Archive for September, 2009
Is Australia’s Emission Trading System Going to Work Effectively
In Australia the government are introducing an emission trading or cap and trade scheme. There are major concerns about the level of reduction the government wants to sign up to and also whether it will actually work.
As Australians we do need to take action about carbon reduction. We are both the most vulnerable continent for feeling the effects of global warming and also we are the worst greenhouse emitters per head than any other country on the planet. We emit even more than the USA and Canada who are our nearest competitors for this wooden spoon. This is at least in part due to our huge coal industry.
The head of the Australia Institute’s Think Tank says that the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme will have too many permits and will not reduce carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute’s executive director, Dr Richard Denniss, said the scheme’s flaws related to the 5 to 15 per cent emissions reduction targets, which he described as ”ridiculously low”, and he said there would be too many permits. Dr Dennis said that “We won’t achieve the policy goal, which is to reduce emissions.”
Dr Denniss told the Senate that ”[If] we pass this legislation, we’ve got it for the next 10 years. And anyone that’s got a good idea a year later, it’s not going to help. This legislation is designed to not be tinkered with.”
Professor Clive Hamilton, from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said the proposed scheme had damaged Australia’s reputation. A reduction target of at least 25 per cent needed to be set if the Government wanted credibility on the world stage. Australia would be better off taking no policy than the proposed model to the December climate change talks in Copenhagen, he said.
”It not only lowers the ambition of the world community but also excludes Australia from being a forceful player in negotiating … a strong international agreement.”
It is hard to see how exempting large emitters ignoring the 1.9 million small to medium businesses is going to help us reduce our carbon footprint. These same small businesses are currently suffering from financial stress, the business owners and managers are overworked and simply don’t feel able to handle anything new. Many don’t really understand what global warming is about or why it matters.
We urgently need unambiguous communication so that small to medium businesses accept the reality of the need for change and also how easy it can be to make significant reductions with minimal time input and save money at the same time.
We also need to help low income households reduce their carbon footprint with more efficient heating and cooling and effective public transport. We should NOT be giving them even more cash hand outs as “compensation” as currently promised by the government. All households need to come on board and stop wasting power.
We need a clear message that going green applies to all of us, is easy and saves money – just “go for a grumpy walk and just turn it off”. If every small business and householder just went around each office and home and did this it would be relatively easy for every one to reduce their carbon emissions and their power bill by 15-20%. At present we are told it will be difficult and it only applies to big business. Such a wrong message – we all need to pull together.
A Brief given to the Victorian Government advises that the state should only bother with green measures if they are more cost-effective than alternatives. They have been told to rethink programs such as subsidies for solar farms and hybrid car fleets because these will not contribute to any additional emission cuts under the federal scheme.
The Greens have concerns about the cost of emission permits being reduced by the actions of households, councils and governments, hence reducing industry’s incentive to cut emissions. This is more than simply an economic debate. Individuals and households should also be reducing their emissions. Achieving sustainability is a grassroots exercise that involves the entire community, and Australians are becoming aware of the need to remake the economy and society. The momentum must not be lost.
An additional concern is whether the legislation and also the international agreements reached in Copenhagen will be flexible enough to take account of emerging technology. At present this does not appear to be the case. Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, rejected spending on biochar, a form of carbon capture in soil research because that is not listed in the protocol. Thankfully some soil carbon storage research will now be funded in the agriculture budget but that begs the requirement for the legislation to be flexible and allow for new and future technology.
If the ETS cannot deliver real carbon reductions it is really a form of “greenwash” saying we signed Kyoto and have done something before the next election. The big problem is that the government looks ahead 3 years to the next election, Big Biz CEO’s also look to the short term of their contracts and bonuses. Who looks ahead for our children?
Jean Cannon is an energy management and sustainable business consultant. If you would like more information about how to go green in your home or business and increase your business profits why don’t you go to http://www.itiseasytobegreen.com and download a chapter of my book of almost the same name and find out how to reduce your carbon footprint.
GIGA Green tech visite of Kevin Koerber
The Plastic Bag: Ban Or Save?
As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.
A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.
A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.
One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.
On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.
On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.
From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).
Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.
Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?
To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.
Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.
In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.
With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.
Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/
Spanish And Solar: A Model To Follow Or A Cautionary Tale? « PA …
The green environmentalists have been saying, and will continue to say that Solar power can fill the gap to supply electrical power that used to be supplied from coal fired sources. As I have said all along, this is something that just …
Solar roadways: A fantastic, but futile, idea?
One small Idaho company believes they’ve found the solution to US renewable energy: solar roadways.
China Trade Information » Mixed feelings over US solar project
First Solar Inc, the world’s leading solar modules maker, earlier this month announced an agreement with the Chinese government to build a 2-gigawatt solar power plant in Ordos in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. …
The Do It Yourself Home Solar Power Kits
It has been found in the current times that solar power is acquiring popularity among the mass to a great extent. Even though using solar power is quite known, yet different people use it for various purposes. Making your personal solar …
Inhabitat » MAD Unveils Taichung Convention Center With Solar Eco-Skin
A Green Design Blog, Sustainable Design Blog, Future-forward design for the world you inhabit – your daily source for innovations in sustainable architecture and green design for the home.
An Earth Day Lesson
Scientists have discovered that forest trees offer unexpected help in the fight against climate change. Tropical rain forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realized. Almost one-fifth of our fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by forests across Africa, the Amazon and Asia, suggests Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led a a laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa.
David Ritter, senior forest campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said, “This research reveals how these rain forests are providing a huge service to mankind by absorbing carbon dioxide from our factories, power stations and cars. The case for forest protection has never been stronger.”
And yet we continue to cut them down across the world at an alarming rate!
What will happen when we lose natures best carbon filters?
As a nature nut, I feel compelled to address these very questions in this Earth Day lesson, because up until now, truly had not understood the serious impact we humans have had on the very things in nature that can save us from destruction, like rain forests …up until now, that is.
I’m grateful to have joined an incredibly talented and caring circle of people through on-line social networking who have inspired me to learn all about Earth Day, connect with the people involved in it and take action on what I’ve learned by celebrating Earth Day Birthday. This Earth day Lesson is written with the intention to inspire you to do the same.
Having just recently moved to Australia, I was fortunate enough to experience a wild rain forest filled with several waterfalls on a friend’s property. It was an experience that will stay with me forever because we can not feel the power of a special place like this and not intuitively know we have a duty to protect this amazing life form from destruction. The desire to share the spirit which envelops it is intense!
I intuitively knew I must share the experience, as well as my research as to what has been discovered about rain forests and their role in overcoming the challenge of global warming and the extinction of species.
Is “Deforestation” a Dirty Word?
It’s pretty easy to understand why deforestation has gotten a bad rap!
For example…
- Excessive commercial logging and clear cutting. These obvious moneymaking acts are rampant and the greedy business people make the bottom line their priority, regardless of its illegality and obvious wrong-doing.
- What happens to the animals! Trees are home to many species, including indigenous humans, who suddenly become homeless and often, extinct! Not to mention the demise of many plants which are natural wonders, many with healing properties.
- One major effect of deforestation is climate change. Deforestation has been found to contribute to global warming…the process when climates around the world become warmer as more harmful rays of the sun comes in through the atmosphere.
Changes to the earth as a result deforestation work in various ways:
One fact most people don’t realize is the abrupt change in temperatures it causes in the nearby areas. Forests naturally cool because they help keep moisture in the air. Some forget, also, about the water table underneath the ground. The water table is the common source of natural drinking water by people living around forests. Water table could dry up if not replenished regularly. When there’s rain, forests hold the rainfall to the soil through their roots, then the water sinks in deeper to the ground, replenishing the water table.
What do you suppose will happen when there are not enough forests anymore?
Water from rain will simply flow through the soil surface and not be retained by the soil. Or the water from rain will not stay in the soil longer, since the process of evaporation will immediately set in. Not good, right? I think we’d all agree that the need for drinking water is NOT negotiable.
So, if deforestation is so bad…why are we still allowing it?
Even though the word “deforestation” itself conjures up negativity and destruction, people don’t seem to realize that there are actually quite a few benefits of deforestation.
Just imagine what it would be like to live without the use of lumber. Wood is one of the most basic natural resources, and it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The trick is to balance it’s consumption by growing more trees to replace the ones removed. This is not, however, such an easy task.
With thousands of people losing their jobs, just imagine if the wood industry were to suddenly find themselves jobless. There are the people who cut down trees and process them and those who “clean up” after them. As forest is cut down, arable land becomes available for farmers, or used as an area to place urban living sites like apartments, houses, and buildings. If mandates are made for replanting trees, then jobs are also provided for the people performing that service.
With arable land being valuable for growing food, new land area provides a much needed place to grow a food supply to deal with the planet’s steadily expanding population of humanity. Additional living areas can be converted into more than just housing areas. Buildings can house offices for work, or factories to produce essential items, or even research facilities for things like new new medical or technological advances can end up in these deforested areas.
A colleague of mine, originally from Germany, would make a strong argument for forestry as a full time profession that can maintain a never ending supply of wood, as has been done in Europe for thousands of years. “In these forests, nobody clear cuts anywhere and trees are selectively selected while the rest of the forest remains and new tree-seedlings are put where the cut trees were. Europeans would probably argue that there are so many desert areas in the world that could be populated similar to the valley of the sun around Phoenix where no trees have to be sacrificed.”
Great arguments from both sides, so how do we proceed?
Let’s look at the REAL causes of Global Warming for answers
It comes full circle, back to carbon dioxide and the need for nature’s most effective carbon filter…forests.
Just think…Each time we drive a car, each time we use electricity from coal fired power plants, use natural gas or oil to heat our homes, we cause carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, as well as other heat trapping gases. The concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent since industrialization of our society and atmospheric methane gas has increased by 151 percent, caused mainly from agricultural activities like growing rice and breeding cattle.
As the concentration of these gases increases more heat is generated and trapped in the atmosphere. The increase in trapped heat alters our climate causing changed weather patterns which can bring unusually intense rainfall (precipitation) leading to flooding and severe storms, long dry spells leading to drought conditions and forest fires the like we just witnessed in the Australia Bush fires of 2009.
So what’s the solution?
There is no one best solution. Humans have been clearing forests over thousands of years for a variety of reasons. Obviously, as the statistics suggest above, much of the bad effects we experience today are happening at warp speed, so we really can’t afford to take our time in changing our ways.
Each of us can do something! Individually we can do small things…but together we can make a huge contribution to creating and implementing positive solutions. One has only to get on-line and Google the terms Earth Day or Earth Day Birthday to research, connect, watch, listen, take part and take action along with millions of other caring souls, government entities, non-profit associations and conscientious companies who are not letting any “grass grow under their feet”.
Earth Day, which was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an “environmental teach-in” in 1970, is celebrated each year on April 22, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting the status of environmental issues onto the world stage.
Events are happening in every corner of the earth. Attend one!
Mankind needs Mother Earth. Mother Earth needs you to participate! Can you put aside just $10.00 for a gift to give your Mother Earth on her birthday, April 22nd, 2009?
Debbie Ducic, also known as GutZy Woman, gently, supportively and passionately helps “GutZy Women (and Brave men)” overcome their fear and frustration of technology and multimedia marketing in order to be more successful in their businesses, fund raising efforts and lives. Debbie has expanded her reach and her professional resources by becoming an evangelist for socially conscious, eco-minded movements and she can be contacted through her website: http://www.gutzywomen.com . More valuable resources and information from Debbie as well as 49 other GutZy Web Women can be immediately accessed by downloading the “Attraction in Action, Volume 2″ book at her blog: http://www.debbieducic.com
Farmers market with Chef Carlin
Water’s Role in Global Warming
Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.
But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:
- Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
- There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth
We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.
Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!
Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.
None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.
Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.
According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:
- 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water – we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
- 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
- 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
- 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
- 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
- 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.
Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?
Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)
And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.
And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:
“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”
Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?
I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.
So let’s make it plain and simple:
You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:
- $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
- $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
- $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
- $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!
Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!
Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:
We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)
Here are a few numbers he gives:
- to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
- to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
- to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
- to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
- to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons
He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:
- 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
- 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
- 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing
—————————————–
sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)
In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.
The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.
This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).
Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.
—————————————–
Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere
If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.
When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:
- increasingly expensive
- increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
- increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves
And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.
The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”
And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.
When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.
In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”
How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)
With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:
- total water footprint for the year
- bar charts for the three components
- bar charts for individual food categories
For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:
- You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
- You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.
Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:
- You input kilograms for food:
- 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
- 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
- Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
- 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
- The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess
So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)
I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:
Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:
Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?
We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:
China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.
State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water – the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.
The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.
Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?
Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor – 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.
The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.
Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix
As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.
As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.
The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.
The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.
Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you
We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.
And all of this is for one purpose:
To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/
From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
MTV News Of MPSystem in Hungary
Development Vs Rainforest Tropical
I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly.
My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway.
Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world.
Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved.
Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!!
|
Pax Sanchez |
Clean Green Engine Fox News
Water Efficiency – Water Used in Generating US Electricity
In my four-article series on water use (The Resource Matrix), I took you on a journey to reveal the layers of The Resource Matrix in order to help you understand how water will be a highly contested commodity tomorrow, possibly as much as oil is fought over today.
You learned about your water footprint and a website where you can calculate it, virtual water and virtual water transfers, whereby choices here affect water availability elsewhere, to the point of some people not having enough water to drink in order to produce inexpensive dyed cotton, along with insane choices such as growing crops in the desert.
You learned that on average it takes 1854 to 3000 gallons to produce one pound of beef.
Yep, it’s it’s been a great journey through the sidetrip city of the Resource Matrix.
Today, we’ve found the on-ramp to the Green Lighting Interstate and are driving to take a look at water use in generating electricity.
For a simple reason. It takes a lot of water to produce electricity.
How much? 5% of all US water? 10%? Can’t be as high as 25%?
Electricity and water?
I thought the issue was fossil fuels and greenhouse gases
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated water use in the United States in 2000.
Their grand total: 408 billion gallons per day withdrawn for all uses.
The number 1 spot, weighing in at 48%, was thermoelectric power.
Irrigation earned the runner-up prize at 34%.
The 195 billion gallons need to come from somewhere, and actions have consequences. Environmental ones, as in 40 million fish in the Great Lakes killed each year due to being trapped against water intake devices. That’s a lot of Friday night fish dinners.
How much water is used in generating electricity?
Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of water for cooling and ongoing maintenance.
Water for thermoelectric power is used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. It uses 48% of all water in the US.
According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the amount of water used for power plant cooling varies by each specific power plant’s electricity generating technology and size. Nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second.
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the Delaware Bay, according to the Pace Energy and Climate Center.
Nationally:
- Steam electric generating plants across the nation draw in more than 200 billion gallons per day.
- Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants drink over 185 billion gallons of water per day.
- Geothermal power plants add another 2 billion or so gallons a day.
- Most renewable energy technologies require little or no water for cooling.
These numbers are starting to sound like the same ones the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank use.
Imagine watching your favorite science program where astronomers explain that the universe is 78 billion light-years wide (78 billion units of 5,878,630,000,000 miles). There is absolutely nothing in our experience to help us wrap our mind around it.
How much is 3 billion gallons per day?
The Delaware Bay feeds Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 billion gallons a day.
Imagine this rectangle: a football field with end zones (360 feet long x 160 feet wide). Then add to it walls on each side of the rectangle to create a container to hold the 3 billion gallons you pour into it.
How high do you need to make those walls to contain 3 billion gallons? 6915 feet high. Or 1.3 miles.
Maybe 6915 feet high is still hard to imagine. So how deep do you cover the field in order to feed the Salem plant every minute? Answer: 5 feet deep. Every minute.
48% of all water use: We’re Number One!
How much is 195 billion gallons per day?
Using the USGS figure for 2000, thermoelectric power nationwide used 195 billion gallons a day, or 48% of all water used in the US. My guess is the water use has grown since then.
How high are the walls on our football field now? 449,475 feet or 85 miles high. We’re back to US Treasury and astronomy numbers again.
So, let’s get a higher-level view to help us.
Lake Erie holds 116 cubic miles of water.
Nationally, thermoelectric power uses 195 billion gallons a day – or 64.2 cubic miles a year.
We drain Lake Erie every 22 months.
But the water used is returned to its source.
So what’s the issue about water use?
Power generation returns 98% of the water back to its source (bay, lake, river, ocean).
It’s the environmental consequences.
The Pace Energy and Climate Center explains it neatly:
Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up (entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power plant.
Examples include:
- The Salem Nuclear Generating Station is responsible for an annual 11 percent reduction in weakfish and 31 percent reduction in bay anchovy.
- At the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors on the Hudson River, the number of fish impinged totaled over 1.5 million fish in 1987.
- The 90 power plants using once-through-cooling on the Great Lakes kill in excess of 40 million fish per year due to impingement. (Once-through cooling needs a continual flow of new water, and uses 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Closed cycles cool down water from steam then reuse it.)
The diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-stream ecosystems:
- Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
- Fluctuations in water flow from peaking operations create a “tidal effect,” disrupting the downstream riparian community that supports its unique ecosystem.
- A dam’s impoundment slows water flows, which hinders natural downstream migration of many fish species.
- By slowing river flows, dams also allow silt to collect on river and reservoir bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Disrupting the natural flow of sediments in rivers also leads to erosion of riverbeds downstream of the dam and increases risks of floods.
- The impoundment of water by hydropower facilities fundamentally reshapes the physical habitat from a riverine to an artificial pond community.
- This often eliminates native populations of fish and other wildlife.
- Dams also impede the upstream and downstream movement of fish and other wildlife, and prevent the flow of plants and nutrients. This impact is most significant on migratory fish, which are born in the river and must migrate downstream early in life to the ocean and then migrate upstream again to lay their eggs (or “spawn”).
- As mentioned above, withdrawal of water into turbines can also impinge or entrain significant numbers of fish.
The cleanest kilowatt is the one never used:
Back to those compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs
PowerScorecard.org explains the solution:
By re-directing electricity dollars to support environmentally benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are deployed to meet demand.
They can also support the construction of new and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall growth in demand in the future. By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water use and consumption impacts. Still, directing your dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate damages that already have occurred. Consumers can stop the construction of new hydropower facilities or alter conditions of siting and operation, but they cannot undo previous environmental degradation that occurred at existing hydropower facilities.
In short, reduce your use of electricity.
More Info:
We used several sources for this article, including the PowerScorecard.org website, which is produced by the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is part of the Pace University School of Law’s Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Pace University, White Plains, New York.
On PowerScorecard, you can get:
- Ratings of Electric Power Choices for some service areas.
- More info on electricity and the environment:
- Technologies
- Climate change
- Acid rain
- Ozone depletion
- Water use (our article today)
- Water quality
- Land: on-site and off-site impacts
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/
From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
Slime Ball Award for Green Tech News 003
Why You Should Start Recycling Today
Recycling is like exercising – everyone knows we should do it, but not all of us do it as frequently as we should and many of us don’t do it at all. However, there are tons of reasons why you must make an effort to recycle as much as feasible. If you have not been diligent about recycling, this article provides some great reasons why you should start.
1. Recycling cuts back on global warming.
2. Production of certain materials from the start can release serious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. Recycling paper saves trees – for each ton of paper recycled, 17 trees are saved. Each of these trees can extract around 250 pounds of carbon-dioxide from the air in a year.
4. Recycling makes us more energy-efficient. It frequently takes a great amount more energy to form something from nothing than to reuse it.
5. It keeps our landfills from overflowing. We are fast running out of space for landfills especially near towns.
Beach towns have been dumping trash into their seas for years to by-pass the difficulty, but with widespread sea ecological collapse, this isn’t longer a practicable option. Worse yet, it’s hard to find land in suburban and agricultural areas whose residents will permit landfills to come into their areas without a fight. The squeeze for rubbish heap land is only going to become worse in the future.
Recycling gives us some hope. Studies show that 60% to 75% of rubbish in landfills can be recycled. That suggests that if everyone recycled, we would have 60% to 75% less rubbish in our landfills, and we’d need at least that far less land for rubbish disposal. The rubbish in landfills is mostly not treated in any way it’s simply thrown in a huge hole and buried over. A lot of this rubbish isn’t environmentally friendly or readily biodegradable and it is unsurprising that contaminants can get into our water. It is also a major reason why it isn’t safe to drink from streams and brooks when you are hiking and camping even when it’s like you are in a spotless environment. It reduces air pollution. A lot of factories that produce plastics, metals, and paper products release poisons into the air.
For instance, plastics are usually burned in incinerators. Plastics are made with oil, and that oil is released into the atmosphere when the plastic burns, creating significant greenhouse-gas emissions. From manufacturing to processing, from collection to invention it’s common knowledge that recycling is an expansion industry, earning billions of bucks yearly. Our desire to recycle is only going to grow more insistent as populations grow and as technology changes. It adds to property worth. It is obvious a rubbish heap near your house can decrease your property values significantly. Recycling decreases the quantity of land required for landfills. This decreases the quantity of homes near landfills, keeping property values up and house owners cheerful. The more folks recycle, the less landfills we need and if enough folks pitch in, recycling should pay off for everyone. It is good business. Pitting business against the environment is a lose-lose situation – everyone suffers.
Commercial factories and processing plants save masses of cash on energy and extraction systems when they use recycled materials rather than virgin resources. They also make sure that basic resources don’t become a scanty commodity, keeping demand and costs down and making sure that their business can continue for years to come. One person can contribute. Many of us think this is true with recycling, too but the reality is that small acts of recycling make a giant difference.
David Sein is a freelance journalist reporting on socially conscious issues.
Save money with solar power
Is it Green? – A Shopper’s Guide to Buying Eco-Friendly Products
Even with the economy cooling, “Green” products remain — well — if not hot, still very warm.
In a report released in February ‘09, market research firm Mintel predicts 19% growth for eco-friendly products through 2013, even though the current economic downturn is expected to negatively impact sales through this year.
But “Green” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And that produces some understandable confusion for consumers as to what is truly “Green” and what is instead “Greenwashed”.
[Greenwashing is when companies over-hype the positive environmental impact of their products or policies. Tsk-tsk.]
Each and every day we review green deals and giveaways before posting them online to ensure the products being promoted are indeed eco-friendly. Some are easy to assess, like a sweepstakes for a Prius. But many times, the green aspect of a product is not as clear-cut as it is for a hybrid car.
To help us determine what’s green and what’s not, we looked to criteria established by trusted non-profits, such as Green America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Consumer Reports, and compiled the following rules-of-thumb:
1) Above all, use common sense. Ask yourself …
- Is the product friendly to the planet?
- Does it help save energy on the road and at home; conserve water; support organic and sustainable farming?
- Is it nontoxic, recycled, cruelty-free and/or fair-trade?
2) Look for Certifications/Associations
Is the product certified or does the manufacturer have a membership association? Here is just a small sample of the many, many green certifications and associations out there. Consumer Reports “Greener Choices” website has a terrific Eco-label section which can help you sift through the meaning and relative significance of various labels.
- Household Products — Green Seal; Certified Biodegradable
- Cosmetics — Leaping Bunny; Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Signatory
- Food — Organic Certification; Marine Stewardship Council; Certified Humane Raised and Handled
- Wood — Forest Stewardship Council
- Green Business Practices — Green America Approved
3) Read the Ingredient List
If a company or product doesn’t have certification/membership affiliations, is there some way for consumers to evaluate their green claim? For example, products that claim to be natural should include a complete ingredient list.
4) Is the Product Fair Trade Certified?
Fair trade certification ensures not only that the producer of a good is paid a fair price but also that social and environmental standards are met during production of that good. Many companies may claim their products are fair trade, but you should double check to see whether the product has actual certification from a fair trade labeling organization. In the U.S., that organization is TransFair USA (though at this time, they only certify agricultural products, like coffee and tea.)
5) Is the Product Vegan or Vegetarian?
According to a report by U.N. climate experts, animal production is responsible for 18 per cent of all greenhouse emissions, most of it emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle. Yes, that’s right — gassy cows. So shifting your purchases to vegetarian or vegan products — not only food, but items such as shoes and beauty products — can mean fewer burping Bessies and less harm to the environment.
Shoppers looking to go green are welcome to use these rules of thumb as a starting point when trying to evaluate the “greenness” of product. But in order to become true green consumers, there is no substitute for first-hand knowledge. We highly encourage shoppers to become as educated as possible on what is and isn’t considered green these days, and how they can evaluate green claims. Be forewarned — trying to decipher what’s green is not a perfect science, but the non-profits mentioned above are excellent places to start your coursework. Good luck!
Report Links:
Mintel Finds Fewer Americans Interested in Going “Green” During Recession (Feb 09)
Livestock a major threat to environment (Nov 06)
Ecobunga! (http://www.ecobunga.com) lists hundreds of deals and giveaways for eco-friendly products — everything from coupons on organic foods to sweepstakes for hybrid cars. They review every promotion before publishing it online to ensure that is indeed a bonafide green deal. Ecobunga! is pleased to have recently received the Green America Seal of Approval for socially and environmentally responsible businesses.
US, China in solar war : Ghana Business News
That could ultimately be at play as China and the West, long at odds over trade in steel, textiles and auto parts, risk being sucked into a row over protectionism in renewable energy equipment such as solar panels. …
Mini Red Solar Racing Car | Keetsa Mattress Store â?? Keetsa! Blog …
There are no batteries required and its size is made for the kids who are simply in love with toy cars. What if its night time? Don’t fret! Just place the solar racing car directly under any light source and it will do the rest. …
A Solar Blast ( and, afetr a Flare) is a big explosion on the solar’s ( or in another star) atmosphere. Of course, we talks about Solar’s flares, these interesting to us. One of biggest of them, is registrated in november 2003, …
Novothink unveils first licensed solar chargers for iPhone, iPod
We’ve seen plenty of solar chargers in our day — and we’re somewhat fond of them as a concept. Novothink’s just unveiled the first chargers for iPods and iPhones that’s officially licensed by Apple. These attractive little guys have …
Solar Stocks of the Week: ASTI, ESLR, ENER, LDK, SOLF (8/31-9/4 …
By Michael Liu Below are last week’s notable solar stocks that had BOTH significant price changes and news events: SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE DAILY EMAIL UPDATES Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASTI) rose 3.27% to $5.69.
Activated Carbon Odor Combatant
There are many stinky things in the world today. From the bathroom to the kitchen there are things in everyday life that can cause a nose to curl. However, activated carbon can quickly eliminate odors in the home, office, or commercial building. While many products simply mask odors or cover them up, activated carbon can absorb the odor and eliminate it once and for all. There are many ways that activated carbon can be used within a building to remove odor. Whether the smell is a permanent or occasional odor, activated carbon can be used to eliminate it.
Air Filtration Systems
An air filtration system can be placed on the air supply to any building to help eliminate the odors in the building. If there is a central heat and air system in the building the air filtration system can be used in the circulation process. A free standing air purification system can also be used in bathrooms that are used by numerous employees. These systems are much more effective than other means of removing odors.
Odor Blocking Masks
For those who work or play in environments that are not appealing to their noses there are activated charcoal masks that can be worn. These masks work to block the smells from reaching the nose. As the smell passes through the mask it is sucked up against the carbon and held there, eliminating the smell. These masks are perfect for those who work with garbage, waste, or cleaning products.
Flatulence Elimination pads and Inserts
Flatulence is a problem for many people today. Because of a fast paced environment and fast food restraints many people experience this condition. Luckily, there are now flatulence pads that can be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies flatulence. These pads can be placed in a chair for those in an office. However, there are also flatulence pads that can be placed inside the undergarment to eliminate odors.
Odor Eliminators for Pets
Activated charcoal can also be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies pet ownership. There are many smells that can come from litter boxes, accidents on the floor, and messes made in the yard. However, activated carbon can be made in the form of a powder. This powder can be sprinkled into the litter box, on the carpet, or in the yard outside. For use on the carpet in can be sprinkled on and then vacuumed up However, in other places it can be left to continue working. It is perfectly safe to use around pets and will not cause any harm if they ingest it.
There are many uses fro activated carbon today. It is an excellent odor eliminator. While these are many of the uses for eliminating odors there are many more. Anywhere there is a smell or odor; activated carbon can be used to eliminate it. This product is a green option for cleaning, absorbing, and eliminating odor. Activated carbon also has many other uses including purification, detoxification and moisture absorption.
Carbon Resources Management Team has over 70 years of experience in the Activated Carbon and Activated Charcoal carbons industry. Our Sabre series® activated carbon products are the most diverse line of activated carbon products on the market.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kim_Walsh
Solar Surge Is The First Apple Licensed Solar Charging Case For … It isn’t the only solar charging case on the market, but Novothink’s Solar Surge is the first to receive an official thumbs up from Apple. Solar Power, Mobile Phones Converge to Distribute Water in Kenya … Residents of one Kenyan village are experimenting with a solar-powered well water distribution system that allows payments to be made with smart cards and cell phones. Worldchanging: Bright Green: Solar Panels To Boost Property Prices The UK website BusinessGreen reports on a survey of 2700 UK adults, which â??found that half of respondents are interested in finding out whether their home is suitable for renewable energy systems, such as solar panelsâ?: … Solar Powered Bluetooth Car Kit We’ve seen a fair number of variations for the Solar Powered Bluetooth Car Kit before, so having another one thrown into the mix wouldn’t hurt, would it? This device connects to a Bluetooth-enabled cellphone via 2.0, and comes with… Japan plans massive solar power station to orbit earth — DailyFinance A group of Japanese companies unveiled plans to build a 1-gigawatt solar power collector in space, according to Earth2Tech. The system would beam the power back to Earth using radio waves. This sort of system has been discussed in the …NEW WORLD SAVIOUR
Climate Modeling Proves Global Warming, a Global Warming Alarmist Recently Noted
Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling.
Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that.
Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out.
If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever.
Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it.
Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.
Environmentally Friendly Technology