Riding With Ed: An Actor Devoted to the Green Life

By Andrew C. Revkin
ed begley jr.Ed Begley Jr. generates electricity in the TV show “Living With Ed.” (Credit: Aaron Rapoport/HGTV)

I often hear people asking whether it’s worth trying to limit your personal “greenhouse effect” by driving less, buying less, eating local, and the like. Personally, I choose to limit my energy use as much as I can for both economic and environmental reasons. I try to telecommute whenever possible not just to save the planet, but to relish a break taken walking in the woods instead of to an elevator.

To some extent, conserving energy just seems sensible. I’m pretty sure that when a person leaves a room, the furniture doesn’t care how many photons are bouncing around, so why not turn out the lights? I’m kind of obsessed with tree planting, too. My wife can attest to the fact that I sometimes collect nuts or seeds when passing some particularly nice tree, then stick them in the ground back home.

But I am a rank amateur at all of the above, at least compared to Ed Begley Jr, who I interviewed on three wheels this week (video below).

Video

The actor, best known for the long-running “St. Elsewhere” series, has been living a mainly two-wheeled, solar-powered, wind-driven life for nearly 40 years. He and his wife, Rachelle Carson, starred in an eco-reality show, “Living With Ed,” for two seasons on HGTV (it’s soon due out on DVD), and Mr. Begley has now written a book on his lifestyle, “Living Like Ed.”

Along with Patrick Farrell, a video producer/shooter at The Times, I took Mr. Begley for a fuel-free ride around midtown Manhattan this week, dropping him off for an interview on Martha Stewart’s radio show. We discussed everything from his “duck and cover” childhood, when he started trying to chip a bomb shelter in the basement floor, to his successful wind turbine investment, which has churned out non-polluting electricity, and profits, for nearly 23 years.

Click on the box above and come along for the ride.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

sas February 22, 2008 · 10:30 am

whether the planet is warming or cooling, whether the co2->agw hypothesis is true or a politically motivated sham, mr. begley’s advice to use increasingly expensive energy frugally makes very good sense. for the vast majority of us, there’s no need to mention climate change or to spawn worry in the least about the fate of the planet; even fools would rather keep their hard-earned dollars in their pockets rather than see them go up in smoke.

appealing to people’s pocketbooks is how the whole issue of prudent energy conservation should logically be won — or lost.

Greenpa February 22, 2008 · 10:34 am

So, Ed- have you ever tried unplugging the fridge? :-)

Accounts for about 10% of most household electricity.

If you’re peddling a bike to make toast! I think doing without a fridge is a good deal easier!

//littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-refrigerator-for-30-years.html

Sounds crazy- but people have been doing it-

Come visit and see. Bring Andy. :-)

sas February 22, 2008 · 10:39 am

i wonder when we’ll have a politician with the courage to speak the truth: that decreasing death rates by improvements and advances in medical care and nutrition and living conditions in the third world — without an even more dramatic reduction in birth rates — will only make the planet’s environmental problems worse than they already are.

answer: never!

Eric Sundin February 22, 2008 · 10:39 am

Mr Revkin,

The electric bike uniquely augments, rather than replaces human power. Motor power and pedaling blend harmoniously allowing the rider to e.g. glide up hills and to arrive crisp and presentable at his or her destination – while getting just the right level of exercise. The bike’s energy use is the equivalent of an incadescent light bulb in one’s living room. The law treats the electric bike as a bicycle, not a motor vehicle. One of the nation’s leading dealers is right on Manhattan:
//www.nycewheels.com

regards,
Eric Sundin

John Isom February 22, 2008 · 10:42 am

More of Ed TV! Can’t you post more of the interview, some excerpts from his book, or even snippets from his TV show (a la NPR)?

Otherwise, keep up the good work, Mr. Revkin.

Jeff Deasy February 22, 2008 · 11:24 am

Bravo to Mr. Begley for showing the way on sustainable living, which is really enlightened self-interest. Two-wheel travel is easy on the environment and the exercise leads to better health and a sharper mind. And it’s fun! As for his use of solar power, Mr. Begley has long been ahead of the curve, but today the solar power industry is creating jobs, and attracting “billions of dollars in investment and mountains of enthusiasm,” according to an article in the New York Times. Why not a national commitment to the research and development needed to make solar energy so plentiful that fossil fuels go the way of the dinosaurs? I believe the wealthiest nation on the planet, with its brilliant engineers and scientists, innovative companies, and excellent academic institutions, is up to the challenge.

john February 22, 2008 · 11:29 am

I have to laugh every time I read one of these stories. It’s always the rich who make these statements and the poor who seem so taken by the fact that they do this. It is only the well off that can afford to do these things. If all the yuppies would actually get out of their Hummers and buy a green car and get the price down it would mean something. We don’t have solar because the rich don’t have enough money YET.

osisbs February 22, 2008 · 11:33 am

The nice thing is if that three wheeler breaks down, Patrick Farell could re-build it with his eyes closed. He’s a mechanical witch!

robert verdi February 22, 2008 · 11:35 am

One of the pleasent things about Mr. Begely, who practices what he preaches unlike certain other mansion dwellers, is the lack of nastiness and arrogance. I think he is a decent guy who is using the freedom this country provides to make his lifestyle choices. Good for him.

SB February 22, 2008 · 11:41 am

Unfortunately, there is little discussion of the energy costs of telecommuting. One google search, i read yesterday, is the equivalent of burning a lightbulb for an hour. Obviously one would use one’s computer wherever one worked, but I think we see computer usage as a green alternative although it is merely a shift in the way greenhouse gases are created.

Karl S Schwartz February 22, 2008 · 11:48 am

I tried to email Ed but had to use the fan mail site. This was a year or two ago.
It was about my book Metaphysician’s Dilemma and the possibility of using it as the basis for a movie and/or TV series. It has an interesting juxtaposition.
If you, Andy, would like to forward this message perhaps he would have time to get in touch and talk it over with me and or I could email him the proposal and even the manuscript.
Thanks,
Karl

A3k February 22, 2008 · 11:52 am

Greenpa,

In addition to unplugging the refrigerator, I would suggest an end to furniture. We should just put levels in our homes and lots of pillows. Also, garbage disposals in the shower drain.

I think I saw this one before…

kim February 22, 2008 · 11:58 am

Attention, Housekeeping: Clean-up on Aisle Ten; there is a disgusting spill from a mess of self-satisfaction leaking out of an ozone hole in the head.
============================

Betty Chambers February 22, 2008 · 11:58 am

I don’t own a TV and I don’t plan on watching his DVDs. I’m trying to save energy.

Sarcasm aside, how come he wont buy some solar panels and be done with it? This seems more like the effort of someone who’s a little touched in the head.

I understand dedication to the environment, but sometimes when I see “wealthy” people do this, I feel they are subconsciously mocking the poor. The poor have no choice but to live extremely frugal and with few resources.

Is Ed Begley Jr going to live in a plywood box in the Bronx to prove his point about total energy efficiency? Perhaps he can show us his moral environmental superiority by moving to one of the poorest countries around. Haiti is a good place to start.

Eddie Sutton February 22, 2008 · 12:00 pm

See Ed’s talk and Q&A at New York’s Strand Book Store last Wednesday Night (2/20)

//www.strandbooks.com/tv

Jeff Huggins February 22, 2008 · 12:00 pm

A Great Interview, But …

I think the video is great and Ed Begley Jr’s attitude is great. Overall, a great post and approach. Thanks Andrew.

My only “critical” comment is this (and I mention it because it reflects a certain approach in the media that doesn’t work well for some aspects of the global warming problem):

In the interview, you (Andrew) state, “. . . but I had to ask how he [Ed] squares his personal efforts with the reality that Asia will be the dominant source of greenhouse gasses in coming decades.”

I understand that this type of question is a normal part of the media’s typical approach. You are trying to understand (and allow the audience to understand) how ED himself sees the matter. But, in my view anyhow, posing this type of question (i.e., one that does have a sensible and important “answer” that exists independent of whatever ED or you or Albert Einstein, or anyone else, might possibly answer) WITHOUT giving a complete answer, can leave an audience in confusion (regarding the matter itself) or can even leave a false impression, by virtue of the question itself.

Put another way, even asking the question (unless a full answer is given) can leave a substantial number of people in the audience thinking, “yeh, what about that, what good will my actions do if Asia will be the main source of emissions?!”

I assume that you, Andy, know the “answer” to the underlying question. It involves several human, economic, and technological dynamics: First of all, Asia will be much less likely to do anything if we don’t do anything. Second of all, our credibility in asking and encouraging Asia to do something to address the matter will be nearly nil if we aren’t doing something substantial to address the matter ourselves. Also, our past emissions have been a major cause of the problem, even as emissions in Asia will be a larger part of the problem in the future, unless addressed. And, technologies and approaches we (in the US) might develop to address the problem, if we take it seriously, will help enable Asia to address the problem there.

These components of the answer to the question you raised are based in very sound science (not to mention common sense). Indeed, these dynamics are aspects of the human-focused sciences.

Of course, the standard media approach works well, and is informative and educational, and sufficient, in many cases. But, the following two situations are quite different:

1. In an interview about musical preferences, a writer asks Madonna whether she prefers the Beatles or Bob Dylan.

2. In an interview regarding an issue of vast importance such as global warming, a science writer (who himself knows important components of the “big picture” answer to a question of vital importance) asks someone else the question without ultimately providing a full answer to the public, perhaps leaving many people thinking that the question really doesn’t have a comprehensive and sensible answer.

Of course, the two situations above are very different.

My “critique” is not about Ed’s answer, of course. His helpful comment included one valid PART of a much broader answer. And, of course, many members of the audience know, intuitively or based on additional factors, the dynamics that I mention above. But, unfortunately, there is still a very large group of people who seem to think (or try to claim) that the problem is now Asia’s and that personal action here in the US is useless. To those people, despite Ed’s answer-in-part, the very notion that you (the intelligent science writer) point out Asia and pose the question may well serve (in their minds) to support their view. That’s the concern.

Anyhow, overall, a great interview.

greens February 22, 2008 · 12:15 pm

hey sas that wont make the worlds problems worse if we start living green.. people need to stop thinking living completely green is to far out of reach

alexander February 22, 2008 · 12:40 pm

dear sas (3): have you ever read the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Art.25 & 26??? i think that “all” human beings, not only americans, are entitled to “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. because i think you are proposing: 1) let the poors hungry or 2) let them die young!!!

Gary Peters February 22, 2008 · 12:44 pm

This is one of many ways that concerned individuals could lower their use of energy and their carbon footprints. However, in a nation of more than 300 million and a world of more than 6.63 billion, we’re going to need one hell of a lot of “concerned individuals” to make a dent in global CO2 emissions. Voluntary efforts are laudable, but they are insufficient.

Rather than continuing to provide incentives to produce more fossil fuels or ethanol, we need incentives to encourage individuals to use less energy, at home, on commutes, and in work places.

We could start by phasing out all subsidies for the production of fossil fuels and ethanol. That money could be shifted to incentives for people to use their feet, bicycles, or smaller autos in their daily journies to work; incentives to make homes and workplaces more energy efficient; incentives to shift future land developments into in-fill projects rather than urban sprawl; and incentives to make cities more friendly to pedestrians and less friendly to cars. We know how to do all of these things, but the economic incentives are currently lacking to get them done on a large scale.

On the other hand a carbon tax would make energy markets more efficient by internalizing some externalities, e.g. CO2 and an assortment of pollutants that create a variety of health problems and associated costs.

If we would only admit that population growth is a problem, here and most everywhere else, then we could move to curb that as well. For example, we could change tax codes in the U.S. to favor single people or couples sans children. Because Americans consume about one-fourth of the world’s energy and produce about one-fourth of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would make sense to start right here.

Dave K February 22, 2008 · 1:27 pm

It’s a nice story, but not many ordinary people can afford the thousands of dollars needed for solar panels for electricity or hot water.

Chapter 1 of “Living Like Ed”: make a few hundred thousand dollars as a Hollywood actor. Spend it on things that you want, even “earth friendly” items.

I hope Ed hasn’t taken the tax credit available for his wind turbine. Fact: most wind farms would not be in existence were it not for the 1.8 cents/kwhr tax CREDIT handed out by the Federal Government.

Elmer F February 22, 2008 · 2:06 pm

Ed might be an okay example to other celebrities but I am sure he has consumed more in 10 years than I will ever. I am sure the square footage in his house very large. Maybe he can buy an Indulgence.

[ANDY REVKIN says: I haven’t seen it but he says it’s about 1,500 square feet, two bedrooms.]

Steven Earl Salmony February 22, 2008 · 3:37 pm

Dear Gary Peters (missive #19),

Once again, thanks for more of your always incisive comments, especially the ones above relating to the problem of human population growth. That looks to me like the proverbial “mother” of all global challenges.

It appears to me that the family of humanity is beginning to come face to face with a myriad of growing global challenges — air pollution, sea and land contamination, global warming, peak oil, diminishing global supplies of grain, overfishing, the dissipation of Earth’s scarce resources, desertification, deforestation, urban sprawl and autoban congestion are examples — the sum of which could soon become unsustainable, given a finite planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth. What people generally appear not yet to see clearly enough is that these looming threats to human wellbeing and environmental health can be directly related to the current huge scale and anticipated growth of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers.

That is to say, the unrestrained increase of per-capita consumption of limited resources, the unbridled global expansion of human production/distribution capabilities, and the rapid rise of numbers of Homo sapiens worldwide are occurring synergistically and could be fast approaching a point in history when these distinctly human, global “over-growth” activities are patently unsustainable.

What do you think about this view of the ominous, human-forced predicament that, at least to me, appears to be looming on the far horizon? What additions, deletions other changes would you make to this admittedly brief and general description of humankind’s forbidding global circumstances?

How would you describe what has been elsewhere called the “world problematique”?

Always,

Steve

sas February 22, 2008 · 4:45 pm

re: #18 alexander

so you find the idea of national and international efforts to promote smaller families and to generally lower birth rates among the world’s poorest countries by making birth control and abortion universally and readily available to be an outrageously barbaric and unfair notion, do you???

check back with me in about 20 years.

one of the greatest (and saddest) myths of the cornucopians is that any nation may outrun its population expansion by creating greater and greater wealth. it’s never been done and it never will be done. controlling population growth is the first step toward improving living conditions — everywhere.

to be blind to this unfortunate truism is the worst hypocrisy and denial of the human condition.

Ted Christopher February 22, 2008 · 4:56 pm

No, Ed et al. I have been in a parallel universe if you will and living green (without any identity connection – I also look both ways before I cross the street) for decades.

Easy starts with “vegan”. The cost is ultimately negative. You are getting paid to eat a free lunch, so to speak. For the health import you can see – //www.drmcdougall.com/stars/peter_rogers_md.html. NYT’s Mark Bittman also had a piece on Meat eating’s big enviro footprint.

“Hard” in my experience is getting around in the winter (I live in Rochester NY). I gave up on biking as it is tough with too much overhead. I’ve substituted walking and the bus since.

I’ll look for his book.

sas February 22, 2008 · 6:19 pm

re: alexander #18

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”

and the moon is made of green cheese.