My daughter recently bought a copy of Archie’s Pals’n'Gals Double Digest (#124), and lo and behold the first story is about the kids from Riverdale thinking up things to reduce carbon emissions for a school contest. Anyway, the gradient from how Betty carries herself and how Veronica looks at things is intriguing, and I thought it could make an interesting slide down the road.

Just so you know (Spoiler alert!), Jughead comes up with the winning entry by suggesting fridges with see through doors. Awesome!

I guess the bigger question is where you think most people fit in this gradient, and maybe more importantly, where we need to be in order to have a real chance at being sustainable (both in terms of resources used, as well as the big climate change challenge).

Speaking for myself, I wish I was more like Betty, but if I’m honest, there’s probably a fair bit of Veronica in me as well. I constantly hear myself making excuses for doing this or that, because I already do this or that. I can say that I’m trying and getting better.

It’s funny, but this discussion actually follows the cultural nuances of the Archie world pretty closely: i.e. Archie choosing Betty should be a no-brainer, but damn if that Veronica always seems to get in the way.

That’s Terry talks in case you’re wondering.

Recently used this graphic at a student conference opening, and it was met with a surprisingly good reaction. Weird, how no matter how hard you look at this, you can’t get past the Disney influence.

As of 2007, residents of Vancouver, on average used 295 litres of water per day (Per capita water consumption number is 542 litres per day factoring in non-residential water use).

(link)

The contrast is pretty striking.

In India, there are guidelines that have been put into place that have suggested a minimum of about 150 litres per day is needed (see here) via the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation(CPHEEO) within India’s Ministry of Urban Development.

When you happen to look at 2007 stats for Mumbai, you get a figure of about 191 litres per day per capita (which presumably also includes a heavy load from non-residential use), but there are some major cities such as Bhopai (right in the middle of India and a city with over 1.5 million residents), where the daily consumption is calculated at 72 litres per day per capita (again, this would include non-residential). To put this in perspective, this is equivalent to just over 3 conventional toilet flushes (~67 litres).

Just in case you like to visualize what these volumes all mean, here’s an image of two fridges: one designed with a freezer/fridge compartment to hold 300L and the other to hold 70L.

Photomosaic of 9600 photos (from a set of 326) prepared with my vacation pictures and MacOSaiX software (free BTW).

So what is the ecological footprint of a place like Disneyland?

Having just returned from a visit to the magic kingdom, the above was a question that continually haunted my consciousness. Disneyland was remarkably pristine in that cookie cutter, artificial, yet aesthetically pleasing way, but it must be a major sink in terms of waste, energy consumption, carbon emissions, etc.

Or is it? Maybe in terms of footprint, by applying its incredible density (>15 million visitors each year!), it comes out not looking so bad?

It should be noted that Disney appears to be viewing environmental issues in a relatively serious manner, with a number of programs in place. Here are a few factoids I can provide that would support this notion.

- Trains now run on 100 percent biodiesel, including the EP Ripley, the same train Disney himself rode on the theme park’s opening day. Disneyland says it buys 150,000 gallons of biodiesel each year, and prices are currently competitive with regular diesel. Seemingly nothing gets thrown away around here, just greened up. (link)

- After years of research and testing, Walt Disney Imagineering has perfected a new innovation in fireworks launch technology, marking the pyrotechnic industry’s first major breakthrough in decades. The new technology uses compressed air to lift fireworks, virtually eliminating the need for smoke-producing black powder and other materials at launch, significantly reducing ground-level smoke and noise while continuing to provide a highly entertaining show. (link)

- Disney is planning to release a comprehensive environmental report this coming summer, which will include (among other things), checking in on carbon emissions, etc. (link

This all sounds good, but can we maybe take collected stats from a variety of places to get at an approximate ecological footprint value?

Anyway, let’s have a go - so here in lies a “back of the envelope, not at all authoritative” guess at what that footprint might be.

Let’s assume we need the following:

1. Attendance values at the park to gleam a sense of Disneyland’s population. In other words, if we assume Disneyland to be a city, what is its comparible population?

2. What is a normal individual ecological footprint of somebody living in the US, or California, or maybe even in Orange County.

3. A sense of the relative scale of consumption. On a per person basis, how much does a person on Disneyland consume, say in comparison to normal life. This way, we can maybe project an adjusted eco-footprint based on factoring this differing level of consumption.

- - -

So let’s start with the first note. Disneyland “population.” This one is relatively easy, since rough attendance stats, as well as area measurements are all over the net (you can start at wiki for instance).

Anyway, the surface area of Disneyland (not Disneyworld, or the California adventure park) is about 85 acres, , or 344,000 square metres. From a comparative point of view, this is about the same as 64 football fields (or if you live in Vancouver about 50% bigger than Granville Island), and looks a little like the below.

As well, yearly attendance of Disneyland Park has been estimated at the 15 million mark (link), which means you’re looking at an average daily attendance of about 40,000. I’m not sure how many people work there, although this place says there are at least 500 employers just on the night shift, and this place says there are over 60,000 cast members at a place like DisneyWorld (Note that according to area, Disneyworld is about 200 times larger, although attendance - at least to the Magic Kingdom - is only a little higher). In any event, I think it’s pretty safe to say that a conservative estimate of the “population” of Disneyland sits at about the 40,000 mark

- - -

O.K. now, an average eco-footprint. This one is a little harder to pick, because depending on your point of view, you may have differing opinions on what would be an appropriate value (national average, state average, county average, etc). For the sake of ease, I’m going to use a value that seems to have been calculated based on fairly rigorous data, and presented at an “official looking” outlet. (i.e. we’re not using online calculators, or generalized statements, but documents from say a government).

Here, there is actually a decent report that calculates data for residents within Marin County (as in more Northern California, where heating needs are presumably much lower). It suggests that about 27 global acres is needed per person within this county, but it also brings up a value for a national footprint of 24 global acres per person. (top hit at this search within Marin’s government site). Let’s use the footprint of 24 acres per person value.

Interestingly, this already suggests that the land area at Disneyland is only good for sustaining between 3 and 4 individuals

- - -

Next up are a few pertinent factoids that give the sense of the volume of consumption that goes on at Disneyland. Here most stats concern Disneyworld, but we can use them to get sense of relative energy consumption practices at the park. For the sake of brevity and ease of query, I’ll use energy consumption values.

Disneyworld (whose acreage is much bigger than Disneyland, but attendance is roughly similar at ~17 million visitors per year*) seems to use as much as 6,500,000,000,000 BTUs per year. (link - this was calculated based on the statement that a 3% reduction saved 194,000 million BTUs per year). *This assumes that the attendance value which is for the Magic Kingdom represents more or less the same folks who would also visit other areas of Disneyworld.

Using stats like these, we can surmise that an average individual’s energy consumption in the US was about 39 million BTUs per year in 1997. This means that (taking Disneyworld figures into account), Disneyworld energy use is comparable to a residential city with a population of approximately 170,000. If we assume that the daily population of a place like Disneyworld is closer to 50,000, this means that from a conservative estimate, consumption at places like Disney theme parks is over three times more than normal day to day consumption. Note that this isn’t that surprising given what folks do at the park - how normal is going on several roller coasters a day, etc?)

- - -

Taking all of the above together (and siding on the conservative), we can surmise that the average eco-footprint for life in Disneyland is about:

3 fold consumption x 24 global acres per person = 72 global acres per person

This number is actually just shy of the actual area of Disneyland (at 85 acres), so it makes a tidy factoid that possibly the eco-footprint of a single individual at Disneyland is just about good for the entire area of Disneyland. Also, note that the globally available footprint value rings in at just under 5 acres per person, so a person attending Disneyland may be going 12 fold his or her fair earthshare.

As well, if the average population of Disneyland is 40,000, that would mean that the eco-footprint for Disneyland as a whole is:

40,000 persons x 72 global acres/person = 2,880,000 acres.

That’s about a 34,000 fold difference from actual land space.

Here is what 2,880,000 acres looks like. It’s about 100km by 100km - a space about a fifth of the tiny red dot highlights Disneyland

Maybe a more interesting way to look at this, is to suggest that (using this back of the envelope calculation) given that the Earth only has about 28 billion acres available, technically, the planet would only be able to sustain 9600 Disneylands!

Of course, there are many caveats to this calculation (Can one effectively bridge so many different types of data sources? Is energy consumption a good enough indicator on its own? Since the “population” leaves at night, what does that do to the values? Since the “population” comes from elsewhere, what would happen if you factor in resources saved by not being at the normal place of residence? Isn’t the Disneyworld data flawed because it’s an entirely different space to Disneyland, etc), but it’s certainly an interesting thing to think about.

And… with that in mind, what do you think?

Isn’t this picture great?

This is from a book called Rotten Island, which was written and drawn by William Steig (best known for his books, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, as well as Shrek). Anyway, Rotten Island chronicles a place that begs:

What would happen if every creature on land and sea were free to be as rotten as possible? If every day was a free-for-all; if plants grew barbed wire; if the ocean were poison? That’s life on Rotten Island. For creatures that slither, creep, and crawl (not to mention kick, bite, scratch, and play nasty tricks on each other), Rotten Island is paradise.

But then, on a typically rotten day, something truly awful happens. Something that could spoil Rotten Island forever. Out of a bed a gravel on the scorched earth, a mysterious, beautifly flower begins to grow.

Anyway, the book rocks, although it’s a little hard to come by these days.

I doodle a bit, and sometimes, it has this Breakfast of Champions look to it - which to be frank is deliberate, since I think it’s a great visual style, especially for the purpose of teaching.

Anyway, since, I’m playing around with my relatively new flickr account (mainly set up so that I can start to organize my slides properly on my popperfont site), here’s a video of a few goofy slides that highlights a variety of biological “modifications” that can occur. Full narrative below the fold by the way.

Again, the point is that the resultant organism can be different due to nuances at any one of the stages in the movie. In this respect, we have:

The three main macromolecule players (DNA, RNA and proteins) - an organism’s code so to speak, which transits with a pic showing the general flow of information, ending with “a really big number” of proteins.

The proteins, in turn, are pretty much responsible for guiding the rest of the organism’s metabolic makeup, other macromolecules, etc…

Which basically amounts to the overall anatomy and physiology of the organism (hence the picture of the dinosaur - I don’t why I chose to draw a dinosaur).

Next slide relates intellectual experience - or how something can be changed by the things they see, learn, etc - maybe doesn’t apply to the dinosaur so much, but definitely applies to impressionable undergrads and faculty profs.

Then a tie with Windsor knot appears. Fashion accessories count right? Might not be biological necessarily, but it certainly changes the organism.

Up next, is a collective “environment” effect, which includes various intakes (air, food), various actions (accidents, exercise, etc).

Oh, and then the appearance of a mate. Hybridization in all of its forms, sex, etc. Variety introduced to the offspring via this route, etc.

And then finally, a caption that shows how, in many ways, a key mechanism to modify things from the outright is to focus on the original 3 macromolecules through the use of molecular biology. In essence, I use this whole slide progression, as a sort of silly prelude to the discussion of genetic modification.

Just read the June 2008 issue of the Believer, which to be honest, is a magazine I haven’t picked up in a while. Anyway, it was very good, and I particularly enjoyed the articles Fatima: An Oral History and Kiddie Orientalism. The Fatima article in particular is outstanding, and I’m hoping the magazine will release it fully online so that more can read it. In any event, I’ll definitely be picking up the book (which comes out via McSweeney’s in a few months).

Oh yeah, Mad Hot Ballroom is a great movie.

Working with Joanne on revamping the bioteach website. This is our facility website, which looks a little too busy right now, although that’s mostly because the lab happens to do a lot of things, and a lot of different things at that. Anyway, trying to work in a cleaner look that will still keep everything nicely visible. Right now, we’re mucking around with the Overstand wordpress theme, and tweaking it just so. Here’s how it’s looking so far…

MUSIC
When the brain plays music: auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production.
The nature of music from a biological perspective.
Music perception: sounds lost in space.
How does the brain process music?

DANCE
AVPR1a and SLC6A4 gene polymorphisms are associated with creative dance performance.
Human balance, the evolution of bipedalism and dysequilibrium syndrome.
Genetic diversity within honeybee colonies increases signal production by waggle-dancing foragers.
Genetic control of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) dance language: segregating dance forms in a backcrossed colony.