercise into your daily commute is a healthy way to double-task, and it’s no coincidence that in Copenhagen, Europe’s slimmest city, 32 percent of people commute on their bikes. And, what’s more fun - sitting in your car, silently seething at the lane-hogging 18 wheeler in front of you, or flying down hills with the wind in your hair, enjoying a palatable sense of freedom?

The list of other cities that have embraced cycling include Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Tel Aviv. This summer, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to institute a congestion pricing plan, a key part to London’s CO2 reduction plan - and failed. Then David Haskell, founder of the New York Bike-Share project, proposed in a New York Times op-ed that the cheapest way to increase public transportation would be to install 10,000 bicycles. Haskell writes:

One industry expert suggests that the cost to manufacture, install and maintain a program for 10 years comes to about $8,000 a bike. The program described above would cost New York about $8 million a year (which could be reduced depending on whether the city would be willing to allow advertising on the bicycles). In perspective: that’s a minuscule fraction of the estimated $2.1 billion cost of the 7 line subway extension now under way.

It makes a lot of sense - financially and environmentally. But I’m still left wondering if such a plan can translate across the ocean. Americans are far more attached to their cars than Europeans, and the commute is seen as a way of life. I’d like to see how the bicycling programs work after the bikes lose their novelty and shine.

At the end of last year, the International Energy Agency sounded the alarm on China and India’s developing power sector.

“China’s and India’s surging fuel consumption poses a growing challenge to the world’s energy systems and, unless curbed, will strain global oil trade, push up prices and lead to substantially higher carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades,” the New York Times reported on the IEA’s World Energy Outlook report.

Ambuj Sagar is a researcher at Harvard University, working on developing sustainable policies for coal. It’s not an easy task, between the governmental bureaucracy, and the complex social and environmental issues involved. He said what bothers him most is when people point fingers at India and China for contributing to the greenhouse problem.

“This is me putting on my developing countries hat, this always irks me,” Sagar told me over the phone. “Yes, India and China are going to be developing, but Western nations already have an enormous base.”

Consider this: The world average of kilowatt (power) use per capita is 2,600. The average of the wealthy, well-developed OECD nations is 8,365 kilowatts (or 11,000 if you’re just averaging North America).

Meanwhile, India uses 480 kilowatts per capita. That’s an average of 7,885 fewer kilowatts per person. And China, which is significantly more developed, uses 1,800.

“When I hear the IEA say worry about India, yeah, we should worry for multiple reasons,” said Sagar. “But when you look at 480 [kilowatts per capita], it tells me that if I’m really concerned about global energy supplies, and the global coal supply, or the global energy crunch or the global greenhouse gas issue, I know where the focus has to be.”

So, okay, maybe our fingers should be pointed at ourselves. But here’s my question. Industrialized nations continue to use fossil fuel because we have a fossil fuel infrastructure. We have roads, cars, power plants, pipelines, and on and on. It’s a major block to working outside the box in terms of energy. But these things are just beginning to develop in India. With no infrastructure in place, India has the opportunity power itself on green energy. Do it once, do it right. Why not?

According to Sagar, the answer is that India is poor, and green technology is expensive. And that’s because industrialized nations have not done enough research to make the technology efficient, and they haven’t used it enough to make it affordable. Meanwhile, fossil fuel technology is readily available.

He said, “The richer countries that have the resources, and the stronger science base. They need to take the lead in developing new technology and deploying it. Because as you deploy new technology, the price goes down.”

But despite long, ongoing conversations about sustainable energy and sustainable development, that hasn’t happened. According to Sagar, research and development budgets have not had any significant increases since the discussion began in the early 90’s.

“So although everyone is saying that climate change is a problem, and energy technology is going to play a big role, they’re not putting their money where their mouth is,” Sagar said.

I asked Sagar if he was hopeful about sustainable development and finding a solution to global warming. “I oscillate between hope and despair,” he said. “Sometimes I’m hopeful and sometimes I think we’re really up the creek.”

Somewhere in New York City, you are playing in a quartet.

Except, you are behind your computer - in your home, at your office, or wherever you get on the internet. And your three musical partners are playing in a warehouse-like space on the Lower East Side. And they’re machines.

That means you’re part of the Absolut Quartet, a project sponsored by Absolut Vodka and created by the visionary team of Jeff Lieberman and Dan Paluska.

Lieberman is a bit of a modern-day Renaissance man. He’s a photographer, musician, robotics expert and a prolific inventor. I spoke to Lieberman a few months ago while he was at MIT, finishing up his second Ph.D. dissertation: A wearable robot suit. He soon moved on to work on absolutmachines full time. It premieres in New York City at the end of the month. This week, I caught up with Lieberman via email to pose a few questions about the project. (more…)

I wasn’t alive for the oil crisis of the 1970’s, but I’ve heard stories - the rationing, the license plates, the long periods of waiting that must have made a driver think twice about commuting to work. Economists have always blamed the crisis - and the periods of low growth, high unemployment, and high inflation - on instability in the Middle East, with the Yom Kippur war in 1973 and the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Now the situation in the Middle East is even stickier. For starters, there’s the Iraq war and the war on terror, neither of which are going smoothly. Add that to fears of foreign dependency, energy insecurity, and peak oil. The price of oil is definitely going up. But the gas lines aren’t snaking around the block, and you’re not seeing fewer gas guzzlers on the road. So what’s the deal?

MIT macroeconomist Olivier Blanchard wrote a paper on why conditions today are so different from the ’70s, which you can read here. And in this interview with Sarah Wright of MIT, he explains how policy - and the interests of everyday workers - affects oil and the economy.

(more…)

It’s a general rule of thumb when you’re in a national park or wilderness area: Don’t feed the wildlife. Not only is it unwise to have that bear cub eating out of your hand, it disturbs the animal’s natural diet and behavior. But what about when the animals can’t exactly help themselves?

This past Friday, hungry bald eagles decided to take a chance on human food, with disastrous results. About 50 birds were sitting outside the Ocean Beauty Seafood processing plant in Kodiak, Alaska, waiting for a free meal (I’m imagining an informal bald eagle soup kitchen) when plant workers backed an uncovered dump truck full of fish guts outside. The birds immediately dove into the truck, and the mass of their numbers caused the early birds to get crushed and buried in the quicksand-like sludge of the fish guts. The truck drivers quickly pulled it back inside, but it was too late for 20 of the birds. When they were pulled out, the Alaskan winter temperatures froze them. People from the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge tried to warm them up and wash the fish oil off with dishwashing soap. The survivors are being airlifted to Anchorage for a more thorough cleaning. The dead birds’ feathers will potentially be given to Native American groups for ceremonial purposes.

It’s not clear if the seafood company is going to be taking financial responsibility for the accident. Everyone agrees that no one intended to kill 20 of the nation’s most symbolic birds in one go. The formerly endangered bald eagle has made a stunning recovery in Alaska, but apparently it’s not immune to human dependency. Because we’re supposed to be stewards of wildlife in an increasingly human landscape, we’re starting to bend the simple rules of our relationship to nature.

For example: In western Colorado’s Gunnison Basin, the Colorado Wildlife Commission has approved funding to feed 21,000 mule deer. The deer, and other large animals in the region, are in danger of starving due to extreme cold and snowfall. Deer usually forage underneath snow for food. But this year, the snow is up 50 inches deep. According to a rancher volunteering with the feeding efforts, the snow is almost over the heads of fawns, and the adults are up to their bellies. During similar conditions in the winter of ‘78-79, 70 percent of Colorado’s mule deer population died. Deer at high risk will be feed on special wafers. The Denver Post is calling the program a “pre-emptive strike” against starvation.

People are still being asked not to set out food for the deer. Despite the goodness of intentions, kitchen scraps, or “people food” is not good for animals. So, the new rule is: We - as in humans - can feed the wildlife, but we - as in you and me - cannot. Is that clear?